AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ia
July 25, 2008 - August 09, 2008
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194939#194939
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | A Tough Decision |
According to the letter of the law, experimental or homebuilt aircraft
follow the same rules for liability as do certified aircraft. There are
some interesting "what if" scenarios on this link to make you think. As
to how many of these have gone to trial and how many pilots have been
sent to Siberia with no food to shovel ice, I have no idea.
Read: http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | recommendations for building a 24V battery? |
I'm looking into building a 24V battery for an airborne payload with
the following spec's:
- 12AH minimum, no CCA requirement (not used for starting)
- bolted terminals
- no FAA/PMA approval required
- no need for metal jackets, etc., to protect from the environment
- hanging off of a bus fed by a 28V alternator
Several offerings from Odyssey (PC535/545/625/680), Panasonic
(LC-RD1217P), and Powersonic (PS-12180) fit the bill. Thus far, the
Powersonic battery beats the rest on price and weight per AH. Has
anyone had good/bad experience with Powersonic batteries?
The paperwork from Powersonic posts a charge voltage range of 14.4 to
14.7V and a float range of 13.5V to 13.8V. First, is it valid to
simply double these for the 24V battery? Second, the 28V bus will be
sitting between 28.5 and 28.9V nominally which is just under the
"charge" range (assuming doubling the 12V range is valid) but a volt
or so above the "float" range. Probably not worth a worry but I want
to make sure.
Any other tricks/techniques/gotchas related to the care and feeding of
ganged batteries will be appreciated.
D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | A Tough Decision |
Hey, Cappy
What a great way to contribute to following generations. Must say I have
mixed emotions about seeing you donate your beautiful aircraft - but likely
to stay beautiful that way.
Does this mean you have more time to build hangars?
Best Regards
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
-----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 RV's and all they have to offer.
After spending months researching Builder Liability Issues, I have decided
to donate Cappy's Toy to an Aviation Museum.
The museum has offered to create an Experimental Aircraft Section featuring
Cappy's Toy. It is heartwarming to know Cappy's Toy will forevermore be
representing Experimental Aviation, and that I have found a good home for
her.
The museum has agreed to accept Cappy's 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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Landing Light Benchmark |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
The 32 Volts is just a DC-DC converter. Easy to buy.
Maybe I misunderstand "Cargo Light" but this thing is the equivalent of maybe 18
headlights each of 55W and brilliant white. This would look like a 747 landing.
As I said, too big for you....
--------
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=194963#194963
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Igntion Switches |
Would just also note that it is NOT a security issue as most twins and up
don't use key switches at all. The only lock on our Baron is in the door
and baggage access.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Saylor
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: recommendations for building a 24V battery? |
>
>I'm looking into building a 24V battery for an airborne payload with
>the following spec's:
>
>- 12AH minimum, no CCA requirement (not used for starting)
>- bolted terminals
>- no FAA/PMA approval required
>- no need for metal jackets, etc., to protect from the environment
>- hanging off of a bus fed by a 28V alternator
>
>Several offerings from Odyssey (PC535/545/625/680), Panasonic
>(LC-RD1217P), and Powersonic (PS-12180) fit the bill. Thus far, the
>Powersonic battery beats the rest on price and weight per AH. Has
>anyone had good/bad experience with Powersonic batteries?
>
>The paperwork from Powersonic posts a charge voltage range of 14.4 to
>14.7V and a float range of 13.5V to 13.8V. First, is it valid to
>simply double these for the 24V battery?
yes
> Second, the 28V bus will be
>sitting between 28.5 and 28.9V nominally which is just under the
>"charge" range (assuming doubling the 12V range is valid) but a volt
>or so above the "float" range.
the TC fleet setpoint for 28v lead-acid batteries is
28.5 volts . . . 28.9 won't reduce service life in
ways that you can observe.
What are your battery-only energy storage requirements?
Does the system DEPEND on a battery for functionality?
In other words, would a failed battery contactor put
the outcome of the flight at risk? What preventative
maintenance program do you plan for replacing batteries
before they're incapable of supporting battery only
systems for the designed endurance mode?
> Probably not worth a worry but I want
>to make sure.
>
>Any other tricks/techniques/gotchas related to the care and feeding of
>ganged batteries will be appreciated.
There's nothing magic about a 24v battery vs two 12v batteries.
The electrical and chemical characteristics of one 24 is
identical to a pair of 12s.
There's no objective data to suggest that any particular
brand of battery is the better value in terms of
$replacement$/service-hours. Periodic cap testing of the
batteries in service is the 100% foolproof way to guarantee
system performance irrespective of the batteries you choose
to try.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal GROELL" <pgroell(at)yahoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Stick wiring cable |
Hello all,
While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet cable I
used to install a network at my home.
This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it's also shielded).
Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my stickgrip from grip
to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of the stick?
Thanks for your input.
Pascal GROELL
RV-7A (near Paris, France)
www.notreavion.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick wiring cable |
>Hello all,
>
>While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet cable I
>used to install a network at my home.
>
>This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it s also
>shielded). Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my
>stickgrip from grip to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of the stick?
>
>Thanks for your input.
Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
robustness under vibration. You could give it
a try. It might last quite some time before
needing a replacement.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick wiring cable |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet
>> cable I used to install a network at my home.
>>
>> This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it s also
>> shielded). Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my
>> stickgrip from grip to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of
>> the stick?
>>
>> Thanks for your input.
>
> Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
> It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
> robustness under vibration. You could give it
> a try. It might last quite some time before
> needing a replacement.
>
> Bob . . .
Consider cutting up one of the off-the-shelf ethernet patch cables. They
should be stranded.
The most flexible & durable stuff I've ever seen that's easy to find is
regular old telephone patch cord, but terminating it with anything other
than the standard displacement-type RG connectors can be a problem.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick wiring cable |
>>>While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet cable
>>>I used to install a network at my home.
>>>
>>>This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it s also
>>>shielded). Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my
>>>stickgrip from grip to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of the stick?
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input.
>>
>> Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
>> It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
>> robustness under vibration. You could give it
>> a try. It might last quite some time before
>> needing a replacement.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>Consider cutting up one of the off-the-shelf ethernet patch cables. They
>should be stranded.
I did not know that. Thanks! I've got some laying
around here somewhere that I'll investigate that
condition. Good to know.
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: | DIY large radius layout compass |
A few years ago when the digital calipers became really
inexpensive at H.F., I converted a pair to a very accurate
tram-point compass and layout tool. A few days ago I
needed to cut out a nice circle from a chunk of laminated
flooring and my little 6" calipers cum compass were too
small for the task.
While visiting H.F. for some sanding disks yesterday, I
spotted a 24" aluminum caliper for $10 that solved my problem.
With a couple of small drills, some JB Weld and few minutes
of time, I converted the HF 96509 calipers to a handy large
radius compass:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Layout_and_Measurement/Large_Radius_Layout_Compass.jpg
The stationary leg of these calipers is held onto
the rule with set screws. After the JB Weld is set,
you can re-calibrate the point-to-point distance
by repositioning the stationary leg.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick wiring cable |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet
>>>> cable I used to install a network at my home.
>>>>
>>>> This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it s also
>>>> shielded). Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my
>>>> stickgrip from grip to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of
>>>> the stick?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input.
>>>
>>> Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
>>> It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
>>> robustness under vibration. You could give it
>>> a try. It might last quite some time before
>>> needing a replacement.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>> Consider cutting up one of the off-the-shelf ethernet patch cables.
>> They should be stranded.
>
> I did not know that. Thanks! I've got some laying
> around here somewhere that I'll investigate that
> condition. Good to know.
>
> Bob . . .
Uhh... I hedged a bit with the 'should' in the previous post. Here's a
link to the Belden products. Some are solid, some are stranded. The
better patch cables are flexible enough that it's hard to believe that
they have 8 solid conductors, but it's worth checking.
http://www.belden.com/07Markets/07_Industrial/07_Industrial_Products/Industrial_Ethernet_Cable.cfm#ethernet
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal GROELL" <pgroell(at)yahoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Stick wiring cable |
Hello,
My cable is indeed stranded, I'll count the strands next time I'm in the
workshop.
Thanks
Best regards
Pascal
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] De la part de Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Envoy: samedi 26 juillet 2008 17:53
> : aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Objet: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stick wiring cable
>
>
>
>
> >>>While rummaging through my household cables, I found some Ethernet
> cable
> >>>I used to install a network at my home.
> >>>
> >>>This looks like an 8 wires, color coded, 24 AWG cable (it s also
> >>>shielded). Would there be any drawbacks using this cable to wire my
> >>>stickgrip from grip to a connector (probably D-SUB) at the base of
> the stick?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for your input.
> >>
> >> Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
> >> It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
> >> robustness under vibration. You could give it
> >> a try. It might last quite some time before
> >> needing a replacement.
> >>
> >> Bob . . .
> >
> >Consider cutting up one of the off-the-shelf ethernet patch cables.
> They
> >should be stranded.
>
> I did not know that. Thanks! I've got some laying
> around here somewhere that I'll investigate that
> condition. Good to know.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stick wiring cable |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Most Ethernet cable is solid strands of wire.
> It's not a wire designed for flexibility or
> robustness under vibration. You could give it
> a try. It might last quite some time before
> needing a replacement.
Often ethernet cable intended for building wiring is solid, but that
destined for patch cables is stranded. If it is a roll of cable, the
side of the box/spindle should say on it which type it is, otherwise
just cut a piece of the wire apart and look at it. In my experience you
have about a 50/50 chance of it being either.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Connectors for trim servos? |
Real basic question: I need to connect the wires (2 power, 3 indicator, 24
or 26 gage?) coming from Ray Allen trim servos to a removable connector.
What's appropriate? D connector, molex, something else?
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connectors for trim servos? |
>
>Real basic question: I need to connect the wires (2 power, 3 indicator, 24
>or 26 gage?) coming from Ray Allen trim servos to a removable connector.
>What's appropriate? D connector, molex, something else?
>
>Thanks,
>Ralph Finch
Here's one of several dozen alternatives.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator |
Bob:
I didn't do ANYTHING to deserve your demand for me to
"go away". It's just not going to happen. I have not
engaged you or said one word about you. Please stop
harassing me. I didn't say anything wrong technically,
personally or controversial in any way. Your comments are
not constructive and just mean Sir.
I replied to a Gents post asking for opinions on "IR to ER
Mod" that I knew about, having done this mod on a friends
alternator. It's not about YOU. It is about converting IR to
ER alternator mod. Do you have any comment about the
IR to ER alternator mods? If not what is the problem?
I DID suggest he consider using the IR ND alternator as it
was designed, leave it alone, as is with out chopping it all
up, spending more time and money on the modification
and an ER. Is that a problem? Using IR is a valid
consideration. It saves cost, hassle, retains the thermal
protection that IR's have, which ER's don't have. Why
butcher a 2008 alternator back to the 1970's?
I talked to Matt about this situation with you. I agreed not to
argue with you. You are out of line here, accusing me of
saying I called anyone a liar is a total miss representation
of what I wrote........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I did not call you or any one a liar.
In the PAST any negative story about IR alternators was
accepted and repeated with out any challenge on this
forum. I read them. There was no lie, just classic hanger
flying. I'm happy to say that the reports of service issues
are more factual now. However BOB you say you are all
about Science.
As I read about these stories of OV with IR I was
concerned (because I fly with one). I also questioned the
vagueness of the stories. I knew these alternators are
very reliable on my plane and others, Lexus, Acura, Honda,
tractors and forklifts. The stories did not make sense. What
does the electronics on a Lexus cost? Auto manufactures
have a vested interest to avoid OV. This is not new.
Stories of IR alternators allegedly destroying $30,000
panels where void of any details, facts: type / model of
alternator, person, place, type of plane, N-number, what
failed and why? That's not scientific is it Bob.
As the moderator Bob you let them go with out challenge,
and as a self proclaimed man of "Science", that lack of
evidence or data did not bother you? If I said something as
unsubstantiated as B&C regulators destroyed a friend of a
friend's plane, you would yell bloody hell for absolute proof.
You can't go on hearsay and rumor. However in the last
two years since I started to question it, reports are better.
You go with what you know, but let us "experimental"
aircraft builders experiment and explore improving IR.
What skin is it off your nose?
Bob, I do a "REPEATABLE TEST" every time I fly my
airplane with an IR alternator, sometimes near FL180.
Me and my flying mates individually have as much as 15
years and many 1000's of hours of trouble free IR
alternator ops each, in kit planes. The results of my
repeatable IR test are always the same, awesome!
How may kit planes have you built and how many hours do
you fly a month? I am not saying you don't know what
you're talking about. I am saying I have had very good
experience with IR alternators as a builder & pilot, that's all.
My interest is in improving the adaptation, installation and
operation of IR alternators (ND in particular) in little planes.
You a
You take one word I say and make it 100% guarantee? No
Bob, that's a silly thing to say. You take something I or
others say to ridiculous extremes to discredit. It's not
going to work Bob.
Of the reports of OV with IR ND's where the pilot was able
to note the voltage, 16-17 volts is common, but some times
its less, some times it must have been more. Unfortunately
not all pilots are able to note the actual voltage.
In 2 - 3 yrs of really taking a hard look at IR, talking to pilots,
manufactures and reading the web, following up with
emails to get more detailed info, I found two cases where
damage happened from an OV. Keep in mind the vast
number of IR units in service. One was pilot induced & the
problem was ignored, as he flew around for awhile. Another
case was an actual "lose screw". Stuff does happen. I
found some issues, and mitigating factors like improper
installation and pilot operation, as well as poor quality
rebuilds or aftermarket parts. I am just getting the word out.
Bob can you give me a 100% guarantee of failure free
operation (in writing) follow all your suggestions?
"vary rare" - Sorry for the lack of specific statistics and MTBF
(mean time between failures). BTW you don't have MTBF
data for airplane alternators with ER. You don't.
*******************************************************
I don't see the statistics showing IR Alts are prone to
catastrophic OV failure (but it can happen). However if
installed and operated properly the "statistics" are good.
Depending on the cost of your panel EXTRA OV protection
may be a wise idea for peace of mind. Some may choose
to install MOV's (varistor) on individual circuits to protect
them from transients, with CB's so you can reset. Bob calls
that the shotgun approach, I call it redundancy.
*******************************************************
What is "Modern"? technology developed in say last two
decades, use of IC chips with multi control functions and
fault detection and warning. If its based on 1970's or
older technology (ER) its not modern. ER technology is not
being developed or progressing in the auto industry; all the
development is for IR, except in large marine or industrial
applications, where paralleling and central control is involved.
Jet and turboprop is a different, starter/generators or constant
speed drive AC with inverters & battery chargers for DC. GA
aircraft are stuck some of the most gosh awful alternators
and regulators ever made. The after market like Plane Power
and B&C are correcting the poor GA aircraft electrical sys with
MODERN alternators. They of course are stuck with ER
because that is what was certified.
There are 10's of millions of IR ND alternators going 24/7
world wide in cars, trucks, tractors and industrial equipment
(and kit planes) with out issue. No OEM makes new ER
alternators under 100 amps today. IR alternators are more
common and easier to get in a pinch from auto parts
stores. Try getting a B&C alternator or voltage regulator
1,000 miles from home on Sunday = good luck..
If you're interested in helping me improve IR for aircraft
use, than you are welcomed to help, but please stop
insulting me. I am not a threat to you.
Do you think ER is the pinnacle and can not be improved
upon? Do you think IR will always be a poor second
choice? If the answer is yes fine, but its your preference.
It is very hard to make a "Scientific" case for one or the
other. They share 90% with each other anyway.
Cheers George
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
>>electrical 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.
(WHAT? MY GOSH? YOUR CROW BAR MUST HAVE
TRIPPED? YES RARE. LETS SEE YOUR ANALYTICAL
STATS? IR ALTS HAVE ACCUMULATED MORE HOURS
IN A WEEK (ALL VEHICLES) THAN ALL ER
ALTERNATORS IN SMALL GA PLANES (FACTORY OR
KIT) IN THE HISTORY OF AVIATION.)
>> 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.
(YOU ARE OUT OF LINE)
>> 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?
(NO BOB, WHERE IS YOUR 100% GUARANTEE? YOU
ARE BEING SILLY. IT IS JUST AN OBSERVATION.)
>> 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?
(BOB BOB, YOU HAVE TO READ THE MANUAL FOR
YOUR AVIONICS OR CALL THE MANUFACTURE, VERY
SIMPLE. ITS THERE IF YOU WANT TO LEARN.)
>>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?
BOB YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, THERE MY BE
LITTLE DIFFERENCE, BUT LOWER RPM WILL LOWER
PWR OUTPUT AT ANY RPM. ASSUMING VOLTAGE
REGULATOR IS NOT WORKING, RPM AND LOAD ARE
THE ONLY WAYS TO CONTROL VOLTAGE.
POWER VERSES RPM CURVE IS NOT FLAT, WITH
RESPECT. IT DOES START TO FLATTEN OUT AT 7000
TO 8000 RPM BUT LOWER RPM = LESS PWR. YES IN
FLIGHT ALT RPM IS ABOUT 6000 TO 8000 (3 TO 1 RATIO
NOT 4 TO 1). YES "RATED MIN" POWER IS AT 5000 RPM
(NOT 4500 RPM) BUT IT DOES INCREASE ABOVE RATED
BY ABOUT 5-7 AMPS FOR HIGHER RPM. SO LOWER
RPM DOES HAVE AFFECT ON POWER OUTPUT,
ALTERNATOR 101. BUT YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT ITS
SMALL AND NOT WORTH THE EFFORT, I AGREE.
>>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.
YOU ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE ITS AN EMERGENCY
AND THE VOLTAGE IS LOW OR HIGH ABOVE THE
STANDARD SET VOLTAGE 14.3 - 14.5 VOLTS.
WE ASSUME THE ALTERNATOR IS SHOT. YOU ARE
NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE ALTERNATOR AT THIS
POINT. IF VOLTAGE IS TOO HIGH, WHICH COULD
POSSIBLY DAMAGE BATTERY OR AVIONICS, TO
HECK WITH THE ALTERNATOR, PULL THE B'LEAD CB.
THAT IS WHAT YOUR CROW BAR DOES.
IF THE ALTERNATOR IS DEAD PULLING THE CB WILL
DO NO DAMAGE, BUT MAY BE SAVE SOME SMALL
PARASITIC DRAIN THROUGH THE VOLTAGE
REGULATOR.
MANUAL CB DISCONNECT AVOIDS ACCIDENTAL
TRIPS THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH AUTOMATIC DEVICES
LIKE A CROW BAR, WHICH CAN RUIN A GOOD
ALTERNATOR. IT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES,
TURNING GOOD ALTERNATORS INTO TRASH, OUCH.
EVEN VAN'S AIRCRAFT BANNED THEM, OUCH X 2.
NO OFFENSE BOB.
**THE FIRST STEP** SHOULD BE TURNING THE ALT
SWITCH OFF, THAN PULL THE CB (B'LEAD). THE
ALT SWITCH (POWER TO IGN LEAD) MAY OR
MAY NOT TURN ALTERNATOR OFF, DEPENDING IF
THE VOLTAGE REGULATOR RESPONDS, WHICH IS
AFFECTED BY WHAT FAILED. REGARDLESS IF IT
SHUTS DOWN WITH ALT SW, PULL THE CB. YOU
CAN'T COUNT ON THE ALT SW (IGN PWR) TO
KILL THE ALTERNATOR.
ALSO YOU SHOULD NEVER USE THE ALT SWITCH TO
ROUTINELY TURN THE ALTERNATOR ON OR OFF
WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING, IT WILL DAMAGE
THE ALTERNATOR. IN MY RESEARCH PROBLEMS
STARTED IN SEVERAL CASES WHEN THE PILOT
ELECTED TO PLAY SWITCH MONKEY AND CYCLE
THE ALT SW WHILE THE ALTERNATOR WAS UNDER
LOAD. IS THIS SCIENCE? WELL ITS MORE
ANECDOTAL BUT RELEVANT & SCIENTIFIC
OBSERVATION, CAUSE & AFFECT.
I HAVE NOT DUPLICATED THIS ON THE BENCH BOB,
REPEATABLY, BUT ITS A GOOD OBSERVATION. THIS
IS MY CONTRIBUTION TO "SCIENCE".
I HAVE DOCUMENTED THIS FAILURE. IF THERE IS
CHANCE ITS A PROBLEM DON'T DO IT.
FOR SOME REASONS PEOPLE LEARN ON A CESSNA
OR PIPER (FAA APPROVED MANUALS) TO NOT CYCLE
THE ALT SWITCH UNLESS THERE IS A NON NORMAL
CONDITION. HOWEVER HOME-BUILDERS FEEL THE
NEED TO THROW STITCHES THEY DON'T NEED TO.
MAKE IT SIMPLE, ALT 'ON' WITH BAT BEFORE ENGINE
START, ALT 'OFF' WITH BAT AFTER ENGINE SHUTDOWN.
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS IN THE CARS IT WAS THESE
ALTERNATORS WHERE DESIGNED FOR, ANOTHER
"SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION" OR CORRELATION.
>Your advice is horse-hockey by the bucket-full
>George. Go away.
(YOU ARE BEING RUDE AND AWFUL)
>>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.
BOB THE FUNCTION OF THE IR ALTERNATOR
INDICATOR LIGHT (LIKE EVERY CAR HAS) IS WELL
ESTABLISHED, AND NO ONE SAID IT WOULD SHUT
THE ALTERNATOR DOWN AUTOMATICALLY.
BOB THIS INFO IS IN THE AUTO REPAIR MANUALS
FOR CARS AND ALTERNATORS. I RESEARCHED THIS.
YOU HAVE ASKED OR SAID THIS 20 TIMES BEFORE.
THROWING OUT QUESTIONS TO RAISE DOUBT WHEN
IT IS CLEAR YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO LEARN, SO
ITS JUST A WASTE OF TIME. YOU WILL NEVER
AGREE THERE ARE NICE FEATURES WITH AN IR; YOU
JUST ACT LIKE ITS ALL BOGUS SMOKE & MIRRORS.
NIPPONDESNO AND THE ENTIRE AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL
INDUSTRY ARE IDIOTS, RIGHT.
BOB I GAVE YOU A BLOCK SCHEMATIC OF A TYPICAL IC.
DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
IF YOU DON'T GET IT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S BAD?
EVEN IF YOU HAD THE DETAILED ENGINEERING OF THE
DIGITAL LOGIC CIRCUITS IN THESE IC CHIPS, WOULD
YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANT? THEY ARE COMPLICATED
NO DOUBT, VERY SOPHISTICATED. IT IS MORE THAN
TWO TRANSISTOR, DIODE AND A FEW RESISTORS.
I SUGGEST BUILDERS INSTALLING IR ALTERNATORS
USE THE INDICATOR LIGHT, AND ANY ADDITIONAL
HI/LO VOLT IDIOT LIGHT AND VOLT-METER THEY
WANT IF DESIRED.
THE "INDICATOR LIGHT" ALSO ACTS AS A FAULT
LIGHT LIKE TROUBLE CODES ON A CARS COMPUTER.
IT DOES NOT GIVE OUT A CODE BUT WHEN IT
ILLUMINATES, IT MEANS THERE IS A FAULT CAUSING
THE VOLTAGE TO EXCEED SET VOLTAGE (HI/LO). YOU
CAN EVEN HAVE NORMAL VOLTAGE AND GET THE
INDICATOR LIGHT AS A SOFT FAULT.
THE IC CHIP IN IR REGULATORS ARE SMALL MICRO
PROCESSORS. YOU JUST DON'T GET THE FACT
THESE REGULATORS HAVE FAULT/CONTROL LOGIC.
THERE ARE CHEAP AFTERMARKET IR THAT ARE NOT
MADE TO FACTORY SPECS OR HAVE AN IC CHIP, BEWARE.
YOU WANT TO VERIFY THE BRAND OF REGULATOR.
YOU WANT ONE WITH THE ORIGINAL ASIC DESIGN.
ONE WAY IS TO BUY OEM ND PARTS OR VICTORY
FROM TAIWAN. I'LL BE GLAD TO HELP ANY ONE OFF
LIST SO BOB DOES NOT GET MAD.
>. . . 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 . . .
(I AM HAPPY HERE BUT THANKS FOR THE
SUGGESTION. IF YOU WANT TO BE AN EXPERT
IN IR ALTERNATORS YOU CAN HAVE IT BUT YOU
DON'T SUPPORT ITS USE AS OF NOW.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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.
For you to say you use SCIENCE is just funny.
It reminds me of the 80's Thomas Dolby song
"Blinded By Science" where in the chorus he
yells, "SCIENCE"!
What do I use, egg salad? You are talking to people,
including me, with engineering and science degrees.
Any freshman engineering, science or medical
student learns scientific methods in their labs.
That is great you use science, but Bob what
relevant facts do you bring with your "science".
What repeatable test have you done regarding IR
to ER conversions?
Blurting out "repeatable test" and "good science" is
a red herring, a non sequitur. It seem like you say it
to impress.
I have 1000's of flight hours behind IR alternators.
That is service history. I run my "test" ever time I fly.
Every time I do maintenance and check the brushes,
I am doing a test and so are all my friends with IR
alternators.
