AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hz
July 14, 2008 - July 25, 2008
>use it in your excellent application suggestions. Further I never
>suggested or implied anyone was making a buck on any part ever! Where
>did that comment come from???
Forgive me. There seemed to be a question about the 'narrowness
of suggested parts' when only AEC/B&C catalog numbers were cited
in the documentation and writings on the website.
> As for should I rip it out? Without more information such as heat
>loss, battery charging etc the answer is maybe it depends. PS the new
>and improved product existed in the 1980's Also my local RS store does
>not carry these parts.
>
>Today's circuits include battery charging as several posters have
>mentioned, another had stated his bus load was 8 amps and the bridge
>recommended attached to a simple bracket is not a good solution at
>higher currents. As many have clearly interpreted the recommended
>bridge it will not meet these design goals.
The data will tell . . .
>> One COULD quibble over what the design goals for achieving "full
charge".
>> Clearly, if you have say 24 hours to wait, 13.8 volts will top off
a room
>> temperature lead-acid battery of any pedigree . . . but as a
practical
>> matter, we'd like to get our ship's battery topped off in the first
few
>> minutes of flight and under variety of temperatures. So we force
the
>> battery to suffer acceptable indignities by boosting the bus
voltage
>> under a perfectly rational idea that the goal is to store energy to
>> meet design goals . . . not squeeze a few extra flights of service
>> life out of a battery that is difficult to qualify. But yes, if one
>> chooses to go the diode isolator route for batteries, the Schottky
>> device offers a demonstrable advantage over silicon junction
>> rectifiers. I'll point out further that your design goals for
>> incorporation of a diode were decidedly different than for normal
>> feed path steering of the e-bus power.
>
>True but as above many current list builders use the diode to charge
>the battery. Setting the alternator to 14.3V will not, in a reasonable
>time, charge a backup battery as the bridge Vf can reach nearly 1 volt
>leaving the battery terminal voltage around 13.3 V which is below a
>reasonable voltage for charging. Further if the battery is really
>discharged the charging current is likely to exceed the allowable
>bridge maximum current. I recall the delta V to charge a battery is
>0.2V per cell at room temp. This amounts to 1.2V for a 12V battery.
>Thus 13.3V charging V will eventually charge the battery to 12.1V
>hardly adequate!
No argument. This is why I've never recommended diodes for
battery isolation in favor of the lowly relay or switch
that eliminates this design issue.
>> As a designer with decades of experience of working with
>> those breakers (knowing about their demonstrated capabilities
>> outside the guaranteed performance), I was able to
>> exploit their capabilities in ways that got some folks
>> really excited . . . for no good reason based on the physics.
>
>I understand the widespread of use of parts outside their design
>because one can usually get away with it. This is a poor excuse for
>proper design and again simply not allowed in aerospace where it must
>work with any part from any approved mfgr. In the above example there
>is no need to extrapolate as the addition of a simple series resistor
>will limit the current to specification values and not detract with the
>designs purpose or function.
No, I was "getting away" with nothing. I pointed out that
the parts in question were specified and tested to military
qualification standards that included test point that
lay far outside the bounds of the envelopes published in
the catalog data. Adding the resistor was only not
necessary, it degraded performance of the design in allowing
the ov condition to achieve higher magnitude for longer
periods of time. This WAS cleared by the manufacturers
of said devices and qualified under the watchful eyes of
my DERs and has been flying successfully on thousands of
TC and OBAM aircraft for over 20 years
>> Exactly. And that works out to a heatsink with about 8.5C/Watt
>> thermal resistance which is NOT a very big heatsink.
>
>Not sure I agree and clearly at least a couple of bridge mfgrs disagree
>as they specify (to me) a large heatsink as noted elsewhere. However
>each case of mounting location etc is different and one needs to make a
>worst case heat sink or do the design specific analysis. Thermal
>resistance is different mounted behind the engine vs. mounted behind
>the panel vs. mounted behind the baggage. Also today some aircr4qaft
>fly well above 20,000 where convection transfer is much lower.
Don't know of many OBAM aircraft that fly at these heights . . . and
those folks are not interested in Z-13/8. As my Shop Notes will
show, there is plenty of headroom for cooling for 1/4 of the
common bridge rectifier by simply mounting it to an existing
surface of the airplane's structure. Certainly not a "small
bracket".
>> Hmmmm . . . don't know about "small bracket" . . . . I've
>> suggested any flat surface of aircraft sheet metal which is
>> generally a firewall, shelf or perhaps skin.
>
>Most firewalls are or should be SS and that is a very poor heatsink The
>skin is better but no mention of the need for heat sink grease used on
>the bracket to bridge and bracket to skin etc. Many skins are also very
>thin relative to normal heat sinks leading to high thermal resistance.
True. We'll down to the simple ideas and how they fit
together shortly.
>> Absolutely. I've seen several battery powered systems
>> fall short of design goals because the folks forgot that
>> a battery intended to supply perhaps 5-10 amps in use
>> can DRAW several times that current while being recharged.
>
>Yes but posts stating the use of the bridge as a trickle charger were
>not challenged as not safe with the bridge diode.
Don't know about "trickle charging" . . . that's a exceedingly
vaporous term. Battery isolation for the purpose of preventing
reverse flow of battery energy into the charging source is
not a "trickle charge" and as you've noted, requires further
attention to details.
>>>Why worst case analysis? Because its not possible to know the actual
>>>parameters of the parts used by the various builders. Manufacturers
do
>>>produce worst case parts and are often sold to resellers like RS with
>>>the higher quality parts are distributed to the industry market.
>>
>> Do you have some reference to support this? In years gone
>> by there have been countless suppliers of parts to the
>> hobby electronics market that indeed offered "floor sweepings"
>> in bags. I discovered the photo-sensitivity of junction
>> transistors when devices I'd purchased as "2N3904" transistors
>> had a terrible amount of hum that disappeared when the florescent
>> light over the bench was shut off. The plastic was not quite
>> as opaque as one might wish for a "real" 2N3904.
>
>I am not talking about out of spec parts. Worst case but meeting
>specification. Today parts are generally automatically tested and
>binned based on performance and selected and sold at a higher price to
>manufacturers.
???? Okay. So when I purchased a device from Radio Shack with
Fairchild's brand and part number on it, what concerns needed
to be assuaged?
>> However, the real cost of good parts has become so small
>> compared to all the other costs of distributing and marketing
>> that there is little value in spending labor to create a
>> separate product stream for sub-standard parts. Further, the
>> idea that sub-standard parts is even exist is suspect. Modern
>> semiconductor houses have so many process checks in place along
>> the assembly line that sub-standard parts are going to be
>> pitched long before they're put into final packages and marked
>> with the manufacturer's brand and part-number.
>
>I never stated sub standard parts I did say parts that were worst case
>which in this discussion had the max Vf for example. See comment just
>above your reply There is no special labor today, its 99% automated
>today. A given production run generally has a very tight distribution.
>Thus one run may produce 99% parts that are within 1% of max and
>another run may produce most parts that are 25% better than max. The
>better parts are often selected for higher performance requirements.
But once branded, date coded and identified as to part number,
of what value is any discussion on production line yields?
>There is a HUGE problem with remarked and parts made with different Die
>current plaguing the industry. Its bit even major manufacturers. This
>is a wide spread discussion in industry pubs this year and its
>apparently getting to be a larger issue as more and more parts are sub
>standard or not even the correct die inside.
But you can buy a bogus part from anybody, why pick on Radio Shack?
>>>Availability? Its strange to me that the availability of the bridge
>>>at
>>>RS is promoted but many of the recommended switches are only
available
>>>thru B&C.
>>
>> I "promote" selection of parts adequate to the task
>> with some notion of $time$ expended to acquire those
>> parts. A $1.50 switch from the store is no bargain
>> if you hop in the car and drive 7 miles to buy it . . .
>> while saving your $5.00 switch in the drawer for a
>> "more demanding" task.
>
>My point is there are special contact/switching configurations not
>normally available anywhere to the normal builder other than you then,
>and now B&C. I would suggest you consider electrical redesign and
>restrict the switches to the commonly available contact configurations.
>Not all builders want to use large bat handle toggles but other style
>switches are not available in the special contact configurations..
Whoa! I am not in the business of specifying any parts
to anybody. This is the OBAM aircraft community we're
writing for here. Our mission as teachers and mentors
is to GUIDE the neophyte builder in crafting a failure
tolerant system with the lowest cost of ownership. If
we do our jobs well, it matters not if the switches
are Honeywell or O'Rilley autoparts.
>My point was specific towards some of you specified switches that
>simply are not stocked or made in other mechanical configurations. I
>know as I have looked for myself and others who wanted to use that
>specification switching function but not the large bat handle actuator.
Cite examples. I believe all the parts called out on my drawings
and in my writings are offered by B&C in Carling toggles at
attractive
prices. It is beyond the scope of my mission to throw a wide net
into the switch marketplace with some idea that I'll cover the
design goals of all builders.
>> This discussion has never been about cost of parts.
>> It has always been about selection of parts adequate
>> to the design goals with the minimum total expenditure
>> of $time$ to select, acquire, install, and maintain
>> those parts.
>
>I only pointed out there is no significant cost difference in the big
>picture and there is significant performance improvements to many
>builders. Today the cost of part acquation using the internet is lower
>cost that a auto trip to RS. Mouser is a good source for example and
>they will special order if the mfgr makes it. Shipping now is lower
>cost than auto gas and in many cases the internet delivers a no sales
>tax order.
No argument. And if you have specific recommendations to
make to any builder with respect to the selection and
procurement of any part, this List-Server is the place
to make that knowledge known. But please be specific
and support it with your deductions based on the simple-
ideas (physics, style, cost-of-ownership, preferences,
etc.) But to get out a broad brush and painting this
Shottkey vs. Silcon discussion with yet another color
is not productive.
>> In situations where the design goals were changed
>> (like battery isolation, and boss-hog e-bus loads)
>> then some re-evaluation of suggested parts is in
>> order. I've take data in the chamber on a variety
>> of diodes, done the stress tests to ascertain thermal
>> resistance of the parts and done all the photographs.
>> Measured the practical thermal resistance of small
>> sheets of aluminum.
>
>The problem with testing parts is the testing does not prove equivalent
>parts will perform the same way. Testing in the aerospace industry is
>only done as a proof of concept and only after a detailed design. Then
>the design analysis NOT the test results are used for production.
>Repeatable testing is only a valid statement using the exact same parts
>over and over.
>
>The design requirements have changed and its been several years since I
>noticed battery charging and higher e bus currents on your group or in
>the "book". It would have been helpful had there been some original
>limits defined in the "Book" regarding the use of bridge diodes as one
>example
You're making this MUCH more complicated than it needs
to be. This "worst case" canard has been tossed into
the List discussions many times over the years. I object
to and will vigorously resist the notion that we should
take cues from Boeing or NASA in the studies surrounding
the selection and application of parts.
We are not building revenue generating machines or spacecraft.
FAILURE TOLERANCE is the design goal. Our demands on
part reliability is in a totally different world from
the "big guys". We can and should ASSUME that every
part we install is going to fail at some point in time.
For folks who are following this thread, I'll refer them
to a series of 7 articles on the website that pop up under
a search for "failure tolerance". We can write volumes
of esoteric discussion on worst case, fault trees,
and 10 to the minus bizillion failure rates. This is
the mind-set that has driven the cost of a C-172 totally
out of reach for most folks who would like to own
an airplane . . . In the OBAM aircraft community
we can toss all that bilge in favor of building
systems that are not unsafe in spite of failures.
Failures that are easy to upgrade as needed so
that they don't repeat.
>> Just need some time to put it all together into a
>> set of Shop Notes that speaks to the BIG PICTURE
>> when it comes to making any heat generating part
>> perform to design goals. Just understand that the
>> simple-ideas that support these discussions have
>> almost nothing to do with the additional cost
>> of a Schottky versus silicon-junction rectifiers.
>
>I agree and that is why I never have considered bridge diodes since
>years ago far better Schottky diodes were available. In my example I
>illustrated the best currently available schottky, much lower cost
>schottky diodes are also available if one only wants double the
>performance. Today and 15 years power Schottky diodes were available
>that were insulated bolt down.
. . . that was your well considered choice. I believe we've
done the best we know how to do in framing the discussion
so that it benefits our readers more than it confuses them.
>You are doing an incredible job helping the masses, but you seem to
>over react to comments that intend to improve and or update the design.
>There are many of us with knowledge of more modern parts that in our
>opinion a large improvement to your evolving designs
Thank you.
I don't think I over react . . . I'm always for value-added
"updates" and "improvements" but sometimes the best way
to drive a nail is with a hammer. Now, if you need to make
a living by the using thousands of nails per day,
a nail-gun or even an automatic machine is called for
as a means by which $time$ is better utilized. All
of our OBAM aircraft brothers have hammers.
My shop walls are covered in drawers and bins and
drawers . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop_2.jpg
in those drawers you'll find parts I've had for 40
years . . . and micro-processors and non-contact
magnetic rotary position sensors that are the latest that
the industry has to offer.
Any of those parts may find their way into a recipe for
success if found adequate to the task. Things are
not updated for the sake of being the "most improved"
especially if failure tolerant design makes the
investment of $time$ to improve problematic and
arbitrarily shuts out some economical sources of
supply.
Thank you for your $time$ and insight participating
in this discussion. It has been useful for me and
no doubt for some of our readers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ciolino" <johnciolino(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
Ian,
Try this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
John Ciolino
RV-8
----- Original Message -----
From: "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S700 Switches
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've searched the B&C site as well as Bob's AeroElectric site to try and
> find some schematics that will show me the pin numbers of the S700 series
> of fast-on switches, but without any luck. Can someone please point me in
> the right direction, or can I rely on Figure 11-11 of Bob's 'Switch
> Ratings, What's it all Mean?' article for my 1-3 and 2-10 switches?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Ian
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=192614#192614
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
Attention! The Carling switch terminal numbering is (in the below document)
is different than the Figure 11-11 in "Switch Ratings, What's it all Mean"
document....
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Canopy"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ciolino" <johnciolino(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S700 Switches
>
>
> Ian,
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>
> John Ciolino
> RV-8
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:13 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: S700 Switches
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've searched the B&C site as well as Bob's AeroElectric site to try and
>> find some schematics that will show me the pin numbers of the S700 series
>> of fast-on switches, but without any luck. Can someone please point me
>> in the right direction, or can I rely on Figure 11-11 of Bob's 'Switch
>> Ratings, What's it all Mean?' article for my 1-3 and 2-10 switches?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=192614#192614
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney(at)pobox.com> |
Bob,
I'm designing the electrical system for my Zenith CH801 based on Z13/8. Two
questions:
1. Would it be an advantage to use the B&C LR3 regulator (a.l.a. Z13/20)
rather than the "generic Ford", and why or why not?
2. In rev. P you have interposed a relay in the E-bus alternate feed line.
What's your reason for this? It seems to be another single point of failure
in a simple circuit.
I'm attaching my modified drawing. Comment on it if you wish. Thanks.
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim noise in Audio speaker |
>
>All,
>I have a cabin mounted speaker setup which is fed off of a Garmin 340.
>When I'm listening to the radio and run any of the trim motors (Ray
>Allen), I get feedback noise through the audio system. Is there any way
>to filter this or otherwise eliminate it?
Sure. Start off with a capacitor wired directly across the
motor leads (I presume they're still both white). Refer
to schematic at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/PitchTrim.pdf
It's not common to have noise issues with these actuators.
Let's assume the noise is radiated first. Try the .22 uF
capacitor first 272-1070. Try the pair of 272-1436 if
the first doesn't work. These need to be tied into the harness
as close as practical . . . 2-3 inches outside actuator
housing.
Please let us know the results of your experiments.
If the caps don't get it by themselves, we'll ratchet
up a notch.
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: | Bridge diodes VS Schottky |
>
>I have never understood all this squabble about the lowly bridge diode
>except to provide more free advertising for the Schottky. I constantly
>run 15-20 amps through my bridge diode and except for initial loading,
>the temp on the diode isn't enough to warm the legs on a fly. Use the
>heat sink and good 10 gauge wire for the short jumpers between the
>buses. Since the max limit is 25 Amps (momentary), one may easily
>control the load served. I have found not value in spending the big
>bucks on the Schottky.
>
>On the other hand my fancy Garmin stack puts out enough heat such to
>warrant adding a fan and a plenum to one side with a scat tube to warm
>the cabin on fall days.
It's a subtle thing that touches on two issues. One is
voltage drop that goes to performance of downstream appliances.
The other is heat generated from the current voltage drop
product that must be considered with respect to ratings
of the diode in question. I'm working on a comic book that
speaks to the whole thermal management issue and heat sinks
in the electronics business.
For my own purposes, it wasn't an issue of dollars. I
was attracted to the PACKAGES for bridge rectifiers
that made it EASY for the neophyte builder to mount,
wire and heat-sink the device. There's a constellation
of diode products that would do the job electrically
assuming ratings limits are observed in each case.
I welcome any discussion that adds to the collective
knowledge of our readers . . . but object vigorously
when specific products are touted based on poor
to non-existent examination of the details.
I've got nothing against or for Schottky vs. Silicon
Junction devices. I stock and use both. But marketing
hype that exploits the ignorance/fears of potential
customers will continue to be identified for what it
is.
By the way, it's a really good idea to trim the previous
postings from your reply unless you're referencing
specific portions in your response. Helps keep the
archives from being stuffed with repeat data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 questions |
>Bob,
>
>I'm designing the electrical system for my Zenith CH801 based on Z13/8. Two
>questions:
>
>1. Would it be an advantage to use the B&C LR3 regulator (a.l.a. Z13/20)
>rather than the "generic Ford", and why or why not?
These are ARCHITECTURE drawings . . . you can consider ANY alternative
components suited to your task. Yes, the LR3 is a very capable, all-in-one
alternator controller that includes adjustable remote sensing regulation,
lv warning, ov protection in a single package. If you don't object to
the price, it's an entirely acceptable alternative.
>2. In rev. P you have interposed a relay in the E-bus alternate feed line.
>What's your reason for this? It seems to be another single point of failure
>in a simple circuit.
When we added the 8A alternator, the e-bus continuous
load capability went up to 8A, a bit high for an always
hot lead from the battery bus (tradition says 5A max
but a FUSED lead is much less likely to start a fire
than a BREAKERED lead). If you'd like to stay with the
previous architecture and fuse the alternate feed at
10A, I wouldn't have any heartburn over it. You presently
show a 15A fuse which I presume is intended to support
peak loads, I think I'd put the relay in.
>I'm attaching my modified drawing. Comment on it if you wish. Thanks.
>Blue skies and tailwinds
You need to add the resistor across the SD-8 filter capacitor
as part of the self-excitation feature.
Fusible link in the main bus feeder is not necessary.
It's unfortunate that you can't find a 12v starter
to fit your engine but the second battery arrangement
will probably work for you.
I've .pdf'ed your drawing and attached to this response
so that others on the list can see what we're talking about.
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: | Sleep well tonight, our government is AWAKE! |
Over the past several years I've referred to my participation
in an investigation into the failure of a couple of switch-breakers
on a Beech Baron. The part is almost exactly the same device you
can buy at Aircraft Spruce and looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_1.jpg
It seems that about 80,000 switch breakers were supplied to
Beech after a production change at Potter Brumfield that
eliminated the functional equivalent of the little piece
of insulation you see upper left inside corner of the
bracket was left out. No big deal . . . sorta.
As long as the bundle of fine wires maintains continuity
between the lower arm of the switch and the frame, everything
is right with the world.
The switch has passed many mechanical and electrical life
cycle tests in the lab over the past 20+ years. Everything
was cool.
Now comes the unexpected event that all those little copper
wires no longer maintain their intended electrical continuity . . .
in switches that are seldom operated in the airplane. Deice.
Hmmmm . . . how can this be? It seems that laboratory tests
for vibration did not reveal the effects of 10-20 years
of service that with effects of corrosion, low level but
persistent vibration, and UNRELIEVED stress risers right
at the points where the braids were spot-welded to their
respective locations on the switch arm and the frame.
For all the fuss-n-bother we went to in crafting
two-crimp terminals for wires where stress risers in
the wire grip are relieved by support at the insulation
grip . . . here we have the internal components of a switch-
breaker that do not enjoy the same level of fuss-n-bother
for equally vulnerable features.
Okay, so the wires break, now what? Since current can
no longer flow between the switch arm and frame on a nice
fat copper conductor, it flows instead through the spring. If
the breaker is lightly loaded . . . like the 5 and 10 amp
applications, no big deal. However, on airplanes fitted
with electric De-Ice heaters, it's another deal altogether.
So, as you can see in the picture, P-B is now installing
an insulator between frame and spring that prevents the
spring from becoming a toaster-element in high current
situations where the braid string is broken.
Beech has been using these breaker-switches from Skippers
to Barons for a very long time. The implications of a
fleet wide AD were, shall we say, $significant$? There was
a great deal of testing and analysis to deduce
justification for a blanket AD . . . or a testing
procedure (my little 4-wire ohmmeters at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/LowOhmsAdapter_3.pdf
will easily detect a failed or nearly failed
braid jumper).
We spent considerable time justifying an opinion that the
smaller breakers (the vast majority) did not represent
a hazard. Even the large breakers, while they squirted
smoke out the panel from around the toggle handle) the
represented a very low risk of propagating into a fire.
Folks at numerous user groups including the Bonanza Society
agreed.
But today I became aware of this jewel from our ever vigilant
benefactors/protectors in Washington . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/2008-13-17.pdf
It's obvious that the folks who were in the position of
deciding whether or not the FAA agreed or disagreed with
lowly commoners do not have a clue as to the physics of
the matter over which they have command and control. The
problem was not an "internal short" but an open that happens
only after a lot of time in service. Other verbiage in the
FAA document suggests that the writers have no knowledge
of the physics and an excellent knowledge of the rules
upon which one bases a you-can't-be-too-safe decision.
I'll call your attention to the compliance costs analysis
on page 5 of the document. The cost to an owner-operator
to replace this $25 breaker is about $185 each on airplanes
that range from the lowly Skipper (no De-Ice installed)
to the Barons with as many as 15 such switches (I think 3 of
the 15 were high-current applications).
This little mini-seminar has important lessons for us
in the OBAM aviation community. Its a demonstration
of risk for improperly connected wires of any size even
if INSIDE a product were you're not able to inspect them.
It's a demonstration of the value of lower parts count,
simpler construction in terms of reliability. The fuse-block/
fuse/switch combination suggested in my writing could not
get much simpler, less expensive to install, or less
expensive to maintain.
Finally, it's a small insight into a growing lack of
expertise on the part of individuals who WE pay to protect
us from ourselves. Once the TC pistons have become too
expensive to own/operate, the ever growing numbers of
protectors with too little to do will be looking for
new venues to ply their skills . . . or lack thereof.
Guess where THAT's going to be?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
So, do I have to get in here and solve EVERYONE'S problems....Cheeeze.
My friend Paul calls me and tells me deep technical details of things of our common
interest along with his complaints about disagreements with Bob....which
I am sometimes vaguely aware of...yawn...because I read very little of Bob's tirades
because they give me the Gollywoggles. (Cripes...where DOES he get the
energy?)
Seriously--Bob is absolutely right about thousands of things, and a great help
to all who are engaged in building flying machines. He is only stone-cold-crazy-wrong
about a dozen or so...so what's the percentage here? Pretty good I'd say.
I'd recommend him.
As for me, I figured this out some time ago: I just sell my own creations to thousands
of Bob's customers who, while appreciating Bob's great skill and wisdom,
can't bear walking into a Radio Shack to buy and cripple an FWB. I have sold
many many many hundreds of International Rectifier PowerSchottkys. Nobody ever
comes back and says, "Gee, I was looking for a lower-power device with higher
losses and questionable pedigree....you know, the way they did it way back
in 1935."
My suggestion is to encourage more independent invention and really clever products
for the EA community. I don't ever intend to compete with Bob or JetPilot
or Paul M., but I value all their opinions and contributions. You bet I do.
See the attachment if you want to peek at schematic Z100 (in process). I mention
this because I am barely interested in having anybody tell me I should do it
Bob's or Paul's of JetPilot's or somebody else's way. Some will want to use parts
of Z100 in their design, and some will choose the rather dated but well tested
design Bob has spent years working on (Watch out for those dozen crazy things!).
I accept and encourage people pointing out my errors (and I do make some), but
as for personal philosophy...Hell, we all should be flying Cessnas, bubela.
When the Oakies left Oklahoma and moved to California,
it raised the I.Q. of both states."
--Will Rogers
--------
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=192742#192742
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_protector_revb_161.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/leos_tale_967.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rochester dual indicator |
| From: | "bouguy" <boullu.guy(at)libertysurf.fr> |
hi Bob ,
thank you very much ...
Guy .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=192802#192802
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks Bob, John & Bret for the replies.
However, in the light of contradicting evidence between the Micro SW vs Carling
and figure 11-11 of the Switch Ratings documents, my (limited by equipment) findings
are that the Micro SW vs Carling numbering for the fast-on version of
the 2-10 is right. I don't have any switches with screw terminals to check if
the contact numbers are transposed on these and are as per Figure 11-11 in the
Switch Ratings document, so maybe someone else could confirm/deny this.
Thanks again for all of your input.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=192806#192806
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-20 Mag Switches |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bob,
I'm looking at Z-20K and I see that you have the 2 mag wires connected to different
terminals on the mag 2 switches. Is there a reason for this? To my somewhat
limited mind, it seems that the left ign as per the drawing is always on
in the off position - Please tell me what I'm missing here.
Thanks.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=192808#192808
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
>
>Thanks Bob, John & Bret for the replies.
>
>However, in the light of contradicting evidence between the Micro SW vs
>Carling and figure 11-11 of the Switch Ratings documents, my (limited by
>equipment) findings are that the Micro SW vs Carling numbering for the
>fast-on version of the 2-10 is right. I don't have any switches with
>screw terminals to check if the contact numbers are transposed on these
>and are as per Figure 11-11 in the Switch Ratings document, so maybe
>someone else could confirm/deny this.
>
>Thanks again for all of your input.
This isn't about screw terminals vs. fast-on tabs. It's
about the fact that there is no industry standard for
setting the sequence of operations for right side vs.
left side of a progressive transfer switch. There is also
no industry standard for assignment of terminal numbers.
ONE possibility for transfer sequence is that adopted
by Microswitch (which is available in EITHER screw or
fast-on) and that adopted by Carling. Switches by
other manufacturers can adopt either convention. They
may mark OTHER numbers on their enclosures.
It's a simple matter to take your ohmmeter and deduce
how YOUR switches-in-hand operate. You'll find they're
either Microswitch-like or Carling-like for transfer
sequence. Once that discovery is made, then assign
numbers to the terminals according to the view in
11-11 IRRESPECTIVE of how the terminals may be
numbered on the actual switch.
THEN . . . numbers you've deduced by examination of
function will match the drawings in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-20 Mag Switches |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I'm looking at Z-20K and I see that you have the 2 mag wires connected to
>different terminals on the mag 2 switches. Is there a reason for
>this? To my somewhat limited mind, it seems that the left ign as per the
>drawing is always on in the off position - Please tell me what I'm missing
>here.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ian
You've spotted a drafting error that has been in place for quite
some time. Good eye!
The corrected drawing has been published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
>
>My suggestion is to encourage more independent invention and really clever
>products for the EA community. I don't ever intend to compete with Bob or
>JetPilot or Paul M., but I value all their opinions and contributions. You
>bet I do.
Hear hear! I really like to see what clever things are
being proposed!
>See the attachment if you want to peek at schematic Z100 (in process). I
>mention this because I am barely interested in having anybody tell me I
>should do it Bob's or Paul's of JetPilot's or somebody else's way.
No attachment came through . . .
> Some will want to use parts of Z100 in their design, and some will
> choose the rather dated but well tested design Bob has spent years
> working on (Watch out for those dozen crazy things!).
Okay, I'll bite. List ONE and ONE only of those crazy things.
Let's examine the philosophy, physics and application of any
SINGLE item you suggest is evidence of my psychosis. I tried
to engage Paul in a single-item discussion that I hoped would
illustrate and illuminate some of my most vexing questions in
the task of integrating automotive alternators to aircraft . . .
but no joy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
BOB: Here is the attachment. It was at the bottom of Eric's e-mail.
http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_protector_revb_161.pdf
Joe Ronco
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cabbages and kings . . .
>
>My suggestion is to encourage more independent invention and really clever
>products for the EA community. I don't ever intend to compete with Bob or
>JetPilot or Paul M., but I value all their opinions and contributions. You
>bet I do.
Hear hear! I really like to see what clever things are
being proposed!
>See the attachment if you want to peek at schematic Z100 (in process). I
>mention this because I am barely interested in having anybody tell me I
>should do it Bob's or Paul's of JetPilot's or somebody else's way.
No attachment came through . . .
> Some will want to use parts of Z100 in their design, and some will
> choose the rather dated but well tested design Bob has spent years
> working on (Watch out for those dozen crazy things!).
Okay, I'll bite. List ONE and ONE only of those crazy things.
Let's examine the philosophy, physics and application of any
SINGLE item you suggest is evidence of my psychosis. I tried
to engage Paul in a single-item discussion that I hoped would
illustrate and illuminate some of my most vexing questions in
the task of integrating automotive alternators to aircraft . . .
but no joy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
I bought my S700 progressive switches from B&C - they came with no
documentation of pin numbers, and I followed the pin diagram from the
Aeroelectric Connection. A couple things (like P-mag powercheck) didnt
work quite right, and on a hunch I eventually checked the switch pins
with
a multimeter and found that them to be transposed (left to right/right
to
left) from the figure in the 'Connection.
No cabbages here though - I didnt know a volt from an amp when I starte
d
building, and Bob's book and website downloads were a godsend. Bob has
been an invaluable resource for me - and at virtually no cost.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 switches |
>I bought my S700 progressive switches from B&C - they came with no
>documentation of pin numbers, and I followed the pin diagram from the
>Aeroelectric Connection. A couple things (like P-mag powercheck) didnt
>work quite right, and on a hunch I eventually checked the switch pins with
>a multimeter and found that them to be transposed (left to right/right to
>left) from the figure in the 'Connection.
Interesting! Can you give me a date code off an offending
switch? It will be 4 digits on the side of the switch immediately
under the "Mexico/Carling" stamp. The switch I used to craft
the published data was a 24th week of 2000 production. In fact,
I still have that same switch with the pin numbers marked on
it in silver magic marker.
If one dissects one of these things, it becomes apparent
that there is symmetry in the parts that would allow a switch
to be assembled "upside-down" which results in totally different
(but still serviceable) behavior. Now, the REALLY interesting
possibility is that Carling and Micro DO follow the same
progressive transfer protocol and the switch that I have
was the "bad" one.
I've been through ALL of the progressive transfer devices
from the BBC era (before B&C) and they conform to the configuration
published. Has anyone else on the list encountered this
condition? Does anyone have B&C S700 series progressive-
transfer switches on hand that are not mounted? Could you
check them against page 9 of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
and see if any differences exist. You might tell us what
date code is on your switch too.
>No cabbages here though - I didnt know a volt from an amp when I started
>building, and Bob's book and website downloads were a godsend. Bob has
>been an invaluable resource for me - and at virtually no cost.
Thank you for the kind words. Your discovery is distressing
but perhaps not terribly surprising. The way these switches
are designed, flipping the mechanism is NOT prevented
by inability to assemble parts. Thanks for the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
>
>BOB: Here is the attachment. It was at the bottom of Eric's e-mail.
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_protector_revb_161.pdf
Very good. Thank you.
Hmmmm . . . the LT4356 is a device designed to deal with
short term perturbations on the bus. "Surges" that are
typically tens of milliseconds. When used in the manner
suggested, is it intended to stand off a runaway alternator?
The data sheet says that to stand off a 150v surge, one
must protect the Vcc and SNS input pins with independent
limiting of applied voltage as shown on Page 15 of the
data sheet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/LT4356.pdf
Even then, during the aberration output from
circuit in a 24v system is "clamped at 32v"
(16 volts in a 12v system). It doesn't shut down.
This means that equipment downstream remains
"ON" and powered at the upper limit of supply
voltage. The series pass device (Power MOSFET)
continues to dissipate energy at the difference
between input and output voltage at what ever
current the system is demanding.
There is a discussion beginning on page 10, second column
that speaks to the ability of this system to deal with
short term transients . . . with the limiting factor
being ability of the MOSFET to toss off heat.
What means is proposed to shut the runaway
alternator down before thermal limits of the
surge trapping system are exceeded?
Another point of interest. There's a series shunt
shown of 10 milliohms which would drop 600 mV at
60A for total of 36 watts. The proposed FET could
go to as low as one milliohm instead of the 12
milliohms cited so that dissipation could drop into
the 3 to 4 watt class. A series diode should not be
necessary . . . protection from shorted diodes in
alternator is generally provided by a b-lead fuse
or breaker.
The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing
off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed
does not suggest a means by which an alternator may
be controlled . . . I'm presuming that the "new
philosophy" is that the artfully designed system
of the future does not demand control. I'm not
aware of how that might be accomplished.
Perhaps the description of the proposed product does
not tell all of the tale.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing
> off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed
> does not suggest a means by which an alternator may
> be controlled . .
Bob, what if you look at the N-MOSFET as an expensive fuse that
regulates while it is burning? Sacrificing itself to in order to save
my $3,000 EFIS? Digikey is advertising a 60V/60A N-MOSFET units for
less than $2 in lots of one. The LT4356-1 will probably go down with
it, but it still looks like it could save some expensive equipment in an
extremely rare event.
The 10 milliOhm resistor would work as the shunt that many builders use
to drive an ammeter. I'm assuming the diode is to keep the battery from
driving the LT4356-1?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing
>> off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed
>> does not suggest a means by which an alternator may
>> be controlled . .
>
>Bob, what if you look at the N-MOSFET as an expensive fuse that regulates
>while it is burning? Sacrificing itself to in order to save my $3,000
>EFIS? Digikey is advertising a 60V/60A N-MOSFET units for less than $2 in
>lots of one. The LT4356-1 will probably go down with it, but it still
>looks like it could save some expensive equipment in an extremely rare event.
It's not stated in the write-up but if the sprit and intent
is to isolate the ship's systems from every form of alternator
failure, then 60v devices wont get it. Until the field winding
opens up to terminate a runaway event, the b-lead on a Lycoming
mounted alternator can be well over 100 volts . . . for perhaps
a minute or more.
Of course, this presumes that there is no battery on line.
In this case, the battery will go into sacrificial mode
attempting to keep the bus from rising . . . and it does
a really good job . . . for seconds, not minutes. The
dynamics of detecting and responding to an alternator
runaway is pretty well understood . . . I'm certain
that I wouldn't attempt to control it with a solid state
device in series with the b-lead. Based on my understanding
of the task, I produced the document at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
I've brass-boarded the design and all I'm needing
is a few hours testing on the drive stand to get some
measurements of currents, voltages and energies involved
in the process.
I'm skeptical of the design Eric has proposed . . .
but the test stand and ultimately the marketplace
are the gauntlets to be run.
>The 10 milliOhm resistor would work as the shunt that many builders use to
>drive an ammeter. I'm assuming the diode is to keep the battery from
>driving the LT4356-1?
The write-up suggests that the diode is useful to prevent
a battery from driving failed alternators (presumably shorted
diodes).
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: S700 switches |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Bob wrote:
"Can you give me a date code off an offending switch?"
Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and
providing the answer until Friday or Saturday.
erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: S700 switches |
>Bob wrote:
>
>"Can you give me a date code off an offending switch?"
>
>Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and
>providing the answer until Friday or Saturday.
>
>erich
Understand. Do you have any of these switches "loose" i.e., not
installed?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Over filling during flight? |
Hi Guys,
July 14 Monday was perfect. I walked Toby our cat, then packed the
flight bag and went to the airport. After a lengthy preflight, the plane
was pulled from the hangar and I did a secondary walk around. All good,
the tower cleared my request for runway 5. I lifted off in a soft
downwind, but still short enough for traffic. I set course for Clinton
and climbed to 3000 ft. On the formerly flooded Mississippi, one could
see the river traffic moving again and a few recreational boaters.
Clinton airport was also visible 8-miles out. I passed over the airport
and entered downwind for 32. Good pattern work, but I flared a foot high
and just bounced the touchdown. I taxied in and parked to check
wheel-pants for damage. None was found, so after visiting with the FBO,
I taxied to 32 and took off, departed west. The header tank was less
than full so the left wing pump was turned on. Engine temps were good
for an 85-degrees ambient. EGTs 1370, oil 220, coolant 198, CHT 210 and
oil pressure was 48 psi. On turning south for the return, I called Quad
Cities approach, collected traffic and guidance and nearly forgot to
track the refill. The header was completely full when I turned off the
wing pump and centered the selector valve. I felt a chill down my spine,
because I didn't want to overfill. I worried that fumes from spilled
fuel could trace across the 601s non-laminar wing to the exhaust pipe's
back draft and turn the plane into a roman candle. I couldn't smell
any fuel within the cabin. On landing, I taxied back and shut down.
Inside the header, fuel was 3-inches from the cap and the overflow tube
was dry. This is the tank's max fill limit. Very relieved, I put the 601
back in the hangar and drove home with this tidbit chewing on my mind.
Nice flight, but the wrong kind of adrenaline rush!
The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full
point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point?
Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when
either of the wing pumps is running.
Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or the
tank is nearly full?
Thanks again,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/leos_tale_967.pdf
Cute story... I don't understand it's relevance to the discussion
though...? Am I missing something?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: S700 switches |
"Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and
providing the answer until Friday or Saturday. "
Yeah, life just keeps getting in the way of finishing the damn thing and
getting in the air! There was a great article in Kitplanes magazine a
couple of months ago written more like an ode to the writers' unfinished
RV7 that was sitting patiently in his shed, apprantly longing to get in
the air. It was in response to another builder's observation, in the same
magazine, that build projects should win over all else. Mind you, this
indvidual seemed to be able to make a nice living playing on his computer
a couple of hours here and there in his own home whenever he wasn't
working on his plane..... Nice work if you can get it!
Ditto on not knowing nothin' about aircraft electrics until reading
Aeroelectric twice on two (very) long haul flights last year.
I have a few S700 switches sitting in an unopened box from B&C. This is a
good excuse to fish them out and figure them out.
Andrew.
RV71700.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over filling during flight? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob & all,
I have some 1-3 and 2-10 switches that were delivered by B&C about a month ago.
The 2-10 is definitely wired as per the Micro Switch vs Carling article, i.e.
with keyway up, on the first switch up, pins 1 & 2 (bottom left & middle) connect
and on the second switch up, pins 4 & 5 (bottom right & middle) connect.
My 2-10 has the code 0817R on the side and my 1-3 has 0639R on it. The 1-3
seems to be perform as advertised.
Hope this helps.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193053#193053
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-20 Mag Switches |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bob,
Phew, it's not easy posting a message like that as I always think it must be something
I've got wrong or don't understand. So, you see, I must be learning and
it's thanks to all of you out there. Thanks guys and girls.
Bob, thanks for correcting the drawing so quickly and it's nice for me, finally
to have contributed something to this forum!
Off to wire my mags............
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193056#193056
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Etienne:
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/leos_tale_967.pdf
>
> Cute story... I don't understand it's relevance to the discussion
> though...? Am I missing something?
Etienne,
You didn't miss a thing. I just threw it in like a sherbet between courses. I posted
this tale on the Glastarnet some years ago. A couple years later a guy sent
me an email containing this nice story that he'd heard at a fly-in.
"He whose in-flowing thoughts are dried up - the way of such a person
is hard to follow, like the path of birds through the sky." - Buddha
--------
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=193058#193058
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Over filling during flight? |
Sam,
Your message didn't come through!! You might want to try it again.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing
> off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed
> does not suggest a means by which an alternator may
> be controlled . . . I'm presuming that the "new
> philosophy" is that the artfully designed system
> of the future does not demand control. I'm not
> aware of how that might be accomplished.
The prototyped device is good to 150V. I admit that this may not be the final form,
that's why it's called a prototype. The LT4356 doesn't do anything that couldn't
have been done earlier. It is just far simpler. The diagram in my paper
is not a schematic. Attached is the schematic of my prototype.
As for the kind offer to re-open old subjects like crowbars, bi-directional Zeners
for coil suppression, battery meters (instead of dual batteries), Schottkys,
elimination of contactors, etc., etc.--I looked in the mirror this morning
and nobody had written "STUPID" on my forehead, so I guess it won't happen. But
if I bump my head REALLY HARD, I'll be sure to let you know.
--------
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=193063#193063
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_good_a1_134.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over filling during flight? |
LarryMcFarland wrote:
>
> The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full
> point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point?
>
> Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when
> either of the wing pumps is running.
>
> Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or the
> tank is nearly full?
>
> Thanks again,
It's entirely possible, Larry, but this sounds like an accident waiting
to happen. If the pilot is distracted and misses the warning, or the
warning light burns out, what will be the result?
Some other options you might consider:
- Put a normally closed level switch in the header tank that will
interrupt the pump in the tank is full.
-Tracey Crook has his RV set up to pull fuel to the engine from one
tank. Fuel from the other wing tank is accessed by a transferring it
over with a second pump. He put the transfer pump on a timer. Hit a
button and you get three minutes of pumping. Fire and forget scenario.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over filling during flight? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 Switches |
>
>Bob & all,
>
>I have some 1-3 and 2-10 switches that were delivered by B&C about a month
>ago. The 2-10 is definitely wired as per the Micro Switch vs Carling
>article, i.e. with keyway up, on the first switch up, pins 1 & 2 (bottom
>left & middle) connect and on the second switch up, pins 4 & 5 (bottom
>right & middle) connect. My 2-10 has the code 0817R on the side and my
>1-3 has 0639R on it. The 1-3 seems to be perform as advertised.
>
>Hope this helps.
Its a LOT of help. Folks should understand that the single pole
and two-pole tandem transfer switches have no way to be 'different'
from other brands. It's when we purchase the very useful
PROGRESSIVE TRANSFER devices that there is room for variability between
brands. Of course, Microswitch molds numbers into their
switch bodies . . . and they've delivered their switches
to conforming to consistent catalog data and military specification
going back many decades.
Now, there are dozens if not hundreds of sources for switches
that are useful to our purposes . . . SOME of these suppliers
will offer the progressive transfer devices and they have
a decision to make: "Which side of the switch transfers first?"
It's a 50:50 thing that doesn't make much difference in the
big picture as long as the installer KNOWS which side is
which and how it relates to his task in following an explicit
wiring diagram.
This situation has come up before in another venue. I used
to drop by the MAC/RayAllen booth at OSH every year to plead
the case for slightly larger wire and TWO colors on the motor
leads that they control as (+)extend and (+)retract.
No joy. They did not seem to appreciate the value of crafting
a user friendly product. Anyone who attempted to publish drawings
that assisted THEIR customers in wiring THEIR product right
the first time was unable to offer that support.
If researched the few catalogs I have on my hard drive
for switches and I find that most of the industry seems to
conform to the same progressive transfer convention adopted
by Microswitch many moons ago. There IS a military specification
for such switches and once carved in government stone, large
volume suppliers to the government are loath to diddle with
tradition for any reason!
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Honeywell_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/C&K_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/APEM_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf
Unfortunately, Carlingswitch does not number their terminals
and they only refer to the progressive transfer functionality
by referring to the two sides as "Circuit 1" and "Circuit 2". See
page 2 of . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling_G-series.pdf
So, they could easily have swapped sides to conform to everyone
else's notion of how it should be done . . . without reprinting
their catalog!
I've written to Carlingswitch to see if they can offer us some
insight as to (1) whether or not the swap was intentional and
(2) if so, when (what date code) did the swap take place.
Time will tell . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | G-Series Progressive Transfer Conventions |
Good morning!
I am a consulting electrical engineer for aviation. I am also write for the
amateur built aviation industry. I used to have a parts business catering
to that industry wherein I offered a select line of Carlingswitch F and G
series switches. I also published a series of architecture drawings for a
variety of electrical systems for light aircraft.
My readers had an interest in 2-pole, progressive transfer switches for a
number of applications. My drawings called out terminal numbers on the
switches and referenced keyway-up-rear-views of switches to assist the
neophyte builder in correctly wiring the progressive transfer devices.
At that time (late 90's and early 00's) we noted that the progressive
transfer convention for Carlingswitch products swapped sides compared to
the rest of the industry. I was obliged to point out this difference in a
number of publications. See page 9 of . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
I no longer sell parts but continue to support the industry with
consulting. I'm receiving reports from my readers that recently purchased
Carlingsitch products appear to have swapped sides compared to older
products in terms of progressive transfer sequencing. The Carlingswitch
catalog doesn't number the terminals and refers to switching functions as
"Circuit 1" and "Circuit 2" . . . so swapping sides would be transparent to
the catalog data.
Can you tell me if present production switches now conform to what appears
to be an industry standard convention for progressive transfer? If so, is
there any way that I can help my readers identify when the change occurred?
Can you give me a date code range for the changeover?
Thanks!
Regards, Bob
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: Z-20 Mag Switches |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Phew, it's not easy posting a message like that as I always think it must
>be something I've got wrong or don't understand. So, you see, I must be
>learning and it's thanks to all of you out there. Thanks guys and girls.
>
>Bob, thanks for correcting the drawing so quickly and it's nice for me,
>finally to have contributed something to this forum!
>
>Off to wire my mags............
This isn't MY publication and forum, it's OURS. When I
set out to publish the 'Connection 20+ years ago, I soon
realized that I could not answer questions without first
knowing what the questions were. Further, our consideration
for processes, parts, and design philosophies could be
selected from the universal pallet of possibilities and NOT
LIMITED to that which was dictated by management/government.
Over the years, its YOU folks who have set the course
for this effort and YOU folks have been the filter for
"gee it doesn't work the way you said" or "I don't understand".
Any real teacher absolutely depends on these filters to
correct error and refine teaching technique. Your service
to all of us by raising the flag far exceeds my service to
you in correcting the error. Thousands of others refer to the
works I've published and it's imperative that we strive to
get it right. I can't do it all by myself.
Thank YOU sir!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
| Subject: | connecting two wires |
For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or
the fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type
wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife
portion of the connection?
Jonsey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
Please look closely at the switch wiring for the E-Mag in Z13/8.
The operation of the switch as pictured is correct. That is the power
is applied to the E-Mag while the P Lead is still grounded, and the P
Lead is grounded before power is removed.
However, the pictorial diagram of the switch does not match the
diagram of the 2-10 switch shown on Page 11-18.
Assuming that page 11-18 is correct, then the V+, pin 5 of the E-Mag
should be controlled by switch connections 2-1 and the P Lead, pin 4
of the E-Mag should be controlled by switch connections 5-6.
Or am I mixed up about something ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: S700 switches |
>"Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and
>providing the answer until Friday or Saturday. "
>
>
>I have a few S700 switches sitting in an unopened box from B&C. This is a
>good excuse to fish them out and figure them out.
Cool!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | connecting two wires |
Jonsey,
The knife splice is mechanically somewhat stronger, and you should slip
on a
piece of heat shrink before connecting. That said, the push on will
work
just fine as long as the stress is minimal.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dennis
Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connecting two wires
For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or
the
fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type
wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife
portion of
the connection?
Jonsey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Over filling during flight? |
>
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>July 14 Monday was perfect. I walked Toby our cat, then packed the flight
>bag and went to the airport. After a lengthy preflight, the plane was
>pulled from the hangar and I did a secondary walk around. All good, the
>tower cleared my request for runway 5. I lifted off in a soft downwind,
>but still short enough for traffic. I set course for Clinton and climbed
>to 3000 ft. On the formerly flooded Mississippi, one could see the river
>traffic moving again and a few recreational boaters. Clinton airport was
>also visible 8-miles out. I passed over the airport and entered downwind
>for 32. Good pattern work, but I flared a foot high and just bounced the
>touchdown. I taxied in and parked to check wheel-pants for damage. None
>was found, so after visiting with the FBO, I taxied to 32 and took off,
>departed west. The header tank was less than full so the left wing pump
>was turned on. Engine temps were good for an 85-degrees ambient. EGTs
>1370, oil 220, coolant 198, CHT 210 and oil pressure was 48 psi. On
>turning south for the return, I called Quad Cities approach, collected
>traffic and guidance and nearly forgot to track the refill. The header was
>completely full when I turned off the wing pump and centered the selector
>valve. I felt a chill down my spine, because I didn't want to overfill.
>I worried that fumes from spilled fuel could trace across the 601s
>non-laminar wing to the exhaust pipe's back draft and turn the plane into
>a roman candle. I couldn't smell any fuel within the cabin. On landing,
>I taxied back and shut down. Inside the header, fuel was 3-inches from the
>cap and the overflow tube was dry. This is the tank's max fill limit. Very
>relieved, I put the 601 back in the hangar and drove home with this tidbit
>chewing on my mind. Nice flight, but the wrong kind of adrenaline rush!
>
>The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full
>point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point?
>
>Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when either
>of the wing pumps is running.
>
>Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or the
>tank is nearly full?
>
>Thanks again,
Absolutely. I've designed several manual and automatic fuel
transfer systems that spoke to your experience and concerns.
Consider these thoughts:
Any automatic or manual fuel transfer system needs to consider
the potential for overfilling due to inattention and/or failure.
Some fuel system designers have deduced that the vent system
on a tank provides some level of protection for over-pressuring
a tank or spilling fuel into the interior of the aircraft . . . but
this only prolongs the unhappy surprise that a whole lot of
fuel went overboard while the pilot was occupied with other things.
The last auto-transfer system I proposed for a header tank
auto fill used an array of 3 optical liquid level sensors
in the tank. See:
http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282
and in particular . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS900.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS1100.pdf
One sensor was located at 60% of tank capacity and
wired to light a LOW FUEL warning light and generate
an alarm tone.
A second sensor was located at 90% of tank capacity
and wired to light a FUEL FULL warning light and
generate an alarm tone.
The third sensor was at 75% of tank capacity and
wired to control a transfer pump when in the AUTO
XFER mode. If controlling a rotary pump (brushed
motor) we called for a running the pump ANY TIME
the sensor was exposed - further, a 5 second timer
was included to make the pump run a minimum of
5 seconds each time the ON-cycle was tripped.
This minimized the deleterious effects of
electrical "chatter" when starting a motor with
high inrush characteristics. Indeterminate
submersion at the control-point exacerbated
by sloshing was filtered out.
With solid state pumps like Facet
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Pumps/Facet_Solid_State_Pump.pdf
there is no 'inrush', no contact to arc and
very fast check valves. Hence, little need for
a minimum-run timer. On could wire one of these
pumps directly to a mid-level sensor in the AUTO
XFER mode to hold the header tank at the CALIBRATED
capacity as described by physical location of
the sensor on the tank.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: connecting two wires |
>For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or the
>fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type
>wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife portion
>of the connection?
Yup. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg
That's how we did it on the B-52's at Boeing when I was
working there . . . except we used a plastic sleeving
we called "irvolite" (sp?) and a string tie. Heat shrink
is the modern cover of choice for this legacy service
joint in a wire run.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new
rule "critical to making aviation safer". It seems that
a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category a/c
are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion
like that which brought down TWA800".
This is an excellent example of the lack of science and
understanding that drives the actions of folk-who-know-
more-about-airplanes-than-we-do.
This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion
of the type observed from TWA800 has never happened
before or since nor has it been duplicated in the lab
by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that
experienced observers of many explosions of all kinds
(military and x-military) observed that first-light from
the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't
burn white under any conditions.
This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike
the famous bullet ostensibly found on a cot in the emergency
room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned observers
and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet
made multiple holes in two individuals, even turned
a corner or two . . . and "fell out" of one of the bodies
not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation.
When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise
to two questions: If the writers really believe this, what
are their qualifications for making judgement on the matter
in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting
on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well,
the implications of that are far more disturbing.
Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we
do on our airplanes and how we use them.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
My question was: What makes an explosion in a wing center section tank any more
deadly than an explosion in a outer wing tank? I guess the next step is the
removal of ALL fuel tanks, because they just might explode.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:45 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake.
?
I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new?
rule "critical to making aviation safer". It seems that?
a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category a/c?
are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion?
like that which brought down TWA800".?
?
This is an excellent example of the lack of science and?
understanding that drives the actions of folk-who-know-?
more-about-airplanes-than-we-do.?
?
This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion?
of the type observed from TWA800 has never happened?
before or since nor has it been duplicated in the lab?
by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that?
experienced observers of many explosions of all kinds?
(military and x-military) observed that first-light from?
the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't?
burn white under any conditions.?
?
This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike?
the famous bullet ostensibly found on a cot in the emergency?
room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned observers?
and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet?
made multiple holes in two individuals, even turned?
a corner or two . . . and "fell out" of one of the bodies?
not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation.?
?
When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise?
to two questions: If the writers really believe this, what?
are their qualifications for making judgement on the matter?
in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting?
on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well,?
the implications of that are far more disturbing.?
?
Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we?
do on our airplanes and how we use them.?
?
?
? Bob . . .?
?
? ----------------------------------------)?
? ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )?
? ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )?
? ( appearance of being right . . . )?
? ( )?
? ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )?
? ----------------------------------------?
?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on "terrorists"
and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see which one this time?
I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts carried out
9-11?
Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake.
-->
I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new rule "critical to making
aviation safer". It seems that a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category
a/c are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion like that which
brought down TWA800".
This is an excellent example of the lack of science and understanding that drives
the actions of folk-who-know- more-about-airplanes-than-we-do.
This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion of the type observed
from TWA800 has never happened before or since nor has it been duplicated
in the lab by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that experienced
observers of many explosions of all kinds (military and x-military) observed that
first-light from the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't burn
white under any conditions.
This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike the famous bullet ostensibly
found on a cot in the emergency room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned
observers and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet made multiple
holes in two individuals, even turned a corner or two . . . and "fell out"
of one of the bodies not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation.
When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise to two questions: If
the writers really believe this, what are their qualifications for making judgement
on the matter in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting
on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well, the implications
of that are far more disturbing.
Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we do on our airplanes
and how we use them.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nippondenso alternator question |
First, please learn how to use a spell checker.
Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com
Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit
you in the butt.
Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving
forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS Tri-Gear
A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
Well (very sadly but it did seem too good to be true and I am not surprised)
I had hoped for mutual cooperation but I guess you want to do it all your
self. Good timing as I was just finishing the first part of the planned
discussion.
Be my guest, I had thought you had changed. Clearly you want yo frive the
discussion VS get the benefit of my extensive work.
Random comments as its not worth my time to put them in ordered sequence. I
have made some suggestions about how and what to test to avoid missing
information that is not gathered just using your sketched circuit.
You are incorrect about my approach and intent and about my past analysis
and testing which is in my opinion adequate to determine the problem and I
have "crafted" a proven solution. In my opinion there is ZERO need for more
testing other for self aggrandizement. I find this sad as you have not seen
any real results of my testing nor the scope of it. Reading your suggested
approach I find little to agree with so there is no point in my being a part
of your long promised study.
Further most of your below comments about my position are totally incorrect
assumptions which is not surprising as you have never spent the time to find
out what my approach is; the amount of analysis, investigation nor testing
setup and results. I will not tolerate testing as anything other as proof of
pre testing design analysis. I also simply will not design using assumptions
or unofficial verbal assurances from one manufacturer its safe to exceed the
specifications as that is simply a high risk approach no engineer will do.