I do have more advanced education in engineering,
math and science than you Bob, as well as more flight
experience and ratings. Advance math is the language
of science and the absolute in problem solving and logic.
Therefore I must be right since I have more education?
Education is irrelevant ...... just like the repeatable
test pronouncements are irrelevant. You can't win
arguments but just saying "repeatable test". You
can try but it doesn't really work.
BTW before "repeatable test" you must determine
if a test is VALID! You have to know what and
why you are testing, what to measure and how to
measure it. Than you have to validate the data,
correlate with theoretical analysis or other known
data. That is why flight test is done, to verify the
analysis and component test. I do flight test.
I flight test my IR alternators many times a week, as
do 100's of other pilots with out problem. My IR
alternator has been shown to be reliable, as many
friends with IR alternators in their planes have shown.
Matt wants a civil tone and contribution from
many. I think that is what most members of the list
want as well. They just don't want the fighting. We
can spar but I rather not.
BOB I HAVE INVITED YOU TO JOIN ME IN
TESTING AND IMPROVING IR ALTERNATORS. WHY DON'T YOU?
>>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.
Bob you may think I am the "bottom slice" but you
don't know me. I have been involved in building
planes both airliners as and engineer out of college
and kit planes since 1985. One of my planes, RV-4,
won a workmanship award at a major EAA fly-in.
There's nothing mediocre or average about what I do,
and have much in common with builders as a builder.
I did go to college and grad school and paid for
every nickel of it my self, by working. No excuses
I am proud of that and should be. I also paid every
nickel of my initial flight training through 5
instructor ratings and ATP, which helped me get
my flying career going, three type ratings and
+11,000 hours later and still counting. There's nothing
mediocre Bob, I just bring different things ideals to the
table as you do.
> 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/
Well that is just rude and untrue. I have helped
many people Bob and I know they appreciate it. I
know Paul has interesting things to say, which I
enjoy, which helped me. The only one upset is YOU!
And how do I cost you money? You mean by
recommending cool gear that is not B&C, which
you get a kick back from? Does that make you
mad? Is that what it is about? OK I will not
recommend Plane Power any more. It is a
free country and free market. I have no interest
in Plane Power , Transpo or Perihelion Design.
I do want a rich base of knowledge and ideas
from more than ONE person. I also want more
than one vendor for parts and competition to
keep prices down. That is the American way.
THE BIG UNKNOWN?
You claim there is no detailed info on IR to satisfy
you, so you disqualify its use. You just don't want
to accept the info. I really don't think more info
would make a difference no matter what I show
you. I don't think you understand whats going on
in an IR.
You are set on one idea. Which I am fine with
but you seemed like you can tolerate anyone
ignoring your advice. If they do they are either
dumb or trolls. That is harsh and dogmatic.
> . . . 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
I agree people can make their own minds up. Why
are you afraid of other ideas? You claim other input
is inferior? Why? More ideas the better.
If your concepts are better they will shine. You
have to trust people to have the brains to make
their own minds up. I just want to help people
that DO want to IR alternators. I don't want to
sell them on it, only improve upon it for those
committed to IR. No criticism of your concepts.
>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 . . .
Bob actually I think you are a little insecure. Bob
every one agrees and recognizes you are THE
expert, the MAIN contributor, but you are proving
it all the time. Stop proving it, we all know and
respect that. But respect is a two way street.
Your last two post have helped me understand how
you think and see yourself in this forum, WOW~!
I get it. I'll try to say out of your way.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: recommendations for building a 24V battery? |
> What are your battery-only energy storage requirements?
The system will draw a bit over 14A worst case and I can shed as much
as 4A without sacrificing functionality. My design goal is to keep
the remaining 10A of "battery only" stuff alive (bus voltage >20V) for
at least an hour if the alternator drops offline.
> Does the system DEPEND on a battery for functionality?
> In other words, would a failed battery contactor put
> the outcome of the flight at risk?
No, not as long as the alternator remains well behaved with the batt
contactor open. BTW, our primary power source is a dedicated 28V 100A
alternator (National Airparts N300) wired per the "Z" diagrams with a
Zeftronics R25400 for voltage regulation and over-voltage protection.
The architecture also includes a "filter" cap sized per Nat'l Airparts
recommendations.
Have I made a mistake in assuming that this system will remain online
without the battery (e.g. - if the 28V battery contactor fails open)?
This is something that we can (and will, unless advised otherwise)
check out on the ground as part of a systems functional test.
> What preventative maintenance program do you plan
> for replacing batteries before they're incapable of
> supporting battery only systems for the designed
> endurance mode?
Standard battery care/feeding is the plan (e.g. - battery tender when
down, periodic capacity testing as part of the preflight prep after
storage). Replacement will occur when capacity tests show that
achieving the "1-hour battery only" target is not possible.
> There's no objective data to suggest that any particular
> brand of battery is the better value in terms of
> $replacement$/service-hours. Periodic cap testing of the
> batteries in service is the 100% foolproof way to guarantee
> system performance irrespective of the batteries you choose
> to try.
Understood. It will be interesting to compare the results from the
"cheap" battery tests against those from the $approved* battery that
rides around in my C150. I have a hunch that the 3x cost doesn't
necessarily translate to 3x performance/service-hours... ;-)
Thanks for your insight, Bob!
D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
How incredibly arrogant and rude, George. I don't care about your
ratings or your degrees. If you were so smart, you wouldn't be flying
for hire.
On listservs I run, you would be gone, right now, blocked from ever
rejoining for your series of insulting posts and arguments you have been
told are not welcome. Your lengthy post added zero, was nothing but self
flagellation and insults.
I ask that Matt block you from this list if Bob won't do it.
This isn't a general list for debate, it is Bob's list to discuss his
book and its recommendations. You obviously are too lazy to start your
own list and rather interfere with list belonging to someone else.
That is most offensive. The rest of us subscribe to discuss topics
AeroElectric. We don't want to talk about you. I'll filter your posts
out from no on, as I have no respect for your antagonistic approach.
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Bob actually I think you are a little insecure. Bob
> every one agrees and recognizes you are THE
> expert, the MAIN contributor, but you are proving
> it all the time. Stop proving it, we all know and
> respect that. But respect is a two way street.
>
> Your last two post have helped me understand how
> you think and see yourself in this forum, WOW~!
> I get it. I'll try to say out of your way.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator |
Hmmm . . . got the message first privately but I see
George posted a copy to the list too. Here was
my sniped reply:
>Bob:
>
>I didn't do ANYTHING to deserve your demand for me to
>"go away". It's just not going to happen. I have not
>engaged you or said one word about you. Please stop
>harassing me.
But you keep dispensing the same bad information . . .
sprinkled with enough good information to give
yourself credibility. Just review the postings
I've made in your honor sir and be reminded of
the behaviors that illuminated your dishonor . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf
> I didn't say anything wrong technically,
>personally or controversial in any way. Your comments are
>not constructive and just mean Sir.
Soft regulator failures that limit to 16-17 volts are
a figment of your imagination. Recommending pilot
intervention in an OV condition by reducing rpm,
added loads an hoping that a b-lead breaker is
bad design and equally bad advice to a neophyte
airplane builder that comes here to get solid
information.
I'm not mean but I am insistent. Your design
goals are not consistent with good practice and
you've repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness
or inability to carry on a detailed design
review in which logic and science prevail.
This is not an open forum and you're not being
harassed. You're simply being asked to take
your advice elsewhere. Probably 95% of the
OBAM aircraft licensed each year have no
features offered by this forum or my website.
That's a pretty fertile ground George.
Just imagine how many folks will be impressed
with your secret existence, the alphabet soup
out the wazoo behind your name and the confidence
with which you dispense information about
things you have not experienced and cannot
demonstrate.
Go away George.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
This last week, with trembling hands and fire extinguisher close at hand, I
connected the battery to my Kolb Mk III's new electrical system. I used the
Z -17 schematic virtually verbatim. I did put in a SPST key switch between
the fuse panel and the starter solenoid, but that's about all I deviated
from the plan you laid down. To my delight, and relief, all the smoke
remained in the wires and everything works. I realize that my system is bare
bones simple compared to all of you glass panel folks out there, but this
was my first attempt at wiring up an airplane from scratch.
Thanks, Bob.
Rick Girard
Kolb Mk III, returning to the air this week
Yippee!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Literature source |
Stumbled across this site during a websearch:
http://home.att.net/%7Ebtuttleman/barrysite.html#ALLISON
He offers original and copied manuals on a wide variety
of topics and products . . . but in particular interest
to us, has a good library of King, Narco and ARC manuals
amongst others . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Connectors for trim servos? |
Ralph=2C
Those pesky little Ray Allen trim servo wires are a pain in the neck=2C are
n't they?
A friend of mine recently brought me a Narco AT165 which he had wired to a
GRT Enigma EFIS. The EFIS has a low-density 15 pin D-Sub connector which ou
tputs the gray (Gillam) scale data to the transponder. He had used a comput
er cable which he cut in half and connected the wires to the 18 pin Molex c
onnector in the Narco's rack.
I liked the idea of the computer cable because it was neat=2C shielded=2C c
ontained good quality color-coded stranded wire and made a neat installatio
n. That is=2C until you got to the cut end. The 26AWG wires just weren't ro
bust enough to serve at the junction between cable and tray connector. Also
=2C he had "shielded everything" which is a whole 'nother post:O)
At first=2C I discarded the idea of using the cable due to the 26AWG wires.
Heck=2C my wire stripper doesn't go smaller than 22AWG! However=2C reality
set in as I could not seem to find 9 or more conductor shielded wire in 22
AWG at my local supply house unless I bought 500 feet of it! At over $2 per
foot=2C I wasn't going to go there.
So=2C how to make 26AWG wire more robust. After all=2C it's plenty good eno
ugh to carry microVolts and milliAmps=2C right?
Here's what I did.
First=2C prepped the cable.
Cut the cable back to fresh wire leaving ~1" conductor length.
Cut the drain wire flush with the outer insulation and foil shield.
Slid medium and large heat shrink over the cable for later.
Second=2C prepped the conductors.
Stripped the 26AWG wires just enough to accept .062" Molex pins.
Slid 1/16" heat shrink (white for signal) over the wire.
Crimped on the Molex pins.
Pull test to verify good crimp.
Slid heat shrink over both insulation and wire grip.
Applied heat to heat shrink on individual wires.
Now I have a beefed up wire. It's still 26AWG=2C but it is well supported.
Repeat for all 9 encoder data wires and 4 grounds for the Enigma.
Third=2C populated the intermediate 12 pin Molex connector.
Inserted the wires into the holes until click was heard and felt.
Gathered the wires together for maximum mutual support.
Slid heat shrink up over bundle overlapping cable about an inch.
Applied heat to heat shrink over cable and bundle of wires entering Molex.
Now I have a beefed up cable to connector junction. Even more support.
Fourth=2C prepped wire for 12 pin intermediate Molex to 18 pin Molex Narco
tray connector.
Cut 18AWG color coded wire from old bundle laying around house.
Length minimal to get the wires neatly spread as needed.
Had to repeat some colors=2C no biggy.
On .062" Molex end used same technic as above to prep wires.
On Narco tray end crimped on KK type connectors without heat shrink.
The pins would not insert with heat shrink in the way.
Fifth=2C populated .062" Molex as in step "Third" above.
Sixth=2C populated 18 pin Molex connector on Narco slide-in tray.
Seventh=2C created table using MS Word to keep track of all wires=2C wire c
olors=2C connectors=2C destinations and functions.
Eighth=2C verified table by painstakingly examining each and every wire.
Ninth=2C verified continuity between the 15 pin D-sub (origen) and the 18 p
in tray connector (destination).
What my friend now has is a very neat cable installation that is also quite
robust. I can't wait to see if it passes the avionics shop testing process
. His wiring job had yielded "ALT INVALID" results and ATC said his altitud
e info was wacked.
BTW=2C used a second 3 pin .062" Molex conector for the Narco's power and g
round wires. It lies right smack on top of the 12 pin connector and looks g
reat. These were safetied with plastic tie wraps so they won't work loose.
Rodney in TennesseeUnabashed Nuckollhead
_________________________________________________________________
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_
family_safety_072008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Connectors for trim servos? |
Thanks Bob, as usual you have the precise answer...
RF
-----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 26, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Connectors for trim servos?
-->
>-->
>
>Real basic question: I need to connect the wires (2 power, 3 indicator,
>24 or 26 gage?) coming from Ray Allen trim servos to a removable connector.
>What's appropriate? D connector, molex, something else?
>
>Thanks,
>Ralph Finch
Here's one of several dozen alternatives.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
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> |
>This last week, with trembling hands and fire extinguisher close at hand,
>I connected the battery to my Kolb Mk III's new electrical system. I used
>the Z -17 schematic virtually verbatim. I did put in a SPST key switch
>between the fuse panel and the starter solenoid, but that's about all I
>deviated from the plan you laid down. To my delight, and relief, all the
>smoke remained in the wires and everything works. I realize that my system
>is bare bones simple compared to all of you glass panel folks out there,
>but this was my first attempt at wiring up an airplane from scratch.
>Thanks, Bob.
You're most welcome. I'm pleased that you found
your experiences here useful and productive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RV-6A For Sale (revised) |
Listers,
My re-review of the market suggests a revision of asking price.
This is one more try here before going to other locations to advertise.
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 327transponder
Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel
Dual CDI with glideslope and coupling to either Nav
IFR panel, heated pitot, certified altimeter, encoder, transponder and
pitot static system
Dual Duckworks landing/taxi lights with Wig-Wag
S-Tech System 20 auto pilot/ turn coordinator
New main tires
Always hangared
March 2008 annual
Asking: :$95K
Serious buyers contact me off line and I'll send you more details.
Richard Dudley
rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net
Orlando, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Z-19/RB Question |
Bob,
In reviewing the Z-19/RB drawing, I have a question regarding the endurance
bus feed. There is a diode feed from the main bus, with which I have no
problem. However, if the alternator fails and the low voltage module opens
the engine battery contactor, there is no way to power the endurance bus
from the engine battery. In this case both paths to the endurance bus come
from the main battery. Did you intend for this wiring to be this way or
should the EBUS ALT FEED connection be made to the engine battery bus
instead of to the main battery bus?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
>Bob,
>
>
>In reviewing the Z-19/RB drawing, I have a question regarding the
>endurance bus feed. There is a diode feed from the main bus, with which I
>have no problem. However, if the alternator fails and the low voltage
>module opens the engine battery contactor, there is no way to power the
>endurance bus from the engine battery. In this case both paths to the
>endurance bus come from the main battery. Did you intend for this wiring
>to be this way or should the EBUS ALT FEED connection be made to the
>engine battery bus instead of to the main battery bus?
No, the normal feed is from the main bus which
(in normal operations) is powered from the main
bus supported by the alternator and two batteries.
In case of alternator failure (and with the engine
battery switch in the AUTO Mode), the engine battery
is automatically separated off to support only
the engine. The main battery is still supporting
the main bus . . . until the pilot elects to drop
to an endurance mode (main battery contactor OFF,
alternate feedpath closed).
Normally, you would never want to power the endurance
bus from the engine battery unless you've suffered
multiple-failures (main battery craps). Even then
you're probably better off reverting to the J-3 mode
with stuff from the flight bag as opposed to burdening
the engine battery with keeping the fan running
-AND- powering up stuff on the panel.
So your observations are correct, there was never
any intention of powering the e-bus from the engine
battery.
However, you ALWAYS have the option of closing both
battery contactors and running the whole airplane
from both batteries in parallel. The set of
circumstances that would make this necessary/attractive
are exceedingly rare. If it were my airplane, I'd
have to be really hard pressed (and probably il-prepared)
to burden the engine battery with more than running the
engine.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
Does anyone know how much current the Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v listed
at the B n c Website can handle ?
I tried looking for some kind of data sheet but could not find one...
Does it handle better than 130 amps ?
May 90 ?
Help anyone please.
The specs they do list are:
This contactor is suited for most applications in amateur built airplanes
calling for continuous duty operation including (1) battery master contactor
(2) ground power contactor (3)alternator b-lead overvoltage protection (4)
dual alternator system crossfeed contactor [order S701-2] and (4)
extend/retract control in hydraulic landing gear systems. Supplied with
spike suppression diode and battery terminal jumper already installed. Coil
resistance is 15 ohms. Contactor Weight is 13 ounces
This contactor terminals will use a .31 and #10 ring terminals.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
In normal operations of a Z-19, would you have the EBUS ALT FEED switch turned
ON (closed)? Seems that would keep the emergency switch manipulation to just
one, the Master OFF. The ENGINE BAT switch in the AUTO position would already
disconnect the Engine Battery.
Do I have this right? Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195274#195274
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trim noise in Audio speaker |
Bob,
Just a follow-up to eliminating the noise on the Ray Allen aileron trim
motor. I tested the 272-1070 first which removed some of the noise when
activated, but it was on and off. I took that off and did the six finger
test using the 272-1436. Worked like a charm. Not a hint of noise. Peace
at last.
Thanks
--------*****************************------------------------
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Shannon" <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
Jeffrey,
I don't know the max. continuous rating, but I'm sure it's well in excess of
100A, way more than you would ever need in any usual homebuilt airplane. Of
course, intermittently, it will handle a lot more than that, including full
starter motor loads. Why not just give B&C a call tomorrow and ask them.
Ron
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Jeffrey W. Skiba wrote:
> jskiba(at)icosa.net>
>
> Does anyone know how much current the Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v listed
> at the B n c Website can handle ?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>
>Does anyone know how much current the Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v listed
>at the B n c Website can handle ?
>I tried looking for some kind of data sheet but could not find one...
>
>Does it handle better than 130 amps ?
>May 90 ?
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_70-Series.pdf
The S701-1 contactor is a Stancor 70-902. It's rated for
80 amps continuous. But like all switches, relays and
contactors, the ratings assume that you're going to SWITCH
those loads. In the case of a battery conactor, loads seldom
exceed tens of amps when the battery master is turned on.
By the time the starter is engaged, the battery contactor
is closed and stable. An alrady closed switch will carry
several times its rated current for short periods of time
(like cranking an engine) without serious degradation of
service life.
How are you using it that its ratings are a concern?
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-19/RB Question |
>
>Bob,
>
>In normal operations of a Z-19, would you have the EBUS ALT FEED switch
>turned ON (closed)? Seems that would keep the emergency switch
>manipulation to just one, the Master OFF. The ENGINE BAT switch in the
>AUTO position would already disconnect the Engine Battery.
>
>
>Do I have this right? Thanks,
You can if you wish. However, it's an ALTERNATE feed
path and needs to be pre-flight tested. I'd turn
it ON first thing and get the ATIS and clearance
delivery. Then shut it OFF, start the engine, and leave
it off until such time as needed to mitigate
the effects of an alternator failure.
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: | Trim noise in Audio speaker |
Good data points sir. I'll file them away for future
reference Thanks!
>Bob,
>Just a follow-up to eliminating the noise on the Ray Allen aileron trim
>motor. I tested the 272-1070 first which removed some of the noise when
>activated, but it was on and off. I took that off and did the six finger
>test using the 272-1436. Worked like a charm. Not a hint of noise. Peace
>at last.
>--------*****************************------------------------
> 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.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_70-
Series.pdf
The S701-1 contactor is a Stancor 70-902. It's rated for
80 amps continuous. But like all switches, relays and
contactors, the ratings assume that you're going to SWITCH
those loads. In the case of a battery conactor, loads seldom
exceed tens of amps when the battery master is turned on.
By the time the starter is engaged, the battery contactor
is closed and stable. An alrady closed switch will carry
several times its rated current for short periods of time
(like cranking an engine) without serious degradation of
service life.
How are you using it that its ratings are a concern?
I am using it as a battery contactor but with a Very High out alternator,
200amps ..... So I am thinking I need to find a bigger contactor ? or my
other thought - guess was maybe to run TWO Stancor 70-902 contactors in
parallel ? with the extra wires also... but concern here is that something I
haven't thought of will smoke something if both are not closed ?
Maybe I am overlooking a simple cheaper solution....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connectors for trim servos? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Those Ray Allen trim boxes (they are not servos), have a number of deficiencies--the
wires being one of them.
Though many people use the D-subs, I prefer Molex locking C-Grid connectors that
are used in computers. I also suggest opening the trim box and mounting the
connector header on the wall. This will get rid of the maximum amount of the teeny
wires.
While you are screwing around in the box's innards--may I suggest a few improvements
to their trim box?
1) To prevent dirt entering the box, the threaded rod extension can be covered
with a little ballpoint pen cap or similar. Likewise the square actuator rod bottom
hollow can be filled and a brush wiper installed.
2) Noise suppressor capacitors are easy to add. One .01 uF ceramic across the motor
brushes and one 0.1 uF ceramic from each brush to ground (which you might
want to add) is a standard approach. Keep the leads critically short.
3) Sealing the cover lid with a little goo or tape wouldn't hurt.
If you want to convert the Ray Allen boxes to true servos, or see a schematic of
what is inside the box, see my website.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve
to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken
--------
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=195337#195337
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
Understood, that EBus switch is ALTERNATE path to powering the EBus. And as you
said, turn it on, check ATIS are all good preflight procedures to test this path.
I just wanted to confirm that once you are started and the alternator is running
smoothly, it would do no harm to leave the EBus switch turned on (closed) during
normal operations.
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195343#195343
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I have railed against these Type-70 contactors for years. But they are almost obsolete.
Most electronics distributors have dropped them from their lines.
Problems--
1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek in Death
Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily due to the
Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
3) Low interrupt capacity.
4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation. 2G rating?
6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This causes short
lifetimes on the B&C parts.
7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the B-lead
applications)
See: www.stancor.com
There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP) and
Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but preferred.
Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
---Aldous Huxley
--------
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=195345#195345
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grounding of com antenna on Tube and Fabric airframe |
| From: | "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net> |
I have a Kitfox 7 that I just had inspected (I have 1 hour on it so far) and am
having issues with my transmission and reception quality and effectiveness.
Here is a brief description of my problem:
When at the airport (taxing, and in the pattern) my radio seems to work fine with
the exception of an intermittent static blip every two seconds or so. As I
get farther out, the intermittent blip becomes more pronounced to the point that
my transmission and reception is horrible (transmission is worse than reception
though by a long shot). Basically, my communications become unintelligible
around 4-5 miles out. I originally didn't have a ground plane other than
the mounting plate for the antenna (which the manual says is fine) so I added
one on the advice of a couple people and the problem has not changed a bit.
Here is a question: Does the antenna itself have to be electrically bonded to
the airframe? I think the answer is yes and according to the maker of my antenna,
mine is through the mounting hardware. However, the builder's manual says
to remove any fabric and grind down the powder coating under the antenna to
get a good bond. Would this be my problem? Would the issues I have described
be symptomatic of a poorly grounded antenna? I know just enough about electronics
to be dangerous so any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
I guess I should state that I have checked my antenna cable for continuity and
it all checks out and the shielding is completely isolated. Also, my radio is
clear of all other noise such as engine, alternator, etc.
Thanks for the help.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (Phase 1 - Flight Testing)
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195379#195379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | RV6-A for sale website |
My RV6-A is now actively being advertised for sale, see :
http://www3.telus.net/public/a6a36537/
TT 45 Hr.
Aero Sport-Power O-360-A1A 50 Hr.
Hartzell C/S prop -50 Hr.
Oil filter
Aeroelectric connection Z-11 based wiring
1 Slick mag 1 electronic ign.
55 Amp. Nippon Denzo alternator
Whelen wingtip strobes
Wingtip landing lights with wigwags
Automotive geared starter with extra new spare starter
Navaid wing leveler (accepts handheld GPS waypoints)
Altrack Altitude hold
Dynon EFIS D10-A plus internal battery, OAT probe and remote compass
module
Analog, airspeed, altitude,fuel gauges
Sirs compass
Rocky mountain Instruments uMonitor & uEncoder also with remote compass
module
SL-40 com - SL-70 Xponder
PM-3000 stereo intercom
Electric flaps
Elevator and aileron trims on left stick
Sliding canopy
Professionally upholstered Conforfoam seats
Removable control panel with removable instrument section.
Custom built aluminium floors.
Nose wheel fork mod done.
Professionally painted yellow (very nicely visible), add decor (stripes
etc.) per taste
Many painstaking hours spent on rigging, fit and finish.
First annual done July 10 2008.
Asking $99000.00
The website is; http://www3.telus.net/public/a6a36537/ If you are
interested in further information contact.
Jim Jewell in Kelowna B.C.
jjewell @ telus.net
Ph- (250) 861-8706
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.100.007).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim noise in Audio speaker |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Paul M. reminds me that the capacitors across the brushes also extend the lifetime
of the brushes. If the noise appeared recently, it might be a sign that the
motor brushes are worn out. Replacing the motor or brushes should be easier
than it is. And determining whether or not this is so should also be easier than
it is....
But it isn't.
"Inventor: A person who makes an ingenious arrangement of wheels,
levers and springs, and believes it civilization."
--Ambrose Bierce
--------
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=195411#195411
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
The below is entirely new to me. Could someone with more experience and
knowledge than me (that would be almost anyone, but especially Mr. Nuckolls)
comment on it?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 FWF
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 7/28/2008 7:39:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
emjones(at)charter.net writes:
railed against these Type-70 contactors for years. But they are almost
obsolete. Most electronics distributors have dropped them from their lines.