My results are identical design solution for all reasonable alternator but
clearly its not reasonable to allow any alternator to be covered and that
position indicates to me a lack of modern alternator designs etc. Further
you seem fixated on maintaining several design flexibilities and pilot
control that I feel is not only not required but potentially dangerous.
Also your sketch does not reproduce the real world load dump conditions what
with fixed load and relay contact bounce in the real circuit. Finally it
appears you intend to have a constant string of load dumps which is very
likely to destroy the internal to the regulator load dump protection
components. Each single load dump needs time for the protection circuits to
cool down.
Hopefully you will end up with far more evaluation, studying, and testing
than what you listed below as its not adequate nor has it addressed ALL the
problems I have addressed. You really should test all the brands of
alternators you intend to approve of and in the several different types and
amps in each style. There are differences to consider. For example different
regulator transient response as well as the winding charactericts which will
determine the load dump information.
Further you should take note of the fact just how much (or more important,
how little) is replaced in rebuilt alternators as if you know what is
replaced you would never recommend a rebuilt alternator (rebuilt is a
misnomer minimal repair is what actually happens).Junk yard is not a source
for ANY aircraft as who knows how close to failure the parts are. In any
event testing alone, with out first doing an analysis and manufacturers
detailed data is NEVER sufficient. Both Myself and Jet Pilot found getting
more detailed information was not easy and getting past the sales staff if
difficult at best. However a lot of useful information was passed on and
po-poed on this groups list.
Also be sure to test with a full load current and zero fixed load. Note my
selected 50 amp rated alternator is specified to put out 70 amps at 13V and
more amps at lower voltages so a full output failure results in a much
higher current than your suggested testing which based on my testing is not
nearly worst case! Another comment about getting the real data first. My NEW
alternator came with a computer printout of the actual alternator during
final test prior to shipment. Note the full amp output is a lot higher than
past comments have been clearly assumed on this list in the past. 40% higher
is not small in my opinion and under load dump conditions the load being
dumped is much higher energy as well as the peak voltage. My testing was
based on a real duplication of a typical aircraft wiring including wire
gauge and lengths as well as flight batteries. It started with your OVP and
contactor with the diode on the contactor coil. Very different than what
your sketch shows. Also very long alternator failure point to final
contactor opening requiring voltage clamping during that time of a lot more
energy than what has been assumed in one of your tests from years ago.
But then we have a large and fundamental difference on how to design any
electrical (including aircraft) systems. My approach is to discard many of
the proven pilot opportunities to mess up that have been a reason for past
crashes and leap into the 21st century. Building on the past and not address
the fundamental cause of most accidents is not progress in my opinion. The
more pilot required actions greatly increases the pilots lack or incorrect
action. Today there is no need to do things manually in most cases. Every
manual control available to the pilot 's another opportunity to make a
mistake that can lead to a crash. Today we have Integrated Solid state
switches/circuit breakers. Schottly diodes are not really needed much less
silicon bridges which have no use in aircraft. Yes Solid state switching is
easy to make with full bi-directional isolation and ON resistance less that
of mechanical relays etc switching (as low as 0.002 ohms ON resistance). The
pilot needs to be notified of any CB failure not by finding out by failure
of the component to work for example.
The aircraft instruments have migrated from steam gauges to flat panels yet
we still find the old contactor relay// switch approach of 1950 etc and that
ignores the modern components available today that are far more reliable and
more pilot friendly.
Its a fact that pilot error is the major cause of accidents. Its pilot error
if you run out of fuel, deplete the battery based on an assumption of
battery condition and electrical load etc etc. The requirement to throw a
switch in an emergency is bad design if there is a reasonable solution that
eliminates the mechanical pilot action and its done automatically. Its sad
that there is no truly modern system available at a reasonable price on the
market today that automates the system and provides the pilot with useful
real time electrical system conditions. My designs have been peer reviewed
by my (multiple) peers and all have stated its both more reliable and a
great improvement to current 1950's parts and today's arrangements and
approaches. You have long promoted fly the airplane and trouble shoot back
on the ground which is not what your design requirement to turn on and off
the alternator in flight and a simple voltage check is enough for preflight.
Personal situation has delayed getting my system on the market.
The E bus is a good example where there is a design requirement to have a
group of avionics disabled during part of the flight and then guess about
how much battery life is left. A simple additional electrical instrument I
have designed allows the pilot to simply see the real flight time left and
change the load and have the flight time left update. It also determines the
true battery life dynamically. If I am IFR I may need a different set of
avionics than what is on the E bus for example depending on the actual
flight conditions. Or what if the battery power left at any point is less
that what was predicted or measured months ago?. I know of several off
field crashes due to the battery being depleted well before the expected
time. Another bad design to assume something in particular when it ns not
required to assume. Fuel tank gauges system when the only accurate
requirement is full and empty has been replaced with fuel flow measurement
and totalized as seen in modern automobiles. No reason the battery cannot be
treated the same way, sure its a little more complex but not hard to do with
reasonable accuracy.
There are many ways to make flying safer than having a check list of which
switches to throw under different failure modes and make assumptions of
flight time left for example. How about a warning and a count down display
that tells the time left to fly and updates as the pilot changes the
equipment powered on. No action is required if the time remaining is long
enough.
Your insistence of performing your own testing is fine but you are
discarding months of investigation as well as hundreds of hours of testing
and analysis. On the other hand it will save me a lot of time producing a
machine readable copy etc.
A lot of people blindly used your OVP crowbar until it was used with Vans
aircraft and had many reported failures. As far as I know there was never
and failure analysis to prove the true reason for the failures. My own
testing found fault at least two faults with the OVP design but they only
caused false tripping and the real reason appeared to be the use of the
contactor and perhaps rebuilt alternators with possible second rate (read
lower cost) regulators that could not stand up to the resulting load dump
voltage peaks. In any event the OVP design was not properly desinged in the
first place likely due to the test first and skip the analysis under
transient conditions.
It is true I had intended to produce an engineering document VS a
technicians experimental results
I have far too much to do, so its easy to simply bow out. Further I will not
comment on your results as I have better things to do. There is no need to
try to discuss your approach as your mind is seemingly always made up ahead
of time.
You win and I think the group looses. Jet Pilot tried with a lot of real
research and was not listened to either.
We have very very different backgrounds and approaches to design. I had
hoped we could work together but that is not to be. I simply do not have the
time, nor can I stand the frustration of writing one paragraph and getting a
response of several pages of comments which are mostly, to me, not to the
point.
Best wishes
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
>
>
>>
>>>THANK YOU for your very nice reply!!
>>>
>
>
>
>>>In any event its now my turn to start one subject at a time in replying
>>>to your comments and questions.
>
> Paul, how about we avoid turning this into an unnecessary and/or
> unproductive research/science project . . . It would be useful to
> craft a sort of mission statement where goals, impediments to
> goals, questions and plans for acquiring data that go to aswering
> those questions are identified up front. To that effort I'll offer
> the following:
>
> 1) Since day-one, electrical systems in aircraft have offered
> a means by which engine driven power sources may be turned on
> and off at will of the pilot. This absolute ON/OFF control goes
> to a number of issues that include but are not limited to
> preflight testing, load management, ability to take a mis-behaving
> system off line, and plan-B activities crafted to mitigate
> effects of failure. I.e., failure tolerance.
>
> 2) The modern automotive alternator has a proven track record
> in ground based vehicles that eclipses anything flying
> by an order of 1000:1 or more. It's inarguable that sources
> of automotive components from salvage yards up through the
> chain to manufacturers of modern components offer the OBAM
> aircraft community a treasure-trove of choices.
>
> 3) The shear magnitude of choices can be a boon in terms
> of potential return on investment for performance and
> reliability . . . and a bane in terms of the complexity
> for choosing "suitable" hardware from an overwhelming
> universe of products and sources.
>
> 4) As knowledgeable and experienced practitioners of the
> art and sciences we can relieve OBAM aircraft owner/operator
> concern for making choices while minimizing risk for having made
> a "bad" choice? I'll have to qualify "bad" . . . EVERY
> piece of hardware we choose to bolt to an airplane will fail
> at some point in time irrespective of its source or perceived
> quality. Failure can be due to quality issues . . . operation
> outside design limits . . . or the thing simply wears out.
>
> 5) My personal preference for minimizing risk is to craft
> failure tolerant architectures . . . if we do
> that job well, then it doesn't matter if the platinum
> plated part fails because some kid didn't tighten a
> bolt (quality issue). . . or failed because the part is
> one step above junk (design or manufacturing issue).
> Failure tolerance is the most powerful tool for risk
> management we can bring to the table.
>
> 6) You appear to be crafting a risk mitigation
> approach along with relief of the decision making process
> in the form of specific architectures crafted from
> specific part numbers. You believe this approach
> is attractive to potential customers. This is the
> essence of entrepreneurial opportunity in what is
> still (unlike TC aviation) a relatively free marketplace.
> Your approach borrows from the legacies of TC aviation
> by specifying a design and more controlled suite of
> components. No doubt here are/will-be customers
> attracted to this approach and I'm sure we all wish
> you well in your endeavor. My entrepreneurial leanings
> go to system integration hardware, products that help
> the OBAM aircraft builder comfortably integrate a host
> of choices into the airplane. But first, I need to achieve
> an understanding of the simple-ideas that go into
> our respective inventions . . . ingredients that drive
> recipes for success.
>
> 7) We have a common need to exercise a solid grasp
> of the same simple-ideas even if our respective inventions
> have no competitive features. The most pressing question
> for me is understanding the load-dump characteristics
> of our favorite alternators under conditions likely to
> be encountered in a typical installation on a Lycoming -
> spinning like a whirling dervish and subject to
> unloading under any condition between zero and full
> output with normal regulation. This means knowing the magnitude,
> source impedance and timing of the transient that occurs
> after sudden load removal at all corners of the
> operating envelope.
>
> 8) The very first experiment I plan to conduct after
> the alternator drive stand is running is based on
> the sketch at:
>
> On a 60A machine with battery disconnected,
> I'd get data plots of load dumps at 4, 6, 8, 10
> and 12KRPM for fixed load of 50A with a 10A dump,
> fixed load of 40A with 10A and 20A dumps, fixed
> of 30A and 10, 20 30A dumps . . . I think you'll see
> the pattern here.
>
> The goal would be to calculate/measure the peak
> voltage, total energy and duration of each overshoot
> event (or series of overshoots assuming the regulator
> control loop is poorly damped). I would probably
> set up to run external regulators (of the type
> normally installed inside) so that I could explore
> the differences between various regulators while
> holding the alternator constant.
>
> Obviously a big task to gather enough data to
> be reasonably sure we understand the majority of
> the fleet . . . assuming we discover wide variances.
>
> (9) The next tests would involve system behavior under
> runaway conditions. Artificially fail a regulator
> and plot dv/dt at the bus and di/dt at the battery
> with various fixed loads . . . one suite of plots
> with a fresh battery, another with a battery that
> has fallen to 1/2 capacity or less.
>
> Having this data on only one combination of
> alternator/regulator would set the order of magnitude
> for energies involved. Once the equipment for the
> testing is in place and the procedure tuned, it would
> probably take less than a half hour to test any other
> combination.
>
> I ran all these tests that supported products I designed
> for Beech and others many moons ago. But the only
> data acquisition we had then were storage 'scopes and
> chart recorders. You could "eyeball" the data for gross
> suitability to task but real energy studies were exceedingly
> difficult . . . they were never done. We can do a much
> better job today.
>
> The task is to characterize the dynamic response to
> load change for a normally functioning as well as
> a runaway alternator. The data collected would allow
> a designer to craft systems that deal quietly and
> capably with the voltages, currents and energies that
> are present during recovery from both a load-dump
> and hard-failure conditions.
>
> This was the kind of data I was hoping to gather
> some years back when there was discussion about
> you and Eric teaming on some sort of activity. I
> wasn't sure exactly what equipment you were going to
> have access to . . . or what testing satisfied
> curiosities for your project . . . but I had hopes
> of piggy-backing studies above if you didn't already
> have similar data.
>
> Do I presume that for your needs, no further
> investigation is necessary/useful to your task?
> Know that all of my own test results will be published
> on aeroelectric.com and that my equipment will be available
> to you (or anyone else in the OBAM aviation community)
> should new questions arise.
>
> I'm going to have Zach start stripping out the automotive
> test setup wiring from the test stand next week. We'll
> leave only the 3-phase motor drive wiring intact. We'll
> Z-12 and Z-13/8 architectures in the stand. I already
> have a small drive stand for second alternators up to 20A.
>
> I have a static phase converter to install in the
> big stand. We'll see we can get the motor and variable
> speed drives to run. That will be a BIG step. Not sure
> if we'll be able to do real testing before we have to
> pack up and move to M.L. I have a contractor running
> a fat 240 feeder to the shop at the same time we excavate
> for a new retaining wall at the back of the yard. So the
> heavy/dirty/ugly work should be behind us at both
> locations this summer.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
| From: | simon(at)synchronousdesign.com |
Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
because they invaded Kuwait.
Now we're looking for a reason to invade Iran and rename the Persian Gulf
to something more reasonable (Gulf of Clinton?). Why didn't they blame
TWA800 on Iran is what you're asking. Maybe O-Bama will reverse the FAA
decision and just do it! :)
Simon
>
>
> And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on
> "terrorists" and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see
> which one this time?
>
> I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts
> carried out 9-11?
>
> Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:)
>
> Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AThe 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons were found in a warehouse in Mosul
.=0A=0A =0A=0AI'm not exactly sure where they found the 550 metric tons of
Uranium but I do now that it went to Montreal. =0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0ADo No
t Archive=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Dj Merrill" =0ASent: Wed
nesday, July 16, 2008 2:27pm=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubjec
t: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake.=0A
chronousdesign.com=0A>=0A> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-
11. We invaded Iraq=0A> because they invaded Kuwait.=0A> =0A=0APlenty of vi
deo of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had =0AWeapons of Mass
Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to =0Ahelp terrorists
. =0AHmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?=0A=0A-Dj=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Solid-state electrical system forum at OSH |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
I will be presenting "Benefits of a modern, solid state electrical system" on Monday,
July 28 at 1:00 in forum 8 NATCA Pavilion at Oshkosh.
The presentation will discuss the reasoning and benefits of switching from mechanical
breakers and switches to solid-state technology. While I will be talking
a bit about the Vertical Power products, the presentation is really aimed at
discussing trends in the marketplace, how the new technology is implemented (and
balanced with tried and true methods), and what to expect from this technology.
You can come by our booth in Hangar B for a demo too.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193157#193157
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
>
>
>And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on
>"terrorists" and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see
>which one this time?
>
>I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts
>carried out 9-11?
>
>Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:)
>
>Frank
I was afraid this might digress onto other UNRELATED
matters. This is about the science of fuel-driven
explosion . . . and rules that are going to drive
up costs that trickle down to about everything we
buy . . . rules that have no demonstrable benefit
and huge expense.
Let's not get out a wider brush than is necessary.
One can do two things about it. Ignore it and accept
that the heaviest burdens won't be realized for years
-or- take some active role in guiding those we've
elected based more on their popularity than on
demonstrated leadership.
Whatever anyone's personal feelings are about
the situation, there are simple-ideas to be considered
that include the legacy we've charted for our children
and grandchildren . . . because we choose to let this
one go and pass the buck down to them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
>
>Er, correct, for the second time. I was talking about the first time we
>invaded Iraq, back in 1990.
>
>Simon
I'll encourage EVERYONE to make their feelings about such
matters known to their representatives. Check out
http://congress.org
You can easily write your favorite leadership with a
few minutes effort every day. While the details of your
letter will not reach that individual. The TOPICS and
FLAVORS are tracked by their office minions. You can
bet that 1500 notes with a common theme are noticed
and will at least get lip service if not action.
To be sure, the majority of those in power are finger-
in-the-wind politicians. If the wind doesn't blow, they
don't act.
Write to them if you will about anything else . . . but
write to them about the justification of ever heavier
regulatory burdens based on junk-science. Everybody writes
to complain about the crisis du jour, very few write
to point out fundamental errors in logic and assaults
upon liberty based on those errors. 1500 notes on THAT
would generate some wind. Recall that we're not SUPPOSED
to know about that stuff, it wasn't taught to us in the
approved curriculum.
But for us here on the List, let us keep our heads
down over the project but our heads up on the horizon
lest we discover that when the project is finished,
we're unable to use it for the stupidest of reasons
. . . mindless, burdensome and ineffectual rule making.
Throwing rocks at each other here is a gross mis-use of
precious $time$.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Nippondenso alternator question |
First, please learn how to use a spell checker.
Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com
Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit
you in the butt.
Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving
forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes.
Gently my friend. We cannot expect morale to improve
by meting out more vigorous beatings. It's time to
recognize these folks limitations and be saddened by
the fact that they cannot enjoy (through no fault of their
own) the pleasures we all get from finding things out
and using them to make our jobs easier and lives better.
I'll suggest we "spin down" attention to these guys and get
on with the important stuff. Zach is over today taking
a day off from his 'other' job. We're starting to strip
down the drive stand. I'm going up in the attic over the
garage and bring down the 240 line I extended out there
last winter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nippondenso alternator question |
OK, point taken.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS Tri-Gear
A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
First, please learn how to use a spell checker.
Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com
Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit
you in the butt.
Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving
forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes.
Gently my friend. We cannot expect morale to improve
by meting out more vigorous beatings. It's time to
recognize these folks limitations and be saddened by
the fact that they cannot enjoy (through no fault of their
own) the pleasures we all get from finding things out
and using them to make our jobs easier and lives better.
I'll suggest we "spin down" attention to these guys and get
on with the important stuff. Zach is over today taking
a day off from his 'other' job. We're starting to strip
down the drive stand. I'm going up in the attic over the
garage and bring down the 240 line I extended out there
last winter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society
and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the
short conversations I had with them today, I perceive
them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can
craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for
that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to
the breaker failures on the Beech products.
I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the
works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with
stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna.
I'll know more tomorrow.
One of the most promising possibilities is to conduct
a 4-wire ohmmeter test on a partially failed breaker
to see if we can detect broken strands at some time
before the last strands break (or become vulnerable
to over-heating due to current). It occurs
to me that a voltage drop measurement in the airplane
may be sufficiently fine-grained to detect an impending
failure . . . the prop de-ice heaters certainly provide
sufficient "bias current" for a meaningful measurement . . .
more than my little 4-wire adapter does.
Shucks, who would have thought I might do more for
Beech from outside the fence than I was able to from
inside? This is going to be an INTERESTING science
project!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hey Bob,
It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker
that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours?
Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the
crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace?
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society
> and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the
> short conversations I had with them today, I perceive
> them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can
> craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for
> that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to
> the breaker failures on the Beech products.
>
> I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the
> works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with
> stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna.
> I'll know more tomorrow.
>
> One of the most promising possibilities is to conduct
> a 4-wire ohmmeter test on a partially failed breaker
> to see if we can detect broken strands at some time
> before the last strands break (or become vulnerable
> to over-heating due to current). It occurs
> to me that a voltage drop measurement in the airplane
> may be sufficiently fine-grained to detect an impending
> failure . . . the prop de-ice heaters certainly provide
> sufficient "bias current" for a meaningful measurement . . .
> more than my little 4-wire adapter does.
>
> Shucks, who would have thought I might do more for
> Beech from outside the fence than I was able to from
> inside? This is going to be an INTERESTING science
> project!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will
have to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and
or tail number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing
the "fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local
FSDO, be used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off.
Doable, but what a PITA.
Ron Q.
At 16:22 7/16/2008, you wrote:
>It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker
>that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours?
>Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the
>crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I didn't realize that about AMOC's. Even so, a type club like for
Bonanzas would likely be able to help streamline the process.
Matt-
>
> Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will
> have to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and
> or tail number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing
> the "fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local
> FSDO, be used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off.
>
> Doable, but what a PITA.
>
> Ron Q.
>
> At 16:22 7/16/2008, you wrote:
>>It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker
>>that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours?
>>Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the
>>crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace?
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Matt-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | connecting 2 wires |
hi all, i am in the process of wiring right now. rather than try to
decide where to put knife splices for possible future use i have pretty
much wired everything permanent , leaving one less thing to waffle
about. my plan is to put in a knife splice in if i ever need to snip a
wire down the road.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
>
>Hey Bob,
>
>It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker
>that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours?
>Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the
>crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace?
Yeah, the task is to be a teacher first. Study the science
and get folks who control the situation to understand.
Naw, I take that back. They don't even need to understand
the significance of their earlier decisions as long as
someone else takes responsibility for the replacement
procedure . . . at least the first guys can say, "I
did my job".
It's certainly a time-in-service issue. I'm hoping I
can craft an in-situ test that discovers the majority
of broken strands before the conductor fails
completely. This would allow detection and replacement
hundreds of flying hours before the failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
>
>Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will have
>to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and or tail
>number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing the
>"fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local FSDO, be
>used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off.
>
>Doable, but what a PITA.
Yes . . . what we should really strive for is an amended
AD that calls out the new procedure. They HAVE done such
things in the past. Recall the diode across the starter
switch contacts that did nothing. That AD was amended to
move the diode to the coil.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: connecting 2 wires |
>hi all, i am in the process of wiring right now. rather than try to decide
>where to put knife splices for possible future use i have pretty much
>wired everything permanent , leaving one less thing to waffle about. my
>plan is to put in a knife splice in if i ever need to snip a wire down the
>road.
That's been the philosophy adopted by many others
before you. It works.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with multiple emails |
>
>
>Matte,
>
>I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. Some as
>much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of getting 10
>emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other matronics
>lists.
>
>Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
>Michle
>RV8 - engine/avionics
Not that I've heard of . . . and unless you're on
the list of subscribed readers, there's no way
the list server could be duplicating mails. I
think I'd call my ISP's email guy.
Does this happen with emails OTHER than those
from the list server?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
>
>Correct. Uranium also known as "Yellow Cake" enriched to make nuclear
>bombs. I guess the mass graves discovered while looking for the WMD's
>wouldn't have been worth the effort however and were none of the USA's
>business anyway. We should have just left Hussein alone, and not listened
>to Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Gore and the rest. Oh yeah, and a good chunk of
>the billions we spend on the war is going into the pockets of our soldiers
>and employees of manufacturers of the supplies they need.
>
>Dave
. . . having said that, let us concentrate on the near
future (get our machines flying) and the far future (the
800 pound gorilla that was only 700 pounds a few years
ago) that may ultimately find us unable to fly our
airplanes at all. ATC would LOVE it if the only airplanes
on their 'scopes were IFR.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Over filling during flight? |
Sure..In the airpane world this is done with a bulkhead AN fitting that is gooped
with proseal on the outside. This only gives you an AN flared fitting however.
Alternatively you can get a female pipe thread with a base flange that maybe rivetted
onto the tank with blind rivets..Once again the fitting is sealed with
Proseal (otherwise known as black death). These are usually used for fuel drains
and come with a female pipe thread.
Proseal is available is one ounce mini tubs from Vans aircraft.
Frank
601 HDS 400 hours
RV7a 300 Hours
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul wilson
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight?
This thread brings up an interesting question of how to make a penetration to a
tank or header.
Ideally I would like a fitting that could be snaked into the tank and into a drilled
hole in the tank, then a jam nut could be tightened from the outside to
compress a proper o-ring. The gadget should have female pipe threads to screw
the sender into. Not sure how this could be done but it sure beats welding on
a metal tank or gluing a plastic tank.
Anybody heard of such a gadget?
Thanks, Paul
========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over filling during flight? |
Larry,
Visit Aircraft Spruce and check out product number 10-00399, which is
the AE Fuel Guardian. It consists of two optical fuel level sensors
that work by detecting the change in reflectance of the lens. I
bought some for my aircraft and was concerned that a drop of fuel
still on the lens might produce an incorrect reading. Nope, I played
around dipping them in and out of some water. They respond rapidly
and immediately, no matter how I tried to fool them. Not a cheap
product, but it seems a high quality one. Drill as small hole in your
tank. A threaded nut goes on the inside, trapping rubber washers.
(Note - this is an uncommon metric thread).
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> It's a minor modification to my header tank and electrical. I believe
> one sensor with a panel light to engage my attention
> at the header's 75% full mark and disengage the pump switch would be
> easiest to use.
>
> Thank you again for excellent guidance,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Davidson <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel level sensors |
>
>Larry,
>
>Visit Aircraft Spruce and check out product number 10-00399, which is
>the AE Fuel Guardian. It consists of two optical fuel level sensors
>that work by detecting the change in reflectance of the lens. I
>bought some for my aircraft and was concerned that a drop of fuel
>still on the lens might produce an incorrect reading. Nope, I played
>around dipping them in and out of some water. They respond rapidly
>and immediately, no matter how I tried to fool them. Not a cheap
>product, but it seems a high quality one. Drill as small hole in your
>tank. A threaded nut goes on the inside, trapping rubber washers.
>(Note - this is an uncommon metric thread).
>
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Optical liquid level sensing is almost an ancient technology.
I first recall encountering this idea in the "Delco Eye" battery
caps of the 1960's that extended a plastic rod from the top of
a battery cap to the cell-filled point on the water-acid
mixture below. A explanation of how this works is offered
in the following patent:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Optical_Liquid_Level_4670660.pdf
In bright sun, an uncovered tip reflected a high percentage
of ambient light back up to the top causing the center of
the cap to glow green . . . indicating a need for water to
be added.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Delco_Eye_R69_69.jpg
Years later, I crafted an array of 12 lamps and photocells into
a stack of 1/2" thick liquid level sensors that we installed
at the fuel strainer location on a Baron to explore the dynamics
of fuel slosh and outlet un-porting. A column of 12 lamps
on the panel gave instantaneous measurement of fuel level
at the outlet in 1/2" increments. Had the privilege and
pleasure of meeting and flying with Al White on that program!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_S._White
Some years later, I participated in a program that developed
a wide range of optical sensors for the local aircraft
industry. See:
http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html#
In years since, this technology has exploded into a
constellation of products. Generally speaking, the
technology has worked well on airplanes in jet A,
100LL, mogas, hydraulic oil, de-ice fluid, water
tanks, etc.
I can think of only one more user friendly way
to do this . . . and it may become a product. But
in the mean time choices for suitable products
are plentiful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Good Morning Jeff,
No expert here, but this is my take!
There is no requirement for any sort of an approval for you to fly night, or
for that matter, IFR.
Your operating limitation should say something to the effect that the
airplane is supposed to be operated in day VFR unless it meets the appropriate
requirements of 91.205. It is up to you, the operator, to make that
determination. No other action is required.
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 7/17/2008 11:37:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net writes:
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given
Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any
fuses/breakers being accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I
have
gotten answers on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Sure...Not only Night VFR but IFR as well...Actually all this is a bit of a misnomer
because its you the builder that determines whether the airplane is equipped
for Night VFR or IFR.
The DAR/FSDO is only approving for issueing a DAY VFR airworthiness certificate...I.e
for phase 1..After that its up to you to equip as necessary.
Either way none of my fuses are accessible in flight
Frank
601 HDS 400 hours
Rv 7a 300
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Davidson
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility
-->
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Bob,
Apparently I'm ignorant of the problem you reference.
Have the Bonanza drivers been having problems with W31 switch-breakers?
Stan Sutterfield
Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society
and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the
short conversations I had with them today, I perceive
them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can
craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for
that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to
the breaker failures on the Beech products.
I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the
works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with
stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Good Afternoon Stan,
That depends on what you mean!
We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all with any
of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived (falsely most of us
believe) that there is a problem with a very few of the switches.
It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result of
thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur, an electrical
load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of smoke. If something
ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire could ensue.
Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at all
needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem should be more
than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it, but from what he has
written, I think he agrees with the assessment made by most of us who are
affected by the recently issued AD..
Any help at all?
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 7/17/2008 12:19:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Speedy11(at)aol.com writes:
Bob,
Apparently I'm ignorant of the problem you reference.
Have the Bonanza drivers been having problems with W31 switch-breakers?
Stan Sutterfield
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Interestingly, the wording of FAR 91.205 says that spare fuses must be
accessible to the pilot in flight, but never states that the fuses must
be replicable in flight! I guess the reg writers just assumed that if
you have fuses, there would be access to them in flight :-)
My fuseblocks are not accessible in flight. The DAR asked if I had
spare fuses, and I showed him a zip-lock bag of spares I keep in the
pouch on the back of the pilot seat. That was fine with him (and he was
observed by an FAA Inspector for my inspection).
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to
debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly
my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this
subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What
fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down
the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have
provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I
can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with
inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night
operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM
given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
The standard Op Limitations wording has approval for day VFR and night or
IFR when equipped. If your concern is the FAR wording about replacement
fuses, read it carefully. It says, IF the fuses are accessible in flight,
then you need to carry spares. It does not say that the fuses MUST be
accessible in flight, only that if they are you need to carry spares.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Davidson
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker
> Accessibility
>
> -->
>
> I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin
> side of the firewall. It is not accessible to the pilot in
> flight. I don't plan to try to debug electrical problems in
> the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft at
> night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on
> this subject in the archives. All told, the crucial question
> seems to be "What fuses/breakers control a circuit that is
> critical to night flight?" I have gone down the list
> instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I
> have provided a backup power supply (battery) outside of the
> ship's power or that I can fly without the item in question.
> I understand flight can continue with inoperative navigation
> lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
> there?) The transponder is the only item that doesn't have
> some sort of backup, and I can't find any applicable
> requirement for it as far as night operating limitations are
> concerned.
>
> Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting
> their OBAM given Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA
> Inspector without any fuses/breakers being accessible in
> flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
> answers on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
>
> Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
While experimentals generally don't have to comply with the normal
certification standards, I think it's useful to read what the normal
standards say. Here's FAR 23.1357:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not
be used to protect any other circuit.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must
be designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
Item (d) seems most interesting to me. Only if the ability to
reset/replace the protection is required for safety of flight must the
protection be located to be easily accessible while in flight. All other
circuit protection can be located at the convenience of the designer.
Further, if a fault tolerant design is adopted, the failure of no single
item should put the outcome of the flight in jeopardy. That says that no
breakers or fuses need be accessible while in flight. A nice side benefit
of fault tolerant designs. Lots of airplanes have been built this way..
As far as paragraph (c) item (6) (from 91.205 that you mentioned):
"(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that are accessible to the pilot in flight."
I take the important part of that to be "fuses of each kind required".
Since no circuit protection need be accessible according to our good and
proven design, no spare fuses are "required" to be accessible by the
pilot...
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Interestingly, the wording of FAR 91.205 says that spare fuses must be
> accessible to the pilot in flight, but never states that the fuses must
> be replicable in flight! I guess the reg writers just assumed that if
> you have fuses, there would be access to them in flight :-)
> My fuseblocks are not accessible in flight. The DAR asked if I had
> spare fuses, and I showed him a zip-lock bag of spares I keep in the
> pouch on the back of the pilot seat. That was fine with him (and he was
> observed by an FAA Inspector for my inspection).
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> RV7A
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
> firewall.
> It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to
> debug
> electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly
> my craft
> at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this
> subject
> in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What
> fuses/breakers
> control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down
> the
> list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have
> provided
> a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I
> can fly
> without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with
> inoperative
> navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
> there?)
> The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
> and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night
> operating
> limitations are concerned.
>
> Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM
> given Night
> VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
> being
> accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
> answers
> on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
>
> Jeff Davidson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although
that is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device
fails is that the current normally carried by large copper wires within
the breaker takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it
would normally go. For relatively lower currents this really does
pretty much nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it
goes through heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily
remedied by switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground).
While this is not to be construed to be a trivial problem, it is a
problem only if the part fails and then only in a few applications.
What is needed, rather than a wholesale replacement of all the
potentially affected breakers in all the affected airplanes is a simple
way to test them - which it seems that Bob is working on.
Dick Tasker
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Stan,
>
> That depends on what you mean!
>
> We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all
> with any of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived
> (falsely most of us believe) that there is a problem with a very few
> of the switches.
>
> It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result
> of thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur,
> an electrical load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of
> smoke. If something ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire
> could ensue.
>
> Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at
> all needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem
> should be more than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it,
> but from what he has written, I think he agrees with the assessment
> made by most of us who are affected by the recently issued AD..
>
> Any help at all?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
Bob, can you contact me off line? I have a question about Plane Power.
Thanks,
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Good Evening Dick.
I have no argument with your explanation other than it is my understanding
that it is possible that once the little spring has been fried, there will be
no way to positively shut off the power.
I doubt if either you or I know for sure, but it has been explained to me
that such is a possibility.
As you state, it is NOT a problem of the primary current carrying device
getting grounded. The trouble comes after the wire designed to carry the current
within the switch gets old, corroded, and weak which causes it to fall off
it's contacts. Then, when the switch is activated, the current travels through
the switch actuation spring and that little spring is what fails. Chances are
that no real damage will occur because the spring will fail long before very
much current is able to be run through it, but there is the possibility that
the pilot will not be able to deactivate the circuit by any method short of
turning off the master switch.
In any case, I think we can all agree that the FAA has once again fixed a
problem that is not at all likely to occur.
Chances are that the invasion of the wiring loom on the subject aircraft
will cause more problems than would the very unlikely occurrence of a failure of
the switch in question.
What a shame!
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 7/17/2008 5:09:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although
that is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device
fails is that the current normally carried by large copper wires within
the breaker takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it
would normally go. For relatively lower currents this really does
pretty much nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it
goes through heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily
remedied by switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground).
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Problems with multiple emails |
| From: | "selwyn" <selwyn(at)ellisworks.com.au> |
I'm not sure about your particular problem Michele, it could be due to a flaky
internet connection but if that was the case then it is likely to affect mail
from more than one source.
One thing that does clutter up this list (and many others) is entirely under user
control. This where people reply to the list and include the received message
in their reply. If several people do this then the emails sent out by the
list contain multiple repeats of the same original messages with a tidbit of
new information on the front. This creates a lot of repeated junk and makes the
digests just about unreadable.
I've quoted an example below. I picked this one because it was handy, this is
not a criticism of the person who made the post.
Personally I found the email service not worth the trouble because of this repeat posting and have switched to the web BBS interface. Much neater and more friendly. For anyone who wants to try, it is here http://forums.matronics.com. Just pick the aeroelectric list from the index.,
Cheers.
[quote="lists(at)stevet.net"]Michle,
This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting
your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the
messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think
that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system
administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring
where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the
mail. Try using Thunderbird.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote:
>
> =
>
> Matte,
>
> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers.
> Some as
> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of
> getting 10
> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other
> matronics
> lists.
>
> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
> Michle
> RV8 - engine/avionics
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] De la part de
> Terry
> Watson
> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
> : aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Objet : RE: Sleep well tonight, your government
> is awake.
>
>
> >
>
> If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have
> prevented
> 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of
> mass
> destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized
> countries
> that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when
> we needed
> you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you
> would
> have shown them they were wrong.
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> --
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193537#193537
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Thank you everyone for the replies. My fuse block will stay where it is.
If the Inspector/DAR takes a contrary opinion, I'll just have to ask him to
educate me as Bob suggests in an old post.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
7/18/2008
Hello Jeff, You wrote: "Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM
given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
being
accessible in flight?"
A) It is true that FAR Secs 23.1357 (d) and (e) read as follows:
"(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight-
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each
rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot."
B) But you are not building an airplane that must comply with Part 23, you
are building an amateur built experimental airplane that instead needs only
to comply with certain parts of FAR Part 91 under certain circumstances.
C) The paragraph in FAR Sec 91.205 that applies to this issue reads as
follows:
"(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that are accessible to the pilot in flight."
Since you also wrote:
"I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
firewall. It is not accessible to the pilot in flight."
Therefore from a regulatory viewpoint there is no need to be concerned
about:
"What fuses/breakers control a circuit that is critical to night flight?"
Or your access to those specific fuses while in flight.
Since your airplane will be in compliance with applicable regulations the
inspector should not have this subject as an issue unless he has a personal
fetish in this regard.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: Also note that the inspector does not: "...... give(n) Night VFR
operating priviledges......" Instead he issues you a set of Operating
Limitations for your specific airplane which contain this statement:
"After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft
is to be operated under VFR, day only."
This places the burden upon you to have your aircraft properly equipped for
night and/or instrument flight after completion of Phase I flight testing,
not on the inspector at the time of initial airworthiness inspection.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Davidson <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my
craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What
fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have
provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can
fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with
inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given
Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Standards for switch colors? |
| From: | "kkinney" <kkinney(at)fuse.net> |
Pardon my ignorance. I'm trying to correct that.
I'm looking to add colored covers to my toggle switches. Is there a standard for
which each color means? (Similar to red, blue & black knobs on the panel.)
Regards,
Kevin Kinney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193579#193579
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Standards for switch colors? |
Kevin,
Outside the box I suppose that depends if one is color blind? There is
no standard that I am aware of, but it won't hurt to run through the
FAR's. I'm sure you will find that Boeing and Airbus probably have
different standards for the same function. That is a good question worth
pursuing. In the big iron, red is normally emergency, while yellow
indicates caution. That is an international standard.
On your ship pink many mean panic and blue may indicate blown fuse. I've
never heard of a DAR testing all of your idiot lights which may be
impossible to simulate without damage to equipment.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
>
>
>Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although that
>is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device fails is
>that the current normally carried by large copper wires within the breaker
>takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it would normally
>go. For relatively lower currents this really does pretty much
>nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it goes through
>heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily remedied by
>switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground).
>
>While this is not to be construed to be a trivial problem, it is a problem
>only if the part fails and then only in a few applications.
>What is needed, rather than a wholesale replacement of all the potentially
>affected breakers in all the affected airplanes is a simple way to test
>them - which it seems that Bob is working on.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
>BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>Good Afternoon Stan,
>>
>>That depends on what you mean!
>>
>>We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all with
>>any of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived (falsely most
>>of us believe) that there is a problem with a very few of the switches.
>>
>>It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result of
>>thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur, an
>>electrical load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of smoke.
>>If something ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire could ensue.
>>
>>Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at all
>>needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem should be
>>more than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it, but from what
>>he has written, I think he agrees with the assessment made by most of us
>>who are affected by the recently issued AD..
Correct. I'm also discovering that this situation has
deeper roots in political and regulatory bureaucracy
than it does in science and safety. But the AD is what
it is and once issued, it's not going to go away.
I've not been able to look at real failed parts. We're
still trying to do that. If one considers the internal
construction of this device . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_1.jpg
and . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
we see that a current path through the closed switch
comes in the top terminal, through closed contacts,
through the soft-copper jumper fabricated from
a bizillion strands of copper cat hair, around
the corner of the frame to the anchor point of
a bi-metal strut (heater for circuit breaker),
and through another soft-copper jumper out to
the lower terminal.
The bottom jumper is needed to allow the strut
move away from the trip latch as the part
flexes due to heating under electrical load.
The upper jumper gets flexed each time the switch
operates. This arrangement has been laboratory
tested many times and found suitable for use
in aircraft . . . but is an excellent example
of how laboratory testing CAN overlook (or
simply cannot duplicate ALL) effects in the field
not the least of which are subtle levels of
vibration in normal service over LONG periods
of time.
In the article on wire joining as it relates
to terminals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
we considered the effects of mashing a collection
of fine copper strands (fine for resistance to
breaking due to flexing along the run) into essentially
solid conductors at the attach point. This effect
is a constant whether crimped, soldered or spot
welded.
The simple-idea here is that when stranded
wire becomes solid at the electrical joint,
there are stress-risers at the transition
from joint-to-strands. If the wire is going
to break due to flexing (vibration is micro-
flexing), it will break at the transition.
The obvious and elegant solution is SUPPORT to the wire
immediately adjacent to the transition
zone. Hence the DUAL crimp of a PIDG termnal,
one for the connection, the second for
support that prevents flexing at the transition.
Take this idea back to the W31 breaker and we
see that where the soft copper jumpers join
struts and frames, there is a spot weld but
NO SUPPORT.
Magnitude of problem? Obviously no big deal in
the lab . . . and in reality, no big deal in the
airplanes either. None-the-less, a very few of these
switches (compared to over 100,000 parts in service
for 20+ years) have failed.
Now, when the jumper finally fails completely, the
ALTERNATE path for current is through the spring
over the pin in the upper left corner of the pictures.
In the photos, you see the UPGRADED design that includes
a fiberglas sheet that insulates the spring from the
frame. The jumper is still going to fail . . . but
the result is a passive failure that simply causes
the downstream device to stop functioning.
Before the upgrade, current through the spring causes
it to warm up. In the smaller circuits (5 and 10A
switches) one would probably never be aware of the
failure. On the larger circuits (30A prop deice) the
spring heats up like the coils in your toaster and
causes the adjacent plastic of the case to char and
put out some smoke.
The really interesting thing about the AD is that it
seems to be reacting to the smoke . . . and not to
the specific failure and subsequent situation that
is presented to the pilot because that particular system
isn't working. This is especially interesting in view
of the fact that failure of a 30A de-ice breaker is
a whole lot more tense situation than loss of the 10A
nav lights! But when it comes to smoke, the rules are
really hard-over. It matters not that the failure will
not generate a propagating combustion event. I.e., no
fire. This idea is not without foundation in the study
of human factors. From the whole population of airplane
drivers, how many are likely to become !@#$@#-for-brains
pilots when presented with smoke in the cockpit? The
number is small . . . but no doubt significant.
So the result of compliance with the AD doesn't raise
the relative reliability of the overall system, the
failure rate of breaker-switches will remain the same.
it only avoids the potential for panic driven accident
due to smoke.
I've ordered switches and intend to explore ways that
an impending failure might be spotted without removing
the breaker from the airplane. Certainly failed
devices in the lower current ratings can be spotted too.
The road to Nirvana does not take us down the path
of getting the AD rescinded. These are carved in granite
and simply don't go away. However, wording in the AD
does leave a door open for alternate method of compliance
which is the goal of the moment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
>Dear Mr Rob Housman
>
>First of all I have not posted anything on ND alternators
>in months and months.
>
>I don't know what your problem is or what I did to offend
>you, but I do know facts from rhetoric, propaganda and
>hyperbole when I hear it.
Put it to bed George. We've already moved on to
more important things.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Problems with multiple emails |
If it's only happening with the Matronics emails, and Matt confirmed there is
a connection time out, there is a chance your ISP is seeing connections from
Matronics as potential SPAM and is Tarpitting the connections to force the reset
and discourage further SPAM being sent to their servers. Either way, follow
up with your mail server admin.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails
Michele,
Looks like the problem is at your email server. The Matronics server is getting
the follow response from your email server:
RPFD:michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr
MDeferred: Connection timed out with mail.ionfunding.com.
This tells the Matronics server that the email was not properly delivered, so after
a period of time, it tries to deliver it again. Apparently, the message
is actually being delivered, however. This would account for the multiple copies
of the same message.
I would contact your ISP and ask them about their Internet connectivity. They
are probably already aware of connection reliability issues, but it wouldn't hurt
to add your complaint.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Network/Email Manager
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
>
>Please look closely at the switch wiring for the E-Mag in Z13/8.
>
>The operation of the switch as pictured is correct. That is the power
>is applied to the E-Mag while the P Lead is still grounded, and the P
>Lead is grounded before power is removed.
>
>However, the pictorial diagram of the switch does not match the
>diagram of the 2-10 switch shown on Page 11-18.
>
>Assuming that page 11-18 is correct, then the V+, pin 5 of the E-Mag
>should be controlled by switch connections 2-1 and the P Lead, pin 4
>of the E-Mag should be controlled by switch connections 5-6.
>
>Or am I mixed up about something ?
Good eye! I have to be careful when doing major edits
between various z-figures. Some of these drawings were
done 10 years ago before I discovered the differences
between Carling-Like and Microswitch-Like progressive
transfer conventions. A few drawings still have un-revised
blocks embedded in them. I've fixed the error you've
cited and published the new drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
Thanks for the heads-up.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ND Alternator Mod |
| From: | "hgerhardt" <hgerhardt(at)earthlink.net> |
After reading waaaay too much verbal abuse and other hand-wringing about the subject
of internally-regulated alternator "dangers", I finally decided there has
to be a better way than Kilovac contactors and transorbs or praying to various
deities to making these things "safe".
Why not just modify the alternator in such a way as to prevent its ability to run
away in the first place? One vendor in particular does it already, so I thought
that if they can do it, surely it isn't impossible. So, I took my ND alternator
apart one afternoon and stared at the pieces for a while. I also found
manuals of the internal workings on the web and studied those too. I came
up with a method, which I've attached here, that takes about an hour to accomplish
and costs next to nothing. The modification makes it impossible for the
alternator to "run away" (unless the 5A field breaker malfunctions). In a nutshell,
what it does is remove the always-on B+ field feed and replaces it with
power from the "IG" terminal. This way, all of the field current goes through
the IG terminal. Pull the field breaker and there is no possible way for the
field to get power any other way.
Heinrich Gerhardt
RV-6, flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193689#193689
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/denso_alternator_mod_923.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ND Alternator Mod |
>
>After reading waaaay too much verbal abuse and other hand-wringing about
>the subject of internally-regulated alternator "dangers", I finally
>decided there has to be a better way than Kilovac contactors and transorbs
>or praying to various deities to making these things "safe".
>
>Why not just modify the alternator in such a way as to prevent its ability
>to run away in the first place? One vendor in particular does it already,
>so I thought that if they can do it, surely it isn't impossible. So, I
>took my ND alternator apart one afternoon and stared at the pieces for a
>while. I also found manuals of the internal workings on the web and
>studied those too. I came up with a method, which I've attached here,
>that takes about an hour to accomplish and costs next to nothing. The
>modification makes it impossible for the alternator to "run away" (unless
>the 5A field breaker malfunctions). In a nutshell, what it does is remove
>the always-on B+ field feed and replaces it with power from the "IG"
>terminal. This way, all of the field current goes through the IG
>terminal. Pull the field breaker and there is no possible way for the
>field to get power any other way.
>
>Heinrich Gerhardt
>RV-6, flying
>
Heinrich has been gracious enough to favor us with a
document that describes the modification he's talking
about. This paper was not produced by Heinrich but
he promises that the next time he has another alternator
apart for modification, he'll take more pictures to
share with us.
In the mean time, here's the base-line document:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Nipon-Denso_Alternator_Mod.pdf
Thanks Heinrich!
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: | The great(?) debate . . . |
Published works found:
A reader sent me a link to the MTF Industries
website.
One can only guess as to why Paul did not reference this
body of work that supports his and rebuts much of my
work.
I'll leave it up to readers here on the List to deduce
the value of what's published. Assuming that products
described ever become available, it will ultimately be
you folks who validate or debunk the ideas offered at:
http://smartaircraftsystems.com/
At first blush, this system seems to compete with
http://www.verticalpower.com/
This is for information only and not intended to start
a new thread. Before there are schematics and/or hardware
to evaluate, there's nothing worthy of our $time$ to
discuss at length.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ND Alternator Mod |
| From: | "hgerhardt" <hgerhardt(at)earthlink.net> |
Actually, Bob, I DID write that article you posted. My pictures aren't the greatest,
but are good enough to get my points across and for a reasonably savvy
homebuilder to perform the mod.
Heinrich Gerhardt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193718#193718
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ND Alternator Mod |
>
>Actually, Bob, I DID write that article you posted. My pictures aren't
>the greatest, but are good enough to get my points across and for a
>reasonably savvy homebuilder to perform the mod.
Sorry . . . I misunderstood. In any case,
than you for contribution. If you have occasion
to upgrade/revise the work, I'd be pleased to
offer it on the website.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob N:
I have a Rotax 914, which among other things reveals a pair of
ignition wires terminated in female bullet connectors. I have read
discussions regarding Radio Magnetic Interference and must route these to
switches such that I can disconnect them at the firewall for instrument
panel removal and engine removal both.
In view of the engine bullet connections, I opted to relay the wires
in RG400, using BNC connectors at both sides of the firewall - two double
female BNC bulkhead, on 1/32" stainless steel mini-panel through the
firewall. The choice then became which BNC males would I use for the f/w
contacts. I opted for male BNC crimp connectors - for ease of installation
on RG400 and easy disconnect either side. Using solder models seemed a
painful exercise in view of the fidgety steps required, (ham radio
experience here). The cabin side will continue in RG400 to Ignition switches
on the instrument panel.
The Europa instrument panel is minimal and proper distance 'twixt
ignition wires and others dictated a thorough braid grounding, at the bullet
end to the engine casting and (following manufacturer's instructions) at the
earthing end of the ignition switches to achieve proper shorting for safety.
All connectors will be buttressed by heatshrink for security and to
forestall unprogrammed shorts or broken wires - both of which are safety
considerations.
Never having had connection problems with BNCs over 30 years, I
thought I had chosen well, but I'm a flyer not a builder so beg confirmation
that my thinking is correct.
Should I box in the switches electrically to continue shielding all
the way to the finger point, or is the interference minimal at that point in
your estimation? I hesitate to add another last minute mod to the many
already waiting to spring..........
Your sage guidance ( and perhaps of others) greatly appreciated -
when you have time...
Cheers, Ferg
Europa A064
Wiring wiring wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | More sought advice... electrics |
Hello again,
Once more I seek advice - mainly from hams or electronic experience
regarding BNC connectors:
I have opted to connect RG400 coax to BNC male crimp connectors,
mainly for what I thought to be ease of installation....! BUTR where do I
find the correct coax cuttings for the ordinary male crimp BNCs for RG400
(presume also for RG58)? The dimensions seem to escape my
Googlating........or is it Googlizing?.
Thanks, Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | The great(?) debate . . . |
Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and its
concept. If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....
Ralph Finch
RV-9A QB build
-----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: Friday, July 18, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . .
http://www.verticalpower.com/
This is for information only and not intended to start a new thread. Before
there are schematics and/or hardware to evaluate, there's nothing worthy of
our $time$ to discuss at length.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: More sought advice... electrics |
Ferg,
You can get these via B&C (http://bandc.biz) or Steinair
(http://steinair.com) among other sources. At least B&C (maybe Stein)
also offers the proper hex crimp tool.
Ron
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
....
> BUTR where do I
> find the correct coax cuttings for the ordinary male crimp BNCs for RG400
> (presume also for RG58)? The dimensions seem to escape my
> Googlating........or is it Googlizing?.
> Thanks, Ferg
> Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | IR to ER alternator mod |
Bob,
Here is another IR to ER alternator mod.
I would appreciate your evaluation and comments as I may use this method.
Thanks,
Roger
http://www.falco.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemi
d=72
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More sought advice... electrics |
>
>Hello again,
> Once more I seek advice - mainly from hams or electronic experience
>regarding BNC connectors:
> I have opted to connect RG400 coax to BNC male crimp connectors,
>mainly for what I thought to be ease of installation....! BUTR where do I
>find the correct coax cuttings for the ordinary male crimp BNCs for RG400
>(presume also for RG58)? The dimensions seem to escape my
>Googlating........or is it Googlizing?.
Anything that fits RG-58 fits 142 or 400. The connectors
are available from a host of sources not the least of
which are B&C. You can get them from these folks as well:
http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=5401+RC
http://tinyurl.com/5n25gv
the tool that installs these needs to have two dies,
.068" for the pin, .213" for the ferule. If you
can find a tool with AMP or MOLEX dies in it, you're
off and running. El-cheeso tools tend to be undersized
on the .213 die. So if a tad (and I'm talking .0005")
the ferule flashes out a tad into the gap between
the dies.
The safest approach for el-cheeso tools is the
Radio Shack 278-238
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62636
This tool doesn't have ratchet handles. If the crimps
tend to be too tight, you can manually relax the grip
before the tool bottoms out and you'll get a nice, smooth
hex on the ferule.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
You'll also find a three-blade stripper to be really
handy. This tool . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Strippers/Three-Blade_Stripper.jpg
. . . can be had off Ebay for really cheap.
http://tinyurl.com/6g444g
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Standards for switch colors? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I have actually seen such proposed "Standards", but I don't think they stuck. But
the FAA wants a paddle on the flap switch/lever, and a wheel on the landing
gear switch/lever. They were headed in the right direction.
Sec. 23.781 Cockpit control knob shape.
(a) Flap and landing gear control knobs must conform to the general shapes (but
not necessarily the exact sizes or specific proportions) in the following figure:
Flap Control Knob, Landing Gear Control Knob see for particulars.
(b) Powerplant control knobs must conform to the general shapes (but not necessarily
the exact sizes or specific proportions) in the following figure:
Power (Thrust) Control Knob, RPM Control Knob, Mixture Control Knob,
Carb Heat or Alternate Air Control Knob, Supercharger Control Knob
Fuel Selectors must be red, and there are some other minor callouts for colors
such as the pitot heat lights, but not much.
I am unhappy with red warnings because I can't see them. Rather than plain color
switches, the military likes striped controls. Nightlights make colors a difficult
problem for everybody. Putting in Jules Verne knobs with crystal pommels
would suit me fine, or beer-tap handles for the really important stuff. My cockpit
(...if ever...) will not be very standard. Experimental builders have some
great ideas.
I also want to again point out that some of the best articles on panel design were
published by Ricardo A. Price, in Kitplanes Dec95 and Jan96 and Feb96. They
deserve a place of honor:
http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/avionics_electronics/7273-1.phtml
http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/avionics_electronics/7272-1.phtml
http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/avionics_electronics/7271-1.phtml
I also attached a DRAFT of my panel design write-up, just notes basically.... I
may have even have some pirated stuff there that I dropped in cut-and-paste as
reference notes.
--------
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=193812#193812
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/instrument_panels_201.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The great(?) debate . . . |
>
>Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and its
>concept. If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....
>
>Ralph Finch
>RV-9A QB build
Vertical Power . . . and competitors offer a high
degree of integration for monitoring, automatic controls,
display of parameters of interest, some degree of
plug-n-play architecture and perhaps some computer
driven features that can be accessed by the user. These
might include check-lists and data gathering on some aspects
of system performance.
When compared with the breaker/fuse,-switch-wire-contactors
approach common to most of GA light-planes, it's an entirely
new world with design goals never considered until the
technology and manufacturing evolved. Certainly there have
been huge advancements in the capabilities we have to
"go solid state" or "enhance pilot ability to exert
a high degree of command and control with a reduced
workload." And, of course, we'll see the words "safety"
and "reliability" pop up in the advertisements as well.
I'm not sure there is value in trying to compare $300 worth
of wire, switches, fuses or breakers and the occasional
contactor with these new kids on the block. For years
I witnessed demonstrations at OSH by entrepreneurial
hopefuls for controlling the airplane over serial busses
"for the purpose of reducing wire weight."
The first question that comes to mind is what degree of
complexity has been added (along with vulnerabilities
to RF and lightning) in order to take perhaps 2 pounds
out of the empty weight of an RV? The earliest manifestations
of this trend were not very exciting because the part
counts went up. Further, maintenance spares were not the
kinds of parts you can buy at Aircraft Spruce, Steinair or B&C.
Over the years, the size and power of the proposed
computers grew as prices for those computers and their
design tools went down. Now we could begin to think
about doing things that the $300 lot of hardware cited
above cannot nor were ever intended to do. You can
"program" these things to exercise some intelligence,
display on LCD screens, take input from touch-screens, etc.
Now you have an entirely different product. It's
a flight management system that also happens to
replace $300 worth of hardware. Lighter than the
$300 system? Probably not. Sexier than the $300
system, you betcha!
The decision to incorporate this technology into
your airplane goes WWAAaayyy beyond the thought
processes we used to buy $300 worth of stuff
from B&C. This is because the new idea can do much
more than turn things on and off and keep wires from
burning up if faulted.