Problems--
1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek in
Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily due to
the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
3) Low interrupt capacity.
4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation. 2G
rating?
6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This causes
short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the
B-lead applications)
See: www.stancor.com
There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP)
and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but
preferred.
Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
---Aldous Huxley
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
Congratulations Rick!
Sounds like you are at the point of having many exciting firsts! Be safe
and enjoy the journey.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:57 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Success!
This last week, with trembling hands and fire extinguisher close at hand,
I connected the battery to my Kolb Mk III's new electrical system. I used
the Z -17 schematic virtually verbatim. I did put in a SPST key switch
between the fuse panel and the starter solenoid, but that's about all I
deviated from the plan you laid down. To my delight, and relief, all the
smoke remained in the wires and everything works. I realize that my system
is bare bones simple compared to all of you glass panel folks out there, but
this was my first attempt at wiring up an airplane from scratch.
Thanks, Bob.
Rick Girard
Kolb Mk III, returning to the air this week
Yippee!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
I looked at some of those below and found this in the process:
http://www.trombetta.com/cm/pdfs/defender-family.pdf
Anybody use one of these?
Looks like they can be had for fairly cheap and have some type of TVS
(Transient Volt Suppression) built in!
Looks like it's a little heavier than some of the more expensive ones, so I
guess that's the trade off for cost.
Thoughts?
Jeff.
I have railed against these Type-70 contactors for years. But they are
almost obsolete. Most electronics distributors have dropped them from their
lines.
Problems--
1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek in
Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily due to
the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
3) Low interrupt capacity.
4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation. 2G
rating?
6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This causes
short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the
B-lead applications)
See: www.stancor.com
There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP)
and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but
preferred.
Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
The Trombetta mentioned below looks like a type 70 in an expensive
package to me.
In a nutshell my thoughts on the type 70 criticism are:
some of it is true, most of it is irrelevant.
Type 70 contactors are widely available, affordable, and no real risk
with aeroelectric architecture except perhaps for a B lead overvoltage
interupter with an IR alternator. Sure I might have to replace one of
mine in my lifetime. I think I have a spare $14. unit in stock from the
local hardware store but I'd also expect to find one at most any airport
if needed.
However if Eric or anyone wanted to suggest a particular "cheap" or
value priced Omron part number or series, I would check it out for cost
effectiveness and reasonable availability and interchangeability.
Lots of discussion in the archives Michael but I would not hesitate to
use the type 70's in a new design for the time being. Better stuff is
available at a price but I haven't seen anything that has a cost and
availability of interest to me yet.
Ken
Jeffrey W. Skiba wrote:
>
> I looked at some of those below and found this in the process:
> http://www.trombetta.com/cm/pdfs/defender-family.pdf
>
>
> Anybody use one of these?
> Looks like they can be had for fairly cheap and have some type of TVS
> (Transient Volt Suppression) built in!
> Looks like it's a little heavier than some of the more expensive ones, so I
> guess that's the trade off for cost.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff.
>
>
>
> I have railed against these Type-70 contactors for years. But they are
> almost obsolete. Most electronics distributors have dropped them from their
> lines.
>
> Problems--
>
> 1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek in
> Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily due to
> the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
>
> 2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
>
> 3) Low interrupt capacity.
>
> 4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
>
> 5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation. 2G
> rating?
>
> 6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This causes
> short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
>
> 7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the
> B-lead applications)
>
> See: www.stancor.com
>
> There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP)
> and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but
> preferred.
>
> Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
>
> Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> |
| Subject: | AT150 Interrogation Light |
I have a Narco AT150 transponder in a Kitfox 5 with the antenna on the
belly with a 5.5" ground plate. It seems to be working fine according
to ATC. Good data and the mode C is accurate. However, the
interrogation light is on steady, rather than blinking as the radar
sweeps past it. It used to be just fine, but at some point it began to
act differently where it would flicker, especially on the ground. Now,
if the engine is off and I activate it, the interrogation light comes on
for a few seconds, then turns off. I believe that's how it's supposed
to act. However, when flying, it seems to come on steady and stay that
way with an occasional flicker during flight. As I said, ATC says it's
working fine.
Has anyone seen this? Any idea what my problem is? Several times I've
removed it, cleaned and lubed the contacts, and replaced it with the
same results. Since it's working fine, I'm not to worried about it, but
I'd like to get this light working like it's supposed to.
Thanks for any help offered.
Deke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Maybe you have something in the airplane generating noise which causes the
transponder to reply - even though it wasn't interrogated by an actual
radar signal. How's the audio in your comm radio? Any new noise? Off
the top of my head, maybe you have a bad spark plug wire, or alternator
diode or something like that. Does your engine have dual ignition
systems? If yes, does the transponder behave the same way on each of them
separately? Can you turn the alternator off and still run the txp from
battery (as a test)? I doubt you have a DME in a Kitfox, but they operate
in the same band as the transponder so might be a source of interference.
As a long shot, possibly your cell phone is setting it off. Did you get a
new phone? Does it misbehave with the phone turned off?
I can't recall if the AT150 has a remote ident button, but maybe the wire
that connects that circuit isn't isolated properly. I think those work by
grounding the wire. Vibration might cause that wire to rub against
ground. In reality, the pin in the shell connector for that function
probably doesn't even have a wire in it, so that's probably not the issue.
Maybe the reply discrimination circuit is messed up in your txp. Possibly
a radio shop has a loaner unit you could swap into the tray. Or maybe
they can test the unit for that functionality.
Regards,
Matt-
> I have a Narco AT150 transponder in a Kitfox 5 with the antenna on the
> belly with a 5.5" ground plate. It seems to be working fine according to
> ATC. Good data and the mode C is accurate. However, the interrogation
> light is on steady, rather than blinking as the radar sweeps past it. It
> used to be just fine, but at some point it began to act differently where
> it would flicker, especially on the ground. Now, if the engine is off and
> I activate it, the interrogation light comes on for a few seconds, then
> turns off. I believe that's how it's supposed to act. However, when
> flying, it seems to come on steady and stay that way with an occasional
> flicker during flight. As I said, ATC says it's working fine.
> Has anyone seen this? Any idea what my problem is? Several times I've
> removed it, cleaned and lubed the contacts, and replaced it with the same
> results. Since it's working fine, I'm not to worried about it, but I'd
> like to get this light working like it's supposed to.
> Thanks for any help offered.
> Deke
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Matt, Deke,
I was thinking many of the same things, but given ATC was reporting
his unit was 'normal', I discounted them, as I would have thought
they would have complained of excessive replies or ident's making a
mess of their sereens. IIRC, the 150, unlike the 50, does have a
remote ident pin. I'll look in my SM tonight as see if there may be
a some failure to the light circuit only, doesn't seem likely, but...
If the unit is in an area with many ADSB units and/or heavy radar
coverage, it could actually be interrogated at some high rate and the
reply light is working normally. One would expect it to be a bit
quieter on the ground, out of sight of multiple radar sites but
perhaps still seeing ADSB inquires. However, Deke reports a
change. Has anything else changed within the AC that may give a clue?
I agree, a bench check at a radio shop or exchange unit should be
near the top of things to try.
Ron Q.
At 08:22 7/29/2008, you wrote:
>
>Maybe you have something in the airplane generating noise which causes the
>transponder to reply - even though it wasn't interrogated by an actual
>radar signal. How's the audio in your comm radio? Any new noise? Off
>the top of my head, maybe you have a bad spark plug wire, or alternator
>diode or something like that. Does your engine have dual ignition
>systems? If yes, does the transponder behave the same way on each of them
>separately? Can you turn the alternator off and still run the txp from
>battery (as a test)? I doubt you have a DME in a Kitfox, but they operate
>in the same band as the transponder so might be a source of interference.
>
>As a long shot, possibly your cell phone is setting it off. Did you get a
>new phone? Does it misbehave with the phone turned off?
>
>I can't recall if the AT150 has a remote ident button, but maybe the wire
>that connects that circuit isn't isolated properly. I think those work by
>grounding the wire. Vibration might cause that wire to rub against
>ground. In reality, the pin in the shell connector for that function
>probably doesn't even have a wire in it, so that's probably not the issue.
>
>Maybe the reply discrimination circuit is messed up in your txp. Possibly
>a radio shop has a loaner unit you could swap into the tray. Or maybe
>they can test the unit for that functionality.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
>
> > I have a Narco AT150 transponder in a Kitfox 5 with the antenna on the
> > belly with a 5.5" ground plate. It seems to be working fine according to
> > ATC. Good data and the mode C is accurate. However, the interrogation
> > light is on steady, rather than blinking as the radar sweeps past it. It
> > used to be just fine, but at some point it began to act differently where
> > it would flicker, especially on the ground. Now, if the engine is off and
> > I activate it, the interrogation light comes on for a few seconds, then
> > turns off. I believe that's how it's supposed to act. However, when
> > flying, it seems to come on steady and stay that way with an occasional
> > flicker during flight. As I said, ATC says it's working fine.
> > Has anyone seen this? Any idea what my problem is? Several times I've
> > removed it, cleaned and lubed the contacts, and replaced it with the same
> > results. Since it's working fine, I'm not to worried about it, but I'd
> > like to get this light working like it's supposed to.
> > Thanks for any help offered.
> > Deke
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
My Garmin xponder does that whenever both Pmags are powered up. If I kill
one side, it behaves normally again. If I kill the other side, the problem
remains. ATC seems to see me okay most of the time while this is going on.
Strange, indeed. Makes it hard to see true interrogation hits.
-Bill B
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Ron Quillin wrote:
>
> Matt, Deke,
>
> I was thinking many of the same things, but given ATC was reporting his
> unit was 'normal', I discounted them, as I would have thought they would
> have complained of excessive replies or ident's making a mess of their
> sereens. IIRC, the 150, unlike the 50, does have a remote ident pin. I'll
> look in my SM tonight as see if there may be a some failure to the light
> circuit only, doesn't seem likely, but...
>
> If the unit is in an area with many ADSB units and/or heavy radar coverage,
> it could actually be interrogated at some high rate and the reply light is
> working normally. One would expect it to be a bit quieter on the ground,
> out of sight of multiple radar sites but perhaps still seeing ADSB inquires.
> However, Deke reports a change. Has anything else changed within the AC
> that may give a clue?
>
> I agree, a bench check at a radio shop or exchange unit should be near the
> top of things to try.
>
> Ron Q.
>
> At 08:22 7/29/2008, you wrote:
>
>> mprather(at)spro.net>
>>
>> Maybe you have something in the airplane generating noise which causes the
>> transponder to reply - even though it wasn't interrogated by an actual
>> radar signal. How's the audio in your comm radio? Any new noise? Off
>> the top of my head, maybe you have a bad spark plug wire, or alternator
>> diode or something like that. Does your engine have dual ignition
>> systems? If yes, does the transponder behave the same way on each of them
>> separately? Can you turn the alternator off and still run the txp from
>> battery (as a test)? I doubt you have a DME in a Kitfox, but they operate
>> in the same band as the transponder so might be a source of interference.
>>
>> As a long shot, possibly your cell phone is setting it off. Did you get a
>> new phone? Does it misbehave with the phone turned off?
>>
>> I can't recall if the AT150 has a remote ident button, but maybe the wire
>> that connects that circuit isn't isolated properly. I think those work by
>> grounding the wire. Vibration might cause that wire to rub against
>> ground. In reality, the pin in the shell connector for that function
>> probably doesn't even have a wire in it, so that's probably not the issue.
>>
>> Maybe the reply discrimination circuit is messed up in your txp. Possibly
>> a radio shop has a loaner unit you could swap into the tray. Or maybe
>> they can test the unit for that functionality.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>> > I have a Narco AT150 transponder in a Kitfox 5 with the antenna on the
>> > belly with a 5.5" ground plate. It seems to be working fine according
>> to
>> > ATC. Good data and the mode C is accurate. However, the interrogation
>> > light is on steady, rather than blinking as the radar sweeps past it.
>> It
>> > used to be just fine, but at some point it began to act differently
>> where
>> > it would flicker, especially on the ground. Now, if the engine is off
>> and
>> > I activate it, the interrogation light comes on for a few seconds, then
>> > turns off. I believe that's how it's supposed to act. However, when
>> > flying, it seems to come on steady and stay that way with an occasional
>> > flicker during flight. As I said, ATC says it's working fine.
>> > Has anyone seen this? Any idea what my problem is? Several times I've
>> > removed it, cleaned and lubed the contacts, and replaced it with the
>> same
>> > results. Since it's working fine, I'm not to worried about it, but I'd
>> > like to get this light working like it's supposed to.
>> > Thanks for any help offered.
>> > Deke
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Capacitors for trim servos? |
Hey...not trying to start an argument but as an electronic nobody, these two
advices about caps seem to recommend very different cap sizes (uF). How to
resolve?
Ralph Finch
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim noise in Audio speaker
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric M. Jones
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Connectors for trim servos?
2) Noise suppressor capacitors are easy to add. One .01 uF ceramic across
the motor brushes and one 0.1 uF ceramic from each brush to ground (which
you might want to add) is a standard approach. Keep the leads critically
short.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitors for trim servos? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
In motors of this size, 0.1uF ceramic caps will do. If caps get below 0.005uF they
may not be so effective, above 0.2 they are getting physically big. But the
critical thing is to keep the leads short, and use ceramic caps for their stability,
lifetime and voltage withstand.
Often schematics differ since they indicate how the prototype was built. In wideband
noise filtering (as opposed to ripple filtering or timing applications)
more is usually better. Sometimes the exact values are critical, sometimes not
so much. In this case, not so much.
Just use 0.1 uFs 50V ceramic disk caps. Even Radio Shack has them.....
--------
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=195654#195654
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>
>I am using it as a battery contactor but with a Very High out alternator,
>200amps ..... So I am thinking I need to find a bigger contactor ? or my
>other thought - guess was maybe to run TWO Stancor 70-902 contactors in
>parallel ? with the extra wires also... but concern here is that something I
>haven't thought of will smoke something if both are not closed ?
No paralleling . . . it's not practical. Yes . . . you
need a contactor rated for the task. In the el-cheeso
line of contactors, the Stancore 586-902 is rated for
this service and should be a good value. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_586-Series.pdf
You can get these for about $50 from Allied Electronics at:
http://tinyurl.com/5bxtnm
If you're interested in "stepping up", these are equally
suited to the task:
Cutler-Hammer 6041H105
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Eaton_CH/6041SeriesPowerRelays.pdf
or Tyco Killvac EV200
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Tyco_Kilovac/ev200.pdf
Be advised that some builder's have reported noise from
the "power saver" feature on the EV-200 that required
filtering. Easy to do should it become necessary.
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: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>
>I have railed against these Type-70 contactors for years. But they are
>almost obsolete. Most electronics distributors have dropped them from
>their lines.
>
>Problems--
>
>1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek
>in Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily
>due to the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
>
>2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
Neither are most of the switches, contactors, even
alternators that have been used with great success
for decades.
>3) Low interrupt capacity.
But they're never asked to interrupt anything but normal
pre-parking currents in aircraft . . . maybe 10A? For a
time, the TC aircraft industry attempted to use the
intermittent duty versions of these contactors for starter
control service and found them unsatisfactory.
However, they have proven a good value (I didn't say lasts
forever) in light aircraft battery contactor service.
In other words, the 8x more expensive 6041H series mil
spec contactors did not last even 4x as long. Given the
exceedingly light duty cycles expected from these devices
the way we use them (in failure tolerant systems) they
are of good value.
>4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
Which is not an issue as long as the alternator
is running . . . you have power to burn. When the
alternator is not running, this device is turned
off for endurance mode operations.
>5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation.
> 2G rating?
I've tested these at over 12g. Where do you find any recommendations
with respect to g-loading. I can tell you that the vertical orientation
is to reduce potential for moisture ingress due to coindensation and/or
splash . . . as you've noted, they are not sealed. As a battery contactor,
they are closed in all phases of flight and exceedingly difficult to
force open with g-loads.
>6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This
>causes short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
I've also demonstrated that this is not true.
>7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the
>B-lead applications)
True . . . and not recommended to routinely SWITCH such
loads but will be just fine as suggested on the third page
of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
where we will routinely switch the alternator ON and OFF at will
without exceeding the contactors rated operating conditions.
>See: www.stancor.com
>
>There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP)
>and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but
>preferred.
Preference is another matter entirely . . . and when
it comes to preferences, I'll concede to anyone's desires.
I've even cited alternatives that include the Kilovac
EV200. But let us not resort to generating climates of fear
on the part of the neophyte airplane builders. The track
record on this part for return on investment has been exemplary.
>Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
By all means sir . . .
>Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
This IS a stretch Eric. It's true that contactors are the
most highly stressed devices on an airplane after generators
and followed by alternators. It's also true that they are
a significant maintenance item on EVERY airplane from the
C-150 through the Hawkers. But so are tires, batteries,
generators, etc. The artfully crafted system tolerates
these service life limitations without placing the aircraft
or occupants at risk. Can we really recommend that anyone
resort to manually operated high current switches (bring
high current conductors within reach of pilot) just to avoid
a service-life issue on a 100-our a year airplane?
>"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
> ---Aldous Huxley
Absolutely! Please separate deeply held beliefs from demonstrable
fact. I have outlined the facts . . . which of these do you
find to be in error?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
>
>Bob,
>
>Understood, that EBus switch is ALTERNATE path to powering the EBus. And
>as you said, turn it on, check ATIS are all good preflight procedures to
>test this path.
>
>I just wanted to confirm that once you are started and the alternator is
>running smoothly, it would do no harm to leave the EBus switch turned on
>(closed) during normal operations.
No harm at all. This part of the design philosophy. No
mis-ositioning of switches places any part of the
system at-risk for failure.
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: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>
>I looked at some of those below and found this in the process:
>http://www.trombetta.com/cm/pdfs/defender-family.pdf
>
>
>Anybody use one of these?
>Looks like they can be had for fairly cheap and have some type of TVS
>(Transient Volt Suppression) built in!
>Looks like it's a little heavier than some of the more expensive ones, so I
>guess that's the trade off for cost.
These should be entirely suitable for use as
battery contactors in the OBAM aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitors for trim servos? |
>
>Hey...not trying to start an argument but as an electronic nobody, these two
>advices about caps seem to recommend very different cap sizes (uF). How to
>resolve?
>
>Ralph Finch
We have a first-hand report that the pair of 272-1436 capacitors
back to back "did the job". Would something else work as well?
Probably. My selection of "try it" parts was based on availability
of parts for a quick look-see. Given that the motor is at the end
of long, small gage wires, inrush at the switches due to "too large"
capacity is mitigated. But if you'd like to conduct a science experiment
an test other sizes, we'd be interested in the results.
This is always a bit of a crap-shoot. Noise issues are a
unsatisfactory combination of noise intensity, attenuation
in the conduction pathway, and noise susceptibility. When
working qualification issues in the lab, we have benefit
of calibrated equipment with which we can put numbers on
all three variables.
Once the combination finds it's way to your airplane, the
most you can tell us is that the noise exists and you
find it unacceptable. The first thing to try is reduce
the signal at the source. The next thing to try is increase
attenuation in the coupling mode. The last thing you can do
is reduce the susceptibility in the victim.
For the moment, our brute-force experiment to reduce it
to acceptable levels at the source were successful. Is
it the optimum solution? Got a few $thousand$ to spend,
we can take it to the lab and find out.
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: Grounding of com antenna on Tube and Fabric airframe |
>
>I have a Kitfox 7 that I just had inspected (I have 1 hour on it so far)
>and am having issues with my transmission and reception quality and
>effectiveness. Here is a brief description of my problem:
>
>When at the airport (taxing, and in the pattern) my radio seems to work
>fine with the exception of an intermittent static blip every two seconds
>or so. As I get farther out, the intermittent blip becomes more
>pronounced to the point that my transmission and reception is horrible
>(transmission is worse than reception though by a long shot). Basically,
>my communications become unintelligible around 4-5 miles out. I
>originally didn't have a ground plane other than the mounting plate for
>the antenna (which the manual says is fine) so I added one on the advice
>of a couple people and the problem has not changed a bit.
>
>Here is a question: Does the antenna itself have to be electrically
>bonded to the airframe? I think the answer is yes and according to the
>maker of my antenna, mine is through the mounting hardware. However, the
>builder's manual says to remove any fabric and grind down the powder
>coating under the antenna to get a good bond. Would this be my
>problem? Would the issues I have described be symptomatic of a poorly
>grounded antenna? I know just enough about electronics to be dangerous so
>any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
>I guess I should state that I have checked my antenna cable for continuity
>and it all checks out and the shielding is completely isolated. Also, my
>radio is clear of all other noise such as engine, alternator, etc.
The first thing to do is get an antenna analyzer of some
type hooked to your feedline at the transceiver end
and see what it says. This is not an absolute test of
performance but it IS an absolute test of non-performance.
High SWR says something is seriously wrong without telling
you exactly what it is.
Another experiment you can try is substitute a test
antenna. Get some brass shim stock from machine shop
or sheet from Hobby Lobby/local hardware store. Thinner
the better. Wrap a piece around the strut of your airplane
1/2 way out to the wing attach. Secure with rubber banding
or wraps of plastic tape around the brass . . . don't
get the tape goo on your paint.
Take a piece of coax (RG58 will do) and remove outer jacket
and shield to expose 20" of inner insulation and conductor.
This is the "antenna". Do this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
Cut shield pigtail to about 1/2" and tack solder to
brass. Tape coax down strut and bring into cabin
at trailing edge of door or through window. Install
coax connector and attach to transceiver.
I've built dozens of these antennas to make temporary
installation on ferry aircraft and they've performed
well without having to drill holes and/or make more
complex installations on the a/c.
If THIS antenna works "better", then you'll need
to investigate the mounted antenna more closely.
If not, then the problem is in the radio. That "every
two seconds" thing is a bit buggy . . . antennas
don't tell time worth a hoot but electronics is
much better at it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PMag Preflight Check |
Darwin,
Mike Ice from Alaska here. Just getting ready to test fly the 9. I have a p and
an e mag. Do you have any further recommendations for testing/checking these
models before flight, i.e., run up.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin N. Barrie
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PMag Preflight Check
I have two pmags, total time now 265 hours. This includes one replacement and
both sent in for updates during the annual. After each reinstall I check to insure
the mags were working at my idle setting. Both were.
I didn't take the time to adjust the idle abnormally low to find the cut off
of each Pmag. (I did the first time) As long as they work at my idle setting I
was happy.
I have my panel set up so everything to start works from Left to Right and reverse
for shut down.
My process is as follows, Pmag switched breakers, ON, Master On, full rich yada
yada yada.
On run up, RPM 1700, key switch on both. Check left, back to Both, Check Right,
back to Both. Done deal. If there is a problem you'll know there.
Why do anything different?
During the one failure I had in flight (an internal magnet failure of my left
Pmag) I switched to the Right mag and proceeded on safely. If you have a sudden
rise in temps, rough running, loss of power, switch mags to isolate and find
out if it is a mag issue.
I firmly believe people are getting them in the set up mode and messing up the
timing. Set them up and leave them alone!!!
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton, Jr." <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | PMag Preflight Check |
Mike,
Rob from the Chapter here. Good luck on the test flights, keep us
posted.
RS
Rob Stapleton, Photojournalist
Anchorage, Alaska
907-230-9425
KL2AN
Skype:rob.stapleton.jr
IM Windows Live Messenger: foto(at)alaska.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michael
T. Ice
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PMag Preflight Check
Darwin,
Mike Ice from Alaska here. Just getting ready to test fly the 9. I have
a p
and an e mag. Do you have any further recommendations for
testing/checking
these models before flight, i.e., run up.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin N. Barrie <mailto:ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PMag Preflight Check
I have two pmags, total time now 265 hours. This includes one
replacement
and both sent in for updates during the annual. After each reinstall I
check
to insure the mags were working at my idle setting. Both were.
I didn't take the time to adjust the idle abnormally low to find the cut
off
of each Pmag. (I did the first time) As long as they work at my idle
setting
I was happy.
I have my panel set up so everything to start works from Left to Right
and
reverse for shut down.
My process is as follows, Pmag switched breakers, ON, Master On, full
rich
yada yada yada.
On run up, RPM 1700, key switch on both. Check left, back to Both, Check
Right, back to Both. Done deal. If there is a problem you'll know there.
Why do anything different?
During the one failure I had in flight (an internal magnet failure of my
left Pmag) I switched to the Right mag and proceeded on safely. If you
have
a sudden rise in temps, rough running, loss of power, switch mags to
isolate
and find out if it is a mag issue.
I firmly believe people are getting them in the set up mode and messing
up
the timing. Set them up and leave them alone!!!
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
I would use a Type 70 for a puddle jumper of no particular consequence. I agree
that they have been used for decades. They are not competitive anymore. I aim
for designs where "carrying a spare" is not a requirement for a part, where
"better" can be had for not much money. "Better" in my world is defined as "greater
capability, wider specs, longer life, higher reliability...etc." Maybe even
"similar specs, lighter weight...." Not all builders care about this.