Now we find ourselves considering software driven
fault detection and clearing, software driven
on/off control, solid state switches replacing
every toggle, entering and displaying checklists,
recording clearances, etc. etc.
It's like stepping up from a 6-cyl, stick-shift,
chevy with nothing on it to a Lexus with everything
on it. Both vehicles take fuel and time to get you
from point A to point B. The differences to be
considered now become very personal. Some pilots
among you take some personal pride in designing,
crafting, understanding, operating and maintaining
the system built from $300 worth of parts. They
also do not feel intimidated about the thought
processes and actions necessary to deal with
a malfunction of a component in that system.
On the other hand, if the owner is especially
fond of the notion of automating these processes
and turning responsibility over to a suite of
components that he doesn't understand and cannot
service, then there are folks ready to offer systems
that addresses that desire.
The easiest targets for the latest-and-greatest
are those who do not understand the $300 system
and easily transition to not understanding
the multi-killobuck system as well. Probably
driven by some idea that if all the necessary
things for operating the system are taken
care of in software, then the owner/pilot need
not be concerned with such matters.
The decision to take advantage of highly
integrated, bells-and-whistles products is more
a matter of personal preferences than one of
utility and especially safety. Your airplane
isn't gong to fly any faster. It's not going to
be any lighter. The volume of stuff behind the
panel will be higher. And yes, one can be
relieved of having to deal with the occasional
but usually non-threatening failure of a
component . . . assuming the $300 worth of stuff
was crafted into a failure tolerant system.
My personal preference is driven by my professional
understanding of the components and architectures
available to me. Toss in the admittedly dated
"Mother! I want to do it myself!" attitude handed
down to me by my predecessors. A sort of "The Right
Stuff" approach to minimizing complexity where
it fails to increase the efficiency of the machine
or reduce cost of ownership. When I'm looking for
the ultimate convenience of operation, speed,
comfort, and lowest cost of ownership I buy
a ticket on a big iron bird. If I owned an OBAM
aircraft (or de-certified factory machine) it would
not be for the purpose of elevating its function
to level of a flying Lexus.
My personal "dream machine" is a de-certified
Pacer with Mogas STC. Strip out the back seats
and put in cargo tie-down platform. Strip out
electrical system and put Z13/8. Strip out
that butt-busting bench seat and put in nice
buckets out of an automobile. NOW, for a pittance
in relative costs, a lot of labor, I have
a product of my imagination, $time$ and
talents that I'm willing to suffer in for nine
hours of noise and bumps (NOT counting fuel
stops) to the west coast.
But be cautious of any notions that these
systems are safer or more reliable. Electrical system
malfunctions are very small contributors to
expensive or life threatening accidents. Reliability
has to be defined in terms whether any given failure
is a maintenance or safety issue. Are you striving
for never turning a wrench? Or perhaps maximizing the
numbers of no-sweat arrivals? I personally have no
problem with replacing the occasional inexpensive part
in a failure tolerant system. That's why I would
even choose to own an OBAM aircraft in the first
place. I have no doubt that these do-everything
products function as advertised. Return on investment
will not be known until we have years of marketplace
history.
Those of you considering the make-or-buy decision,
have to build you own case for $time$, design goals
and the satisfaction of getting utility out of the
best YOU know how to do in YOUR dream machine. A
big chunk of that equation considers how much you're
willing to learn and build as opposed to buying it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Found an unused Carling 2-10 switch in my electrical supply box today,
so
pulled out my now ragged copy of the Aeroelectric Connection and my che
apo
RS multimeter to confirm what I had previously posted - that the pin
positions were transposed left to right from the diagram in the
'Connection.
They are indeed transposed, assuming a view looking at the back of the
switch with the keyway up. The date code on the side of the switch is
0443.
I am sure that the transposition is not just a single switch anomaly,
because I had more than one of these on my plane, and I remember making
the
wiring correction in multiple places - in my case, two p-mag switches a
nd a
landing lights/wig-wag switch.
regards,
Erich Weaver
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not reta
in,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should dest
roy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cabbages and kings . . . |
>
>
> > The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing
> > off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed
> > does not suggest a means by which an alternator may
> > be controlled . . . I'm presuming that the "new
> > philosophy" is that the artfully designed system
> > of the future does not demand control. I'm not
> > aware of how that might be accomplished.
>
>
>The prototyped device is good to 150V. I admit that this may not be the
>final form, that's why it's called a prototype. The LT4356 doesn't do
>anything that couldn't have been done earlier. It is just far simpler. The
>diagram in my paper is not a schematic. Attached is the schematic of my
>prototype.
>
>As for the kind offer to re-open old subjects like crowbars,
>bi-directional Zeners for coil suppression, battery meters (instead of
>dual batteries), Schottkys, elimination of contactors, etc., etc.--I
>looked in the mirror this morning and nobody had written "STUPID" on my
>forehead, so I guess it won't happen. But if I bump my head REALLY HARD,
>I'll be sure to let you know.
Eric, please allow me to offer a quotation from one
of my personal heros:
" . . . there is a kind of responsibility which
the scientists feel toward each other which can
represent as a kind of morality. What's the right
way and the wrong way to report results? Disinterestedly,
so that the other man is free to understand precisely
what you are saying, and nearly as possible not
covering it with your desires. That is a useful thing
which helps us to understand each other . . ."
"And so there is, if you will, a kind of scientific
morality."
"Advertising, for example, is a scientifically
immoral description of the products. This immorality
is so extensive that one gets so used to it in
ordinary life, that you do not appreciate that
it is a bad thing."
These are excerpts from Richard Feynman's remarks
at the 1964 Galileo Symposium in Italy.
I found these remarks recently while re-reading
a book of Feynman's works which you can see parts
of here. This link takes you right to the page(s)
where the ideas cited above are found:
http://tinyurl.com/5jm7xt
Indeed, let us not re-open old arguments where one
or more of the participants is engaged in the
"immorality of advertising" Feynman describes.
If it suits your purposes better, we need not open
those discussions for any reason because I have
no advertising imperatives. Many of my ideas do
exist in hardware for sale by myself and others
but that isn't what the List should be about.
I wish to craft no tolerance for the mindless
acceptance of advertising here on the List, only
a quest for understanding borne up by simple-ideas as
ingredients that go into recipes for success.
It's the free-market manner in which your version of
"pancakes" might differ in ingredients from my
version of "flapjacks". It's the free market that
can and will pass judgment on our respective
products based on performance, return on
investment, customer service and integrity of
the offerors of such products.
You have laid your list of ingredients out
for all of us here on the list and suggested
a way that they be combined to become a product.
Why? I can only guess. My hope is that you've
opened a door to a discussion. This is an activity
I'm pleased to participate in as long as you're
not depending upon smearing another person's ideas,
products or integrity for the purpose of marketing
your own.
So the experiment: Would you outline for the List
the design goals for the device you've described?
How does it integrate into an OBAM aircraft system
and what functions is it designed to provide? I'd
be willing to participate in a critical design
review not unlike those I enjoyed in my former life.
There are, I am sure, others on the List who have
curiosities to satisfy and ideas to contribute.
You'll be hard pressed to find another group
so willing to contribute to your success for
so low a price!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
>Found an unused Carling 2-10 switch in my electrical supply box today, so
>pulled out my now ragged copy of the Aeroelectric Connection and my cheapo
>RS multimeter to confirm what I had previously posted - that the pin
>positions were transposed left to right from the diagram in the 'Connection.
>
>They are indeed transposed, assuming a view looking at the back of the
>switch with the keyway up. The date code on the side of the switch is 0443.
>
>I am sure that the transposition is not just a single switch anomaly,
>because I had more than one of these on my plane, and I remember making
>the wiring correction in multiple places - in my case, two p-mag switches
>and a landing lights/wig-wag switch.
>
>regards,
>
>Erich Weaver
Excellent hard data! Thank you sir. I've
not heard from Carling yet but it seems likely
that their "odd-man-out" position in the market
place for switches would be a powerful incentive
to swap columns and bring their functionality
into synchronization with the rest of the industry.
I think I'll be revising the switch ratings document
to include a caveat for testing any given switch
to determine it's position in the industry. Carling
is the only company I'm aware of that did not conform
but that doesn't mean there are not others.
It would be really cool if Carling could offer a date
range for the change-over.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frequent flyer <jdhcv(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi, i know this has just been a subject but i have some switches that are n
ot marked the same as Bob's book. no #s on the pins.- I believe they are
10-20 & 10-50 but not sure. there are no pin #s on them and Bob's drawings
are totally different. Help!- Jack, Glasair IIS-FT in AZ
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | More advice sought II |
Hey,
Perhaps I should clarify my request:
I have the male BNC crimp connectors and I have the applicable
crimpers. What is missing is the dimensions of the cuts for the centre wire,
the internal insulation, the coaxial shield and the cover. It's the
instructions I need.
Cheers, ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: More advice sought II |
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
...
> It's the
> instructions I need.
> Cheers, ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: More advice sought II |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Depending on which connector you have, I've had past success on the
manufacturers' web sites finding that type on information.
Ron Q.
At 19:47 7/19/2008, you wrote:
>Hey,
> Perhaps I should clarify my request:
> I have the male BNC crimp connectors and I have the applicable
>crimpers. What is missing is the dimensions of the cuts for the centre wire,
>the internal insulation, the coaxial shield and the cover. It's the
>instructions I need.
>Cheers, ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob, I'm with you on this.
I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I don't feel
comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where everything is
tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to distributed microprocessors
all over the place--in instruments, clocks, radios, displays, etc. I even
like one-wire buses.
Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature of every
cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my neck stood
straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there were computers
and backups and backups for the backups for the backups. When has it been said
"that the disaster happened because we didn't have enough automation"? (At Chernobyl,
they turned OFF the computer safety interlocks.)
In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central computer,
but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe two, and then
some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a small IT person
for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design uses no central computer(s),
and furthermore only uses microprocessors where they really add to the function.
Good designers can disagree on this, but I am building an airplane that
I will like to fly.
Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something like)
"What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly miraculous airplane
could be had by this very simple process...
1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone dog held-together-with-duct-tape,
unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it is the better.
2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley, and every
piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to better than
factory fresh.
3) With the bushels of moneyyou saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very best
seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best speed mods
that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company name!) can produce.
Get the autogas STC too.
What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will handily outperform
any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour (or so), will
lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed latinum bricks) off short
runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell for three times what you paid.
It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
--------
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=193896#193896
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
>
>Bob, I'm with you on this.
>
>I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I
>don't feel comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where
>everything is tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to
>distributed microprocessors all over the place--in instruments, clocks,
>radios, displays, etc. I even like one-wire buses.
Yes, I believe I was instrumental in getting the first
CAN-Bus onto a certified aircraft about 10 years ago.
We used CAN to interconnect a suite of smart flap
actuators on the Eclipse. When I proposed CAN for
some projects I've been privileged to work on, it
was immediately embraced by the software guys we
were teamed with, "Yeah, we've been really happy
with that technology, use it all the time."
CAN was developed by Bosch with an eye on the
ground transportation market. It was sucked
into the textile industry big-time as a solution for
implementing distributed processing on large
looms, and it's been growing like a weed since.
It's simple, easy to implement and just about
everybody offers one or more microcontrollers
with a CAN engine on the chip.
>Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature
>of every cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my
>neck stood straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there
>were computers and backups and backups for the backups for the backups.
>When has it been said "that the disaster happened because we didn't have
>enough automation"? (At Chernobyl, they turned OFF the computer safety
>interlocks.)
It's easy to get sucked into the notion that
since computers can do so much more than the
humble gray matter and do it faster, that we
can do ourselves a service by letting them
take on more and more of our responsibilities.
But they are just tools. Unthinking, unfeeling,
unimaginative tools that are not self healing
and not educable. They do not learn from their
mistakes and they break.
I've used and proposed a lot of them in new products
to reduce parts count, improve on capability of
the appliance to help humans own, operate and
maintain their machines. But I'm exceedingly
cautious of handing off any form of essential
responsibility to them. Our colleagues are
equally skeptical, hence the evolution of DO-178
software development and testing rules. I am
equally cautious of using them to ADD to the
ability to do things that we've not found necessary
or useful to do in the 100 year history of
airplanes.
By the same line of reasoning, I'm not automatically
on the wagon with those who imagine, develop and
market do-everything products just because they
can. Once the product exists they're saddled
with a need to market that product. When there no
convincing operational and cost-of-ownership
incentives arise for folks considering the product,
they must resort to the oldest selling hammers
in the book. Capitalize on the ignorance
and fears of the consumer by invoking the
gods of safety, reliability and of course
convenience.
>In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central
>computer, but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe
>two, and then some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a
>small IT person for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design
>uses no central computer(s), and furthermore only uses microprocessors
>where they really add to the function. Good designers can disagree on
>this, but I am building an airplane that I will like to fly.
When I saw NSI's fully redundant, twin EFI
system schematics, I was similarly disposed to
avoid getting involved in the program. I suggested
that having ONE really capable EFI system backed
up with a stone simple, non-electronic way to
keep the engine running was preferable, less expensive,
lighter, etc, etc. Some years back, a few folks
installed my suggested "primer-line fuel injection"
on their airplanes to back up the carburetor. One
reader wrote later that he used it to get back on
the ground comfortably after a fuel selector valve froze up.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/All-Elect-Fuel.jpg
My personal design goals call for the back up
system to be simpler, stand-alone alternatives
to the bells-and-whistles that are interdependent
on each other . . . things that break.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
>Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something
>like) "What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly
>miraculous airplane could be had by this very simple process...
>
>1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone
>dog held-together-with-duct-tape, unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it
>is the better.
I know a guy in Harper that owns that airplane! He
makes a ton of money with it photographing field
conditions for the department of agriculture. Airplane
looks like crap but flies hundreds of hours a year
at a very reasonable cost of ownership.
>2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley,
>and every piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to
>better than factory fresh.
>
>3) With the bushels of moneyyou saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very
>best seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best
>speed mods that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company
>name!) can produce. Get the autogas STC too.
>
>What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will
>handily outperform any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour
>(or so), will lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed
>latinum bricks) off short runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell
>for three times what you paid. It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T
>HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
Exactly. I think the vast majority of small airplane
owners possess these money-pits because of the
opportunity it affords to DO SOMETHING that very
few others choose to do. If somebody offered me
an airplane that you climb into, program a destination
and push the go-button, I wouldn't be the least
interested at any price.
I would prefer that Pacer because it's a product
of my imagination and efforts to achieve a degree
of utility and freedom that few experience and
enjoy. There are folks that look at me with a
skeptical expression and ask, "You ENJOY getting
into that uncomfortable, noisy, expensive, un-forgiving
machine and going somewhere?" Yes I do. Others
get off on sky diving, snow boarding, speed boats,
etc. But I like airplanes.
About 15 years ago there was a company that made
a pretty good business out of buying up select models
of Cherokee, stripping them down to the structure.
Re-prime, repaint, new seats, new panel, fresh
engine. They could offer an as-new machine
with modern electrics for a fraction of the
cost of a new one and it flew just as good.
> "...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
> Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
> Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
> and cornbread; nothing else...."
> --Will Rogers
A couple of nicely pickled jalapenos would be
nice . . . but as Mr Rogers would no doubt
observe, not essential.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More advice sought II |
>
>Hey,
> Perhaps I should clarify my request:
> I have the male BNC crimp connectors and I have the applicable
>crimpers. What is missing is the dimensions of the cuts for the centre wire,
>the internal insulation, the coaxial shield and the cover. It's the
>instructions I need.
. . . or I need to clean my glasses! Here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/RG400_BNC_Trim.jpg
The exposures for shield, inner insulation and center
conductor are 8mm, 4mm, 3mm respectively.
These are set for you automatically by the three-blade
strippers cited earlier but you can do it with an
sharp Swiss Army knife too!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More advice sought II |
>
>See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I need to update that article. When I was doing it all
by hand, I choose to trim the excess braid after the
connector was crimped on. The three-blade strippers
make this task MUCH faster and neater.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
Bob,
Although I can display the document, I cannot save it. I suspect
there is a PDF flag that was incorrectly set when you produced the PDF.
Jeff Page
> I've fixed the error you've cited and published the new drawing at:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>Hi, i know this has just been a subject but i have some switches that are
>not marked the same as Bob's book. no #s on the pins. I believe they are
>10-20 & 10-50 but not sure. there are no pin #s on them and Bob's drawings
>are totally different. Help! Jack, Glasair IIS-FT in
They are either Microswitch-like or Carling-like as
illustrated in the figure on page 9 of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
Put the switch in mid position, keyway up and look
for continuity between MIDDLE and LOWER terminals on
each side. If the right-side terminals are connected,
then those are your 1-2 terminals and the switch
operates like a Microswitch. If the left-side terminals
are connected, then the switch operates like the older
Carlings and the other figure applies.
If you purchased the switches recently, then based on
what we're hearing from users in the field, the
Microswich-like numbering seems the likely answer to
your question . . . but a simple ohmmeter check will confirm.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jorge Rodriguez" <sonexpilot(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Newbie Z-21A question |
Hi. I'm new to this list and am no electrical expert. I am about to get
started on the electrical system for my Jabiru 3300 Sonex, and I've been
studying all of the material in the Connection web site. I have the
following questions about the Z-21A diagram. In the diagram the wires out
of the alternator are wired to a Diode Bridge but nothing is wired to the
Power Load (+). What is this Diode Bridge for? Also the Voltage
Rectifier/Regulator in my jabiru engine has an extra positive (yellow)
wire. Where in this diagram can I connect this wire? In a couple of places
I see squigully lines with labeles like 1K, 3w and 3K, 3W, are these
resistors? Are they really needed? What for?
Thank you all for any help.
Regards,
Jorge Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? |
>
>Bob,
>Although I can display the document, I cannot save it. I suspect
>there is a PDF flag that was incorrectly set when you produced the PDF.
>Jeff Page
>
>> I've fixed the error you've cited and published the new drawing at:
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
>
It's the same settings I've used since day-one. The only
flags I have to remember to set each time I upload a file
to the server is to make them executable by all.
My ftp program doesn't do that automatically. I just
downloaded the file and saved it both through the browser
'save page as' and Adobe's file save tag.
Try right-clicking the link in your browser and telling
it where to store the file as opposed to opening directly
from the browser.
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: Newbie Z-21A question |
>Hi. I'm new to this list and am no electrical expert. I am about to get
>started on the electrical system for my Jabiru 3300 Sonex, and I've been
>studying all of the material in the Connection web site. I have the
>following questions about the Z-21A diagram. In the diagram the wires out
>of the alternator are wired to a Diode Bridge but nothing is wired to the
>Power Load (+). What is this Diode Bridge for? Also the Voltage
>Rectifier/Regulator in my jabiru engine has an extra positive (yellow)
>wire. Where in this diagram can I connect this wire? In a couple of
>places I see squigully lines with labeles like 1K, 3w and 3K, 3W, are
>these resistors? Are they really needed? What for?
Note 25 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
speaks to this question:
--------------------------
Note 25. Making the SD-8 Come-Alive without a
battery:
Subsequent to some excellent 'skunk werks' efforts
on the part of Jim McCulley, the 'Connection is pleased to
offer a work-around to older SD-8 alternator installations
that encourages this useful product to come on line without
benefit of a battery. Adding a pair of diodes and a start-up
bias resistor as shown in Z-25, the SD-8 will come up and
run as soon as the engine is started.
I've suggested the diode bridge rectifier for this application
but you can use wired-leaded devices like 1N5400 series
devices from Radio Shack and others. The advantage of the
diode-bridge is that splices between dynamo and regulator
lead wires can happen in the same PIDG terminals used to
wire the rectifier.
Suitable parts include the following Digikey catalog
numbers:
1 each 1GBPC1204/1 Diode Bridge
1 each ALSR3F1.0K 1,000 Ohm/3W
1 each ALSR3F3.0K 3,000 Ohm/3W
2 each 1N5400 3A, 50V Diode Rectifier
These parts are chosen more for their mechanical
configuration and robustness than for electrical ratings.
Many other styles of parts may be substituted. With these
added parts, one may connect a voltmeter across the 22,000
uFd filter capacitor. A few seconds after the engine is
started, one should observe that the voltage across the
capacitor jumps up to about 6 volts at engine idle. The
voltage rises with RPM until the regulator takes over to
maintain output at about 14.2 volts at cruise RPM.
----------------------
I don't recall now the rationale for applying this
technique to the Jabiru drawings. The ability of the
PM alternator to come on line without a battery is
a function of RECTIFIER/REGULATOR design. We know
that regulators supplied with the SD-8 have not
exhibit this ability in the past and adding the
resistors and diodes cited above are a reasonable
approach to making the system work without a
battery.
However, I don't recall if we had specific information
about the rectifier/regulator supplied/recommended
for use with Jabiru's PM alternators. For now, leave
the parts cited off. See how your particular alternator-
rectifier/regulator behaves and then get back with us
on the List if you determine that it will not come
up without a battery and you would like for it to
have that feature.
This is not a big deal worthy of your concerns right
now, let's take this up in the future after you've
slain all the dragons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Listers,
A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision
to sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a
beautiful, well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
RV-6A FOR SALE
Completed 2005 Total time <140 hrs
O-320-D1A Total time since new <140 hrs
Hartzell C/S Prop total time since new <140 hrs
Slider
Great paint
Garmin GNS 430 nav/com
SL-30 nav/com
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel
Dual CDI
IFR panel, heated pitot
Dual Duckworks landing/taxi lights with Wig-Wag
S-Tech System 20 auto pilot
New main tires
Always hangared
March 2008 annual
Asking: :$100K
Serious buyers contact me for photos and more details off line at:
rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net
Richard Dudley
Orlando, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A For Sale |
>Listers,
>
>A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision to
>sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a beautiful,
>well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
Sorry to hear this my friend . . . for two reasons:
That you've had to toss in the towel give up
on what had to be an exciting and rewarding
experience . . .
and the reminder that we are all mortals and will
have to make similar decisions at some point in
our lives.
I sure that all of us on the List wish you well
and hope that you'll be able to keep at least
one foot in OBAM aviation . . . you won't find
a better bunch of folks to hang around with.
Pass the word guys. Let's see if we can help
Richard sell his airplane. Richard, it might
be too late or impossible right now . . . but
having the airplane on the flight line at
OSH with a "for sale" sign on the prop would be
a powerful marketplace.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob N,
I need counseling. I clearly missed your article on the assembly of
the subject item....
My apologies for taking your time. As you stated earlier, it's all described
in:
"Installation of Coax Connectors with RCT2 crimp Tool"
Much obliged!
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition cables |
>
>Bob N:
> I have a Rotax 914, which among other things reveals a pair of
>ignition wires terminated in female bullet connectors. I have read
>discussions regarding Radio Magnetic Interference and must route these to
>switches such that I can disconnect them at the firewall for instrument
>panel removal and engine removal both.
> In view of the engine bullet connections, I opted to relay the wires
>in RG400, using BNC connectors at both sides of the firewall - two double
>female BNC bulkhead, on 1/32" stainless steel mini-panel through the
>firewall. The choice then became which BNC males would I use for the f/w
>contacts. I opted for male BNC crimp connectors - for ease of installation
>on RG400 and easy disconnect either side. Using solder models seemed a
>painful exercise in view of the fidgety steps required, (ham radio
>experience here). The cabin side will continue in RG400 to Ignition switches
>on the instrument panel.
> The Europa instrument panel is minimal and proper distance 'twixt
>ignition wires and others dictated a thorough braid grounding, at the bullet
>end to the engine casting and (following manufacturer's instructions) at the
>earthing end of the ignition switches to achieve proper shorting for safety.
>All connectors will be buttressed by heatshrink for security and to
>forestall unprogrammed shorts or broken wires - both of which are safety
>considerations.
> Never having had connection problems with BNCs over 30 years, I
>thought I had chosen well, but I'm a flyer not a builder so beg confirmation
>that my thinking is correct.
> Should I box in the switches electrically to continue shielding all
>the way to the finger point, or is the interference minimal at that point in
>your estimation? I hesitate to add another last minute mod to the many
>already waiting to spring..........
> Your sage guidance ( and perhaps of others) greatly appreciated -
>when you have time...
I think you've made this much too complicated my friend. The 914's
ignition wiring is no more "ugly" with respect to noise and
installation imperatives than our beloved mags . . . and probably
even less so.
The "bullet" connectors are more problematic than the kind
of wire you use. These are large area, low pressure connections
not unlike our glass-cartridge fuse holders of yesteryear.
Knife splices under heat-shrink are much more aircraft-friendly.
You could run an ordinary twisted pair of 20AWG wires to the
switches on the panel but at most, ordinary shielded wire treated
at the ends with techniques described in
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
would be entirely sufficient to your task. You could put
rings or fast-ons on one end for the switch and knife-
splices on the other end to connect to the engine.
I'd save that RG400 for those magical radio signals
that truly benefit from the capabilities of high quality
coaxial cable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Here is another IR to ER alternator mod.
>
>I would appreciate your evaluation and comments as I may use this method.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger
>
>
>http://www.falco.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemi
>d=72
I'm not in a position to comb it for details but the
concept is solid and if the writer has made no errors,
it will work as advertised. I'm not hard over on removing
the built in regulators. As a rule, these are perfectly
satisfactory pieces of electronics. So if your thinking
runs more in line with Plane Power's approach to adapting
the IR alternator (and as suggested in the earlier mod
article) I sure wouldn't have any heartburn over it.
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: Male crimp BNCs |
>
>Bob N,
> I need counseling. I clearly missed your article on the assembly of
>the subject item....
>My apologies for taking your time. As you stated earlier, it's all described
>in:
>"Installation of Coax Connectors with RCT2 crimp Tool"
> Much obliged!
Yeah, sort of. Note the differences between technique proffered
in the article and those suggested by the trimming results
produced by the three-blade stripper.
The article leaves the shield wires too long until after
the connector is installed because I found it easier to
trim the fuzzies afterward. The 3-blade tool does all
the dimensioning in one cut. So there is a difference
albeit a minor one.
However if you're wrestling with connectors and RG400
for your ignition wiring, I think you may be suffering
from a bit of overkill in the application of coax. See
my posting of a few minutes ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A For Sale |
Thanks, Bob for your response!
It is a heart wrenching decision, but the only reasonable/rational decision
for us at this time. Advancing age and financial obligations dictate this.
No doubt, there were better times in the not too distant past for selling an
aircraft. We'll see how this unfolds.
This airplane uses your Z-11 design with only slight modification, one of
your versions of Wig-Wag design, your external power design, Aeroelectric or
B & C switches, ground forest of tabs, contactors, alternator and regulator,
dimmer, fuse blocks and a variety of ideas and recommendations for
interconnections, faston tabs, wire labeling and so on. The building and
flying this airplane has been a great learning experience and pleasure. This
goes for two people: myself and my wife of 52 years who became a competent
riveter working both ends of the rivet.
Best regards,
Richard and Ruth Dudley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A For Sale
>
>
>
>>Listers,
>>
>>A combination of health and financial factors have forced our decision to
>>sell our beloved airplane. If you are seriously looking for a beautiful,
>>well-equipped and flying RV-6A read the description below.
>
>
> Sorry to hear this my friend . . . for two reasons:
>
> That you've had to toss in the towel give up
> on what had to be an exciting and rewarding
> experience . . .
>
> and the reminder that we are all mortals and will
> have to make similar decisions at some point in
> our lives.
>
> I sure that all of us on the List wish you well
> and hope that you'll be able to keep at least
> one foot in OBAM aviation . . . you won't find
> a better bunch of folks to hang around with.
>
> Pass the word guys. Let's see if we can help
> Richard sell his airplane. Richard, it might
> be too late or impossible right now . . . but
> having the airplane on the flight line at
> OSH with a "for sale" sign on the prop would be
> a powerful marketplace.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | "primer-line fuel injection" |
Greetings Bob,
I'm very interested in any other info you have available on this system.