>Problems--
>1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace >Creek in
Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is >primarily due to
the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid >the part.
>2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
> Neither are most of the switches, contactors, even
> alternators that have been used with great success
> for decades.
Bob, that's partially true, but Kilovacs and Gigavacs can shut off your battery
whilst saturated in fuel. They can also shut off a runaway alternator. They
will last forever. They cost more. They have lower hold currents. They use bidirectional
Zeners for coil suppression. Nice, huh?
>3) Low interrupt capacity.
> But they're never asked to interrupt anything but normal
> pre-parking currents in aircraft . . . maybe 10A? For a
> time, the TC aircraft industry attempted to use the
> intermittent duty versions of these contactors for starter
> control service and found them unsatisfactory.
You are referring to a specific application. I referring to general applications.
> However, they have proven a good value (I didn't say lasts
> forever) in light aircraft battery contactor service.
> In other words, the 8x more expensive 6041H series mil
> spec contactors did not last even 4x as long. Given the
> exceedingly light duty cycles expected from these devices
> the way we use them (in failure tolerant systems) they
> are of good value.
I don't disagree. They are a good value. But Omron contactors (50A) http://tiny.cc/sXDp3 are a 3X better value and are tiny in comparison. The Type 70 is long in the tooth. As you recall this latest brushfire was sparked by troublemaker Jeff Skiba poking around to get information on higher current performance. He started this....
>4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
> Which is not an issue as long as the alternator
> is running . . . you have power to burn. When the
> alternator is not running, this device is turned
> off for endurance mode operations.
An ampere here, and ampere there...pretty soon you have real power waste. Our philosophies
differ. I remember in 1960 when you could buy surplus aircraft and
they'd come with full fuel tanks. Not anymore.
>5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation.
>2G rating?
> I've tested these at over 12g. Where do you find any recommendations with respect
to g-loading. I can tell you that the vertical orientation is to reduce potential
for moisture ingress due to condensation and/or splash . . . as you've
noted, they are not sealed. As a battery contactor, they are closed in all phases
of flight and exceedingly difficult to
> force open with g-loads.
You could be right on this. Type 70 specs are impossible to get on this, (and believe
me I've tried). I interpret the orientation spec to be a g-load concern.
But Kilovac and Gigavac and others always spec g-load. Usually 10g's.
>6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This
>causes short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
> I've also demonstrated that this is not true.
As I said Bob, you are wonderfully on-the-mark about thousands of things, and only
wildly wrong about only a few.
One Hundred Dollars U.S. to your favorite charity and a jar of jalapenos to you
if an agreed upon third party will test the type-70 contactor using 1N5401 Diodes
vs. 18V SnapJacks for coil suppression in an agreed upon test. My winning
requires you to never again espouse this bonehead notion.
>7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the
>B-lead applications)
>
> True . . . and not recommended to routinely SWITCH such
> loads but will be just fine as suggested on the third page
> of:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
>
> where we will routinely switch the alternator ON and OFF at will
> without exceeding the contactors rated operating conditions.
>There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors
> (CHEAP) and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. >Expensive
but preferred.
> Preference is another matter entirely . . . and when
> it comes to preferences, I'll concede to anyone's desires.
> I've even cited alternatives that include the Kilovac
> EV200. But let us not resort to generating climates of fear
> on the part of the neophyte airplane builders. The track
> record on this part for return on investment has been exemplary.
>Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
> This IS a stretch Eric. It's true that contactors are the
> most highly stressed devices on an airplane after generators
> and followed by alternators. It's also true that they are
> a significant maintenance item on EVERY airplane from the
> C-150 through the Hawkers. But so are tires, batteries,
> generators, etc. The artfully crafted system tolerates
> these service life limitations without placing the aircraft
> or occupants at risk. Can we really recommend that anyone
> resort to manually operated high current switches (bring
> high current conductors within reach of pilot) just to avoid
> a service-life issue on a 100-our a year airplane?
Bob, Stretching is a good, but not necessary thing. I recommend to my builder-friends
using a Flaming River racecar battery switch to satisfy the FAA for the
one-hand battery disconnect. That's what's going into my Glastar. No contactor
needed. Most other contactors can go bye-bye too.
"Everything you've learned in school as 'obvious' becomes less and less obvious
as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe.
There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums.
There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
-R. Buckminster Fuller
--------
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=195736#195736
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
See: http://www.perfectswitch.com/downloads/relaybrochure.pdf
This guy sells big SSRs. I'd like to see a schematic. But it might be worth looking
into. My concern is that he might have miscalculated the dissipation, but
I can't tell from the information.
Anybody want to investigate and report back?
--------
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=195744#195744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>
>Bob,
>
>I would use a Type 70 for a puddle jumper of no particular consequence. I
>agree that they have been used for decades. They are not competitive
>anymore. I aim for designs where "carrying a spare" is not a requirement
>for a part, where "better" can be had for not much money. "Better" in my
>world is defined as "greater capability, wider specs, longer life, higher
>reliability...etc." Maybe even "similar specs, lighter weight...." Not all
>builders care about this.
Don't now how to quantify "competitive". Hundreds
of thousands of airplanes have flown with this contactor
and I doubt that few if any owners felt compelled to
"carry a spare". Yes, I CAN select from a variety of
products with "better" specs . . . but in the final
analysis, how does this affect John Q Pilot's utility
realized from his airplane? I'm aware of NO contactors
suited for battery service that are smaller, noise free,
and deliver better life for the dollars spent. You've
stirred a lot of un-quantified superlatives into this
stew.
> > Neither are most of the switches, contactors, even
> > alternators that have been used with great success
> > for decades.
>
>
>Bob, that's partially true, but Kilovacs and Gigavacs can shut off your
>battery whilst saturated in fuel. They can also shut off a runaway
>alternator. They will last forever. They cost more. They have lower hold
>currents. They use bidirectional Zeners for coil suppression. Nice, huh?
Sure . . . but how many battery contactors have ever been
asked to open the battery while fuel-soaked? The hold current
electronics duty cycle switches the coil circuit and proved
to be a noise issue in at least one instance. I was hoping
to get one into the lab to look at DO-160 conducted and
see how much filter was needed to quiet the puppy down.
If I were searching for stretched convictions, I might
offer that the electronics in the EV200 were vulnerable
to lightning strike.
> >3) Low interrupt capacity.
>
>
> > But they're never asked to interrupt anything but normal
> > pre-parking currents in aircraft . . . maybe 10A? For a
> > time, the TC aircraft industry attempted to use the
> > intermittent duty versions of these contactors for starter
> > control service and found them unsatisfactory.
>
>
>You are referring to a specific application. I referring to general
>applications.
The man was asking about a battery contactor. I was
addressing that question. I added a note that
the manner in which a b-lead contactor would be used
in a proposed alternator controller, the type 70
would be suited for that task too. The ONLY places where
the venerable type 70 has been recommended for
consideration in a Z-figure are situations where
it is not required to SWITCH a heavy load, only
CARRY them. Starter contactors are another application
that demands special consideration.
> > However, they have proven a good value (I didn't say lasts
> > forever) in light aircraft battery contactor service.
> > In other words, the 8x more expensive 6041H series mil
> > spec contactors did not last even 4x as long. Given the
> > exceedingly light duty cycles expected from these devices
> > the way we use them (in failure tolerant systems) they
> > are of good value.
>
>
>I don't disagree. They are a good value. But Omron contactors (50A)
>http://tiny.cc/sXDp3 are a 3X better value and are tiny in comparison. The
>Type 70 is long in the tooth. As you recall this latest brushfire was
>sparked by troublemaker Jeff Skiba poking around to get information on
>higher current performance. He started this....
That's not a contactor but a fat relay. It IS rated for
switching the same loads as a type 70 Stancor but would
certainly not be suited for battery contactor service
where starter currents are also impressed on the contacts.
> >4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
>
>
> > Which is not an issue as long as the alternator
> > is running . . . you have power to burn. When the
> > alternator is not running, this device is turned
> > off for endurance mode operations.
>
>
>An ampere here, and ampere there...pretty soon you have real power waste.
>Our philosophies differ. I remember in 1960 when you could buy surplus
>aircraft and they'd come with full fuel tanks. Not anymore.
Philosophies differ? I'm not real sure what philosophy you're
embracing. I think I've been quite clear as to my own.
> >5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation.
> >2G rating?
>
> > I've tested these at over 12g. Where do you find any recommendations
> with respect to g-loading. I can tell you that the vertical orientation
> is to reduce potential for moisture ingress due to condensation and/or
> splash . . . as you've noted, they are not sealed. As a battery
> contactor, they are closed in all phases of flight and exceedingly difficult
to
> > force open with g-loads.
>
>You could be right on this. Type 70 specs are impossible to get on this,
>(and believe me I've tried). I interpret the orientation spec to be a
>g-load concern.
Can't imagine how you get this. Mounting top down adds gravity
to the spring tension and probably increases spreading
velocity by some factor. It also reduces a pooling opportunity
for ingested moisture. But to infer that this orientation
has something to do with consideration of g-loading in
aircraft is a real stretch. 99.9% of all such contactors
manufactured did not go into airplanes. It's a reasonable
extrapolation that their recommendations grew out of
consideration for the mass market applications as opposed
to aircraft.
> But Kilovac and Gigavac and others always spec g-load. Usually 10g's.
Those are not g-loading specs but shock and vibration
qualifications.
They do not address resistance to contact motion
while energized/de-energized under linear acceleration.
Folks have often latched onto those g-numbers and
translated them into potential for malfunction during
aerobatic maneuvers. They are unrelated.
If you're going to use spec sheets as a hammer, you
need to interpret them correctly lest the nail you
hit is the one on your thumb.
> >6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This
> >causes short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
>
> > I've also demonstrated that this is not true.
>
>
>As I said Bob, you are wonderfully on-the-mark about thousands of things,
>and only wildly wrong about only a few.
Make my day . . . show me where I went wrong.
>One Hundred Dollars U.S. to your favorite charity and a jar of jalapenos
>to you if an agreed upon third party will test the type-70 contactor using
>1N5401 Diodes vs. 18V SnapJacks for coil suppression in an agreed upon
>test. My winning requires you to never again espouse this bonehead notion.
Do your own tests. I've outlined exactly what I did, how
I made and interpreted the measurements. Where do you
find fault with the experiment? I explained in detail how
the authors of the oft quoted article correctly observed
an increase in drop-out delay cased by plain vanilla diodes
and then erroneously extrapolated this fact into a commensurate
reduction in contact spreading velocity (i.e. extended arcing
equals more wear).
It's a simple bench setup . . .
> >Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
>
> > This IS a stretch Eric. It's true that contactors are the
> > most highly stressed devices on an airplane after generators
> > and followed by alternators. It's also true that they are
> > a significant maintenance item on EVERY airplane from the
> > C-150 through the Hawkers. But so are tires, batteries,
> > generators, etc. The artfully crafted system tolerates
> > these service life limitations without placing the aircraft
> > or occupants at risk. Can we really recommend that anyone
> > resort to manually operated high current switches (bring
> > high current conductors within reach of pilot) just to avoid
> > a service-life issue on a 100-our a year airplane?
>
>
>Bob, Stretching is a good, but not necessary thing. I recommend to my
>builder-friends using a Flaming River racecar battery switch to satisfy
>the FAA for the one-hand battery disconnect. That's what's going into my
>Glastar. No contactor needed. Most other contactors can go bye-bye too.
Good for you! And yes, the type 70 is a legacy product but
so are all the hammers and screwdrivers in my toolboxes. There
are a host devices that will function as battery contactors.
The Omron relay you cited is not one of them. If we're going
to give advice I'll suggest that it is specific to the
question and includes a suite of choices . . . and refrain
from unsubstantiated fear mongering especially in light
of repeatable experiments that demonstrate otherwise.
Show me where the interpretation of data in the diode vs. spreading
velocity experiment was wrong. Keep in mind too that contact
wear in switches and contactors is more tightly linked
to behaviors in CLOSING the contacts. Here the contacts
bounce . . . close, open and re-close up to a dozen times
in an ever decreasing gap where ARCING happens with each
opening. The coil suppression technology has nothing to do
with contact closing behaviors.
The GX11 Gigavac is an interesting product. I've seen their
RF vacuum relays for years but this was the first time I
was aware of a high current contactor. They don't sell through
distribution but I find that an old friend to mine is their
local rep. I left a voice mail message for him asking about
getting my hands on a GX11BAA. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Gigavac/gx11.pdf
Note that this data sheet speaks to vibration and shock
ratings . . . NOT linear acceleration. Note further that
they do not offer a duty-cycle switched, low holding
current feature. I'll get one on order and look it over.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Acceleration ratings for contactors |
Just noticed that the spec sheet for the venerable
6041 series contactors at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Eaton_CH/6041SeriesPowerRelays.pdf
speaks to shock, vibration and ACCELERATION. The acceleration number
is relevant to applications in aircraft and other vehicles where
transient acceleration loads might be impressed on the device. This
value would include the de-energized condition where 10G would
not cause the contacts to close. However, while closed as a battery
or generator bus contactor, resistance to effects of g-loading
would be at least 2 times this value.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Headset components |
I need to put a headset in my Shoei helmet that I use on my trike. I'm
reluctant to take apart a $100 headset to get the mic and speakers if it's
possible to do this with Rat Shack parts (or Digikey, Mouser, or.....).
Anyone out there have any recommendations, part numbers or required specs?
Thanks,
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Headset components |
| From: | sttwig(at)wabroadband.com |
Possibly the headset from a motorcycle intercom will work. The are
already set up to fit in a motorcycle helmet. They are available from
about $20 on the bottom end to more that an aviation headset on the upper
end.
For what it's worth,
Steve
> I need to put a headset in my Shoei helmet that I use on my trike. I'm
> reluctant to take apart a $100 headset to get the mic and speakers if it's
> possible to do this with Rat Shack parts (or Digikey, Mouser, or.....).
> Anyone out there have any recommendations, part numbers or required specs?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset components |
Steve, A Nady intercom was the first thing I tried on the trike. The headset
fit right in the helmet but the unit allowed so much electrical noise in
that it was unusable. When one of the cords was accidentally cut I think I
discovered why. The cables are not shielded and used varnished wires on top
of that. By very careful use of the soldering iron I was finally able to
reconnect the wires, but I wasn't able to get the noise out. Trying to
interface it with my Icom A22 handheld was also a pain. I've got a Pilot
Avionics Pa 200 IK intercom now that plugs directly into the A22, seems
electrically isolated from the noise from the engine (HKS 700E four stroke),
and allows me to use any aircraft headset. Now I want the safety of my Shoei
full face helmet back and I'll be happy. Thanks fo rhte suggeston though.
Rick
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, wrote:
>
> Possibly the headset from a motorcycle intercom will work. The are
> already set up to fit in a motorcycle helmet. They are available from
> about $20 on the bottom end to more that an aviation headset on the upper
> end.
>
> For what it's worth,
>
> Steve
>
> > I need to put a headset in my Shoei helmet that I use on my trike. I'm
> > reluctant to take apart a $100 headset to get the mic and speakers if
> it's
> > possible to do this with Rat Shack parts (or Digikey, Mouser, or.....).
> > Anyone out there have any recommendations, part numbers or required
> specs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rick
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> |
Thanks, Matt. You've given me several things to try. Yes, I do have a new cell
phone and the first thing I'll try is to turn it off and see what happens.
I also have dual electronic ignition and I'll do some experimenting there too.
One thing I've noticed is that one of the ignitions has begun to make a noise
in my headset. Basically I can hear the trigger wheel going past the crank
sensors, so I may have some wiring that is leaking through to the headset wiring
and possibly to the transponder too. Something to look at. Other than that
the ignitions seem to be operating fine, as is the alternator, however I have
no way of turning it off. The transponder acts normally when the engine isn't
running. I my area its very rural with no interrogation pulses until I get
at least 2000agl, and even those are a long way off, so I'm not getting bombarded
with pulses.
However, I do have some things to try. Thanks.
Also, thanks to the others who offered help.
Deke
mprather(at)spro.net wrote:
> Maybe you have something in the airplane generating noise which causes the
> transponder to reply - even though it wasn't interrogated by an actual
> radar signal. How's the audio in your comm radio? Any new noise? Off
> the top of my head, maybe you have a bad spark plug wire, or alternator
> diode or something like that. Does your engine have dual ignition
> systems? If yes, does the transponder behave the same way on each of them
> separately? Can you turn the alternator off and still run the txp from
> battery (as a test)? I doubt you have a DME in a Kitfox, but they operate
> in the same band as the transponder so might be a source of interference.
>
> As a long shot, possibly your cell phone is setting it off. Did you get a
> new phone? Does it misbehave with the phone turned off?
>
> I can't recall if the AT150 has a remote ident button, but maybe the wire
> that connects that circuit isn't isolated properly. I think those work by
> grounding the wire. Vibration might cause that wire to rub against
> ground. In reality, the pin in the shell connector for that function
> probably doesn't even have a wire in it, so that's probably not the issue.
>
> Maybe the reply discrimination circuit is messed up in your txp. Possibly
> a radio shop has a loaner unit you could s
>
>
> wap into the tray. Or maybe
> they can test the unit for that functionality.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>
>
> > I have a Narco AT150 transponder in a Kitfox 5 with the antenna on the
> > belly with a 5.5" ground plate. It seems to be working fine according to
> > ATC. Good data and the mode C is accurate. However, the interrogation
> > light is on steady, rather than blinking as the radar sweeps past it. It
> > used to be just fine, but at some point it began to act differently where
> > it would flicker, especially on the ground. Now, if the engine is off and
> > I activate it, the interrogation light comes on for a few seconds, then
> > turns off. I believe that's how it's supposed to act. However, when
> > flying, it seems to come on steady and stay that way with an occasional
> > flicker during flight. As I said, ATC says it's working fine.
> > Has anyone seen this? Any idea what my problem is? Several times I've
> > removed it, cleaned and lubed the contacts, and replaced it with the same
> > results. Since it's working fine, I'm not to worried about it, but I'd
> > like to get this light working like it's supposed to.
> > Thanks for any help offered.
> > Deke
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Deke Morisse
Kitfox S5 TD
NSI/CAP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195814#195814
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
>
>Thanks, Matt. You've given me several things to try. Yes, I do have a
>new cell phone and the first thing I'll try is to turn it off and see what
>happens. I also have dual electronic ignition and I'll do some
>experimenting there too. One thing I've noticed is that one of the
>ignitions has begun to make a noise in my headset. Basically I can hear
>the trigger wheel going past the crank sensors, so I may have some wiring
>that is leaking through to the headset wiring and possibly to the
>transponder too. Something to look at. Other than that the ignitions
>seem to be operating fine, as is the alternator, however I have no way of
>turning it off. The transponder acts normally when the engine isn't
>running. I my area its very rural with no interrogation pulses until I
>get at least 2000agl, and even those are a long way off, so I'm not
>getting bombarded with pulses.
>However, I do have some things to try. Thanks.
>Also, thanks to the others who offered help.
Got in on this thread late but as others have noted,
the transponder receiver is rather 'twitchy' with
respect mistaking incoming noises as a bona fide
"paint" from a ground based radar.
A technician I used to work with had some rubber
bands permanently installed over the hand grip
on his line operated electric drill. I asked what
they were for and he was happy to demonstrate. Use
the rubber bands to hold the trigger made and then
lay the drill on the floor right under the transponder
antenna. From outside the cockpit you could see the
reply light going nutso. He had one of those altitude
and squawk code receiver/readouts that could then
be used to see if the altimeter encoder was reading
the same as the pitot-static test set altitude.
The drill motor and the el-cheeso readout accessory
took the place of some rather expensive test equipment
for doing pitot static tests.
Try pulling all the breakers/fuses except transponder.
See if effects go away. Reinstall feeder protection
one device at a time to see if you can identify the
one that's upsetting the transponder. But all who
have responded to this thread have identified possibilities
for pesky little noises that might be causing the
problem. It doesn't take much.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
Mike,
That's exactly how I've operated our RV for years. My reasoning for
doing so is that I only have to turn off one switch (the master) in case
of alternator failure. I don't have to worry about turning on the alt
feed before doing so to avoid rebooting stuff. In fact, when my
alternator quit working on my way to British Columbia last spring,
that's what I did. Flipped one switch and kept going. Had enough battery
for an hour's flight, landing at a towered airport for gas, a start and
departure and another 45 minutes of flight and still had enough in the
battery for a start after replacing the alternator. I turned off stuff
we didn't need, but kept the electronic ignition, transponder and GPS
going. Turned on and used the Com when I needed to and didn't worry
about maintenance till we stopped at our intended destination for the night.
I turn on the alternate feed, check atis while I'm inserting my ear
canal headset to make sure I've got them in right then I turn on the
master, start and operate normally. My voltmeter is on the E-Buss so, if
I do turn the alt feed off, I'm reading a voltage somewhat lower than
the actual charging voltage. I don't have to do any math to see what the
alternator is up to.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
mikef wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Understood, that EBus switch is ALTERNATE path to powering the EBus. And as you
said, turn it on, check ATIS are all good preflight procedures to test this
path.
>
> I just wanted to confirm that once you are started and the alternator is running
smoothly, it would do no harm to leave the EBus switch turned on (closed)
during normal operations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195343#195343
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <scott(at)randolphs.net> |
| Subject: | Cell phone microphone as compared to aviation microphone |
Does anybody have a reference on what a cell phone headset plug expects in
terms of impedance and/or excitation signal levels? And how this compares
to that produced by an aviation microphone?
I've wired a jack into my audio panel for plugging in my cell phone and it
"almost" works -- I can hear fine, but I have to yell in my aviation head
set's microphone to be heard at all by the recipient of my cell phone call
(and then only weakly).
Fine for checking voice mail before take off, but not so great for
requesting a clearance.
I suspect I need a preamp on the microphone line or perhaps an excitation
circuit to convert impedance to voltage but have been unsuccessful in
finding any data to help design the appropriate circuit.
Thanks!
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Startup Checks |
Darwin,
Here is a complete thread I had with Brad at E-Mag Ignitions earlier this
year on startup checks.
Cheers, Andrew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: info(at)emagair.com [mailto:info(at)emagair.com]
Sent: 09 May 2008 16:57
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Andrew: When an ignition is first powered up it has to wake up, load the
operating code, track engine position, determine when the next spark even
needs to happen, and finally trigger that spark event. If you power up
while the engine is running all this has to happen very quickly. Since P
models make their own power (as long as the engine is running), you
cannot shut down the processor. You can turn both the p-lead and the 12
supply OFF and it will still be "awake" doing its business as usual,
waiting to resume firing as soon as the p-lead is ungrounded. With E
models, however, you can power them OFF when running, and the ignition
(truly) will go dark - still no problem. Powering the E model OFF is
not the issue. It's when you 1) power an E model ON (while the engine is
running) and 2) with the p-lead ungrounded that you are asking it
to instantaneously wake up and start firing as described above. The
condition can be avoided (if encountered) by making sure the p-lead is
grounded (OFF) before powering (12 volt) ON an E model ignition while the
engine is running. Even so, if this happens, we aren't predicting
disaster. It will probably resume operation just fine, but there is no
reason to do it in the first place - that's all. I don't recall any
customers (yet) in Ireland - congratulations, you'll be number 1. Kindest
Regards,
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
2014 Greg Street Box 112
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 444-5310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Butler, Andrew [mailto:andrew.butler(at)nuigalway.ie]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Thanks very much Brad, and you are welcome.
=B7 I am assuming that like a magneto, the plugs only spark when the unit
(connection 4) is NOT grounded.
=B7 What is the logic behind not switching off power to an E-MAG while the
engine is running? I am assuming that switching off power is okay, that
it is switching power back on while the engine is turning that is the
problem. What exactly is the event sequence associated with switching on
power while the engine is turning that is problematic?
=B7 Why is it problematic to turn power on while the P-MAG is
“live” i.e ungrounded?
I am not installing a rotary key switch, rather an individual power
switch for each ignition. It appears that I will need a two position
switch that allows me to control access to power and ground individually.
BTW, I think mine will be the first IE registered aircraft will dual
EMAGAIR ignitions. Do you know of any other customers in Ireland?
Cheers, Andrew.
RV71700
Galway, Ireland.
From: info(at)emagair.com [mailto:info(at)emagair.com]
Sent: 08 May 2008 17:07
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Hi Andrew:
Thanks for considering us for your project.
The ignition check for E-MAG ignitions is very similar to that of
magnetos. You'll do your regular L/R (p-lead) check to make sure both
ignitions operate. The only difference is that for each P model ignition
you have installed (one or both) you'll add one additional sequence.
While switched to the individual P model(s), simply turn OFF the 12 volt
power that feeds that ignition for a few seconds to verify the engine
continues to run. If the engine runs, the internal alternator is
operating. If the engine quits, the alternator is not working. The
engine speed should be 1000 rpm or greater when you do this check.
There is no need to do this test with an E model as they don't have an
alternator. The L/R test is a p-lead (ON/OFF) test applicable to both E
and P models. The 12 power (ON/OFF) test is applicable to P models only,
and we discourage doing it with E models, so the FAQ you refer to is not
in conflict with the pre-flight ignition tests.