I have decided to put a primer in my engine even thou the carb I will be
using will have an "accelerator" pump. One of my fellow students when I was
getting my PP was able to keep his airplane in the air for approx 15 min. by
pumping the primer until the primary fuel system started working again. I'm
convinced of the value of a primer as a redundant fuel system and yours in
the only design I've seen that could be called a system to make use of it.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The great(?) debate . . .
>
> Some years back, a few folks
> installed my suggested "primer-line fuel injection"
> on their airplanes to back up the carburetor. One
> reader wrote later that he used it to get back on
> the ground comfortably after a fuel selector valve froze up.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/All-Elect-Fuel.jpg
>
> My personal design goals call for the back up
> system to be simpler, stand-alone alternatives
> to the bells-and-whistles that are interdependent
> on each other . . . things that break.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
>
>Greetings Bob,
>
> I'm very interested in any other info you have available on this
> system. I have decided to put a primer in my engine even thou the carb I
> will be using will have an "accelerator" pump. One of my fellow students
> when I was getting my PP was able to keep his airplane in the air for
> approx 15 min. by pumping the primer until the primary fuel system
> started working again. I'm convinced of the value of a primer as a
> redundant fuel system and yours in the only design I've seen that could
> be called a system to make use of it.
I think I published the story behind this idea but
it's been some time. It's probably worth repeating.
If you consider the "fuel injection" delivery systems
offered on GA aircraft engines for 70 years or more,
they are little more than precision orifices located outside
each intake valves and pressured up with fuel at some
value set by the mixture control.
The Beech Skipper I learned to fly in had a primer system
pressured up by the electric boost pump and controlled by
a normally closed electric valve that could be opened
by pushing in on the key while cranking the engine. Given
that Pug Piper was doing some work for Beech on the Skipper
after retiring from Piper, it would not surprise me that
this same primer system was first used on some model of
Piper.
Consider also the numbers of dark-n-stormy night stories
we've read over the decades wherein the pilot lives to tell
the tale of bringing an airplane to damage-free arrival
by stroking a primer pump after the primary fuel delivery
system fails . . . for what ever reason.
Okay, combine these three demonstrable experiments with
the notion that one can fit an engine with a 4-port
(or 6 if you have a BIG honker engine) primer system.
Assume further that you put a needle valve in an
electrically pressurized and controlled fuel source
that is adjusted for say 5 GPH of fuel flow (or whatever
suits you best). It should probably be a value in the 60%
range so that you minimize potential for damaging the
engine with a too-lean setting on one cylinder . . . but
enough power to keep you airborne. But if you get really
serious about this, you could plug your primer port fittings
and re-drill them to achieve 1/4 desired fuel flow per
port at the pressure setting of your primer pump.
Now, if you open up the primer system and pull the mixture
to idle cutoff (or the primary fuel supply is cut off
for other reasons), the throttle now becomes your mixture
control. Adjust throttle for maximum smoothness of engine
operation.
Now you have a totally redundant way to deliver much desired
fuel to a starving engine using a collection of ideas
and hardware that have been proven to perform in this task
for decades.
The sketch I showed you was for an all-electric system that
had no valves. Have a dedicated feed from left tank to primer
system. Another dedicated outlet from left tank goes to
a transfer pump that feeds the right tank. A dedicated feed
from the right tank feeds the engine. No valves, minimize
numbers of fittings. No check valves needed other than those
already built into the pumps.
One could craft a variety of fuel management systems.
I proposed one to a builder years ago that we put a low
liquid level sensor in the right tank and use it to
cross feed fuel to maintain the right tank at 1/2
full. Put low liquid level warning sensors on both
tanks when either one drops to say 1/3. When the low
fuel warning on left tank comes on, change automatic
transfer sensing on right tank from 1/2 full to
the low warning level. This will keep the right tank
at the 1/3 level until left tank is empty . . . or
one might choose to hold the left tank totally in
reserve thus keeping the standby fuel delivery system
wet at the tank end.
There are a variety of variations on this theme but
the design goal is to replace mechanical selector
valves with solid state pumps that have very few
moving parts. Further, failure of any one pump does
not put the outcome of the flight at risk because
of the dual, albeit crude second delivery system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
Roger: I have seen that back a few years ago and
studied it. I even talked by email to the Gent.
He does a great job of documenting with text and pics
the mod and explaining background info.
I particularly like the "A" version where you control the
field on the ground side. The mod is clearly very very
easy. The "B" type mod is more involved and I really
think the brush holder modification looks a little delicate,
but if done carefully it should be reliable.
The "A" mod is a thing of beauty, but the down side of
the "A" controlled field is the following:
If you short out your field wire it will go full tilt boogie.
Of course protecting the field wire with insulation and
proper routing support is not hard. You can make it
almost short proof and reliable. The second drawback
is "A" type external voltage regulators are much less
common. I found a couple that are in current
production. However my favorite external VR is the "B"
type Transpo V1200, fully digital OV and fault protected
voltage regulator for about $75. (avail by order at most
commercial auto elect shops). It is made for heavy duty
Ford vehicles like an ambulance.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
Unfortunately the V1200 is a "B" type controller varies
the positive side of the field to control the alternator's
output.
If you want an "A" type, one model off the top of my
head os for a SEADOO (yes SEADOO):
Voltage Set Point: 14.5 V Regulation: A-Circuit
Transpo #: 4229-124
SEADOO #: 27800-1241, 27800-1554
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/4229124.jpg
There are other "A" type but like this one and you could
utilize the automotive/sealed connectors.
Good luck, personally the internal regulator has thermal
protection and an IC micro processor which offers way
more protection. Also there are no DIY home-brew
solder joints. Keep the internal regulator, supply cooling
air to it, never turn the alternator ON/OFF while the
engine is running (ie turn it on before start and off after
shutdown as it was designed) and your chance of
problems will be very low. (PS, no crow bar)
There are stock ND's that have well over 1000 hours on them.
I do recommend you proactively changing brushes at
750 hours +/- 250 hours. They are cheap and easy to replace.
Low humidity at altitude is hard on the brushes verses car use.
Also we tend to run more avg output than a car in a hot cowl
on a shaking engine, more severe than most cars.
Also don't buy lousy rebuilds and lousy clone alternators.
There are good vendors and bad ones. If you go with
PlanePower or even Van (now they are using a better
aftermarket vendor) you should be fine.
If you are doing all this because you are worried that your
internal regulator will go insane and melt your electical
system down, you are worrying too much. That story is
way over blown and very rare. In the cases where damage was
done the pilot did a few things to make it happen. Most
failures of ND type alternator are usually not OV but
they just stop working. When they do lose stable voltage
regulation they generally top out in the 16-17 volt range. Most
modern avionics can work on 10-30 volts all day long.
In the event of say an unstable regulator, lower RPM,
increase load (landing lights) and ideally you have a
pull-able CB in the panel for you B-lead, pull CB, reduce
elect load & land. No fear no dark and stormy night.
Also IR gives you a LO/Hi volt and fault warning light.
Cheers George
>From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: IR to ER alternator mod
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Here is another IR to ER alternator mod.
>
>I would appreciate your evaluation and comments as I may use this
>method.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger
http://www.falco.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=72
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
I forgot about Chrysler, who do make some "A" type regulators. This one has adjustable
voltage.
Voltage Set Point: 14.3V; Regulation: A-Circuit
Special Heavy Duty Version of C8312
Solid State Circuit
Superior Loading
Adjustable Voltage
For 7A Rotors
FOR USE ON: Chrysler Products
Transpo part # C8312
CHRYSLER Part #'s (x-reference)
3 438 150
3 755 850
3 755 960
3 874 520
4 091 050
4 111 990
Of course not many external regulators include any over type relay. I recommend
power the regulator through one of these (I like it better than the Crow Bar
short CB short method.)
http://www.periheliondesign.com/lovm.htm
All the best. George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>Roger: I have seen that back a few years ago and
>studied it. I even talked by email to the Gent.
>
>If you are doing all this because you are worried that your
>internal regulator will go insane and melt your electical
>system down, you are worrying too much. That story is
>way over blown and very rare.
Over blown? Is that between humongous and gargantuan
or just under bodacious . . . I forget.
But even your words "very rare" says the risk is
not zero.
> In the cases where damage was
>done the pilot did a few things to make it happen.
George, go away. You have ZERO evidence of
that and your accusation is uncalled for.
The evidence contrary to that statement is
solid and inarguable which makes your statement
tantamount to calling goodly numbers of folks
liars.
> Most
>failures of ND type alternator are usually not OV but
>they just stop working. When they do lose stable voltage
>regulation they generally top out in the 16-17 volt range.
Maybe . . . but again, are you ready to offer
100% coverage insurance for the ones that are not
"generally" topping out at 17V?
> Most
>modern avionics can work on 10-30 volts all day long.
But batteries don't. Lights don't. Contactors don't
and how many OBAM aircraft are fitted only with
"modern" avionics . . . and exactly when does "modern"
kick in? 1985? 1996?
>
>In the event of say an unstable regulator, lower RPM,
Okay, a fully fielded ND puts out full rated current
at about 4500 shaft RPM. When running at cruise
(2500 on engine) the alternator is spinning at about
4x that. So if we want to get the alternator to be
current limited to say 20A, we need to get it down to
about 1500 RPM which puts the engine at less than
idle. What kind of emergency operations procedure
is that?
>
>increase load (landing lights) and ideally you have a
>pull-able CB in the panel for you B-lead, pull CB, reduce
>elect load & land. No fear no dark and stormy night.
But assuming that you can pull a b-lead breaker
and bring the power back up, the alternator self-
destructs.
Your advice is horse-hockey by the bucket-full
George. Go away.
>Also IR gives you a LO/Hi volt and fault warning light.
Which is only a warning light as far as anyone can
deduce from the lack of schematics to substantiate
any claims to the contrary. It does nothing to
actively shut down an alternator being driven by
a failed regulator.
. . . and oh yes, if the designers included ov warning
in their product, could it be that they also believe
the risk for their product to malfunction is not zero?
. . . or do you think they included that feature just
to placate me?
Go away George. I will not have you trolling this
List for acolytes in the Cult of the Infallible ND.
Go start your own List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Z-21A question |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Jorge,
The yellow wire is a voltage sense line. Tie it in with your red output wire.
It needs to see what the output voltage of that line is in order for the regulator
to do its job.
Good Luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, ready to fly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194022#194022
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
Some people are innovators and some are laggards. Both types are fine, just decide
which you are while building your plane. :D
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194030#194030
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Z-21A question |
>
>
>Jorge,
>
>The yellow wire is a voltage sense line. Tie it in with your red output
>wire. It needs to see what the output voltage of that line is in order
>for the regulator to do its job.
Dave, the last wiring diagram I saw for the 3300
was this thing gleaned from the installation/instruction
manual.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Jabiru_3300_Alternator_Wiring.jpg
Is there something more up to date available? This
first cut at it was exceedingly unhelpful and doesn't
have a yellow wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob N,
As usual you have been right on the money in my instance.
First of all, confronted with the bullet connections (hardly metric,
for a 914) I presumed that it must be something much more complex and thus
my first query.
Secondly, I employ a Dynon engine display unit with its multitude of
small wires bunched almost exactly where the Mag switch lines were to enter
the instrument panel. I imagined the worst.
Third, it appears the switches will have to site almost up against
my other weakness, a 10inch screen run by a MiniMac for GPS, APRS,
navigation etc.
All of this left me with the fear that even the slightest ignition
RMI would affect the second two, and determined to run it with the securest
coax cover I know - the RG400. To realise that your solution, the looping of
the centre coax wire out of its shield and termination (a task I have
performed perhaps hundreds of time in HF gear) is enough - convinces me I'm
in the wrong hobby.......
Nevertheless, having today produced a stainless steep panel for twin
feed-through BNC females at the firewall and a alu box which houses the back
of the two switches, I am committed to completing the fiasco and will
probably have the cleanest ignition result in four counties.....
Ah well - a purified soul leads to a good night's sleep.
Again many thanks for your help and advice.
Ferg
PS - and because I was trying to use a 2-blade coax stripper, I couldn't
fathom the dimensions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | The great(?) debate . . . |
Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic
(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system).
I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting
my RV-9A QB. But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch
cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the
last nearly 35 years. I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries
at work. In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs. I won't
dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.
Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from
Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.
Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and
maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have
come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain. So
I won't consider an old technology automatically better. Instead, each
technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.
That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its
concept. I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on
my -9A. And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,
I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for
backup. Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,
a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.
At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP. But I
continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely
appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
-----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: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . .
-->
>-->
>
>Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and
>its concept. If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....
>
>Ralph Finch
>RV-9A QB build
Vertical Power . . . and competitors offer a high
degree of integration for monitoring, automatic controls,
display of parameters of interest, some degree of
plug-n-play architecture and perhaps some computer
driven features that can be accessed by the user. These
might include check-lists and data gathering on some aspects
of system performance.
When compared with the breaker/fuse,-switch-wire-contactors
approach common to most of GA light-planes, it's an entirely
new world with design goals never considered until the
technology and manufacturing evolved. Certainly there have
been huge advancements in the capabilities we have to
"go solid state" or "enhance pilot ability to exert
a high degree of command and control with a reduced
workload." And, of course, we'll see the words "safety"
and "reliability" pop up in the advertisements as well.
I'm not sure there is value in trying to compare $300 worth
of wire, switches, fuses or breakers and the occasional
contactor with these new kids on the block. For years
I witnessed demonstrations at OSH by entrepreneurial
hopefuls for controlling the airplane over serial busses
"for the purpose of reducing wire weight."
The first question that comes to mind is what degree of
complexity has been added (along with vulnerabilities
to RF and lightning) in order to take perhaps 2 pounds
out of the empty weight of an RV? The earliest manifestations
of this trend were not very exciting because the part
counts went up. Further, maintenance spares were not the
kinds of parts you can buy at Aircraft Spruce, Steinair or B&C.
Over the years, the size and power of the proposed
computers grew as prices for those computers and their
design tools went down. Now we could begin to think
about doing things that the $300 lot of hardware cited
above cannot nor were ever intended to do. You can
"program" these things to exercise some intelligence,
display on LCD screens, take input from touch-screens, etc.
Now you have an entirely different product. It's
a flight management system that also happens to
replace $300 worth of hardware. Lighter than the
$300 system? Probably not. Sexier than the $300
system, you betcha!
The decision to incorporate this technology into
your airplane goes WWAAaayyy beyond the thought
processes we used to buy $300 worth of stuff
from B&C. This is because the new idea can do much
more than turn things on and off and keep wires from
burning up if faulted.
Now we find ourselves considering software driven
fault detection and clearing, software driven
on/off control, solid state switches replacing
every toggle, entering and displaying checklists,
recording clearances, etc. etc.
It's like stepping up from a 6-cyl, stick-shift,
chevy with nothing on it to a Lexus with everything
on it. Both vehicles take fuel and time to get you
from point A to point B. The differences to be
considered now become very personal. Some pilots
among you take some personal pride in designing,
crafting, understanding, operating and maintaining
the system built from $300 worth of parts. They
also do not feel intimidated about the thought
processes and actions necessary to deal with
a malfunction of a component in that system.
On the other hand, if the owner is especially
fond of the notion of automating these processes
and turning responsibility over to a suite of
components that he doesn't understand and cannot
service, then there are folks ready to offer systems
that addresses that desire.
The easiest targets for the latest-and-greatest
are those who do not understand the $300 system
and easily transition to not understanding
the multi-killobuck system as well. Probably
driven by some idea that if all the necessary
things for operating the system are taken
care of in software, then the owner/pilot need
not be concerned with such matters.
The decision to take advantage of highly
integrated, bells-and-whistles products is more
a matter of personal preferences than one of
utility and especially safety. Your airplane
isn't gong to fly any faster. It's not going to
be any lighter. The volume of stuff behind the
panel will be higher. And yes, one can be
relieved of having to deal with the occasional
but usually non-threatening failure of a
component . . . assuming the $300 worth of stuff
was crafted into a failure tolerant system.
My personal preference is driven by my professional
understanding of the components and architectures
available to me. Toss in the admittedly dated
"Mother! I want to do it myself!" attitude handed
down to me by my predecessors. A sort of "The Right
Stuff" approach to minimizing complexity where
it fails to increase the efficiency of the machine
or reduce cost of ownership. When I'm looking for
the ultimate convenience of operation, speed,
comfort, and lowest cost of ownership I buy
a ticket on a big iron bird. If I owned an OBAM
aircraft (or de-certified factory machine) it would
not be for the purpose of elevating its function
to level of a flying Lexus.
My personal "dream machine" is a de-certified
Pacer with Mogas STC. Strip out the back seats
and put in cargo tie-down platform. Strip out
electrical system and put Z13/8. Strip out
that butt-busting bench seat and put in nice
buckets out of an automobile. NOW, for a pittance
in relative costs, a lot of labor, I have
a product of my imagination, $time$ and
talents that I'm willing to suffer in for nine
hours of noise and bumps (NOT counting fuel
stops) to the west coast.
But be cautious of any notions that these
systems are safer or more reliable. Electrical system
malfunctions are very small contributors to
expensive or life threatening accidents. Reliability
has to be defined in terms whether any given failure
is a maintenance or safety issue. Are you striving
for never turning a wrench? Or perhaps maximizing the
numbers of no-sweat arrivals? I personally have no
problem with replacing the occasional inexpensive part
in a failure tolerant system. That's why I would
even choose to own an OBAM aircraft in the first
place. I have no doubt that these do-everything
products function as advertised. Return on investment
will not be known until we have years of marketplace
history.
Those of you considering the make-or-buy decision,
have to build you own case for $time$, design goals
and the satisfaction of getting utility out of the
best YOU know how to do in YOUR dream machine. A
big chunk of that equation considers how much you're
willing to learn and build as opposed to buying it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wig Wag and LED's |
| From: | "selwyn" <selwyn(at)ellisworks.com.au> |
I'm planning the set up of a wig wag flash system on my forward lights using the
B&C SSF1 unit. I notice that this unit will switch up to 150 W and that it
requires a load on each leg to function. I am wondering what the minimum value
for the load is as I am planning on using LEDs of around 4 or 5 W for each light.
Will this unit function correctly with loads such as this?
Cheers, Selwyn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194074#194074
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | fuses, wire sizes |
hi all,
i am following a schematic for an ov mod and am stumped at the 10 ga
wire with 30 amp fuse in the diagram. the fuseholder from b and c for
a 30 amp fuse will only allow a 12 ga wire be fitted inside the crimp
connection. a fuseholder from NAPA labeled for a 30 amp fuse uses 12 ga
wire. this 10 ga wire is used with the 20 amp breaker from 12 volt power
to the relay. this is on a 3300 jabiru. what do i do? any help
appreciated.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
i also pulled out a 3 yr old carling 2-10 switch and it matched the diagram
of a switch as it was wired as a master in one of the ''z'' schematics. it
was correct according to the diagram in the schematic. i didnt compare it to
the chapter on switches. i vaguely remember though calling b and c about
this issue several years ago and was told a diagram [dont remember which]
was backwards. i guess i will double check the z drawing and the other
diagram in the book.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: S700 switch pin positions
>
>
>
>>Found an unused Carling 2-10 switch in my electrical supply box today, so
>>pulled out my now ragged copy of the Aeroelectric Connection and my cheapo
>>RS multimeter to confirm what I had previously posted - that the pin
>>positions were transposed left to right from the diagram in the
>>'Connection.
>>
>>They are indeed transposed, assuming a view looking at the back of the
>>switch with the keyway up. The date code on the side of the switch is
>>0443.
>>
>>I am sure that the transposition is not just a single switch anomaly,
>>because I had more than one of these on my plane, and I remember making
>>the wiring correction in multiple places - in my case, two p-mag switches
>>and a landing lights/wig-wag switch.
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Erich Weaver
>
> Excellent hard data! Thank you sir. I've
> not heard from Carling yet but it seems likely
> that their "odd-man-out" position in the market
> place for switches would be a powerful incentive
> to swap columns and bring their functionality
> into synchronization with the rest of the industry.
>
> I think I'll be revising the switch ratings document
> to include a caveat for testing any given switch
> to determine it's position in the industry. Carling
> is the only company I'm aware of that did not conform
> but that doesn't mean there are not others.
>
> It would be really cool if Carling could offer a date
> range for the change-over.
>
> 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> |
| Subject: | Igntion Switches |
7/21/2008
Hello Skip, You wrote: "I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches over one?"
I am glad you asked. The history of these types of ignition
switches:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php
does not fill one with great confidence. See:
http://tinyurl.com/j3m5j
They are mechanical devices, of not necessarily the highest quality -- sort
of like an old time watch -- with a lot of little bits and pieces inside
that can get worn / broken.
Actually I'd prefer three switches. A simple, reliable, separate toggle
switch for each magneto P lead, and a push button switch with a guard on it
for activating the starter contact solenoid.
See the postings copied below for other's experience with the ACS / Bendix
keyed type switches.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------
{#} Replies are directed back to kisbuilders(at)angus.mystery.com
{#} To reply to the author, write to Keith.Miller(at)esa.int
OC
I started with the standard ACS switch , but junked it after it left one
of
the mags live after switching off , now I also have 3 seperate switches ( 2
"heavy duty" for the mags and a "push to make" type for the starter ).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message: #19408
Date: Aug 16, 2004
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ACS switch issues for Rotax 912S
>
>
>Ok, I traced it down to the ACS ignition switch (P/N A-510-2). When I
>switch to the left side ("R") it will cut out sometimes. Not very often
>but if I do it just right then off she goes. The switch only had been
>used about 40 hours when this started showing up.
>
>It appears that it is grounding, or at least partially grounding,
>inadvertently when switched over to that "mag".
>
>Could it have to do with the diode issue that ACS mentions with regards to
>impulse coupled mags?
The diode was added to the starter contactor control circuit . . .
with totally bogus engineering behind it. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
>FWIW I've wired according to Bob's notes with the shield acting as the
>ground. I was very very careful when wiring and so far this is the only
>electrical problem I've had.
>
>I've also wiggled all the wires around behind the switch (and also the
>engine) and it doesn't seem to be any of the wires. I'm guessing it's
>internal to the switch or something to do with a spike of some sort.
>
>Any other ideas before I pull the switch out and send it back to ACS?
Have you considered getting your money back and putting in toggle
switches? In my never humble opinion, key-switches suck.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip LaPolice" <skipper144(at)juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AW: Replacing Starter
> Hi Owen,
> I noticed in your reply to JF regarding an ignition
> switch that it is better to have " separate magneto
> and starters." Please help my understanding.
> I'm building a Pulsar with a 2200 Jabiru and I'm
> thinking avionics as I mix epoxy.
> I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
> and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches
> over one? My car has one.
> Thanks much!
> Be well,
> Skip/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses, wire sizes |
>hi all,
> i am following a schematic for an ov mod and am stumped at the 10 ga
> wire with 30 amp fuse in the diagram. the fuseholder from b and c for a
> 30 amp fuse will only allow a 12 ga wire be fitted inside the crimp
> connection. a fuseholder from NAPA labeled for a 30 amp fuse uses 12 ga
> wire. this 10 ga wire is used with the 20 amp breaker from 12 volt power
> to the relay. this is on a 3300 jabiru. what do i do? any help appreciated.
Who's schematic?
Wire sizes versus published recommended protection levels
is a VERY broad brush. The "conventions" adopted by most
of the aircraft industry are exceedingly conservative too.
There are TWO considerations for selecting a size of wire
and the protection for that wire. (1) TEMPERATURE rise over
ambient as it relates to that particular wire, where it's
to be installed and the rating of it's INSULATION for
maximum operating temperature. (2) Voltage drop in a wire
might degrade performance of the appliance at the other
end.
To make our jobs easier in the TC aircraft world where
the problems to be solved are much greater and more
frustrating than wire selection, conventions were adopted
that assured the designer of good performance in 99.9% of
all instances where wire is used aboard the airplane.
Chapter 8 of the 'Connection speaks to these issues. You
can download a copy of this chapter published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/Ch8_R12.pdf
where you will find two figures that speak to these
conventions where we said that 10C rise is a good
target for conservative application of wiring in
aircraft and that we choose wire gages to limit
voltage drop in wiring to 5% of system voltage.
Folks are often worried about burning up wires
should they be protected by the wrong size of
fuse. I'll refer you to this photo . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/Ch8_R12.pdf
where a 22AWG wire has been loaded to 20 amps for
about 15 minutes. The insulation temperature of
the wire has settled out at 112C (the wire is
rated at 150C). However, at 16 milliohms per
foot and a 5% wire drop value of 0.7 volts in
a 14v system, the maximum length of a 22AWG
conductor in a 20A circuit would be (0.7/20x0.016)
2.2 feet long!
Obviously, nobody would WANT to use a 22AWG
wire in such a demanding way . . . the point
is that it COULD be used without creating
an issue with respect to fire hazard.
So the short answer to your question is use the
12AWG wire. If this wire in in series with your
alternator (rated at 20A I think) then a 30A
fuse is appropriate protection for the purpose
of preventing nuisance trips . . . and this in
no way places your 12AWG wires at risk for
immolation.
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: | The great(?) debate . . . |
>
>Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic
>(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system).
>
>I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting
>my RV-9A QB. But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch
>cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the
>last nearly 35 years. I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries
>at work. In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs. I won't
>dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.
>Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from
>Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.
>
>Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and
>maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have
>come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain. So
>I won't consider an old technology automatically better. Instead, each
>technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.
But are the "problems" one of shortcomings in as-new performance?
In other words, if this were a factory-new airplane, would you find
the instruments as-supplied inadequate to the task? Or are the problems
one of maintenance and failure to perform . . . i.e. the puppies are
just worn out and/or suffering the effects of age?
>That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its
>concept. I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on
>my -9A.
Sure, and exceedingly easy to do.
> And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,
>I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for
>backup. Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,
>a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.
Yup, the new kids on the block with no moving parts are a
no-brainer selection . . . especially since it's increasingly
difficult to even find good useable HARDWARE that promises
satisfactory service life and an acceptable cost of ownership.
>At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
>heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
>a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
>switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
>weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
>limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
As I had to state in my soliloquy it's certainly a matter
of setting one's design goals and then meeting them but
hopefully free of the Madison Avenue hammers of safety,
reliability and convenience when the new product is clearly
more complicated, heavier and expensive.
If I have to walk into a planning meeting for the purpose
of selling an idea where all the weight, cost and parts
count numbers are moving in the wrong direction, there
needs to be a really compelling reason for taking the
hit to performance of our airplane.
>I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP. But I
>continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely
>appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.
I understand. I would only suggest that you divide
the thought processes into two categories. Appliance
selection where clearly the performance, cost-of-ownership
and reliability issues are inarguable. But these appliances
only need to communicate with each other on WIRES. The
performance, cost-of-ownership and reliability of copper
has not changed in thousands of years . . . insulations
have just about peaked (I've not seen a quantum jump
in wire insulation in 20+ years 22759 is about as
"ideal" and we need to be).
So consider appliance selection and power distribution/
control as two tasks. Distribution and control is
not unlike the water system for your town. Yeah,
there some new plastics for pipes and this valve
design is longer lived and less expensive because
it's assembled by machines . . . but the necessary
functionality does not benefit much from the
addition of software, touch screen and automated
response to stimulus. Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer.
After sifting and sorting all those marbles you
just WANT that kind of system in your airplane,
by all means . . . and know that its incorporation
does not present a great shift in risk. No matter
what's in your panel, these guys should be in
your flight bag.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
They work in your Aircoupe and will work just
as well in your super-whizzy RV! The bottom line
is to fly comfortably in either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag and LED's |
>
>I'm planning the set up of a wig wag flash system on my forward lights
>using the B&C SSF1 unit. I notice that this unit will switch up to 150 W
>and that it requires a load on each leg to function. I am wondering what
>the minimum value for the load is as I am planning on using LEDs of around
>4 or 5 W for each light. Will this unit function correctly with loads
>such as this?