The Installation and Operating Guide also has some recommendations on
starting with our equipment - see Downloads page on our web site.
Don't hesitate to call or drop us a note if you have any other questions.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
2014 Greg Street Box 112
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 444-5310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Butler, Andrew [mailto:andrew.butler(at)nuigalway.ie]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Startup Checks
Hello,
I am awaiting delivery of an XP Superior IO 360. I had opted to replace
the mags with dual ignition from lightspeed. Then I was made aware that
Superior were about to start offering your product as an option also.
Given what I have learned, I am going to switch to dual P-Mags.
I need some advice on how to perform prefilght checks of each ignition.
Sure, switching off the power to both and see if the engine stops is
fine, but how do I determine whether each (or both) continue to fire when
power is disconnected?
Also, your FAQ says never switch on the E-Mag power with the engine
running. How does one then perform preflight checks on each ignition in
an E-Mag / P-Mag configuration?
Best regards, Andrew Butler.
RV71700.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Ed, That is a helpful confirmation of my understanding. I am building my
preflight/postflight checklists for this new z-19 system. I too don't want things
to go 'offline' if the alternator dies.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195860#195860
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> |
Thanks for your reply, Bob. I appreciate all input. Well, I flew this morning
for about an hour and the first thing I checked was that my cell phone was turned
off. No change. At cruise the light was on steady. Next, I switched off
my left ignition which did two things. It stopped the noise in my headset and
the interrogation light on the transponder went out and started blinking normally!
I'm getting close. So, now I can tear into the wiring and see where
my left ignition wiring is in a common bundle with my headset receive and also
the transponder. What would you suggest here? Obviously I need to either separate
some wiring or do some shielding, but I'm not sure which way I should go.
If you were to home in on a specific wire, which would it be? My engine is
the NSI EA81 with stock Electromotive ignition modules. I personally don't
think anything is wrong with the ignitions. I believe I just have an ignition
wire somewhere causing interference. I'll dig my schematics out to see if I
can experience an epiphany.
Thanks again,
Deke
NE Michigan
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Matt. You've given me several things to try. Yes, I do have a
> > new cell phone and the first thing I'll try is to turn it off and see what
> > happens. I also have dual electronic ignition and I'll do some
> > experimenting there too. One thing I've noticed is that one of the
> > ignitions has begun to make a noise in my headset. Basically I can hear
> > the trigger wheel going past the crank sensors, so I may have some wiring
> > that is leaking through to the headset wiring and possibly to the
> > transponder too. Something to look at. Other than that the ignitions
> > seem to be operating fine, as is the alternator, however I have no way of
> > turning it off. The transponder acts normally when the engine isn't
> > running. I my area its very rural with no interrogation pulses until I
> > get at least 2000agl, and even those are a long way off, so I'm not
> > getting bombarded with pulses.
> > However, I do have some things to try. Thanks.
> > Also, thanks to the others who offered help.
> >
> >
>
> Got in on this thread late but as others have noted,
> the transponder receiver is rather 'twitchy' with
> respect mistaking incoming noises as a bona fide
> "paint" from a ground based radar.
>
> A technician I used to work with had some rubber
> bands permanently installed over the hand grip
> on his line operated electric drill. I asked what
> they were for and he was happy to demonstrate. Use
> the rubber bands to hold the trigger made and then
> lay the drill on the floor right under the transponder
> antenna. From outside the cockpit you could see the
> reply light going nutso. He had one of those altitude
> and squawk code receiver/readouts that could then
> be used to see if the altimeter encoder was reading
> the same as the pitot-static test set altitude.
>
> The drill motor and the el-cheeso readout accessory
> took the place of some rather expensive test equipment
> for doing pitot static tests.
>
> Try pulling all the breakers/fuses except transponder.
> See if effects go away. Reinstall feeder protection
> one device at a time to see if you can identify the
> one that's upsetting the transponder. But all who
> have responded to this thread have identified possibilities
> for pesky little noises that might be causing the
> problem. It doesn't take much.
>
> Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195880#195880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Cell phone microphone as compared to aviation microphone |
Hi Scott.
Try this:
MICIN---||-----o----/\/\/\/----X----/\/\/\----GND
0.1uF 100 Kohms 10 Kohm
Take the cellphone mic input from the "X"
This assumes that the MICIN signal from your headset is being biased by your
intercom. The capacitor is critical to remove DC from the signal which
would overload your cellphone mic input otherwise.
>From this, you'll see that the aircraft mic signal is being attenuated by
about 20 dB. This can be varied by adjusting the ratio of the two
resistors.
Good Luck
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
www.vx-aviation.com
Audio Mixer/Stereo Headphone Interface/Tone Annunciator/Annunciator Lamp
Controller and more.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: July 31, 2008 1:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone microphone as compared to aviation
microphone
Does anybody have a reference on what a cell phone headset plug expects in
terms of impedance and/or excitation signal levels? And how this compares
to that produced by an aviation microphone?
I've wired a jack into my audio panel for plugging in my cell phone and it
"almost" works -- I can hear fine, but I have to yell in my aviation head
set's microphone to be heard at all by the recipient of my cell phone call
(and then only weakly).
Fine for checking voice mail before take off, but not so great for
requesting a clearance.
I suspect I need a preamp on the microphone line or perhaps an excitation
circuit to convert impedance to voltage but have been unsuccessful in
finding any data to help design the appropriate circuit.
Thanks!
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Etienne Phillips" <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
Could it be a spark-plug lead connected to the left ignition circuit that
has a problem with it's shielding?
Etienne
2008/7/31 Fox5flyer
> fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net>
>
> Thanks for your reply, Bob. I appreciate all input. Well, I flew this
> morning for about an hour and the first thing I checked was that my cell
> phone was turned off. No change. At cruise the light was on steady. Next,
> I switched off my left ignition which did two things. It stopped the noise
> in my headset and the interrogation light on the transponder went out and
> started blinking normally! I'm getting close. So, now I can tear into the
> wiring and see where my left ignition wiring is in a common bundle with my
> headset receive and also the transponder. What would you suggest here?
> Obviously I need to either separate some wiring or do some shielding, but
> I'm not sure which way I should go. If you were to home in on a specific
> wire, which would it be? My engine is the NSI EA81 with stock Electromotive
> ignition modules. I personally don't think anything is wrong with the
> ignitions. I believe I just have an ignition wire somewhere causing
> interference. I'll dig my schematics out to see if I can experience an
> epiphany.
> Thanks again,
> Deke
> NE Michigan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Deke,
Sounds like you're making progress.. Does the engine have two plugs per
cylinder? If so, the problem could be as simple a faulty high tension
lead - or even a bad plug.
Along these lines, my guess would be that the source of noise is in the
high-energy portion of the system - as that seems most likely to radiate
offensive noise. That's why I'd guess the noise is from a high tension
lead.
If not dual plugs, does your system use a coil switcher? If so, maybe the
noise is in that portion of the circuit.
Good luck!
Matt-
>
>
> Thanks for your reply, Bob. I appreciate all input. Well, I flew this
> morning for about an hour and the first thing I checked was that my cell
> phone was turned off. No change. At cruise the light was on steady.
> Next, I switched off my left ignition which did two things. It stopped
> the noise in my headset and the interrogation light on the transponder
> went out and started blinking normally! I'm getting close. So, now I can
> tear into the wiring and see where my left ignition wiring is in a common
> bundle with my headset receive and also the transponder. What would you
> suggest here? Obviously I need to either separate some wiring or do some
> shielding, but I'm not sure which way I should go. If you were to home in
> on a specific wire, which would it be? My engine is the NSI EA81 with
> stock Electromotive ignition modules. I personally don't think anything
> is wrong with the ignitions. I believe I just have an ignition wire
> somewhere causing interference. I'll dig my s!
> chematics out to see if I can experience an epiphany.
> Thanks again,
> Deke
> NE Michigan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset components |
Richard Girard wrote:
> I need to put a headset in my Shoei helmet that I use on my trike. I'm
> reluctant to take apart a $100 headset to get the mic and speakers if it's
> possible to do this with Rat Shack parts (or Digikey, Mouser, or.....).
> Anyone out there have any recommendations, part numbers or required specs?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
>
Try Radio Shack part number 270-090.
I wired one directly to a microphone plug (ACS and Wicks have them for
about $5). I used a piece of piano wire to form a mic-boom, and used
some higher-end ($40) in-the-ear phones, that also plugged directly into
the intercom. It works great in our clubs C150, but is really noisy in
our Cherokees. My intercom is one of Jim Weir's 4-place kits. My
headset works great with it as long as it is the only one plugged in.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
Just one more thing, Mike. I periodically test the diode feeding the
E-Buss by turning on the master only or turning off the E-buss switch
first and making sure that the stuff on the E-buss is hot. I don't want
the alternate feed switch to be the single point of failure.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
mikef wrote:
>
> Thanks Ed, That is a helpful confirmation of my understanding. I am building
my preflight/postflight checklists for this new z-19 system. I too don't want
things to go 'offline' if the alternator dies.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195860#195860
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
| From: | "Fox5flyer" <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net> |
Thanks, Matt. First, the engine uses one plug per cylinder. The two ignitions
come together in coil joiners (isolation modules). I'd considered the possibility
of a bad high tension lead, but sort of discounted that because the engine
runs great from either ignition with no drop at all with mag checks. Then
again, that's just my logic talking and it doesn't mean that it's not a high tension
lead. I've changed plugs with the same result. If I could figure out
what "might" be causing it, I could probably do a little wire sorting and find
the culprit, but I'm just not knowledgeable enough to get a clear picture in
my mind what is happening. Obviously, it's emanating from the left ignition circuit
because when I turn off power to it, the noise in my headset stops and
the interrogation light on the transponder goes out. I've already checked all
of the high tension leads with an ohm meter and none are significantly different
which leads me to believe the problem lies in the "placement" of my wiring
bundles somewhere. Am I making sense?
Thanks again,
Deke
mprather(at)spro.net wrote:
> Deke,
>
> Sounds like you're making progress.. Does the engine have two plugs per
> cylinder? If so, the problem could be as simple a faulty high tension
> lead - or even a bad plug.
>
> Along these lines, my guess would be that the source of noise is in the
> high-energy portion of the system - as that seems most likely to radiate
> offensive noise. That's why I'd guess the noise is from a high tension
> lead.
>
> If not dual plugs, does your system use a coil switcher? If so, maybe the
> noise is in that portion of the circuit.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Matt-
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your reply, Bob. I appreciate all input. Well, I flew this
> > morning for about an hour and the first thing I checked was that my cell
> > phone was turned off. No change. At cruise the light was on steady.
> > Next, I switched off my left ignition which did two things. It stopped
> > the noise in my headset and the interrogation light on the transponder
> > went out and started blinking normally! I'm getting close. So, now I can
> > tear into the wiring and see where my left ignition wiring is in a common
> > bundle with my headset receive and also the transponder. What would you
> > suggest here? Obviously I need to either separate some wiring or do some
> > shielding, but I'm not sure which way I should go. If you were to home in
> > on a specific wire, which would it be? My engine is the NSI EA81 with
> > stock Electromotive ignition modules. I personally don't think anything
> > is wrong with the ignitions. I believe I just have an ignition wire
> > somewhere causing interference. I'll dig my s!
> > chematics out to see if I can experience an epiphany.
> > Thanks again,
> > Deke
> > NE Michigan
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Deke Morisse
Kitfox S5 TD
NSI/CAP
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195978#195978
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
>
>Thanks, Matt. First, the engine uses one plug per cylinder. The two
>ignitions come together in coil joiners (isolation modules). I'd
>considered the possibility of a bad high tension lead, but sort of
>discounted that because the engine runs great from either ignition with no
>drop at all with mag checks. Then again, that's just my logic talking and
>it doesn't mean that it's not a high tension lead. I've changed plugs
>with the same result. If I could figure out what "might" be causing it, I
>could probably do a little wire sorting and find the culprit, but I'm just
>not knowledgeable enough to get a clear picture in my mind what is
>happening. Obviously, it's emanating from the left ignition circuit
>because when I turn off power to it, the noise in my headset stops and the
>interrogation light on the transponder goes out. I've already checked all
>of the high tension leads with an ohm meter and none are significantly
>different which leads me to believe the problem lies in th!
> e "placement" of my wiring bundles somewhere. Am I making sense?
On the TC side of aviation's house, all appliances considered
for use on airplanes is evaluated for its stand-alone
characteristics with respect to noise emissions, noise
vulnerabilities, temperature limits, etc. The goal is
to offer smooth integration of that device into an
airplane where the installer does not need to accommodate
a shortfall in performance.
I presume that you have two identical ignition systems
of which only one causes noise. I'm presuming further
that few (if any) other builders have experienced the
noise issues with these systems. This leads me to
suggest that there is something "different" about the
two systems installed on your airplane. It might be
fixed by a wire installation revision . . . but if so,
then perhaps theses systems have not been sufficiently
refined sufficiently for smooth integration into aircraft.
I mention all this because it offers a mode of investigation
that looks for differences between the two systems. One
generates an unacceptable level of noise while the other
does not. How are wires routed differently between the two?
You might try swapping components between the two systems
to see if the problem follows the swap. You can use the
12 lantern battery experiment to power each system up
independently from ship's power . . . although this is
a very long shot for a noise that the transponder sees.
The transponder has already been qualified to tolerate
a lot of conducted noise into ship's wiring . . . the
energy that upsets it now is probably coming through
the antenna. So, try disconnecting the transponder
antenna for a short test to see if it stops triggering
on the noise.
This is a game of clue. You've identified the source
of noise and victim to that noise. Now you need to
ferret out the propagation mode. Once that's identified,
the fix will be easy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
>
>Just one more thing, Mike. I periodically test the diode feeding the
>E-Buss by turning on the master only or turning off the E-buss switch
>first and making sure that the stuff on the E-buss is hot. I don't want
>the alternate feed switch to be the single point of failure.
The e-bus alternate feed switch cannot be a single point
of e-bus failure since it's the second of two independent
feed paths to the e-bus. If the alternate feed path is
pre-flight tested and then "put away unless needed" then
probability of it being available as needed is very high.
This was the spirit and intent of the alternate feed path
philosophy re-enforced by the notion that it was a good
thing to shut battery contactors off during battery only
operations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
>
>Thanks Ed, That is a helpful confirmation of my understanding. I am
>building my preflight/postflight checklists for this new z-19 system. I
>too don't want things to go 'offline' if the alternator dies.
The only thing that happens when the alternator quits
is that bus voltage drops from a nominal 14.2 volts down
to about 12.6 volts. If you did NOTHING at this point in
time, you would be no worse off than if you were flying
a C-172 except that your options for load shedding
for battery only ops are more limited in the C-172.
If you were typical of C-172 drivers, you would have
no idea how long the battery would carry the minimum
loads you were able to achieve because not one C-172
driver in 1000 has any first hand knowledge of (1)
battery capacity and (2) how long his minimized loads
will run from that capacity.
If you did not have the alternate e-bus feeder
installed (replace the diode with an avionics
master switch) you MIGHT still have a leg up on a
C-172 driver in that you could conduct the experiments
to KNOW how much battery only endurance you had with
that particular architecture.
Now, having added the alternate feed path and the
diode that prevents mis-routing of energy, you
have an opportunity to craft a confident plan-b
for dealing with alternator failure. The plan-b
removes all loads not necessary for en route operation
of the airplane . . . which can be quite small.
This INCLUDES energies need to keep the battery
contactor closed. Once you are cleared to land
you can turn the battery master back ON and run
any number of additional goodies you wish. Whether
or not they continue to run to the parking spot
is immaterial to the outcome of the flight.
There is no compelling reason to fly with the alternate
feed path closed. Even if your ships voltmeter feeds
from the e-bus, it reads about .7v lower than
main bus . . . so what? That value becomes the
NORMAL operating point for the e-bus. The fact
that it does not represent main bus voltage is
of no consequence to you as a pilot in the operation
of the airplane.
Bob . . .
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195860#195860
>
>
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>6:37 PM
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
One cheap "tester" to find the source of the noise, is an old Walkman or
equivalent radio(yeah, those things about 2 generations older than the
Ipod), tuned away from any station, on the AM band, preferably near the
top...1650 or thereabouts. Then just move it about taking all necessary
precautions with regard to the prop slice/dicer up front. Wherever the
noise peaks, is the location of the offender. I've found bad voltage
regulators that way, among other things. Just a resistance reading
doesn't prove a high tension lead isn't leaking noise, only proves
continuity.
Fox5flyer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Matt. First, the engine uses one plug per cylinder. The two ignitions
come together in coil joiners (isolation modules). I'd considered the possibility
of a bad high tension lead, but sort of discounted that because the engine
runs great from either ignition with no drop at all with mag checks. Then
again, that's just my logic talking and it doesn't mean that it's not a high
tension lead. I've changed plugs with the same result. If I could figure out
what "might" be causing it, I could probably do a little wire sorting and find
the culprit, but I'm just not knowledgeable enough to get a clear picture in
my mind what is happening. Obviously, it's emanating from the left ignition
circuit because when I turn off power to it, the noise in my headset stops and
the interrogation light on the transponder goes out. I've already checked all
of the high tension leads with an ohm meter and none are significantly different
which leads me to believe the problem lies in th!
> e "placement" of my wiring bundles somewhere. Am I making sense?
> Thanks again,
> Deke
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FYI: Powergate |
>
>See: http://www.perfectswitch.com/downloads/relaybrochure.pdf
>
>This guy sells big SSRs. I'd like to see a schematic. But it might be
>worth looking into. My concern is that he might have miscalculated the
>dissipation, but I can't tell from the information.
>
>Anybody want to investigate and report back?
Looks like these folks have resurrected an idea
that was explored and abandoned 33 years ago:
http://www.perfectswitch.com/mobipower110vmodule.htm
This product appears to capitalize on the ability
of the alternator to output voltage that is many
times nominal rated output.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_110V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf
I note further that this same company offers
accessories fitted to modern alternators that
utilize the alternator's higher voltage output
abilities to accomplish certain welding
operations.
http://www.perfectswitch.com/alternators.htm
http://www.perfectswitch.com/mobiarc150.htm
http://www.perfectswitch.com/remotecontrolmodule.htm
No doubt, modern diodes are considerably more robust
that those we struggled with in 1975!
They are in CA and too early to talk to on phone
right now. I've e-mailed them for more information
on the high current relays.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AT150 Interrogation Light |
>
>One cheap "tester" to find the source of the noise, is an old Walkman or
>equivalent radio(yeah, those things about 2 generations older than the
>Ipod), tuned away from any station, on the AM band, preferably near the
>top...1650 or thereabouts. Then just move it about taking all necessary
>precautions with regard to the prop slice/dicer up front. Wherever the
>noise peaks, is the location of the offender. I've found bad voltage
>regulators that way, among other things. Just a resistance reading doesn't
>prove a high tension lead isn't leaking noise, only proves continuity.
Good point! I've still got some pocket transistor
radios around that have been used for that purpose
years ago. In my case, I was tracking down arcing
insulators on power poles. The directional qualities
of their "loopstick" antennas can be exploited to
deduce direction of a received signal (as described
in the 'Connection's chapter on antennas).
I've not had occasion to use one of these radios
in many years. I heard of a more modern utilization
in a class on RFI/EMC issues about 15 years ago. The
speaker told how he boxed a pocket radio up in an
RF tight, aluminum enclosure. He brought a coax
connector through the box and tied it to a "primary
of a transformer" wound around the radio. I think
it was 5 turns of 22awg wire. He also brought out
the headphone circuit through RFI filters.
The radio was turned ON, tuned to the high end
of the band, volume up to max and the box closed.
A short piece of coax could be fitted at the end
with either magnetic or electric field probes
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/RF_Antenna_Test_Tools/Sniffer_Probes.jpg
I built these probes for use on a very broadband
spectrum analyzer. Another name for a fancy
receiver.
This poor man's electronic "stethoscope" was useful
for "sniffing" about the airplane for the purpose
of pinpointing the exit location for a radiated
noise source. This also assumes that the noise
source is also broad band with components in the
audible range. In other words, a relatively clean,
RF energy or energy at very high frequencies would
not produce a signal that one would expect to hear
with this tool.
In the case before us, the repetition rate for
ignition system currents are very much in the audio
range and have a base-band component that is at
or below the broadcast band detection range of
the pocket radio.
This system would not be useful for finding
conducted noise sources where the offending signal
stays pretty much in the wiring. Once it's absolutely
confirmed that the transponder's antagonist is
radiated (coming in through the antenna) then
perhaps Kelly's suggestion offers a useful tool for
further investigation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
Bob,
What I was saying is that I use the "alternate feed switch" (labeled
"E-Buss") as the primary feed to the E-buss, sort of like an avionics
master, and that the diode on the master is now a backup and as such, I
need to make sure it hasn't failed leaving only one feed path available
to my essential equipment. I do test the feed path, but I don't put it
away until needed, as you say, because I feel having it on simplifies
the process of load shedding (including the contactor and alternator
field) in case of alternator failure (or ground ops). I chose this
method because I don't want to risk inflight re-booting of my EFIS and
autopilot by flipping switches in the wrong order. That I don't have to
do (admittedly easy) math with the .7 volt diode drop is gravy, not the
deciding factor.
It strikes me that, if one didn't mind having an extra switch, the diode
could be eliminated as well, leaving the E-Buss as a separate entity
from the main buss. The philosophy of having independent feed paths and
being able to simply shed unnecessary loads would still be served.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Just one more thing, Mike. I periodically test the diode feeding the
>> E-Buss by turning on the master only or turning off the E-buss switch
>> first and making sure that the stuff on the E-buss is hot. I don't
>> want the alternate feed switch to be the single point of failure.
>
> The e-bus alternate feed switch cannot be a single point
> of e-bus failure since it's the second of two independent
> feed paths to the e-bus. If the alternate feed path is
> pre-flight tested and then "put away unless needed" then
> probability of it being available as needed is very high.
>
> This was the spirit and intent of the alternate feed path
> philosophy re-enforced by the notion that it was a good
> thing to shut battery contactors off during battery only
> operations.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Rick:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the discussion of the broken
tuning knob on the A200. That certainly is good news about the part
availability. Too often, misunderstandings, half-truths and false
information are repeated on the internet without question, to everyone's
detriment.
I will be contacting ICOM for a replacement part, and installing it myself,
and probably blogging the process.
I agree with your time estimate: about 10 minutes start to finish (1 hour
minimum charge) seems right, based on my experience. I am glad that ICOM
will make this part available to owner-pilot-builders who have the savvy to
effect this repair. Thanks for clearing that up. I own 4 different ICOM
amateur and aviation radios, and am happy with them all. Keep up the good
work!
-Bill Boyd
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Rick Waedekin
wrote:
> Good morning/ afternoon everyone. I was forwarded a link to your blog
> site and felt compelled to respond. It appears there is a lot of
> misinformation floating around about ICOM so I thought I would clear up a
s
> much as I could for you.
>
>
> I would've posted this to your site, but I couldn't figure out how to do
> so=85
>
>
> 1) The part needed to fix the busted knob is our part number
> 0308670106 and anyone can call our parts department and buy one for $64.2
7.
> Our parts department contact information is listed on our website but her
e
> it is as well.
>
> Icom America Parts Department
> (800) 346-0495
> Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Pacific Time
>
> 2) We have many Avionics Shops that could also get the part and fix
> it for you. Gulf/ Pacific Coast, Eastern Avionics, Aircraft Spruce,
> American Avionics, Banyan just to name a few shops. Plus, we have our
> Service department here in Bellevue, WA as well as our regional service
> center in Anderson, SC that could fix this for you as well. All of this
> information is right on our website as well.
>
> 3) It only takes one hour to repair/ replace the rotary encoder on
> the A200.
>
>
> Obviously we'd rather have one of our dealers/ repair facilities fix this
> problem as there are a lot of ribbon cables and such that if not treated
> correctly can do even more damage to the unit, and wind up costing even m
ore
> money down the road.
>
>
> On a final note, as a rule ICOM's parts department supports most of the
> parts needed to fix our products for up to 10 years after the last date o
f
> manufacture.
>
>
> I hope this cleared up some of the questions floating around.
>
>
> Thanks for your support of ICOM products.
>
>
> *Rick Waedekin |* National Sales Manager | *Icom America, Inc.*
>
> 2380 116th Ave NE | Bellevue, WA | 98004
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FYI: Powergate |
>
>
>>
>>
>>See: http://www.perfectswitch.com/downloads/relaybrochure.pdf
Just got a data package from Perfect Switch on their
"Power-Gate" products. I've combined all the images and
files into a single .pdf at:
http://tinyurl.com/59faul
The information is fairly descriptive. The text of
an accompanying e-mail stated that these are, for
the moment, un-directional devices. This means that
effects of the parasitic diode in their large array
of Power FET devices will "backfeed" power to the source
should the votlage on the load side become high enough.
It also means that they're not ready to perform as a
battery contactor with equally low resistance connection
for electron flow both directions through the device.
Prices for the current offerings are given on page
5 of the file. Here we find that a relay suited for
carrying starter currents will set you back over
$300.
I'm told by my local Gigavac rep that a sample contactor
has been ordered for us to play with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Question |
>
>Bob,
>
>What I was saying is that I use the "alternate feed switch" (labeled
>"E-Buss") as the primary feed to the E-buss, sort of like an avionics
>master, and that the diode on the master is now a backup and as such, I
>need to make sure it hasn't failed leaving only one feed path available to
>my essential equipment. I do test the feed path, but I don't put it away
>until needed, as you say, because I feel having it on simplifies the
>process of load shedding (including the contactor and alternator field) in
>case of alternator failure (or ground ops). I chose this method because I
>don't want to risk inflight re-booting of my EFIS and autopilot by
>flipping switches in the wrong order. That I don't have to do (admittedly
>easy) math with the .7 volt diode drop is gravy, not the deciding factor.
>
>It strikes me that, if one didn't mind having an extra switch, the diode
>could be eliminated as well, leaving the E-Buss as a separate entity from
>the main buss. The philosophy of having independent feed paths and being
>able to simply shed unnecessary loads would still be served.
The diode was considered necessary and useful to eliminate
the potential for having both switches closed at the same time
and having the main bus take power through the e-bus alternate
feed path . . . a bonus of using the diode IS the automatic
switching of one feed path and elimination of the switch.
Of course, how you choose to modify the system and its
operation is a personal decision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Transpo V1200 regulator |
Okay, I tried looking at some old posts to help me figure out how to wire a
regulator I have but I think it just confused me more..
I have a Transpo V1200 regulator for a high amp output Alternator aka:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
Question is what all connects to all the terminals listed?
The label just shows:
"I"
"A"
"S"
"F"
"Stator Output" my guess is leave disconnected maybe use for testing ?
"B-" my guess is ground here..
Can anybody find a manual on what goes where? Or more to the point how to
incorporate it into the Z diagrams ?
Thanks Jeff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpo V1200 regulator |
>Okay, I tried looking at some old posts to help me figure out how to wire
>a regulator I have but I think it just confused me more&.
>
>
>I have a Transpo V1200 regulator for a high amp output Alternator aka:
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>
>
>Question is what all connects to all the terminals listed?
>
>The label just shows:
>
>I
>
>A
>
>S
>
>F
>
>
>Stator Output my guess is leave disconnected maybe use for testing ?
Here's the only data I've been able to find on the V1200 to date.
It speaks to a lot of its capabilities but gives nothing in the
way of a wiring diagram.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
The "IASF" convention for alternator regulator labels has been
around for some time. For the most part, they're consistent in
terms of function. "I" terminal is a pull-down connection to illuminate
an alternator fail light that is tied to the bus. If you have a low
voltage warning system in your airplane, this terminal can be ignored.
The "A" terminal supplies alternator field current and is probalby
the bus voltage sense wire as well. It goes to a 5A breaker or fuse
on your main bus.
The "F" terminal connects to the alternator's field terminal. Some
alternators have both field terminals brought out. If you have two
field terminals, ground one and power the other from the regulator's
"F" terminal.
The "S" terminal was originally used to sense voltage at the
center terminal of a "Wye wound" alternator. Even when no field
excitation was applied, the "S" terminal would have a small voltage
on it derived from the residual magnetism of the rotor as soon
as the alternator was spun up by the engine. This voltage was used
to close a field excitation control relay . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_EM_Reg_Field_Relay.jpg
and the left device in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_EM_Reg.jpg
This feature kept the alternator from drawing field current
after the ignition switch was turned on and the engine not
yet running.
Without seeing schematics and/or having lucid explanations
from the manufacturer (Transpo) I would assume that the "S"
terminal still functions in the same manner when the regulator
is used on alternators with the Wye-wound center tap brought
to the outside world. When the stator tap terminal is not present,
the regulator still needs to be told that it's time to go to work
and we tie the "S" terminal to the "A" terminal so that both
are powered up at the same time. This convention is observed
in the Z-figures where I've illustrated the generic "ford"
regulators. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11L.pdf
The data sheet speaks to B+ and B- terminals, also S1 and S2.
If they are present on your V1200, I have no idea what S1 and
S2 are for.
>B- my guess is ground here&.
Good guess.
>
>
>Can anybody find a manual on what goes where? Or more to the point how to
>incorporate it into the Z diagrams ?
Z-11 cited above is close if not an exact regulator wiring
diagram for the V1200. When our drive stand is up and running,
I'll acquire a V1200 and explore its features in more detail.
In the mean time, if anyone stumbles across some third party
wiring diagrams for Transpo or any other popular product, I'd
be pleased to acquire those also for mirroring on my website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Transpo V1200 regulator |
Okay, I spent a little time poking around with the harness that came with
the regulator - high output alternator and attached is what I found, does
this help at all ? or just ask more questions ?
It looks like I and A are tied together from the main output terminal of the
alternator !
NOTE: the relay CAME with the harness and I am told the on off for the relay
is from the ignition circuit or switch.
My main concern is why they took power into I and A from the main output of
the alternator with no fuse or wire protection ? and how do I tie this into
the Z figures??
Same as below ?
This unit is suppose to have OV protection and all that so No crow bar is
required.
Thanks
Jeff.
-----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, August 02, 2008 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transpo V1200 regulator
>Okay, I tried looking at some old posts to help me figure out how to wire
>a regulator I have but I think it just confused me more&.
>
>
>I have a Transpo V1200 regulator for a high amp output Alternator aka:
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>
>
>Question is what all connects to all the terminals listed?
>
>The label just shows:
>
>I
>
>A
>
>S
>
>F
>
>
>Stator Output my guess is leave disconnected maybe use for testing ?
Here's the only data I've been able to find on the V1200 to date.
It speaks to a lot of its capabilities but gives nothing in the
way of a wiring diagram.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
The "IASF" convention for alternator regulator labels has been
around for some time. For the most part, they're consistent in
terms of function. "I" terminal is a pull-down connection to illuminate
an alternator fail light that is tied to the bus. If you have a low
voltage warning system in your airplane, this terminal can be ignored.
The "A" terminal supplies alternator field current and is probalby
the bus voltage sense wire as well. It goes to a 5A breaker or fuse
on your main bus.
The "F" terminal connects to the alternator's field terminal. Some
alternators have both field terminals brought out. If you have two
field terminals, ground one and power the other from the regulator's
"F" terminal.
The "S" terminal was originally used to sense voltage at the
center terminal of a "Wye wound" alternator. Even when no field
excitation was applied, the "S" terminal would have a small voltage
on it derived from the residual magnetism of the rotor as soon
as the alternator was spun up by the engine. This voltage was used
to close a field excitation control relay . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_EM_Reg_Field_Relay.jpg
and the left device in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_EM_Reg.jpg
This feature kept the alternator from drawing field current
after the ignition switch was turned on and the engine not
yet running.
Without seeing schematics and/or having lucid explanations
from the manufacturer (Transpo) I would assume that the "S"
terminal still functions in the same manner when the regulator
is used on alternators with the Wye-wound center tap brought
to the outside world. When the stator tap terminal is not present,
the regulator still needs to be told that it's time to go to work
and we tie the "S" terminal to the "A" terminal so that both
are powered up at the same time. This convention is observed
in the Z-figures where I've illustrated the generic "ford"
regulators. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11L.pdf
The data sheet speaks to B+ and B- terminals, also S1 and S2.
If they are present on your V1200, I have no idea what S1 and
S2 are for.
>B- my guess is ground here&.
Good guess.
>
>
>Can anybody find a manual on what goes where? Or more to the point how to
>incorporate it into the Z diagrams ?
Z-11 cited above is close if not an exact regulator wiring
diagram for the V1200. When our drive stand is up and running,
I'll acquire a V1200 and explore its features in more detail.
In the mean time, if anyone stumbles across some third party
wiring diagrams for Transpo or any other popular product, I'd
be pleased to acquire those also for mirroring on my website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | vm1000 DPU orientation |
I have an old Vision Micro VM1000. Does any one recall if there is any
orientation restriction on the DPU (digital processor unit) box? The
manual doesn't indicate any preference, but the thing does have some
socketed parts in it, which will be upside down if I mount it the way I
want to. There might be a slightly greater chance of vibration making a
part back out of its socket over a long period of time.
Thanks,
--
Tom S., RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I have
a handheld with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on the
bottom of the nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems whatsoever
communicating air to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have flown into
multiple class D areas with no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3, KAFW -
120.825, KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5, and others). Everyone reports my
signal as loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower at KOUN (118.0).
This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new
information that might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me
very clearly on 121.6. As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said
my transmission was garbled and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing
had changed but the frequency).
So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it is
not so clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've
read that an antenna that receives well will also transmit well...this
makes me think the antenna is probably good. Is it possible that the
digital tuner on my handheld is not tuning correctly? I know, I need to
get another handheld in the plane to see if I have the same problem. My
radio is a three year old Vertex Standard VXA-150.
Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am not
able to transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try and
solve this problem? I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of the
aviation band, which made me think maybe my antenna length is off just
slightly. I am going to measure that to verify. On that note, what is
the exact length of the antenna with respect to the ground plane that I
should measure? It is a brass rod sticking through an aluminum plate
with nylon spacers as insulators. The brass rod sticks up above the
ground plane about 1/2" or so on top. Could that small unshielded
portion cause a problem, or is it too small to be a factor, and only the
primary antenna length below the ground plane matters?
Thanks for any help,
Steve Ruse
----- Original Message -----
From: H. M. Haught Jr.
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain
terms that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would
give me light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had
the radio worked on a number of times and their facility was the only
place I was having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the
reply - "If you want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't
blame our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone
talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face.
They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking
Pacer was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was
working fine by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK
City immediately after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told
"five x five". Next time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going
to call up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing
with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have
problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as using the external
antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable transmissions.
Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having the same
problem on the same day.
M. Haught
Greg Young wrote:
<gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very
cordial
and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not
on
then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn
and
what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one
of
them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were
well
aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
Regards,
Greg Young
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
-->
Hi All-
Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
own equipment ops.
You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
provided me with various insights. Included in those were
that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Do you have the same problem approaching KOUN from the air on 118.0?
Have you tried air to air with a friend on 118.0 (far from KOUN)?
Have you tried going to an uncontrolled field far away from KOUN with a
friend who's got a known-good radio on 118.0, going to opposite ends of
the field & talking to each other ground to ground?
Have you tried substituting a different handheld hooked to your antenna
at KOUN?
I'm still betting on the tower having the problem, but obviously, that's
a hard sell if you have arrogant jerks in the tower.
If you test your radio against other radios on 118.0 & it works ok, I'd
try going further up the food chain. I've read somewhere that the FAA
now has a phone number that allows you to bypass the chain of authority
& go straight to the top when you have unresolvable issues with local
personnel. Sorry I can't offer the number because I haven't had need to
use it lately. (I typically avoid controlled fields.)
Charlie
Steve Ruse wrote:
> A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I have a handheld
with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on the bottom of the
nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems whatsoever communicating air
to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have flown into multiple class D areas with
no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3, KAFW - 120.825, KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5,
and others). Everyone reports my signal as loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower
at KOUN (118.0).
>
> This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new information that
might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me very clearly on 121.6.
As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said my transmission was garbled
and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing had changed but the frequency).
>
> So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it is not so
clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've read that an antenna
that receives well will also transmit well...this makes me think the antenna
is probably good. Is it possible that the digital tuner on my handheld is
not tuning correctly? I know, I need to get another handheld in the plane to
see if I have the same problem. My radio is a three year old Vertex Standard
VXA-150.
>
> Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am not able to
transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try and solve this problem?
I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of the aviation band, which
made me think maybe my antenna length is off just slightly. I am going to measure
that to verify. On that note, what is the exact length of the antenna
with respect to the ground plane that I should measure? It is a brass rod sticking
through an aluminum plate with nylon spacers as insulators. The brass rod
sticks up above the ground plane about 1/2" or so on top. Could that small
unshielded portion cause a problem, or is it too small to be a factor, and only
the primary antenna length below the ground plane matters?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Steve Ruse
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: H. M. Haught Jr.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
> Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms that
it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would give me light
signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had the radio worked on a
number of times and their facility was the only place I was having any trouble,
which was true at the time, and got the reply - "If you want light signals
to get out, then tell me, but don't blame our equipment for your radio problems."
I was on a telephone talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see
me face to face. They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old
ratty looking Pacer was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio
was working fine by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up
OK City immediately after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told "five
x five". Next time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an external
antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going to call up tower
for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing with the handheld on
rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have problems, I'll try the rubber ducky
antenna again, as using the external antenna on the hand held also resulted
in unreadable transmissions. Just doesn't make sense that two different radios
are having the same problem on the same day.
>
> M. Haught
>
>
> Greg Young wrote:
>
> I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
> and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
> then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn and
> what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
> least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
> them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
> trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were well
> aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
> anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
> -->
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
> chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
> gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
> to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
> own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
> a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
> signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
> provided me with various insights. Included in those were
> that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
> leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Charlie,
Thanks for the suggestions, those will definitely help narrow down the
problem. My plane is based on a small grass strip, and I typically avoid
towered fields too, but sometimes they are necessary. Unfortunately, the
only one I have a problem with is right in my backyard.
Thanks for the tips, I'll post again when I find something.
Steve Ruse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
> Do you have the same problem approaching KOUN from the air on 118.0?
>
> Have you tried air to air with a friend on 118.0 (far from KOUN)?
>
> Have you tried going to an uncontrolled field far away from KOUN with a
> friend who's got a known-good radio on 118.0, going to opposite ends of
> the field & talking to each other ground to ground?
>
> Have you tried substituting a different handheld hooked to your antenna at
> KOUN?
>
> I'm still betting on the tower having the problem, but obviously, that's a
> hard sell if you have arrogant jerks in the tower.
>
> If you test your radio against other radios on 118.0 & it works ok, I'd
> try going further up the food chain. I've read somewhere that the FAA now
> has a phone number that allows you to bypass the chain of authority & go
> straight to the top when you have unresolvable issues with local
> personnel. Sorry I can't offer the number because I haven't had need to
> use it lately. (I typically avoid controlled fields.)
>
> Charlie
>
> Steve Ruse wrote:
>> A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I have a
>> handheld with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on the
>> bottom of the nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems whatsoever
>> communicating air to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have flown into
>> multiple class D areas with no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3, KAFW -
>> 120.825, KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5, and others). Everyone reports my
>> signal as loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower at KOUN (118.0).
>>
>> This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new information
>> that might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me very clearly on
>> 121.6. As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said my transmission
>> was garbled and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing had changed but
>> the frequency).
>>
>> So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it is
>> not so clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've read
>> that an antenna that receives well will also transmit well...this makes
>> me think the antenna is probably good. Is it possible that the digital
>> tuner on my handheld is not tuning correctly? I know, I need to get
>> another handheld in the plane to see if I have the same problem. My
>> radio is a three year old Vertex Standard VXA-150.
>>
>> Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am not
>> able to transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try and
>> solve this problem? I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of the
>> aviation band, which made me think maybe my antenna length is off just
>> slightly. I am going to measure that to verify. On that note, what is
>> the exact length of the antenna with respect to the ground plane that I
>> should measure? It is a brass rod sticking through an aluminum plate
>> with nylon spacers as insulators. The brass rod sticks up above the
>> ground plane about 1/2" or so on top. Could that small unshielded
>> portion cause a problem, or is it too small to be a factor, and only the
>> primary antenna length below the ground plane matters?
>>
>> Thanks for any help,
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: H. M. Haught Jr. To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent:
>> Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>>
>>
>> Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain
>> terms that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would
>> give me light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had
>> the radio worked on a number of times and their facility was the only
>> place I was having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the
>> reply - "If you want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't
>> blame our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone
>> talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face.
>> They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking
>> Pacer was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was
>> working fine by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK
>> City immediately after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told
>> "five x five". Next time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
>> external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down!
> , I'm going to call up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the
> same thing with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have
> problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as using the external
> antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable transmissions. Just
> doesn't make sense that two different radios are having the same problem
> on the same day.
>>
>> M. Haught
>>
>> <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>
>> I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
>> and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
>> then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn
>> and
>> what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
>> least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
>> them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
>> trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were
>> well
>> aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
>> anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg Young
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
>> matejcek
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
>> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All-
>>
>> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower chief to make
>> sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that gets no results, a letter
>> to the regional office. Make sure to delineate all the steps you guys
>> have taken to verify your own equipment ops.
>> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO
>> arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember
>> to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>>
>> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has provided me
>> with various insights. Included in those were that although they can't
>> upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud of
>> the system.
>>
>> glen matejcek
>> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
I just plugged in my handheld vertex into the extra antenna on my glastar -
over Austin. Received the usual spark plugs ignition noise my Apollo GX65
hears; but when the approach transmitted, the intermodulation on the vertex
was terrible. Vertex is Yaesu I believe, and my 2 meter ham radio goes nuts
in certain parts of Houston (we call it RF alley) on I-59- so - intermod,
usually affects received signals, but who knows maybe in these "cheap"
little radios, other equipment on the field might also affect it. Do you
have anything else "on" in the plane? I'd say it is not the antenna. best
advice, you have already been given - test it with another plane or two on
that frequency, and confirm it is okay before you get into it with the FAA.
I do believe they have the worst radios on the aviation band however. I
always have to turn the squelch "off" to hear them in my glastar - but the
garmin in my 500B receives them well.
bobf
W5RF
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steve Ruse wrote:
> A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I have a
> handheld with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on the bottom
> of the nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems whatsoever
> communicating air to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have flown into
> multiple class D areas with no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3, KAFW - 120.825,
> KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5, and others). Everyone reports my signal as
> loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower at KOUN (118.0).
>
> This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new information
> that might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me very clearly on
> 121.6. As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said my transmission was
> garbled and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing had changed but the
> frequency).
>
> So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it is not
> so clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've read that
> an antenna that receives well will also transmit well...this makes me think
> the antenna is probably good. Is it possible that the digital tuner on my
> handheld is not tuning correctly? I know, I need to get another handheld in
> the plane to see if I have the same problem. My radio is a three year old
> Vertex Standard VXA-150.
>
> Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am not able
> to transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try and solve
> this problem? I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of the aviation
> band, which made me think maybe my antenna length is off just slightly. I
> am going to measure that to verify. On that note, what is the exact length
> of the antenna with respect to the ground plane that I should measure? It
> is a brass rod sticking through an aluminum plate with nylon spacers as
> insulators. The brass rod sticks up above the ground plane about 1/2" or so
> on top. Could that small unshielded portion cause a problem, or is it too
> small to be a factor, and only the primary antenna length below the ground
> plane matters?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Steve Ruse
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* H. M. Haught Jr.
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
> Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms
> that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would give me
> light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had the radio
> worked on a number of times and their facility was the only place I was
> having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the reply - "If you
> want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't blame our equipment
> for your radio problems." I was on a telephone talking to them from the
> service office - wouldn't see me face to face. They see lots of high power
> stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking Pacer was consider "junk". I
> took the light signals and the radio was working fine by the time I got to
> the end of the taxiway. Called up OK City immediately after leaving the
> pattern, had radio check and was told "five x five". Next time I go in,
> (I've got my hand held set up on an external antenna as a backup radio ), as
> soon as I power down, I'm going to call up tower for radio check on the
> Icom, and then do the same thing with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna.
> Next day, if I have problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as
> using the external antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable
> transmissions. Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having
> the same problem on the same day.
>
> M. Haught
>
>
> Greg Young wrote:
>
>
> I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
> and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
> then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn and
> what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
> least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
> them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
> trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were well
> aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
> anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On
> Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
> -->
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
> chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
> gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
> to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
> own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
> a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
> signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
> provided me with various insights. Included in those were
> that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
> leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
>
> glen matejcekaerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Broken Low Voltage Module |
Hi Bob,
I don't know if you missed my last inquiry, but I haven't seen a response.
You were going to pot the back of the low voltage module and send it back.
That has been several weeks and I have not seen it as yet. Did you send it?
If so, it must be lost in the mail.
Let me know. I would like to reinstall it and check my plane wiring to see
if I can determine the problem.
Thanks for your help.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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: | "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
My plane actually has no engine driven electrical system, just a 12v
battery that runs the radio, intercom and GPS. My wires are all
shielded (including plug wires), and the plane has almost no electronics
so noise sources are minimal.
Today, I did another test that sheds a lot of light on the situation.
>From 2,500', I called the tower from less than 6 miles out. My friend
in his plane a few miles away reported that he could hear me loud and
clear, but the tower said I was garbled and unreadable. To me, that
indicates that some combination of factors between my radio and theirs
is causing problems. At what point should I try to address it with
them? I doubt they will care about my problem if no one else is having
problems.
Thanks for any tips.
Steve Ruse
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Feldtman
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
I just plugged in my handheld vertex into the extra antenna on my
glastar - over Austin. Received the usual spark plugs ignition noise my
Apollo GX65 hears; but when the approach transmitted, the
intermodulation on the vertex was terrible. Vertex is Yaesu I believe,
and my 2 meter ham radio goes nuts in certain parts of Houston (we call
it RF alley) on I-59- so - intermod, usually affects received signals,
but who knows maybe in these "cheap" little radios, other equipment on
the field might also affect it. Do you have anything else "on" in the
plane? I'd say it is not the antenna. best advice, you have already been
given - test it with another plane or two on that frequency, and confirm
it is okay before you get into it with the FAA. I do believe they have
the worst radios on the aviation band however. I always have to turn the
squelch "off" to hear them in my glastar - but the garmin in my 500B
receives them well.
bobf
W5RF
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steve Ruse
wrote:
A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I
have a handheld with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on
the bottom of the nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems
whatsoever communicating air to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have
flown into multiple class D areas with no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3,
KAFW - 120.825, KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5, and others). Everyone
reports my signal as loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower at KOUN (118.0).
This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new
information that might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me
very clearly on 121.6. As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said
my transmission was garbled and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing
had changed but the frequency).
So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it
is not so clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've
read that an antenna that receives well will also transmit well...this
makes me think the antenna is probably good. Is it possible that the
digital tuner on my handheld is not tuning correctly? I know, I need to
get another handheld in the plane to see if I have the same problem. My
radio is a three year old Vertex Standard VXA-150.
Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am
not able to transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try
and solve this problem? I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of
the aviation band, which made me think maybe my antenna length is off
just slightly. I am going to measure that to verify. On that note,
what is the exact length of the antenna with respect to the ground plane
that I should measure? It is a brass rod sticking through an aluminum
plate with nylon spacers as insulators. The brass rod sticks up above
the ground plane about 1/2" or so on top. Could that small unshielded
portion cause a problem, or is it too small to be a factor, and only the
primary antenna length below the ground plane matters?
Thanks for any help,
Steve Ruse
----- Original Message -----
From: H. M. Haught Jr.
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain
terms that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would
give me light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had
the radio worked on a number of times and their facility was the only
place I was having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the
reply - "If you want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't
blame our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone
talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face.
They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking
Pacer was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was
working fine by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK
City immediately after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told
"five x five". Next time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going
to call up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing
with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have
problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as using the external
antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable transmissions.
Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having the same
problem on the same day.
M. Haught
Greg Young wrote:
<gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very
cordial
and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not
on
then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn
and
what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one
of
them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were
well
aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
Regards,
Greg Young
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
-->
Hi All-
Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
own equipment ops.
You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
provided me with various insights. Included in those were
that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
sounds like it is the tower's receiver.
bobf
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Steve Ruse wrote:
> My plane actually has no engine driven electrical system, just a 12v
> battery that runs the radio, intercom and GPS. My wires are all shielded
> (including plug wires), and the plane has almost no electronics so noise
> sources are minimal.
>
> Today, I did another test that sheds a lot of light on the situation. From
> 2,500', I called the tower from less than 6 miles out. My friend in his
> plane a few miles away reported that he could hear me loud and clear, but
> the tower said I was garbled and unreadable. To me, that indicates that
> some combination of factors between my radio and theirs is causing
> problems. At what point should I try to address it with them? I doubt they
> will care about my problem if no one else is having problems.
>
> Thanks for any tips.
>
> Steve Ruse
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert Feldtman
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2008 12:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
> I just plugged in my handheld vertex into the extra antenna on my glastar -
> over Austin. Received the usual spark plugs ignition noise my Apollo GX65
> hears; but when the approach transmitted, the intermodulation on the vertex
> was terrible. Vertex is Yaesu I believe, and my 2 meter ham radio goes nuts
> in certain parts of Houston (we call it RF alley) on I-59- so - intermod,
> usually affects received signals, but who knows maybe in these "cheap"
> little radios, other equipment on the field might also affect it. Do you
> have anything else "on" in the plane? I'd say it is not the antenna. best
> advice, you have already been given - test it with another plane or two on
> that frequency, and confirm it is okay before you get into it with the FAA.
> I do believe they have the worst radios on the aviation band however. I
> always have to turn the squelch "off" to hear them in my glastar - but the
> garmin in my 500B receives them well.