>
>Cheers, Selwyn.
That's a damned good question my friend . . . and I
don't know. Those electronic automotive flashers are
certainly much less sensitive to load changes than
their thermo-mechanical ancestors but I've never
explored the necessary minimum load to not affect
functionality.
Leds are very different than incandescent lamps.
An LED biased up with microamps across it drops
voltage almost the same as when running full bright.
I'm fairly sure that the electronics in that flasher
are looking for "nearly ground" through an un-energized
filament to function properly.
When push comes to shove, you can probably parallel
one of the lamps with a resistor that might need to
be on the order of 30 ohms (about 3 watts of 'wasted'
power) to keep the flasher happy. You can experiment
with this on the bench. In any case, the final configuration
will still be MUCH less energy needy in spite of the
idiosyncrasies of the automotive electronic flasher.
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: ignition cables |
>
>Bob N,
> As usual you have been right on the money in my instance.
> First of all, confronted with the bullet connections (hardly metric,
>for a 914) I presumed that it must be something much more complex and thus
>my first query.
> All of this left me with the fear that even the slightest ignition
>RMI would affect the second two, and determined to run it with the securest
>coax cover I know - the RG400. To realise that your solution, the looping of
>the centre coax wire out of its shield and termination (a task I have
>performed perhaps hundreds of time in HF gear) is enough - convinces me I'm
>in the wrong hobby.......
Naw . . . there are many recipes for success in every venue
and not every chef gets there by the same roads. The nice
thing about these activities is the daily opportunity to
go to bed tonight knowing something new that we did not wake
up with this morning.
> Nevertheless, having today produced a stainless steep panel for twin
>feed-through BNC females at the firewall and a alu box which houses the back
>of the two switches, I am committed to completing the fiasco and will
>probably have the cleanest ignition result in four counties.....
Very good my friend. What you've proposed will certainly
function as needed.
> Ah well - a purified soul leads to a good night's sleep.
> Again many thanks for your help and advice.
>Ferg
>PS - and because I was trying to use a 2-blade coax stripper, I couldn't
>fathom the dimensions.
Hmmm . . . do I recall having shipped some strippers
up to you guys in Toronto . . . or was that somebody
else? I think that was right after I did the seminar.
Were those 2-blade strippers?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
>
>i also pulled out a 3 yr old carling 2-10 switch and it matched the
>diagram of a switch as it was wired as a master in one of the ''z''
>schematics. it was correct according to the diagram in the schematic. i
>didnt compare it to the chapter on switches. i vaguely remember though
>calling b and c about this issue several years ago and was told a diagram
>[dont remember which] was backwards. i guess i will double check the z
>drawing and the other diagram in the book.
Very good info sir. Your report combined with notes from
other folks suggests that Carling converted to the industry
wide conventions about 4 years ago. I'm hoping to hear from
somebody at Carling but not holding my breath.
I've put the switch article in my to-do bin and will update
it shortly to reflect this new data.
Thank you all for your help in sorting it out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
Ralph Finch wrote:
> At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
> heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
> a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
> switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
> weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
> limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
>
Ralph, the first thing to consider when thinking of the VP (or any other
component) is "What am I gonna' do when that thing goes tits up?" Those
highly integrated devices want to control everything, but you need some
way to access control of the flight critical systems totally independent
of the computer, lest you surrender the title of PIC to a computer.
Consider this, I'm using a MegaSquirt, a DIY engine controller using
open-source software which I will be modifying. It controls both
ignition and injectors. I built it myself, and I'm perfectly
comfortable with it. How can I be so secure? ...because of HOW it is used.
For the ignition, the MegaSquirt drives two Ford EDIS-4 ignition
controllers. Both will run independently of the Megasquirt, and either
is capable of keeping the engine running (with a static advance). If
the MegaSquirt and one of the EDIS modules go south at the same time, I
still get sparks. If the generator goes out, one of the EDIS units has
a separate generator dedicated to it. For the fuel, the MegaSquirt has
total control of the electronics. If it fails, I lose all the
injectors. That didn't make me happy, so a second pickup from the tank
(the Dyke Delta has only one) will be routed through a valve in order to
gravity feed fuel directly to the throttle body. If the MegaSquirt goes
stupid on me, I simply switch it off and crack open the valve until the
engine runs 'about right'. The DIY engine controller is necessary for
smooth starting, taxiing and takeoff. It is inconsequential for cruise
or landing.
If you can point to the VP as it is installed in your project and know
that you will be safe if it blows smoke mid-flight, then move on to
consider what neat things it can do for you and if your willing to pay
for it. But the first step is always to insure that you are and always
will be PIC.
This advice carries a "100% satisfaction or double your money back"
guarantee.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Ground in an all wood airplane |
Bob,
I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
ignition. A
small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery with only
a
single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though I will
have
my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will leave me with
a
ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking around some other
ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop noise. I would be
interested in your take on this.
Thanks, as always for your advise,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
If you install an EFIS, you are going to install backup gauges too. The same concept applies for Vertical Power. You can wire backup circuits for those circuits you deem "critical" so that they will continue to operate even if the system goes tango uniform. Take a look at the installation manual here: http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html and you'll see a section dedicated to backup circuits, and they're fairly easy to wire. How many circuits need a backup is up to you, but we find that most customers have anywhere from zero (where EFIS has its own battery backup) to two backups.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194132#194132
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
>Bob,
>
>
>I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery
>with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though
>I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will
>leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking
>around some other ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop
>noise. I would be interested in your take on this.
The large wires in your airplane are really
robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
is as reliable as prop bolts.
The ground loop issue is addressed with the
ground system architectures described in the
'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
airplane, bringing everything to the single
point ground location on the firewall will
eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
you would have to go out of your way to
create a ground loop in a non-conducting
airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Ground in an all wood airplane |
Bob,
Thanks! This was basically my thoughts also, but I wanted to make sure I
wasn't overlooking something.
Roger
>Bob,
>
>
>I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery
>with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though
>I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will
>leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking
>around some other ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop
>noise. I would be interested in your take on this.
The large wires in your airplane are really
robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
is as reliable as prop bolts.
The ground loop issue is addressed with the
ground system architectures described in the
'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
airplane, bringing everything to the single
point ground location on the firewall will
eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
you would have to go out of your way to
create a ground loop in a non-conducting
airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
Bob, Eric, George, JetPilot and the rest of the list:
From the perspective of someone who has been following the list for a
while and who is not as ignorant as most of things electrical nor of
lists supporting the free exchange of ideas and, perhaps most important,
someone who is not "tribal" in the least, I respectfully ask that Eric,
George, JetPilot NOT go away.
I don't have to agree with different viewpoints to appreciate them. As
much as we all strive for simple ideas and imagine that correct
application of logic will always result in absolute truths, the reality
is that there is much variation in our foundation goals, premises etc.
that have a great affect on our individual conclusions of what is right
for each of us. I, for one, think this list would be greatly enhanced
if there was less defensive posturing, bile etc. Responses to ideas
found to be objectionable could be concisely communicated as simply as
"regarding the idea that ... suffice to say that although there are
proponents of this approach I strongly disagree with it for reasons that
are well documented in past posts. Please do your homework on this idea
and the alternatives before committing to an approach".
The 'I'm still right and you're still wrong and since you still don't
agree with me let me explain it to you louder (or longer...)', which, by
my reading, has been evident in both camps of the great debate seems to
me to be not just disrespectful to the involved parties but also to the
list-reading public in general.
Best wishes to all,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>
>Bob, Eric, George, JetPilot and the rest of the list:
>
> From the perspective of someone who has been following the list for a
> while and who is not as ignorant as most of things electrical nor of
> lists supporting the free exchange of ideas and, perhaps most important,
> someone who is not "tribal" in the least, I respectfully ask that Eric,
> George, JetPilot NOT go away.
Sorry. This is MY classroom and in this venue,
it's not a question of opinion and viewpoints.
It's a question of repeatable experiments and
good science.
>The 'I'm still right and you're still wrong and since you still don't
>agree with me let me explain it to you louder (or longer...)', which, by
>my reading, has been evident in both camps of the great debate seems to me
>to be not just disrespectful to the involved parties but also to the
>list-reading public in general.
This List is not frequented by the "public
in general" and the vast majority of the public
in general would receive no benefit from hanging
out here. A "can't we all just get along"
idea has the effect of leveling the playing
field to average . . . mediocracy . . .
an environment crafted to upset the least
numbers of folks irrespective of their viewpoints
and opinions. I'd like to believe that the membership
of this List represents the top slice of individuals
struggling to build a better than average airplane.
When you select a doctor, engineer, lawyer or
teacher, do you want one who has been trained
in the "everybody is right to some degree" school
of thought . . . or is the demonstrable best in their
respective fields?
George and Paul have demonstrated nothing . . .
yet they've wasted a lot of $time$ as we attempted
to make nice. Eric has demonstrated a great deal
of initiative and creativity. See:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/
. . . and he is trying. And I've offered
to assist his endeavors right here on this List.
I'll leave it up to those who choose to
follow the conversation to judge the value
of investing the $time$.
Please do not mistake confidence and competence
with arrogance and conceit. I'm simply exercising
control over the decorum and quality of this
activity.
If your concerns are for making nice (no matter
what opinions might be offered) you'll need to
find another group that's more concerned with
making folks feel better than in helping them
do the best we know how to do at a budget they
can afford and technologies their skills and
$time$ can master.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
Two separate ground straps from engine to firewall (or forest of tabs)
may be a good idea on an electrically dependent engine though. I like
one of those to go to a starter bolt.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>> ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear
>> battery with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall.
>> Even though I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery
>> busses this will leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I
>> have been kicking around some other ideas, but am concerned about
>> generating ground loop noise. I would be interested in your take on
>> this.
>
> The large wires in your airplane are really
> robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
> is as reliable as prop bolts.
>
> The ground loop issue is addressed with the
> ground system architectures described in the
> 'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
> airplane, bringing everything to the single
> point ground location on the firewall will
> eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
> you would have to go out of your way to
> create a ground loop in a non-conducting
> airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
>
>What can I say? Thanks AGAIN for another valuable bit of education.
I've only collected some ideas that have been laying
around on the ground for nearly 100 years and considered
how they might be combined into yet another recipe for
success.
Now, if you're considering this combination of ideas as
useful to your design goals, then YOU'RE the chef. It
will be up to you to search, select, ponder the assembly
of and ultimately test the product of your efforts. We
can help but YOU are going to be the guy who ultimately
brings the concept to fruition. If you choose to photograph
the installation . . . and share the problem solved with
making it work, then you become the expert and more
qualified than I to assist others in doing the same or
similar things.
Let us know how we may be of assitance!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | fuses, wire sizes |
bob, thanks for the good reply to my question. the schematic is the one
supplied by b and c with the ov mod.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
I have a setup where I need to switch about 30 amps as a backup power
source. Is there such an animal as a toggle switch that will handle
that, or do I need to think about a relay?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Ed,
The marine guys use a battery switch that would handle the thirty amps.
Problem is it is big and fairly expensive. A relay would probably be
better. Don VS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 30 Amp switch?
I have a setup where I need to switch about 30 amps as a backup power
source. Is there such an animal as a toggle switch that will handle
that, or do I need to think about a relay?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Your problem is no different from those of all plastic airplanes. Seawinds have
nose-mounted batteries and 32 feet of HUMONGOUS battery cable going to and from
the tail mounted engine. (Note: SteinAir sells Seawind builders and others
Perihelion Design Super-2-CCA. Perihelion still sells Super-4-CCA but that will
go to SteinAir soon too.)
But this brings up the point that metal monocoque fuselage airplanes with rear-mounted
batteries often use the fuselage for grounding. I suspect that this is
a bad idea, and I suppose that in SOME cases this could cause starting problems
and/or structural problems. Hundreds of amps through crappy corroded/primed/riveted
joints in thin aluminum sheets scares me.
Has anyone seen, investigated or measured this???
"...faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, and more money..."
--Cowboy Poet Tom T. Hall
--------
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=194330#194330
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
Bob,
Thanks for the clarification. I had not understood this list to be your
classroom but instead, had confused it for a user forum that supports
the free exchange of ideas (with which I have more experience). Your
list is an educational list and I'm appreciative of it. Can you (or
anyone else) suggest an additional aircraft electrical focused
list/forum that is moderated as a user forum that supports the free
exchange of ideas? I, in general, prefer to do my own sorting of wheat
from chaff and would like to add such a list to those (including this
one) in which I intend to continue to participate.
Respectfully,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sportair electrical workshop? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
SportAir is coming to a city near me in the fall and I was wondering if the good
folks on this list have an opinion about the quality of the electrical workshop?
I'm pretty far along (because of this list!), wiring the front panel, but
interested to know if it might be worth the time spent attending.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194339#194339
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A.F.Rupp(at)att.net |
| Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
In the Old days we used to start P&W R2800's (P-61 Martin 404)on prime and get
them running before advancung mixture from idle cut off and they would run good
on prime. I think if you had two point prime on a 4 or small 6 with electric
boost pump it woul be sufficient.
Al Rupp
601XL - Corvair
> >What can I say? Thanks AGAIN for another valuable bit of education.
> I've only collected some ideas that have been laying
> around on the ground for nearly 100 years and considered
> how they might be combined into yet another recipe for
> success.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
I, for one, support Bob! I believe in his KISS (keep it simple stupid),
design principals. His designs are simple and fault tolerant.
Who else on this or any other forum/list has as much information on how
to
wire an airplane?? There are diagrams for practically every variation
flying. If there are any questions regarding any of his designs, all
you
need do is ask, and an explanation is forthcoming, and to top it off,
his
many years of experience and advice are at no charge (read FREE) He
does
have some products for sale at reasonable prices, but I do not see him
pushing to sell here.
For those of us who want to build our own systems at a reasonable cost,
this
is great.
It seems that there are other people previously named who have an
agenda,
and it is to use this site to sell their products. They seem to be
doing
this by not having good discussions backed up by data, but by trying to
discredit and belittle the published data, and introduce scare tactics
based
on "vapor data" (unpublished, unavailable data)
For those of you who want the latest bells and whistles and money is no
object, then go for it. But for us who want a good simple dependable
system, this is the place.
Bob, thank you for all your help and continue your good work,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: 30 Amp switch? |
FYI, there are several good, small relays available for this purpose. For a
FWF location, my choice would be the *P&B T92D11D-12*, rated 30A with quick
tab connections, available from Digikey or Mouser. Prolink makes a couple
rated at 40A, available from Circuit Specialists, see *
http://tinyurl.com/5pj6tm*. The former are all lightweight, with low coil
current requirements. There are also several automotive relays (Bosch, etc.)
with these ratings. If it will be in a weather protected location, i.e., aft
of the FW, you might also want to consider the solid state Powerlink III
Jr., rated 35A continuous, from Perihelion, with a very low control current,
though it's a little bit heavier than the P&B.
Ron
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Don Vs wrote:
>
> Ed,
> The marine guys use a battery switch that would handle the thirty amps.
> Problem is it is big and fairly expensive. A relay would probably be
> better. Don VS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
> Holyoke
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:23 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 30 Amp switch?
>
>
> I have a setup where I need to switch about 30 amps as a backup power
> source. Is there such an animal as a toggle switch that will handle
> that, or do I need to think about a relay?
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
I think some of you are missing an important point about the aeroelectric
list: Matt set it up as Bob's forum for answering builder's questions about
electrical aspects of small airplanes. Bob's approach has been to make it a
classroom, but the important point here is that it is Bob's forum; he makes
the rules. We don't get to vote on how he runs his classroom or what kinds
of disruptions or behavior he allows. That's his call. I think he does it
just right, but it really doesn't matter what I think.
Terry
My understanding is that this forum was set up not for the purpose of making
friends, but rather to help aviation enthusiasts located around the world
produce better, safer and more cost effective aeroplanes. This all is much
easier if we all stick to verifiable truths, based on logic and rational
induction. If stating opinions is important to an individual, then that is
fine, as long as those opinions can be demonstrated to be based on reason
and logic that can be backed up by verifiable data. Those opinions are then
more akin to truth, and are not of the individual at all.
Opinions that are of an individual (by virtue of not being demonstrated as
being "truth"), is the source of debates that go sour because the owner of
the opinion applies rules of social etiquette to the treatment of the
opinion that just don't apply in the world of cold logic and induction.
Logic and induction is like a dog with a bone and it won't let go until the
truth is proven.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Janet Amtmann" <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | not able to post message on List |
Hello Matt,
I just subscribed and went to the List and tried to post a question
using the New Post button. When the AOL email page came up it had
your email address on it but the SEND button was blanked out and the
message would not send. What could be the problem?
Best regards,
Jurgen Amtmann
jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
Me too.
John Morgensen
ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
>
> I, for one, support Bob! I believe in his KISS (keep it simple
> stupid), design principals. His designs are simple and fault tolerant.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | not able to post message on List |
Hi Janet,
Looks like this message posted to the list.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Janet
Amtmann
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: not able to post message on List
Hello Matt,
I just subscribed and went to the List and tried to post a question
using the New Post button. When the AOL email page came up it had
your email address on it but the SEND button was blanked out and the
message would not send. What could be the problem?
Best regards,
Jurgen Amtmann
jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | The great(?) debate . . . |
-----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, July 21, 2008 6:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . .
But are the "problems" one of shortcomings in as-new performance?
In other words, if this were a factory-new airplane, would you find
the instruments as-supplied inadequate to the task? Or are the problems
one of maintenance and failure to perform . . . i.e. the puppies are
just worn out and/or suffering the effects of age?
At first, sure, it was old gages. But then the "new", or rebuilt, gages
started acting wonky too. I'm just not seeing any remarkable reliability
from this stuff. Maybe because anything affordable is now made in China,
even altimeters and such. I'm sure eventually they will make good stuff, as
we once did, but it's not there now.
If I have to walk into a planning meeting for the purpose
of selling an idea where all the weight, cost and parts
count numbers are moving in the wrong direction, there
needs to be a really compelling reason for taking the
hit to performance of our airplane.
I'll take those one at a time. So far they don't add to "compelling", but
at least to "interesting".
1. Weight
>From Vertical Power's website, the specs for their model VP-200 ("for
advanced VFR and IFR-capable aircraft")
Control Unit: 2.5 lbs
Display Unit: 1.8 lbs
Switch Panel: 0.9 lbs
For a total of 5.2 lbs. Let's say you save 1.0 lbs in switches and wires,
net increase, 4.2 lbs. A non-issue.
2. Cost
The same VP-200 is $6,495. That's a chunk of money, and I'm guessing that
at the moment there is no discount pricing.
They have a pricing worksheet for items saved
(http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Pricing_Analysis.pdf). I haven't gone
through it in detail, but I'd guess I'd save $500 to perhaps $1000, mainly
because of functionality in the -200 I wouldn't need to buy separately, such
as trim indicators, runaway trim protection and trim speed, etc. Let's say
$695 for convenience; that means a net extra cost of $5800. Still a lot of
money. Nevertheless, while an important consideration, it would not be my
biggest factor.
3. Parts count.
I would argue that the parts count lessens with the VP technology. Less
connections, mechanical contacts, breakers/fuses, and separate instruments.
But I think with "parts count" maybe you meant "reliability"? That's my
segue into two concerns of mine.
4. Reliability (Routine and Critical).
What is the reliability of VP compared to traditional systems? I want to
consider what I'll call Routine Reliability, by which I mean does everything
work routinely, day after day, flight after flight; and Critical
Reliability, can something fail which is critical to flight safety?
The VP-200 system has 3 components: the display unit (panel), the switch
panel, and the control unit. I understand that if the display unit fails,
everything keeps working, you just don't see what is going on. That could
be disconcerting if you've got it programmed to do things during different
phases of flight. I would for sure want to land soon and get it fixed, but
it would not be critical.
The switch panel has the mag switches (hardwired to mags with sensors so the
VP knows what position they're in), master switch, emergency switch, and 3
user switches. Seems this device is closer to traditional switches so I'll
say that just like a traditional mag or master switch could fail, so could
this. That could be critical, just like traditional switches, so equal
probability of failure and equal consequences.
The control box is a "black box" device (actually red) which runs things in
real-time: taking in data from sensors, running a program, and activating
solid-state switches according to sensor data and user preferences.
Apparently if this nearly completely fails the solid-state switches remain
in whatever position they were in. If a bullet goes through it then you
lose all electrical I guess. Complete failure of this gadget would be like
a complete electrical failure: probably not critical unless you're in IMC.
Since I won't be (not IFR rated) to me it would be a concern, nothing more.
Many years ago I made a flight an hour away, and back, with the alternator
not charging the system. Upon realizing what was happening I simply turned
off the master switch until my destination, where I turned it back on and
made CTAF calls on battery power. Likewise the return trip. No big deal
day VFR.
VP has backup/fail-safe provisions. They describe
(http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Backup_Wiring.pdf) how to wire backup,
traditional switches for whatever devices you feel critical: EFIS, GPS,
Boost pump, Starter (though EFIS and GPS nowadays have their own battery
backup).
Proponents and skeptics can make all the hand-waving arguments each way they
want, lacking empirical reliability data. That would be hard to come by for
several reasons. But reliable solid-state devices are certainly possible,
we all have them in our cars. I have a 1989 Mazda and a 2000 Toyota. Both
have an engine computer and neither has had a failure of that in a
collective 27 years and 300,000 miles. If I assume that the VP devices are
built to the same standards as automobile engine computers, we can say they
would be very reliable, more than electromechanical switches. I would like
to see VP address their design and manufacturing standards more, comparing
them to auto computers.
5. User Interface
This may be my biggest concern. The traditional six-pack gage display
pattern is well-known to all pilots now, and it will take me some time to
adjust to an EFIS. But adjust I will. A bigger adjustment will be
actuating functions not with real switches but with "soft" keys on a
display. It's sort of like mousing around with Windows. A real switch is
always in the same place and always there; a soft key has to be arrived at
with several key presses. That's something that again, I would like to see
VP talk about more. What do pilots say about it? How long to adjust? What
about reactions in emergency situations?
I've said enough for now. A few last comments to your comments and I'm
done.
So consider appliance selection and power distribution/
control as two tasks. Distribution and control is
not unlike the water system for your town. Yeah,
there some new plastics for pipes and this valve
design is longer lived and less expensive because
it's assembled by machines . . . but the necessary
functionality does not benefit much from the
addition of software, touch screen and automated
response to stimulus. Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer.
Funny you mention water supply....I'm a water resources engineer that does
numerical modeling of estuaries. As a matter of fact, behind the scenes,
water supply has enjoyed some benefit from computers and could enjoy more.
All but the most trivial water systems now are designed on PCs with
specialized software that balances flows and pressures, solving very large
sets of equations, so pipes can be better sized, saving material cost and
ensuring more reliable water delivery. My employer, the California Dept. of
Water Resources, has a SCADA system on hundreds of miles of aqueduct, pumps,
etc. Large urban systems have large control facilities to balance supply
and demand. If the computers were destroyed with a high-altitude EMP, we'd
be screwed. Things would eventually operate again but quite inefficiently.
After sifting and sorting all those marbles you
just WANT that kind of system in your airplane,
by all means . . . and know that its incorporation
does not present a great shift in risk. No matter
what's in your panel, these guys should be in
your flight bag.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
They work in your Aircoupe and will work just
as well in your super-whizzy RV! The bottom line
is to fly comfortably in either.
Bob . . .
Exactly! And I do have those gadgets: a backup GPS, backup hand radio,
various flashlights and even a chemical light. I can't dream too much of
things to add to the Coupe. But the RV, after all, is
Experimental..."Perchance to Dream". Hey, maybe that's what I'll put on the
side...
RF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
| From: | "kkinney" <kkinney(at)fuse.net> |
It's just my crusty, old, poorly considered opinion, but I have been to both Bob's
& Sportairs electric workshops. Given a choice, I prefer Bob's workshop.
I realize there are probably many different instructors (I'm told Bob even taught
Sportair once...) so your mileage is certain to vary. Speaking entirely for
myself, the instructor I had was an A&P interested in restoring aircraft. He
wrinkled his nose at quick connects and didn't really care a fig for homebuilt
aircraft. Soldering was the only way to go and nothing else would do.
Old school AC 43-13 all the way.
If you've started down the AEC electrical path, you're probably more knowledgeable
than the average Sportair attendee. If you own a copy of AEC (and have read
it) you may not find anything new.
With that said, if you're not able to attend one of Bobs workshops, Sportair is
a decent way to go. What it WILL do is give you some good hands-on experience.
Must my .02 worth, (actual value may be far less)
Kevin Kinney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194519#194519
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Mike,
I will give you my Sport Air Workshop experience to slightly counter balance my
buddy Kevin's words. I have not been to one of Bob's seminars and there were
none in my area so when Sport Air came to Columbus, OH last fall I jumped on
board. The instructor I had was Dick Koeller who writes articles for Sport Aviation
and won the Bingellis award last year. He was not the crusty A&P that
Kevin had. We did cover soldering, but not as the only way to connect two wires
together. The most practical skill I got out of the class was making an intercom
harness and a BNC connection. It seems embarrassingly simple to me now,
but prior to the class, both were a little intimidating to me.
Even though I have an A&P ticket (not exercised in 20+ years) and had done some
car stereo installs in my youth, I still got a lot out of the class. Unless
you have a real grasp of all things electrical and were looking for something
more advanced, I would take the class. Just the discussions we had in-between
class sessions was worth the price of admission. I came with a partial set of
electrical schematics for my airplane, gleaned from Bob's Z diagrams, and much
to my benefit, we critiqued it in class.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, ready to fly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194550#194550
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
Only a 4# increase in basic empty weight?! If I were building again, I'd
consider an extra 6 kilo$ outlay to _shave_ 4# from my next RV. They
couldn't pay me to _add_ the weight ;-) Fly one for awhile and you'll see
how much performance difference added weight makes. A huge part of the
appeal of glass over steam gauges, at least to me, is weight savings. This
seems like a backwards move on that basis alone.
Bill RV-6A 700 hrs.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us>
>
> -----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, July 21, 2008 6:52 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . .
>
> But are the "problems" one of shortcomings in as-new performance?
> In other words, if this were a factory-new airplane, would you find
> the instruments as-supplied inadequate to the task? Or are the problems
> one of maintenance and failure to perform . . . i.e. the puppies are
> just worn out and/or suffering the effects of age?
>
> At first, sure, it was old gages. But then the "new", or rebuilt, gages
> started acting wonky too. I'm just not seeing any remarkable reliability
> from this stuff. Maybe because anything affordable is now made in China,
> even altimeters and such. I'm sure eventually they will make good stuff,
> as
> we once did, but it's not there now.
>
> If I have to walk into a planning meeting for the purpose
> of selling an idea where all the weight, cost and parts
> count numbers are moving in the wrong direction, there
> needs to be a really compelling reason for taking the
> hit to performance of our airplane.
>
> I'll take those one at a time. So far they don't add to "compelling", but
> at least to "interesting".
>
> 1. Weight
> >From Vertical Power's website, the specs for their model VP-200 ("for
> advanced VFR and IFR-capable aircraft")
>
> Control Unit: 2.5 lbs
> Display Unit: 1.8 lbs
> Switch Panel: 0.9 lbs
>
> For a total of 5.2 lbs. Let's say you save 1.0 lbs in switches and wires,
> net increase, 4.2 lbs. A non-issue.
>
> 2. Cost
> The same VP-200 is $6,495. That's a chunk of money, and I'm guessing that
> at the moment there is no discount pricing.
>
> They have a pricing worksheet for items saved
> (http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Pricing_Analysis.pdf). I haven't gone
> through it in detail, but I'd guess I'd save $500 to perhaps $1000, mainly
> because of functionality in the -200 I wouldn't need to buy separately,
> such
> as trim indicators, runaway trim protection and trim speed, etc. Let's say
> $695 for convenience; that means a net extra cost of $5800. Still a lot of
> money. Nevertheless, while an important consideration, it would not be my
> biggest factor.