> bobf
> W5RF
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steve Ruse wrote:
>
>> A little new information on this. To refresh everyone's memory, I have
>> a handheld with a homemade external antenna (brass brazing rod on the bottom
>> of the nose, with a ground plane). I have no problems whatsoever
>> communicating air to air, even up to 125 miles, and I have flown into
>> multiple class D areas with no trouble at all (KFTW - 118.3, KAFW - 120.825,
>> KDTO - 119.95, KADM - 118.5, and others). Everyone reports my signal as
>> loud and clear, EXCEPT the tower at KOUN (118.0).
>>
>> This morning, I was flying out of KOUN again and got some new information
>> that might be helpful. On the ground, they could hear me very clearly on
>> 121.6. As soon as I switched to 118.0 though, they said my transmission was
>> garbled and unreadable (still on the ground, nothing had changed but the
>> frequency).
>>
>> So, I know I can transmit clearly on 118.3. However, apparently it is not
>> so clear on 118.0. I can hear the tower clearly on 118.0. I've read that
>> an antenna that receives well will also transmit well...this makes me think
>> the antenna is probably good. Is it possible that the digital tuner on my
>> handheld is not tuning correctly? I know, I need to get another handheld in
>> the plane to see if I have the same problem. My radio is a three year old
>> Vertex Standard VXA-150.
>>
>> Anyway, my primary question is, can anyone shed light on why I am not able
>> to transmit clearly on 118.0? Where should I look first to try and solve
>> this problem? I realize that 118.0 is at the very bottom of the aviation
>> band, which made me think maybe my antenna length is off just slightly. I
>> am going to measure that to verify. On that note, what is the exact length
>> of the antenna with respect to the ground plane that I should measure? It
>> is a brass rod sticking through an aluminum plate with nylon spacers as
>> insulators. The brass rod sticks up above the ground plane about 1/2" or so
>> on top. Could that small unshielded portion cause a problem, or is it too
>> small to be a factor, and only the primary antenna length below the ground
>> plane matters?
>>
>> Thanks for any help,
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* H. M. Haught Jr.
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>>
>> Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms
>> that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would give me
>> light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had the radio
>> worked on a number of times and their facility was the only place I was
>> having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the reply - "If you
>> want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't blame our equipment
>> for your radio problems." I was on a telephone talking to them from the
>> service office - wouldn't see me face to face. They see lots of high power
>> stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking Pacer was consider "junk". I
>> took the light signals and the radio was working fine by the time I got to
>> the end of the taxiway. Called up OK City immediately after leaving the
>> pattern, had radio check and was told "five x five". Next time I go in,
>> (I've got my hand held set up on an external antenna as a backup radio ), as
>> soon as I power down, I'm going to call up tower for radio check on the
>> Icom, and then do the same thing with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna.
>> Next day, if I have problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as
>> using the external antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable
>> transmissions. Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having
>> the same problem on the same day.
>>
>> M. Haught
>>
>>
>> Greg Young wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
>> and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
>> then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn and
>> what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
>> least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
>> them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
>> trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were well
>> aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
>> anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg Young
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On
>> Behalf Of glen matejcek
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
>> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Hi All-
>>
>> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
>> chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
>> gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
>> to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
>> own equipment ops.
>>
>> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
>> a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
>> signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>>
>> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
>> provided me with various insights. Included in those were
>> that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
>> leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
>>
>> glen matejcekaerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
No engine driven alternator or generator? How do you keep the battery charg
ed?
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Ruse
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
My plane actually has no engine driven electrical system, just a 12v batt
ery that runs the radio, intercom and GPS. My wires are all shielded (incl
uding plug wires), and the plane has almost no electronics so noise sources
are minimal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
>My plane actually has no engine driven electrical system, just a 12v
>battery that runs the radio, intercom and GPS. My wires are all shielded
>(including plug wires), and the plane has almost no electronics so noise
>sources are minimal.
>
>Today, I did another test that sheds a lot of light on the
>situation. From 2,500', I called the tower from less than 6 miles
>out. My friend in his plane a few miles away reported that he could hear
>me loud and clear, but the tower said I was garbled and unreadable. To
>me, that indicates that some combination of factors between my radio and
>theirs is causing problems. At what point should I try to address it with
>them? I doubt they will care about my problem if no one else is having
>problems.
It's been suggested that you try another hand-held on the same antenna.
Also, while still on the field you might try using the "rubber-ducky"
antenna that comes with the radio. It would also be interesting to have
a friend visit the tower (a gray-haired ol' ham operator that used to
build his own stuff would be good) and see what your signal sounds like
to him while you switch between the rubber duck, the ship's antenna and
perhaps even another hand-held on its own rubber duck and the ship's
antenna.
I recall a trip to the practice area early one morning before I
got my ticket. Some guy in a Pacer called the tower and was truly
garbled to the point that I could barely understand him in the airplane.
However, the tower guys could understand him better than I could from
the quieter tower cab . . . they handled him like any other traffic.
I was amazed that they did not at least suggest he have his radio
looked at (I'll bet his REAL carbon mic was going bad). By the time
I got back from the practice area, the guy had refueled and gone
or I would have approached him. In fact, I cannot recall any time
hearing a traffic controller complain about signals that I thought
sucked for air. It's only when the pilot specifically asked about
his radio that anyone offered much of an opinion and for the most
part, controllers were exceedingly generous in their assessments.
Years ago it was not uncommon for a multi-channel radio to
have problems on every tenth step in the progression of frequency
selections when one frequency control crystal of several dozen
had gone bad. Modern radios use one crystal to stabilize a digital
frequency synthesizer so if one frequency is off, ALL frequencies
are off too. A quick check of your radio against a counter would
be good. Any two-way radio shop in your area could do this test
in about ten seconds.
It's just possible that someone in the tower has a "thing" for
you or your homebuilt . . . I've come to understand that the
bell-curve is a fact of nature . . . it cannot be ignored. For
every Mother Theresa there's GOT to be a Saddam Hussein.
The best way to resolve the true nature of your difficulties
is to get a third party involved . . . someone experienced in
judging the quality of radio signals.
If your third party approaches the tower folks with the notion
that you need to conduct an experiment to resolve a problem
they'd be hard pressed not to cooperate. Do a double-blind
study of the four conditions I suggested above with your radio
and one other radio and two different antennas. Just speak to
condition A, B, C and D without letting anyone at the other
end know what the details of any particular condition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Transpo V1200 regulator |
>Okay, I spent a little time poking around with the harness that came with
>the regulator - high output alternator and attached is what I found, does
>this help at all ? or just ask more questions ?
>It looks like I and A are tied together from the main output terminal of the
>alternator !
>
>NOTE: the relay CAME with the harness and I am told the on off for the relay
>is from the ignition circuit or switch.
It appears that your regulator came with a companion alternator.
It also appears that the previous installer went inside the
alternator to ADD a leadwire for the "S" terminal. Most of
regulators with the I, A, S, F terminal sets run well when
wired as shown for the "ford" regulator in Z-11.
For your installation, the wire off the relay would go to
directly to your field supply breaker or fuse. The wire to "+12v
ignition" would go to the downstream side of the alternator
control switch. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/_temp/Skiba_VR1200_Wiring.jpg
>My main concern is why they took power into I and A from the main output of
>the alternator with no fuse or wire protection ? and how do I tie this into
>the Z figures??
In the good old days, the "I" terminal was an open collector,
transistor pull-down that would not tolerate being wired
as shown. If the bus was hot and the engine not running, then
the "I" terminal current expecting to illuminate a bulb would
be too high and the transistor would be damaged. It may be that
modern equivalents of this design
>Same as below ?
>This unit is suppose to have OV protection and all that so No crow bar is
>required.
It would be interesting to know the details of the advertised
OV protection. Many automotive devices where I've been privileged
to see real schematics offered only OV warning by lighting the
fault light. It did not shut down the regulator. Further, if
the failure was due to some fault on the regulator chip itself,
most design goals would be wary of letting a chip monitor itself.
Unfortunately, the folks who sell these devices tend to be
cognizant only of those words that are offered on the advertising
literature and installation instructions. So, if the data
say "OV protected" what else would you want to know? I'd
like to see the schematics before I hung my hat on their
OV protection peg.
There are dozens of independent, OV protection devices for
alternators who's design goals are quite clear and their
functionality assured. I don't know enough about the V1200
to offer any advice one way or another.
In any case, wired as shown in the drawing cited above should
get it up and running.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
-
-
July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog
The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew --jus
t an automated cabin announcement that misfires --seems prophetic with la
st week=92s NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircr
aft. There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn=92t think that
was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
As light GA manufacturers rush into glass cockpits, is it unseemly to ask w
hat assurance we have that there will not be a catastrophic failure or at l
east a significant failure in our less robust systems? Several years ago I
had the privilege of getting a demo in one of the early all-glass light air
craft which suffered a total flight display meltdown. It wasn=92t an issue
since we were in good VFR and there were backup instruments. Still, this is
n=92t what=92s supposed to happen.
After one flies enough and sees enough equipment break - some of it harmles
sly and some of it at the least opportune time --a sense of caution or pe
rhaps cynicism sets in. Duplication of hardware on critical things like com
m, nav and flight displays means less fancy footwork on the pilot=92s part
when something goes south.
I suspect the record keeping on Part 91 flights flown in light aircraft whe
n a flight display dies is not very accurate, even though NTSB Part 830 req
uires, somewhat vaguely, pilots to report the in-flight failure of electric
al systems that require =93sustained use of =85.backup power to =85retain f
light control or essential instruments.=94
Has anybody had, or know of someone who had, a major glass malfunction and
did it get reported and to whom? The purpose is not to rat out the manufact
urers but to insure that weak points get fixed before someone is hurt.
Bruce Landsberg
Executive Director, AOPA Air Safety Foundation
-
-
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
- by their intentions rather than their results."- -Milton Friedman
-
-=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
-
-
July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog
The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew --jus
t an automated cabin announcement that misfires --seems prophetic with la
st week=92s NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircr
aft. There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn=92t think that
was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
As light GA manufacturers rush into glass cockpits, is it unseemly to ask w
hat assurance we have that there will not be a catastrophic failure or at l
east a significant failure in our less robust systems? Several years ago I
had the privilege of getting a demo in one of the early all-glass light air
craft which suffered a total flight display meltdown. It wasn=92t an issue
since we were in good VFR and there were backup instruments. Still, this is
n=92t what=92s supposed to happen.
After one flies enough and sees enough equipment break - some of it harmles
sly and some of it at the least opportune time --a sense of caution or pe
rhaps cynicism sets in. Duplication of hardware on critical things like com
m, nav and flight displays means less fancy footwork on the pilot=92s part
when something goes south.
I suspect the record keeping on Part 91 flights flown in light aircraft whe
n a flight display dies is not very accurate, even though NTSB Part 830 req
uires, somewhat vaguely, pilots to report the in-flight failure of electric
al systems that require =93sustained use of =85.backup power to =85retain f
light control or essential instruments.=94
Has anybody had, or know of someone who had, a major glass malfunction and
did it get reported and to whom? The purpose is not to rat out the manufact
urers but to insure that weak points get fixed before someone is hurt.
Bruce Landsberg
Executive Director, AOPA Air Safety Foundation
-
-
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
- by their intentions rather than their results."- -Milton Friedman
-
-=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
>Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
>
>
>July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog= o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew - just
>an automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic with last
>week's NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircraft.
>There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
>incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn't think that
>was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
>
>"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
> by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman
You betcha!
Has anyone found further discussions of these events on the Airbus?
I spent about 30 minutes searching the web . . . turned up a number
of items dealing with EFIS (or electrical system) failures on
various ATP class aircraft . . . but nothing that speaks to what
might be called an epidemic of failures aboard the Airbus.
I'm having trouble visualizing the lack of attention to system
design that produces gross failures of flight deck systems.
I cannot imagine folks who designed the A319/320 were so lacking
in due diligence.
How do these tales affect the OBAM aircraft community?
I'll suggest no more than ANY story of gross systems failure
aboard ANY vehicle. If it's important that failures do not
propagate across multiple systems, then it's generally not
difficult to make sure this doesn't happen.
I think I've mentioned this before . . . but if I were
building an airplane intended to spend a lot of time in
the clouds, I'd take advantage of the low cost, GPS aided
wing levelers and install TWO . . . each driven by its
own GPS engine (they're under $30 now). Further, I'd make
sure that each system was powered separately. If you have
even one of these devices working (along with alt and a/s)
there is nothing ATC asks you to do that cannot be
accomplished with no other instrumentation at all while
you maneuver to VMC somewhere.
As many of you have already decided, there are back-up
steam gages to your "non certified" glass displays.
We've discussed separation of duties between various energy
sources -AND- loads that are exceedingly useful when you
can't see the ground.
I'm still pained by narratives from incident investigations
where a single failure (perhaps combined with mis-positioning
of controls by crew) caused a cascade of failures or shutdowns
in otherwise perfectly good systems.
Z-14 is but one example of a way that one can build a firewall
between a catastrophic electrical event and the total suite
of necessary equipment items. Z-13/8 is a two-layer electrical
system that offers excellent robustness in the face of certain
failures.
There's a difference between how the TC side of the house
thinks and how we are permitted to think when it comes to
failure management. They bust their butts striving for
MTBF and reliability tree numbers that would make King
Midas envious. We're allowed to consider that EVERY part
in the system is going to quit at some point in time. If
it quits because we ignored simple preventative maintenance
duties and wore the thing out, then a pox on OUR house. If we
REALLY want it to work, it FAILS for unanticipated issues
and we didn't have a Plan-B . . . then it matters not
whether the thing had a 1,000 or 1,000,000 hour MTBF
number. Anyone who places any degree of faith in the
published reliability numbers for the purpose of keeping
his underwear dry has been poorly taught or wasn't paying
attention.
I don't intend to diminish the significance of anyone's
difficulties in the cockpit . . . especially those
responsible for hundreds of lives. I ride behind
a crew of those folks with some frequency. At the same
time, let us not assign significance to the miseries
handed down to our brothers by a regulatory
process that runs smoother on intentions than
upon cold logic. By virtue of understanding
you've acquired one can craft and meet design
goals that put you light-years away from the
probability of experiencing an electrical system
event that ruins your day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Charging a low battery |
I think this has been discussed before, but I vaguely remember. Why
doesn't my truck blow the 30a fuse when I use it to charge my nearly
dead trailer batteries (less than 9v)? I have had to do this several
times and I just connect the truck to the trailer up start the engine
and rev it up. No ill effects to report and the fuse did not fail.
The truck has a 110a alternator and 2 size 65 batteries (diesel).
During this charging I see 13.8v or so on the cigar lighter plug.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
The three letters "EMP" should strike fear in our flying (and driving)
hearts - I know, very remote, but some in the govt are planning for it.
bobf
On 8/4/08, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
>> Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
>>
>>
>>
>> July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog> = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>> The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew - just
>> an automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic with last
>> week's NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircraft.
>> There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
>> incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn't think that was
>> possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
>> by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman
>>
>
> You betcha!
>
> Has anyone found further discussions of these events on the Airbus?
> I spent about 30 minutes searching the web . . . turned up a number
> of items dealing with EFIS (or electrical system) failures on
> various ATP class aircraft . . . but nothing that speaks to what
> might be called an epidemic of failures aboard the Airbus.
>
> I'm having trouble visualizing the lack of attention to system
> design that produces gross failures of flight deck systems.
> I cannot imagine folks who designed the A319/320 were so lacking
> in due diligence.
>
> How do these tales affect the OBAM aircraft community?
> I'll suggest no more than ANY story of gross systems failure
> aboard ANY vehicle. If it's important that failures do not
> propagate across multiple systems, then it's generally not
> difficult to make sure this doesn't happen.
>
> I think I've mentioned this before . . . but if I were
> building an airplane intended to spend a lot of time in
> the clouds, I'd take advantage of the low cost, GPS aided
> wing levelers and install TWO . . . each driven by its
> own GPS engine (they're under $30 now). Further, I'd make
> sure that each system was powered separately. If you have
> even one of these devices working (along with alt and a/s)
> there is nothing ATC asks you to do that cannot be
> accomplished with no other instrumentation at all while
> you maneuver to VMC somewhere.
>
> As many of you have already decided, there are back-up
> steam gages to your "non certified" glass displays.
> We've discussed separation of duties between various energy
> sources -AND- loads that are exceedingly useful when you
> can't see the ground.
>
> I'm still pained by narratives from incident investigations
> where a single failure (perhaps combined with mis-positioning
> of controls by crew) caused a cascade of failures or shutdowns
> in otherwise perfectly good systems.
>
> Z-14 is but one example of a way that one can build a firewall
> between a catastrophic electrical event and the total suite
> of necessary equipment items. Z-13/8 is a two-layer electrical
> system that offers excellent robustness in the face of certain
> failures.
>
> There's a difference between how the TC side of the house
> thinks and how we are permitted to think when it comes to
> failure management. They bust their butts striving for
> MTBF and reliability tree numbers that would make King
> Midas envious. We're allowed to consider that EVERY part
> in the system is going to quit at some point in time. If
> it quits because we ignored simple preventative maintenance
> duties and wore the thing out, then a pox on OUR house. If we
> REALLY want it to work, it FAILS for unanticipated issues
> and we didn't have a Plan-B . . . then it matters not
> whether the thing had a 1,000 or 1,000,000 hour MTBF
> number. Anyone who places any degree of faith in the
> published reliability numbers for the purpose of keeping
> his underwear dry has been poorly taught or wasn't paying
> attention.
>
> I don't intend to diminish the significance of anyone's
> difficulties in the cockpit . . . especially those
> responsible for hundreds of lives. I ride behind
> a crew of those folks with some frequency. At the same
> time, let us not assign significance to the miseries
> handed down to our brothers by a regulatory
> process that runs smoother on intentions than
> upon cold logic. By virtue of understanding
> you've acquired one can craft and meet design
> goals that put you light-years away from the
> probability of experiencing an electrical system
> event that ruins your day.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
Amen Bob!..Plan for failure because it will happen.
As for me I fly behind a DYNON EFIS and have a Trutrak wingleveler..
During all of my practice approaches (and some real approaches) I fly my twitchy
RV by hand...I don't feel I need 2 winglevelers but I am certainly prepared
to hand fly it out of the clouds (or down to minimums) if have to..
To me the multiple failure scenario is unbelievable also.
Cheers
Frank
Electrically dependant RV7a
You betcha!
. By virtue of understanding
you've acquired one can craft and meet design
goals that put you light-years away from the
probability of experiencing an electrical system
event that ruins your day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
Bob, et al, Here's one possibility for failure while still on the ground, an
open or leaky canopy on a night of intense ground fog that lets the whole
aircraft cold soak and become coated with water.
Happened on my truck (an electrically dependant 2006 Toyota Tacoma Pre
Runner) which has eight on board computers. I left the windows down all
night and came out the next morning to find the interior soaked.
The engine started normally, but almost immediately the dash began to light
up like the proverbial Christmas tree. The stability control system, ABS
system, the electric limited slip differential, and the service engine
warning lamps were all lit. Brakes worked, as did the FBW throttle, although
applying the brakes caused the left turn signal to light, so I continued on
my way. After my first stop the lights were out after start up, then came
back on a mile or so down the road. After my second stop the lights were out
after start up and stayed out, although applying the brakes still caused the
left turn signal to light. It was on this leg of the trip that I learned
that actuating the left turn signal caused the cruise control to turn off.
Once we were well into the heat of the Kansas day, all the symptoms went
away.
I've put the truck through some pretty wild weather on many cross country
drives to both coasts and never saw any problems like this, but one good
soaking of the interior sure made for an interesting morning.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <
frank.hinde(at)hp.com> wrote:
>
>
> Amen Bob!..Plan for failure because it will happen.
>
> As for me I fly behind a DYNON EFIS and have a Trutrak wingleveler..
>
> During all of my practice approaches (and some real approaches) I fly my
> twitchy RV by hand...I don't feel I need 2 winglevelers but I am certainly
> prepared to hand fly it out of the clouds (or down to minimums) if have to..
>
> To me the multiple failure scenario is unbelievable also.
>
> Cheers
>
> Frank
> Electrically dependant RV7a
>
> You betcha!
>
> . By virtue of understanding
> you've acquired one can craft and meet design
> goals that put you light-years away from the
> probability of experiencing an electrical system
> event that ruins your day.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Charging a low battery |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I think what's going on here is that it probably takes very little current
to raise the voltage on a dead battery from 9V to 14V - as long as no
cells are shorted. Once the cell voltage comes up, the current drawn
drops even further - small voltage difference between the alternator
output and the stacked cell voltage.
How much current the battery can take will also depend on the internal
resistance of its cells. It's possible that if you had batteries with
low(er) internal resistance (an RG type, maybe), you'd start blowing
fuses. Bob posted a note a while back about certain aircraft that had
charging system problems when running low internal resistance RG
batteries.
Your hi power alternator can be convinced to provide its full output if
you connect a load which will continue to drop the bus voltage.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> I think this has been discussed before, but I vaguely remember. Why
> doesn't my truck blow the 30a fuse when I use it to charge my nearly
> dead trailer batteries (less than 9v)? I have had to do this several
> times and I just connect the truck to the trailer up start the engine
> and rev it up. No ill effects to report and the fuse did not fail.
> The truck has a 110a alternator and 2 size 65 batteries (diesel).
> During this charging I see 13.8v or so on the cigar lighter plug.
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121684995725478651.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
> >
> >
> >
> >July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog> >= o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
> >The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew - just
> >an automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic with last
> >week's NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircraft.
> >There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
> >incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn't think that
> >was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
>
>
> >
> >"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
> > by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman
>
> You betcha!
>
> Has anyone found further discussions of these events on the Airbus?
> I spent about 30 minutes searching the web . . . turned up a number
> of items dealing with EFIS (or electrical system) failures on
> various ATP class aircraft . . . but nothing that speaks to what
> might be called an epidemic of failures aboard the Airbus.
>
> I'm having trouble visualizing the lack of attention to system
> design that produces gross failures of flight deck systems.
> I cannot imagine folks who designed the A319/320 were so lacking
> in due diligence.
>
> How do these tales affect the OBAM aircraft community?
> I'll suggest no more than ANY story of gross systems failure
> aboard ANY vehicle. If it's important that failures do not
> propagate across multiple systems, then it's generally not
> difficult to make sure this doesn't happen.
>
> I think I've mentioned this before . . . but if I were
> building an airplane intended to spend a lot of time in
> the clouds, I'd take advantage of the low cost, GPS aided
> wing levelers and install TWO . . . each driven by its
> own GPS engine (they're under $30 now). Further, I'd make
> sure that each system was powered separately. If you have
> even one of these devices working (along with alt and a/s)
> there is nothing ATC asks you to do that cannot be
> accomplished with no other instrumentation at all while
> you maneuver to VMC somewhere.
>
> As many of you have already decided, there are back-up
> steam gages to your "non certified" glass displays.
> We've discussed separation of duties between various energy
> sources -AND- loads that are exceedingly useful when you
> can't see the ground.
>
> I'm still pained by narratives from incident investigations
> where a single failure (perhaps combined with mis-positioning
> of controls by crew) caused a cascade of failures or shutdowns
> in otherwise perfectly good systems.
>
> Z-14 is but one example of a way that one can build a firewall
> between a catastrophic electrical event and the total suite
> of necessary equipment items. Z-13/8 is a two-layer electrical
> system that offers excellent robustness in the face of certain
> failures.
>
> There's a difference between how the TC side of the house
> thinks and how we are permitted to think when it comes to
> failure management. They bust their butts striving for
> MTBF and reliability tree numbers that would make King
> Midas envious. We're allowed to consider that EVERY part
> in the system is going to quit at some point in time. If
> it quits because we ignored simple preventative maintenance
> duties and wore the thing out, then a pox on OUR house. If we
> REALLY want it to work, it FAILS for unanticipated issues
> and we didn't have a Plan-B . . . then it matters not
> whether the thing had a 1,000 or 1,000,000 hour MTBF
> number. Anyone who places any degree of faith in the
> published reliability numbers for the purpose of keeping
> his underwear dry has been poorly taught or wasn't paying
> attention.
>
> I don't intend to diminish the significance of anyone's
> difficulties in the cockpit . . . especially those
> responsible for hundreds of lives. I ride behind
> a crew of those folks with some frequency. At the same
> time, let us not assign significance to the miseries
> handed down to our brothers by a regulatory
> process that runs smoother on intentions than
> upon cold logic. By virtue of understanding
> you've acquired one can craft and meet design
> goals that put you light-years away from the
> probability of experiencing an electrical system
> event that ruins your day.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
> >
> >
>
>
> >July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog> >=
o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >The old
joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew - just
> >an
automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic with last
>
>week's NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus aircraft.
> >There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including
seven
> >incidents where all six scr
eens f
ailed simultaneously. Didn't think that
> >was possible? Neither did
the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
>
>
> >
>
>"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
>
> by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman
>
> You betcha!
>
> Has anyone found further discussions
of these events on the Airbus?
> I spent about 30 minutes searching
the web . . . turned up a number
> of items dealing with EFIS (or electrical
system) failures on
> various ATP class aircraft . . . but nothing
that speaks to what
> might be called an epidemic of failures aboard
the Airbus.
>
> I'm having trouble visualizing the lack of attention
to system
> design that produces gross failures of flight deck systems.
> I cannot imagine folks who designed the A319/320 were so lacking
> in due diligence.