>
> 3. Parts count.
> I would argue that the parts count lessens with the VP technology. Less
> connections, mechanical contacts, breakers/fuses, and separate instruments.
> But I think with "parts count" maybe you meant "reliability"? That's my
> segue into two concerns of mine.
>
> 4. Reliability (Routine and Critical).
> What is the reliability of VP compared to traditional systems? I want to
> consider what I'll call Routine Reliability, by which I mean does
> everything
> work routinely, day after day, flight after flight; and Critical
> Reliability, can something fail which is critical to flight safety?
>
> The VP-200 system has 3 components: the display unit (panel), the switch
> panel, and the control unit. I understand that if the display unit fails,
> everything keeps working, you just don't see what is going on. That could
> be disconcerting if you've got it programmed to do things during different
> phases of flight. I would for sure want to land soon and get it fixed, but
> it would not be critical.
>
> The switch panel has the mag switches (hardwired to mags with sensors so
> the
> VP knows what position they're in), master switch, emergency switch, and 3
> user switches. Seems this device is closer to traditional switches so I'll
> say that just like a traditional mag or master switch could fail, so could
> this. That could be critical, just like traditional switches, so equal
> probability of failure and equal consequences.
>
> The control box is a "black box" device (actually red) which runs things in
> real-time: taking in data from sensors, running a program, and activating
> solid-state switches according to sensor data and user preferences.
> Apparently if this nearly completely fails the solid-state switches remain
> in whatever position they were in. If a bullet goes through it then you
> lose all electrical I guess. Complete failure of this gadget would be like
> a complete electrical failure: probably not critical unless you're in IMC.
> Since I won't be (not IFR rated) to me it would be a concern, nothing more.
>
>
> Many years ago I made a flight an hour away, and back, with the alternator
> not charging the system. Upon realizing what was happening I simply turned
> off the master switch until my destination, where I turned it back on and
> made CTAF calls on battery power. Likewise the return trip. No big deal
> day VFR.
>
> VP has backup/fail-safe provisions. They describe
> (http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/Backup_Wiring.pdf) how to wire backup,
> traditional switches for whatever devices you feel critical: EFIS, GPS,
> Boost pump, Starter (though EFIS and GPS nowadays have their own battery
> backup).
>
> Proponents and skeptics can make all the hand-waving arguments each way
> they
> want, lacking empirical reliability data. That would be hard to come by
> for
> several reasons. But reliable solid-state devices are certainly possible,
> we all have them in our cars. I have a 1989 Mazda and a 2000 Toyota. Both
> have an engine computer and neither has had a failure of that in a
> collective 27 years and 300,000 miles. If I assume that the VP devices are
> built to the same standards as automobile engine computers, we can say they
> would be very reliable, more than electromechanical switches. I would like
> to see VP address their design and manufacturing standards more, comparing
> them to auto computers.
>
> 5. User Interface
> This may be my biggest concern. The traditional six-pack gage display
> pattern is well-known to all pilots now, and it will take me some time to
> adjust to an EFIS. But adjust I will. A bigger adjustment will be
> actuating functions not with real switches but with "soft" keys on a
> display. It's sort of like mousing around with Windows. A real switch is
> always in the same place and always there; a soft key has to be arrived at
> with several key presses. That's something that again, I would like to see
> VP talk about more. What do pilots say about it? How long to adjust?
> What
> about reactions in emergency situations?
>
> I've said enough for now. A few last comments to your comments and I'm
> done.
>
> So consider appliance selection and power distribution/
> control as two tasks. Distribution and control is
> not unlike the water system for your town. Yeah,
> there some new plastics for pipes and this valve
> design is longer lived and less expensive because
> it's assembled by machines . . . but the necessary
> functionality does not benefit much from the
> addition of software, touch screen and automated
> response to stimulus. Sometimes the best way to
> drive a nail is with a hammer.
>
> Funny you mention water supply....I'm a water resources engineer that does
> numerical modeling of estuaries. As a matter of fact, behind the scenes,
> water supply has enjoyed some benefit from computers and could enjoy more.
> All but the most trivial water systems now are designed on PCs with
> specialized software that balances flows and pressures, solving very large
> sets of equations, so pipes can be better sized, saving material cost and
> ensuring more reliable water delivery. My employer, the California Dept.
> of
> Water Resources, has a SCADA system on hundreds of miles of aqueduct,
> pumps,
> etc. Large urban systems have large control facilities to balance supply
> and demand. If the computers were destroyed with a high-altitude EMP, we'd
> be screwed. Things would eventually operate again but quite inefficiently.
>
> After sifting and sorting all those marbles you
> just WANT that kind of system in your airplane,
> by all means . . . and know that its incorporation
> does not present a great shift in risk. No matter
> what's in your panel, these guys should be in
> your flight bag.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
>
> They work in your Aircoupe and will work just
> as well in your super-whizzy RV! The bottom line
> is to fly comfortably in either.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Exactly! And I do have those gadgets: a backup GPS, backup hand radio,
> various flashlights and even a chemical light. I can't dream too much of
> things to add to the Coupe. But the RV, after all, is
> Experimental..."Perchance to Dream". Hey, maybe that's what I'll put on
> the
> side...
>
> RF
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
You'd be surprised how much the switches, circuit breakers, dimmers, key switch,
heat sinks, diodes, flap and trim modules, connectors, relays, and extra wire
you need adds up on a traditional wiring scheme. It depends on a lot of things,
but Vertical Power is about net-neutral or can shave off a few pounds. :D
And the VP-100 and VP-50 are even lighter than the numbers shown on the previous
post.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194557#194557
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks so far to those replying to my question about the SportAir workshops.
I do believe I am pretty far along in my project and understanding about my electrical
system. Hell, you should see my right wrist and forearm after all the
crimping I've been doing. Popeye's got nothing on me :). But I'm no expert, so
I am leaning towards attending if the time allows. If I find out who the instructor
is I will post here.
Thanks again,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194564#194564
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Janet Amtmann" <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | antenna ground plane |
Hello, I can not find an answer to this question in my available
material: how symmetrical does the fround plane have to be to the
antenna, in this case a COM antenna. The ideal place for my COM
antenna in my RV6 is 6" aft of the firewall (plastic cowl) and 6"
inboard from the left edge of the fuselage. This leaves only a 90
degree sector of ground plane around the antenna mounting point. This
spot was picked to keep the antenna out of the exhaust, keep it far
away from the xponder antenna, and keep it fwd of the spar for easier
run of the coax. Is this position OK?
Regards, Jurgen Amtmann jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: antenna ground plane |
Jurgen-
I think your antenna will work just fine in that location.
Mine is just fwd of the spar, and to one side of centerline, right in the
exhaust stream. This has not been an issue at all. The separation from the
transponder antenna is also not an issue. These two radio devices don't
really interfere with each other as far as I know - they are on widely
different frequencies and each transmits only intermittently. I think you'd
be hard pressed to damage the receiver front end of either device by
co-locating the antennas too closely.
In other words, most anywhere on the belly of the plane that allows sturdy
mounting and easy coax routing should give excellent results.
Bill RV-6A 700 hrs.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Janet Amtmann wrote:
> jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com>
>
> Hello, I can not find an answer to this question in my available
> material: how symmetrical does the fround plane have to be to the
> antenna, in this case a COM antenna. The ideal place for my COM
> antenna in my RV6 is 6" aft of the firewall (plastic cowl) and 6"
> inboard from the left edge of the fuselage. This leaves only a 90
> degree sector of ground plane around the antenna mounting point. This
> spot was picked to keep the antenna out of the exhaust, keep it far
> away from the xponder antenna, and keep it fwd of the spar for easier
> run of the coax. Is this position OK?
>
> Regards, Jurgen Amtmann jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: antenna ground plane |
it will be fine. All our airplanes have a less than omnidirectional
radiating pattern - just make sure the SWR is reasonable (less than about
2:1 is great - 3:1 is acceptable). get a ham to loan you an SWR meter.
bobf
W5RF
Glastar
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Janet Amtmann wrote:
> jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com>
>
> Hello, I can not find an answer to this question in my available
> material: how symmetrical does the fround plane have to be to the
> antenna, in this case a COM antenna. The ideal place for my COM
> antenna in my RV6 is 6" aft of the firewall (plastic cowl) and 6"
> inboard from the left edge of the fuselage. This leaves only a 90
> degree sector of ground plane around the antenna mounting point. This
> spot was picked to keep the antenna out of the exhaust, keep it far
> away from the xponder antenna, and keep it fwd of the spar for easier
> run of the coax. Is this position OK?
>
> Regards, Jurgen Amtmann jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Janet Amtmann" <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | antenna position |
Thanks for the answers to my question. Since I already had the holes
drilled this makes me feel a lot better.
Jurgen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Regarding weight savings....see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
--------
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=194676#194676
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
>
>In the Old days we used to start P&W R2800's (P-61 Martin 404)on prime and
>get them running before advancung mixture from idle cut off and they would
>run good on prime. I think if you had two point prime on a 4 or small 6
>with electric boost pump it woul be sufficient.
>Al Rupp
>601XL - Corvair
If one's goal was to get the engine running for
only a few seconds of fuel starved cylinders, a
few injection ports might get us by. In this
case, we're asking an engine to produce a sustained
power level sufficient to fly the airplane . . .
and it might be for an extended period of time
as well.
So I'm pretty sure one would want to install
a primer system that (as close as practical)
delivers equal quantities of fuel to each
cylinder. And unless you take the time to
accurately balance all the ports, there is
risk to one or more cylinders for the effects
of running too lean as compared to "average"
for the engine. So I think it wise to design
for, set up, and test a modest power setting
on the order of 50-60 percent.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
America.
Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
I can have another hamburger.
Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
happy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: not able to post message on List |
>
>
>Hello Matt,
>
>I just subscribed and went to the List and tried to post a question
>using the New Post button. When the AOL email page came up it had
>your email address on it but the SEND button was blanked out and the
>message would not send. What could be the problem?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jurgen Amtmann
>jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
Not sure what the "post button" is about. It may have something
to do with a feature of AOL. The lists supported by Matt's
servers on Matronics are simple e-mails. You can post
a new message by simple sending a new email to
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com and respond to an existing
discussion by simply making a "reply" as if it were an incoming
e-mail from any other source.
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: 30 Amp switch? |
>FYI, there are several good, small relays available for this purpose. For
>a FWF location, my choice would be the P&B T92D11D-12, rated 30A with
>quick tab connections, available from Digikey or Mouser. Prolink makes a
>couple rated at 40A, available from Circuit Specialists, see
><http://tinyurl.com/5pj6tm>http://tinyurl.com/5pj6tm. The former are all
>lightweight, with low coil current requirements. There are also several
>automotive relays (Bosch, etc.) with these ratings. If it will be in a
>weather protected location, i.e., aft of the FW, you might also want to
>consider the solid state Powerlink III Jr., rated 35A continuous, from
>Perihelion, with a very low control current, though it's a little bit
>heavier than the P&B.
Good recommendation. I concur. This is the same
style of relay offered by B&C as their S704-1
and looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704-1l.jpg
if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
might consider this device:
http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
You sound just like my wife.
Sam Hoskins
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:52 AM, wrote:
>
> While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
> weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
> a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
> airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
> savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
>
> I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
> with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
> trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
> America.
>
> Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
> normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
> equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
> I can have another hamburger.
>
> Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
> happy.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
>
>While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
>weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
>a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
>airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
>savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
>
>I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
>with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
>trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
>America.
>
>Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
>normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
>equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
>I can have another hamburger.
>
>Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
>happy.
Your logic is impeccable!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>I think some of you are missing an important point about the aeroelectric
>list: Matt set it up as Bob s forum for answering builder s questions
>about electrical aspects of small airplanes. Bob s approach has been to
>make it a classroom, but the important point here is that it is Bob s
>forum; he makes the rules. We don t get to vote on how he runs his
>classroom or what kinds of disruptions or behavior he allows. That s his
>call. I think he does it just right, but it really doesn t matter what I
>think.
True. But lest anyone come to believe this is a
"closed" activity bounded by restraints on the
discussion of ideas, please consider the following:
It's my personal vision and mission goal that I
spend my time doing exactly what Steve is seeking -
presiding over an activity that considers every
idea and checks it for fit into what is already
known . . . i.e. does the new ingredient make
an old recipe better . . . or perhaps offers a
completely new recipe?
Steve stated that he had followed this List for
a time but I wonder if he was witness to the behaviors
of certain individuals who over a period of 5+
years brought no new ideas to the discussions.
Ideas they did produce were easily
Before being asked to leave, they indulged in
a lot of personal attacks ranging from simple
innuendo to outright lying.
I attempted to make-nice for years with some
notion of winning these folks over with reasoned
analysis and results of repeatable experiments.
But alas, it was not to be. It was only then
that I assumed the obvious duty of any good
teacher to control the decorum and quality
of the discussions . . . hence the response
he witnessed from me last week.
If it makes any difference, these same individuals
are infamous for their behaviors in other forums.
I've been given to understand that they've been
asked to leave other groups too. My patience
is probably greater than most but it IS limited.
We have more important things to do here than
spend time $time$ indulging irrational temper
tantrums. I do endeavor to be a good teacher.
Quashing ideas worthy of consideration is not
the behavior of a true teacher.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
>
>Your problem is no different from those of all plastic airplanes. Seawinds
>have nose-mounted batteries and 32 feet of HUMONGOUS battery cable going
>to and from the tail mounted engine. (Note: SteinAir sells Seawind
>builders and others Perihelion Design Super-2-CCA. Perihelion still sells
>Super-4-CCA but that will go to SteinAir soon too.)
>
>But this brings up the point that metal monocoque fuselage airplanes with
>rear-mounted batteries often use the fuselage for grounding. I suspect
>that this is a bad idea, and I suppose that in SOME cases this could cause
>starting problems and/or structural problems. Hundreds of amps through
>crappy corroded/primed/riveted joints in thin aluminum sheets scares me.
>
>Has anyone seen, investigated or measured this???
I've heard a variety of horror stories about the effects
of using an airframe as a ground return. Have no idea
where these originated. My best guess is that someone
observed and perhaps even measured the effects of increased
corrosion of joints when subjected to additional stress
of electron flow.
Corrosion testing in the lab is a huge problem when it
comes to relating the effects to a fielded installation.
But let's consider the big picture. How many hours per
year does an airframe take on the extra burden of electron
flow in the sheet metal? 100, 200? How strong are those
currents compared to locally generated electrolytic
currents? I.e., how much total voltage drop is realized
at any locale on any joint as a result of that current flow . . .
especially in light of the fact that point to point
resistance of structure on most airplanes is a milliohm
or less.
It's obvious that the effects cannot be zero. But given
that for every hour the airplane spends "powered up",
it spends 40-100 hours powered down. I have to believe
that the worst case effects of carrying that nav-light
or pitot-heat ground to the airframe is insignificant
in the overall scheme of things. I'll combine this idea
with the fact that the industry still regularly uses
local grounds on EVERY model of aluminum airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>Debate is a good thing. Debates only become unpleasant when the
>participants steer from the rules of logic and induction to the more fuzzy
>exchanges that are bound by rules of social etiquette. Then people start
>talking about behaviour and style and all things socially complicated that
>have nothing whatsover to do with the topic at hand.
>
>My understanding is that this forum was set up not for the purpose of
>making friends, but rather to help aviation enthusiasts located around the
>world produce better, safer and more cost effective aeroplanes. This all
>is much easier if we all stick to verifiable truths, based on logic and
>rational induction. If stating opinions is important to an individual,
>then that is fine, as long as those opinions can be demonstrated to be
>based on reason and logic that can be backed up by verifiable data. Those
>opinions are then more akin to truth, and are not of the individual at all.
>
>Opinions that are of an individual (by virtue of not being demonstrated as
>being "truth"), is the source of debates that go sour because the owner of
>the opinion applies rules of social etiquette to the treatment of the
>opinion that just don't apply in the world of cold logic and induction.
>Logic and induction is like a dog with a bone and it won't let go until
>the truth is proven.
>
>Sure if we all become friends thats great, but enemies? Can't see the
>logic in that!
Well stated sir. I was searching for those words
but you've already supplied them!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
>
>You'd be surprised how much the switches, circuit breakers, dimmers, key
>switch, heat sinks, diodes, flap and trim modules, connectors, relays, and
>extra wire you need adds up on a traditional wiring scheme. It depends on
>a lot of things, but Vertical Power is about net-neutral or can shave off
>a few pounds. :D And the VP-100 and VP-50 are even lighter than the
>numbers shown on the previous post.
Marc,
Have you ever done an installed weight comparison between
your offerings and their Tinker-Toy counterparts?
This could be a powerful marketing tool.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
I received this from SportAir
"Kas Osterbuhr will instruct the electrical course at our Broomfield/Denver area
workshop."
Any feedback on this electrical course instructor?
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194733#194733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Sachau <grandy(at)rushmore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
I had him at the same course there a couple years ago. Very good in
my opinion. Good experience with
homebuilt aircraft and very good with the electronics. Course is
pretty basic, but gives you a very good foundation.
I especially valued the recommendations for tools and materials.
Randy
On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:55 AM, mikef wrote:
>
> I received this from SportAir
>
> "Kas Osterbuhr will instruct the electrical course at our Broomfield/
> Denver area workshop."
>
> Any feedback on this electrical course instructor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194733#194733
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | A Tough Decision |
After three years building and five years flying my RV-8, I have decided to
move into Light Sport aviation.
I will always cherish the memories of RVs and all they have to offer.
After spending months researching Builder Liability Issues, I have decided
to donate Cappys Toy to an Aviation Museum.
The museum has offered to create an Experimental Aircraft Section featuring
Cappys Toy. It is heartwarming to know Cappys Toy will forevermore be
representing Experimental Aviation, and that I have found a good home for
her.
The museum has agreed to accept Cappys Toy without the engine, engine
accessories, NAV/COM GNC 300XL, transponder GTX 327, autopilot Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot and 5 point airline type seat belts.
The expected delivery date is September 15, 2008.
In addition to a tax deduction, the sale of these items will enable me to
re-coup some of the losses incurred from not selling the airplane outright.
If you are interested in a proven complete functioning power plant package
with less than 450 hours for your project, or any of the other items, please
give me a call.
Engine and Engine Accessories
Superior XP 360: 0-360 A1A2, 180 HP
Main Alternator: B&C Specialty Products, L-40 with LR3C voltage regulator
Standby Alternator: B&C Specialty Products, SD-8 with SB1B-14 voltage
regulator, mounted in the Suction Pump engine case pad
Starter: B&C Specialty Products, BC315, Light Weight
Top Ignition: Light Speed Plasma II, with built in Crank Sender
Bottom Ignition: Slick 4000 Magneto with Impulse Coupler, mounted in the
Left Magneto engine case pad
Carburetor: Precision Airmotive MA4-5
Oil Filter Adapter: B&C BC7000
Oil Cooler: Stewart Warner
Exhaust: Viterman
Package Cost New $29,500. Price $19,000
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
3931 Melchor Avenue
Charlotte, NC
willfly(at)carolina.rr.com
704-362-0005 Home
704-281-7884 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | A Tough Decision |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Steve,
Certainly, one has no quibble with the idea of donating your love to the Museum,
but I find the reason for doing so rather interesting---that being to escape
the perceived Builder Liability Issue. It seems to me the 'parts' you are selling
are, in fact, the things that are most likely to fail. I have no database
to work from, but it seems likely that more planes have crashed from an engine
failure than from a wing or tail falling off an aircraft, particularly one
that you've flown and proven to be sound.
I'm not seconding guessing your decision, but the steps taken to mitigate your
liability may be outsized to the 1) true and actual liability exposure of selling
the plane whole or, 2) the retained liability of selling parts that are still
subject to failure and the associated perceived liability.
The EAA has a Contract for selling a plane that addresses these liability issues.
I'm curious, can anyone cite a successful liability suit for sale of a personal
built aircraft that was sold using a proper contract? We hear a lot of
anecdotal cases, but I'm wondering if we are taking cover from the once-in-several-lifetimes
event of a a meteor falling on our head?
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Glasgow
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: A Tough Decision
After three years building and five years flying my RV-8, I have decided to
move into Light Sport aviation.
I will always cherish the memories of RVs and all they have to offer.
After spending months researching Builder Liability Issues, I have decided
to donate Cappys Toy to an Aviation Museum.
The museum has offered to create an Experimental Aircraft Section featuring
Cappys Toy. It is heartwarming to know Cappys Toy will forevermore be
representing Experimental Aviation, and that I have found a good home for
her.
The museum has agreed to accept Cappys Toy without the engine, engine
accessories, NAV/COM GNC 300XL, transponder GTX 327, autopilot Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot and 5 point airline type seat belts.
The expected delivery date is September 15, 2008.
In addition to a tax deduction, the sale of these items will enable me to
re-coup some of the losses incurred from not selling the airplane outright.
If you are interested in a proven complete functioning power plant package
with less than 450 hours for your project, or any of the other items, please
give me a call.
Engine and Engine Accessories
Superior XP 360: 0-360 A1A2, 180 HP
Main Alternator: B&C Specialty Products, L-40 with LR3C voltage regulator
Standby Alternator: B&C Specialty Products, SD-8 with SB1B-14 voltage
regulator, mounted in the Suction Pump engine case pad
Starter: B&C Specialty Products, BC315, Light Weight
Top Ignition: Light Speed Plasma II, with built in Crank Sender
Bottom Ignition: Slick 4000 Magneto with Impulse Coupler, mounted in the
Left Magneto engine case pad
Carburetor: Precision Airmotive MA4-5
Oil Filter Adapter: B&C BC7000
Oil Cooler: Stewart Warner
Exhaust: Viterman
Package Cost New $29,500. Price $19,000
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
3931 Melchor Avenue
Charlotte, NC
willfly(at)carolina.rr.com
704-362-0005 Home
704-281-7884 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Igntion Switches |
>
>7/21/2008
>
>Hello Skip, You wrote: "I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
>and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches over one?"
One might also properly ask, what is the benefit of one switch
over two . . . or three?
If you consider the ignition/starter controls of the entire
fleet of GA aircraft, it's only the single-engine machines
likely to be owned by John Q Public pilot with key-switches.
The earliest aircraft offered a variety of controls that
included rudimentary toggles up to and including specialized
single control On-L-R-Both switches.
The big-three gravitated to key switches back in the
late 40's . . . folks who made those decisions are long
gone but we might surmise that there was a lot thought
about making an airplane look and feel as much like an
automobile as possible.
Today, there's an oft stated desire for "security"
for having installed a key-operated ignition switch.
This is a pretty weak argument given that most airplanes
can be flown by simply breaking the wires off the backs
of the mags through the oil-filler door or back of the
key-switch by simply wiggling the terminals until they
break off.
Consider that the key-switch is not cheap. It claims
a lot of panel space considering its function.
It often becomes a pain-in-the-arse when you discover
that after being all strapped in, your keys are still
in your pocket.
Consider further that as soon as one steps up to a
twin engine aircraft, key switches for controlling
ignition are never installed on the panel. On everything
from a twin-bonanza to a King Air or Lear Jet, if you
can get into the cabin (secured by one of the easiest
locks to pick) you have the airplane!
On the other side of the coin a pair of toggle switches
and a push button integrate nicely into the panel along
with other switches. They're inexpensive, easily wired
or re-wires for mags or electronic ignition, etc. Spares
for these switches are available from a variety of sources
(some even local) while a fussy Off-L-R-Both-Start switch
is available from a relatively few numbers of sources
(all out of town!).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Igntion Switches |
The reason we usually install a separate push button for starting is that is
gives the ability to turn the engine over without running the ignition. The
purpose of this is usually to clear a flooded engine.
I've found over time that seperating the start and ignition systems allows
better troubleshooting, and if you've ever tried to decipher the back of a
keyed ignition switch, upside down in the dark, you'll appreciate the
straight-forward simplicity of toggles and pushbuttons.
Plus they look cool. I usually install locking toggles for the mags.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----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: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Igntion Switches
-->
>
>7/21/2008
>
>Hello Skip, You wrote: "I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition
>Switches and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches over
one?"
One might also properly ask, what is the benefit of one switch
over two . . . or three?
If you consider the ignition/starter controls of the entire
fleet of GA aircraft, it's only the single-engine machines
likely to be owned by John Q Public pilot with key-switches.
The earliest aircraft offered a variety of controls that
included rudimentary toggles up to and including specialized
single control On-L-R-Both switches.
The big-three gravitated to key switches back in the
late 40's . . . folks who made those decisions are long
gone but we might surmise that there was a lot thought
about making an airplane look and feel as much like an
automobile as possible.
Today, there's an oft stated desire for "security"
for having installed a key-operated ignition switch.
This is a pretty weak argument given that most airplanes
can be flown by simply breaking the wires off the backs
of the mags through the oil-filler door or back of the
key-switch by simply wiggling the terminals until they
break off.
Consider that the key-switch is not cheap. It claims
a lot of panel space considering its function.
It often becomes a pain-in-the-arse when you discover
that after being all strapped in, your keys are still
in your pocket.
Consider further that as soon as one steps up to a
twin engine aircraft, key switches for controlling
ignition are never installed on the panel. On everything
from a twin-bonanza to a King Air or Lear Jet, if you
can get into the cabin (secured by one of the easiest
locks to pick) you have the airplane!
On the other side of the coin a pair of toggle switches
and a push button integrate nicely into the panel along
with other switches. They're inexpensive, easily wired
or re-wires for mags or electronic ignition, etc. Spares
for these switches are available from a variety of sources
(some even local) while a fussy Off-L-R-Both-Start switch
is available from a relatively few numbers of sources
(all out of town!).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Broken Low Voltage Module |
Bob,
I was out of town for three weeks and thought that I would find the board in
my mail when I returned, but it was not there.
Did you manage to get it out??
Thanks,
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
-->
>
>
>Hi Bob.
>
>Have you had a chance to take a look at my low voltage module yet?
>
>Bill B
Yes. Aside from more corrosion than I would like to see,
both the instrument and ECB are functional as advertised.
I've cleaned the board and plan to conformal coat before
I return them. Leaving for ML in a few hours but will be
back in shop Wednesday. I can probably get it out then.
What ever difficulties you're experiencing must be
in ship's wiring.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Bradburry
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>-->
>
>Great!
>Thanks Bob!
>
>Bill B
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
L.
>Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:55 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>-->
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >I sent the board in a couple of weeks ago. It should have been
> >waiting for you when you returned from your vacation to California.
> >I never heard if you found it ok.
> >
> >Have you had a chance to take a look at it, and if so, what did you
> >discover?
> >
> >Bill B
>
> It's laying on the desk right in front of me. I was thinking
> this morning that I could probably get to it this evening.
> I've been on travel quite a bit but there's a breathing spell
> coming up.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>5:26 AM
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Fellow aviators:
A few weeks back I loaded a heavy, folding shade tent into the pax seat of
my RV-6A to take to a neighbor's fly-in event, in the process bumping the
tuning knob of my Icom A200 radio and bending its shaft. The radio has
since stopped responding to turning the outer ring (MHz) selector, and needs
repair.
I'm not afraid to try this repair myself if I can get my hands on a
replacement concentric optical shaft encoder that is a proper fit, nor
opposed to sending the radio off for repair by an avionics shop is I can
find a reasonable quote. Menawhile, looking for a loaner radio while I get
the repairs done, or a good deal on a replacement A200 if I decide to swap
first / repair later.
Any help out there?
Thanks,
Bill B/ Stormy
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LED Landing Light Benchmark |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
You know certain technologies have matured when they make stuff that
is too powerful for your purposes. Here's an LED that is FAR TOO big to put on
your airplane.
300W
60 L/W (very good....they go to 90 L/W soon)
18000 lumens
Probably affordable. They'll get bigger and better than this too.
See: www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/LED-light/p/sm/1008089860.htm
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
July 14, 2008 - July 25, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hz