>
> How do
these
tales affect the OBAM aircraft community?
> I'll suggest no more than ANY
story of gross systems failure
> aboard ANY vehicle. If it's important
that failures do not
> propagate across multiple systems, then it's
generally not
> difficult to make sure this doesn't happen.
>
>
I think I've mentioned this before . . . but if I were
> building
an airplane intended to spend a lot of time in
> the clouds, I'd take
advantage of the low cost, GPS aided
> wing levelers and install TWO .
. . each driven by its
> own GPS engine (they're under $30 now). Further,
I'd make
> sure that each system was powered separately. If you have
> even one of these devices working (along with alt and a/s)
>
there is nothing ATC asks you to do that cannot be
> accomplished with
no other instrumentation at all while
> you maneuver to VMC somewhere.
>
> As many of you have already decide
d, the
re are back-up
> steam gages to your "non certified" glass displays.
>
We've discussed separation of duties between various energy
> sources
-AND- loads that are exceedingly useful when you
> can't see the ground.
>
> I'm still pained by narratives from incident investigations
> where a single failure (perhaps combined with mis-positioning
> of controls by crew) caused a cascade of failures or shutdowns
>
in otherwise perfectly good systems.
>
> Z-14 is but one example
of a way that one can build a firewall
> between a catastrophic electrical
event and the total suite
> of necessary equipment items. Z-13/8
is a two-layer electrical
> system that offers excellent robustness in
the face of certain
> failures.
>
> There's a difference
between how the TC side of the house
> thinks and how we are permitted
to think when it comes to
> failure manageme
nt. Th
ey bust their butts striving for
> MTBF and reliability tree numbers that
would make King
> Midas envious. We're allowed to consider that EVERY
part
> in the system is going to quit at some point in time. If
>
it quits because we ignored simple preventative maintenance
> duties
and wore the thing out, then a pox on OUR house. If we
> REALLY want it
to work, it FAILS for unanticipated issues
> and we didn't have a Plan-B
. . . then it matters not
> whether the thing had a 1,000 or 1,000,000
hour MTBF
> number. Anyone who places any degree of faith in the
>
published reliability numbers for the purpose of keeping
> his underwear
dry has been poorly taught or wasn't paying
> attention.
>
> I don't intend to diminish the significance of anyone's
>
difficulties in the cockpit . . . especially those
> responsible for hundreds
of lives. I ride behind
> a crew of tho
se fol
=====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <timrvator(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
This sort of thing is why my EFIS-equipped RV-10 (with electronic
ignition) is built with backup mechanical altimeter and airspeed, a
vacuum powered artificial horizon, and an old fashioned mag to back up
the electronic ignition. That's the most diverse approach to redundancy
I could get for my experimental aircraft.
An unanticipated event may be able to take out even a well designed
electrical bus that has passed multiple peer reviews (Diamond twin star,
for example), but it's pretty unlikely to take out the vacuum pump or
the mag at the same time.
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 1000 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
John Markey wrote:
> Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
>
>
>
> July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog
>
> The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew
> - just an automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic
> with last weeks NTSB announcement about massive display failure on
> Airbus aircraft. There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft
> including seven incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously.
> Didnt think that was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA
> or the NTSB.
> As light GA manufacturers rush into glass cockpits, is it unseemly to
> ask what assurance we have that there will not be a catastrophic
> failure or at least a significant failure in our less robust systems?
> Several years ago I had the privilege of getting a demo in one of the
> early all-glass light aircraft which suffered a total flight display
> meltdown. It wasnt an issue since we were in good VFR and there were
> backup instruments. Still, this isnt whats supposed to happen.
> After one flies enough and sees enough equipment break - some of it
> harmlessly and some of it at the least opportune time - a sense of
> caution or perhaps cynicism sets in. Duplication of hardware on
> critical things like comm, nav and flight displays means less fancy
> footwork on the pilots part when something goes south.
> I suspect the record keeping on Part 91 flights flown in light
> aircraft when a flight display dies is not very accurate, even though
> NTSB Part 830 requires, somewhat vaguely, pilots to report the
> in-flight failure of electrical systems that require sustained use of
> .backup power to retain flight control or essential instruments.
> Has anybody had, or know of someone who had, a major glass malfunction
> and did it get reported and to whom? The purpose is not to rat out the
> manufacturers but to insure that weak points get fixed before someone
> is hurt.
>
> Bruce Landsberg
> Executive Director, AOPA Air Safety Foundation
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
>>An unanticipated event may be able to take out even a well designed elect
rical bus that has passed multiple peer reviews (Diamond twin star, for exa
mple), <<
Ah... what makes you assume it passed multiple peer reviews ?
By whom? When ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging a low battery |
paul wilson wrote:
>
> I think this has been discussed before, but I vaguely remember. Why
> doesn't my truck blow the 30a fuse when I use it to charge my nearly
> dead trailer batteries (less than 9v)? I have had to do this several
> times and I just connect the truck to the trailer up start the engine
> and rev it up. No ill effects to report and the fuse did not fail.
> The truck has a 110a alternator and 2 size 65 batteries (diesel).
> During this charging I see 13.8v or so on the cigar lighter plug.
> Thanks, Paul
What is the path resistance between from the alternator, to the trailer
battery and back again?
The trailer batter is at 9V and the alternator is putting out 13.8V.
That gives you 4.8V to drive current with. 0.16 Ohms will limit 4.8V to
30A. In that circuit, you've got at least 30ft of wire (of unknown
gauge), two pin connectors (probably half corroded if they look like the
ones on the back of my truck), and two battery connections of unknown
condition. Half an ohm would be no problem to mix in there somewhere.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
I just want to add my 2 cents here. I have been flying the Airbus
319/320 for over 11 years and have not heard of a failure of all screens
at once. But I will add this, I have seen and heard of avionics
failures that were not suppose to happen and did. In every case that I
have heard of or been a part of they ALL have been due to changes during
modification or maintenance and not the original TC wiring. What I have
extrapolated from these anomalies is the oversight of system integrity
goes down considerably once the airplane leaves the factory.
Just my 2 cents,
Mike Larkin
>Article worth forwarding to this list from AOPA
>
>
>July 30, 2008 by Bruce Landsberg , AOPA Safety blog= o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>The old joke about the fully automated airliner with no flight crew -
just
>an automated cabin announcement that misfires - seems prophetic with
last
>week's NTSB announcement about massive display failure on Airbus
aircraft.
>There were 49 failures on Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft including seven
>incidents where all six screens failed simultaneously. Didn't think
that
>was possible? Neither did the manufacturer, the FAA or the NTSB.
>
>"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs
> by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman
You betcha!
Has anyone found further discussions of these events on the Airbus?
I spent about 30 minutes searching the web . . . turned up a number
of items dealing with EFIS (or electrical system) failures on
various ATP class aircraft . . . but nothing that speaks to what
might be called an epidemic of failures aboard the Airbus.
I'm having trouble visualizing the lack of attention to system
design that produces gross failures of flight deck systems.
I cannot imagine folks who designed the A319/320 were so lacking
in due diligence.
How do these tales affect the OBAM aircraft community?
I'll suggest no more than ANY story of gross systems failure
aboard ANY vehicle. If it's important that failures do not
propagate across multiple systems, then it's generally not
difficult to make sure this doesn't happen.
I think I've mentioned this before . . . but if I were
building an airplane intended to spend a lot of time in
the clouds, I'd take advantage of the low cost, GPS aided
wing levelers and install TWO . . . each driven by its
own GPS engine (they're under $30 now). Further, I'd make
sure that each system was powered separately. If you have
even one of these devices working (along with alt and a/s)
there is nothing ATC asks you to do that cannot be
accomplished with no other instrumentation at all while
you maneuver to VMC somewhere.
As many of you have already decided, there are back-up
steam gages to your "non certified" glass displays.
We've discussed separation of duties between various energy
sources -AND- loads that are exceedingly useful when you
can't see the ground.
I'm still pained by narratives from incident investigations
where a single failure (perhaps combined with mis-positioning
of controls by crew) caused a cascade of failures or shutdowns
in otherwise perfectly good systems.
Z-14 is but one example of a way that one can build a firewall
between a catastrophic electrical event and the total suite
of necessary equipment items. Z-13/8 is a two-layer electrical
system that offers excellent robustness in the face of certain
failures.
There's a difference between how the TC side of the house
thinks and how we are permitted to think when it comes to
failure management. They bust their butts striving for
MTBF and reliability tree numbers that would make King
Midas envious. We're allowed to consider that EVERY part
in the system is going to quit at some point in time. If
it quits because we ignored simple preventative maintenance
duties and wore the thing out, then a pox on OUR house. If we
REALLY want it to work, it FAILS for unanticipated issues
and we didn't have a Plan-B . . . then it matters not
whether the thing had a 1,000 or 1,000,000 hour MTBF
number. Anyone who places any degree of faith in the
published reliability numbers for the purpose of keeping
his underwear dry has been poorly taught or wasn't paying
attention.
I don't intend to diminish the significance of anyone's
difficulties in the cockpit . . . especially those
responsible for hundreds of lives. I ride behind
a crew of those folks with some frequency. At the same
time, let us not assign significance to the miseries
handed down to our brothers by a regulatory
process that runs smoother on intentions than
upon cold logic. By virtue of understanding
you've acquired one can craft and meet design
goals that put you light-years away from the
probability of experiencing an electrical system
event that ruins your day.
Bob . . .
7/22/2008 4:05 PM
7/22/2008 4:05 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
> >>An unanticipated event may be able to take out even a well designed
> electrical bus that has passed multiple peer reviews (Diamond twin star,
> for example), <<
>
> Ah... what makes you assume it passed multiple peer reviews ?
>
> By whom? When ?
Exactly . . . and then you have "executive decision" to
contend with. I'm seriously considering bowing out of a
program wherein we walked in with a proposal for a
"been there, done that, best-we-know-how-to-do" product.
Various "forces" were applied to the design by both
supplier sales ("the customer is always right") and
buyer's engineering ("that's the way we used to do it
and I don't want to do something I don't understand").
The first article delivered was a super pain in the
arse. We're starting to stack band-aids on to fix the
problems . . . which is slowly creeping the design
toward the original proposal. I'd like to rip it all
out and start over but it's beginning to look like
the system will go to qualification with a pile of
band-aids in place as opposed to backing up and
doing it right.
If left unchanged the parts count will be too high,
the customer service technicians will curse "those
idiot engineers" and cost of ownership will be
unnecessarily high. One would like to believe that
these situations don't happen a Boeing, Airbus,
et. als. but I wouldn't bet on 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: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
>Bob, et al, Here's one possibility for failure while still on the ground,
>an open or leaky canopy on a night of intense ground fog that lets the
>whole aircraft cold soak and become coated with water.
>Happened on my truck (an electrically dependant 2006 Toyota Tacoma Pre
>Runner) which has eight on board computers. I left the windows down all
>night and came out the next morning to find the interior soaked.
>The engine started normally, but almost immediately the dash began to
>light up like the proverbial Christmas tree. The stability control system,
>ABS system, the electric limited slip differential, and the service engine
>warning lamps were all lit. Brakes worked, as did the FBW throttle,
>although applying the brakes caused the left turn signal to light, so I
>continued on my way. After my first stop the lights were out after start
>up, then came back on a mile or so down the road. After my second stop the
>lights were out after start up and stayed out, although applying the
>brakes still caused the left turn signal to light. It was on this leg of
>the trip that I learned that actuating the left turn signal caused the
>cruise control to turn off. Once we were well into the heat of the Kansas
>day, all the symptoms went away.
>I've put the truck through some pretty wild weather on many cross country
>drives to both coasts and never saw any problems like this, but one good
>soaking of the interior sure made for an interesting morning.
Condensation and hygroscopic behavior of normally
insulating materials is a sleeping misery that
we 'normally' discover during qualification. DO-160
calls for testing under conditions of severe humidity.
But as you've experienced, there are occasions WWAAaaay
out on the end of the bell-curve that can lead to new
and unpleasant discoveries.
An airplane (or any other vehicle) that sits outside
gets to test all the points on the bell curve. Most
folks never get past 99.9; some folks get there but
one time. One of the slippery challenges of engineering
is to anticipate and make rational plans to deal with
99.9th percentile events without stacking a lot
of "worry expense" on the product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121684995725478651.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121684995725478651.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Hmmm . . . funny thing about those search engines. Another search today
on "airbus" and "failures" didn't turn up items on the EFIS failures
but plenty of other stuff. In particular, you may run across some stories
about one Joe Mangan. I'll leave it up to the List readers to research
and draw their own conclusions.
As I suggested earlier, all this kerfuffle has very little if anything
to do with our airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
>This sort of thing is why my EFIS-equipped RV-10 (with electronic
>ignition) is built with backup mechanical altimeter and airspeed, a vacuum
>powered artificial horizon, and an old fashioned mag to back up the
>electronic ignition. That's the most diverse approach to redundancy I
>could get for my experimental aircraft.
>
>An unanticipated event may be able to take out even a well designed
>electrical bus that has passed multiple peer reviews (Diamond twin star,
>for example), but it's pretty unlikely to take out the vacuum pump or the
>mag at the same time.
The reliability gurus have long suggested that
"twin" systems are not as confidence building as
"alternative" designs.
As you've cited, it's unlikely that products of
disparate but functionally interchangeable systems
yield the highest probability for at least one
system staying awake if one of them goes to sleep.
This goes to the idea that identical systems can
simultaneously suffer the same failure mode. When I
propose a micro to do control, the companion
monitor processor is a different device with
code produced on a different tool. Folks flying
a Dynon to back up a Blue Mountain are not only
saving some $ but are taking advantage of the
separation of failure modes in disparate designs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
>
>I just want to add my 2 cents here. I have been flying the Airbus
>319/320 for over 11 years and have not heard of a failure of all screens
>at once. But I will add this, I have seen and heard of avionics
>failures that were not suppose to happen and did. In every case that I
>have heard of or been a part of they ALL have been due to changes during
>modification or maintenance and not the original TC wiring. What I have
>extrapolated from these anomalies is the oversight of system integrity
>goes down considerably once the airplane leaves the factory.
>
>Just my 2 cents,
>
>Mike Larkin
Thanks for your contribution. It's always useful to hear from
someone who has been-there, done-that.
I'm not suggesting that the stories be totally discounted
but given the scientific acumen of those who write for
the popular press, a rational skepticism as to severity
of the problem is called for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bose X Aviation Headset For Sale |
| From: | "Geico266" <Geico266(at)aol.com> |
I have a nice Bose X for sale on e-Bay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=300247651009&rd=1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196670#196670
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | P-Mag Overvoltage |
> The reliability gurus have long suggested that
> "twin" systems are not as confidence building as
> "alternative" designs.
This is the most reliable strategy.
However, I am considering installing two P-Mags (or one P and one E).
This provides variable spark timing to both plugs, which should result
in improved engine performance.
With internal power generation, the P-Mags should be very reliable.
The only common failure mode I can think of is an overvoltage event
that damages the electronics in both P-Mags.
Do you know enough about the product design to comment on the
robustness of these products to a major overvoltage event ? Is there
a switching regulator that can handle almost anything ?
Thanks,
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Overvoltage |
>
>> The reliability gurus have long suggested that
>> "twin" systems are not as confidence building as
>> "alternative" designs.
>
>This is the most reliable strategy.
>However, I am considering installing two P-Mags (or one P and one E).
>This provides variable spark timing to both plugs, which should result
>in improved engine performance.
Agreed . . . and better starting and longer life on
plugs.
>With internal power generation, the P-Mags should be very reliable.
Agreed
>The only common failure mode I can think of is an overvoltage event
>that damages the electronics in both P-Mags.
>
>Do you know enough about the product design to comment on the
>robustness of these products to a major overvoltage event ? Is there
>a switching regulator that can handle almost anything ?
I'll have to talk to Tom and Brad . . . my short
visit with them last year left me with an impression
of much smarter-than-average-bears. I'd like to believe
their product is equal to or better than DO-160 qualification
recommendations for aircraft.
Of course, you could call them too!
I've copied them on this message and expect an answer
to your concern will be forthcoming.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Ahh yes...As I tell my engineers who want every cool gadget going on their sysytems..."Every
component is an expensive point of failure"
>
>
It's not a disease in the high-tech industry. It's a pandemic. You ask
for a simple function to do a specific simple job. You get back several
thousand lines of code with a dozen optional parameters and a slew of
hidden side effects (for the uninitiated: unrelated things are changing
that you don't expect).
Software is a funny thing in that it is very easy to change. This leads
to a mentality of "throw it at the wall, and let's keep what sticks". I
don't know the veracity of the reports about all the displays going out
on the airliners, but my experience tells me that it is very likely.
I've seen code be approved by "professionals" that wouldn't pass muster
in a freshman college class, and the argument is always that "we don't
have time to fix it". If it passes QA (that also doesn't have time to
fix anything), then it is shipped.
Proper software engineering requires the same sort of methodical,
tedious system review and modularity that we expect to put in our
electrical design. In the end, that is exactly what it is, a lot of
tiny electrical switches going off all over the place. The fault
scenarios are often difficult to identify. Even people who should know
better often forget this.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Serious Incident to Piper PA-34-200T,Reg: EI-CMT,on |
7 November 2007, at Shannon CTA, Co Kerry.
Published yesterday by the Air Accident Investigation Unit in Ireland.
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/10887-0.pdf
Concerns a complete electrical failure aboard a twin Piper on an IFR
flight during winter. Safe landing in the end.
Thoughts on lessons learned?
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: AAIU
Subject: Serious Incident to Piper PA-34-200T,Reg: EI-CMT,on 7 November
2007, at Shannon CTA, Co Kerry.
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:57:59 +0100
Subscriber,
The AAIU have published Final Report No. 2008-018 on www.aaiu.ie
concerning a Piper PA-34-200T, Reg: EI-CMT, which occurred on 7 November
2007, at Shannon CTA, Co Kerry.
It's URL is <http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/10887-0.pdf
Regards
AAIU
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
************************************************************
T=E1 eolas sa teachtaireacht leictreonach seo a d'fh=E9adfadh bheith pr=EDo
bh=E1ideach
n=F3 faoi r=FAn agus b'fh=E9idir go mbeadh =E1bhar r=FAnda n=F3 pribhl=E9id
each ann.
Is le h-aghaidh an duine/na ndaoine n=F3 le h-aghaidh an aon=E1in at=E1 ain
mnithe thuas
agus le haghaidh an duine/na ndaoine sin amh=E1in at=E1 an t-eolas.
T=E1 cosc ar rochtain don teachtaireacht leictreonach seo do aon duine eile.
Murab ionann tusa agus an t=E9 a bhfuil an teachtaireacht ceaptha d=F3 b=ED
odh a fhios
agat nach gceada=EDtear nochtadh, c=F3ipe=E1il, scaipeadh n=F3 =FAs=E1id an
eolais agus/n=F3
n chomhaid seo agus b'fh=E9idir d'fh=E9adfadh bheith m=EDdhleathach.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged
.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone els
e is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
***********************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com> |
I concur! "Never enough time to do the job right, but always enough time
to do it over again"!
Fred Stucklen
Sr Software Engineer
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has
not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word
would be "meetings."
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Ahh yes...As I tell my engineers who want every cool gadget
going on their sysytems..."Every
component is an expensive point of failure"
>
>
It's not a disease in the high-tech industry. It's a pandemic.
You ask
for a simple function to do a specific simple job. You get back
several
thousand lines of code with a dozen optional parameters and a slew
of
hidden side effects (for the uninitiated: unrelated things are
changing
that you don't expect).
Software is a funny thing in that it is very easy to change. This
leads
to a mentality of "throw it at the wall, and let's keep what
sticks". I
don't know the veracity of the reports about all the displays
going out
on the airliners, but my experience tells me that it is very
likely.
I've seen code be approved by "professionals" that wouldn't pass
muster
in a freshman college class, and the argument is always that "we
don't
have time to fix it". If it passes QA (that also doesn't have
time to
fix anything), then it is shipped.
Proper software engineering requires the same sort of methodical,
tedious system review and modularity that we expect to put in our
electrical design. In the end, that is exactly what it is, a lot
of
tiny electrical switches going off all over the place. The fault
scenarios are often difficult to identify. Even people who
should know
better often forget this.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
We let our customers do all of our beta testing. :-)
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures
I concur! "Never enough time to do the job right, but always enough time
to do it over again"!
Fred Stucklen
Sr Software Engineer
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has
not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word
would be "meetings."
From: Ernest Christley < echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Ahh yes...As I tell my engineers who want every cool gadget
going on their sysytems..."Every
component is an expensive point of failure"
>
>
It's not a disease in the high-tech industry. It's a pandemic.
You ask
for a simple function to do a specific simple job. You get back
several
thousand lines of code with a dozen optional parameters and a slew
of
hidden side effects (for the uninitiated: unrelated things are
changing
that you don't expect).
Software is a funny thing in that it is very easy to change. This
leads
to a mentality of "throw it at the wall, and let's keep what
sticks". I
don't know the veracity of the reports about all the displays
going out
on the airliners, but my experience tells me that it is very
likely.
I've seen code be approved by "professionals" that wouldn't pass
muster
in a freshman college class, and the argument is always that "we
don't
have time to fix it". If it passes QA (that also doesn't have
time to
fix anything), then it is shipped.
Proper software engineering requires the same sort of methodical,
tedious system review and modularity that we expect to put in our
electrical design. In the end, that is exactly what it is, a lot
of
tiny electrical switches going off all over the place. The fault
scenarios are often difficult to identify. Even people who
should know
better often forget this.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Ricciotti" <gfr56(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | relay wiring question |
I am looking for the proper way to wire my battery and starter
contactor.
I have a Spruce bought battery contactor, which is a White-Rodgers Type
70 DC power contactor. I expected to see two large posts and two small
posts on the unit but it has only one small post. The manufactures web
site refers to this as a "Terminal Type 3B - Coil Common to Load" . I
want to confirm how to properly wire this to my DPDT master switch, the
manufacturers diagram shows a pig tail to the small post from large post
that is connected to battery positive. I assume I wire from that large
post to the master switch and the back to small post on the contactor.
There is no connection from the master switch to ground in this case?
Part 2
I have B&C starter relay, it also has only one small post.
I assume that it is grounded through it's own case and I should bring
positive line through the starter switch and back to the small post and
then pig tail a ground wire from the case mounting bolt to the firewall
ground?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fraudulent Purchase Attampt (Off Topic) |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
In the hope that even one vendor will be saved from this, I relate my recent experience
with a guy who wanted to buy some large quantity of my stuff and tried
to scam me. But, even though I was born in the morning, I wasn't born THIS MORNING.
Be careful out there.
> Dear Eric,
> Thanks for the total quote of my order.The total cost of my order is quite correct
and okay by me and I'm ready to pay the bills . I shall inform my freight
forwarder who will be coming to pick up the order to hold on and come immediately
you inform me that the items are ready for pick up then i can give you
a call on that day to get the items packed for pick up and they will call you
on their arrival at your address.Also I want you to help me Charge another
$230.00 from my card for the freight forwarder who will be coming to pick up
my ordered items from you.
>
> The $230.00 that will be sent to the freight forwarder is for the shipping of
my order and other items i ordered from different part of the country which
is to be picked up by him and should be deducted from my credit card.Also, I'm
compensating you with the sum of $90.00 for the transfer fee and for your efforts.
Please note that i should have given the shipping agency my credit card
for him to deduct the freight charges but he told me that he doesn't have the
facilities to charge or debit credit card , so that's why i bring my vote
of confidence in you and i want you to assist me in this measure, so i want you
to transfer the funds to him after you have make the charges and the money
charged from my credit card is in your account,then you can now make the transfer
to the agent via western union.i will have love to do this my self but there
are no western union here around me cos i am out of town to monitor my estate
construction at a remote village,So the charges you'll make on my credit
card will be:
>
> Order Fee: $450.00
> Agent fee with shipping fare: $230.00
> Transfer Fee plus Your Compensation: $90.00
> Total: $770.00
>
> I await your quick response.
> Kind Regards
>
> Terry Gilson C & H Store Inc
> > 67 Whitbread Street, Taree, NSW, 2430, Australia
> > Phone +61 8 9467 5956, Fax (08) 9439 5544
> > Email:candhstoreinc(at)gmail.com
So I'll be taking a bogus credit card and handing a box of stuff to some yokel
in a car? Never to be seen again. I especially like the smooth tip-off "$90 for
the transfer fee and for your efforts".
"...this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump
out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son,
do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to
wind up with an ear full of cider." ---Guys and Dolls
--------
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=197105#197105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Serious Incident to Piper PA-34-200T |
>Published yesterday by the Air Accident Investigation Unit in Ireland.
>
>http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/10887-0.pdf
>
>Concerns a complete electrical failure aboard a twin Piper on an IFR
>flight during winter. Safe landing in the end.
>
>Thoughts on lessons learned?
>
>Andrew.
This is an interesting case. While the symptom was not repeated
by experiment (difficult and hazardous) the deduction drawn by
the investigators is quite plausible. There is only one error
in the data which is the 0.3 ohm contact resistance cited for
the contactor specification . . . this is probably 0.3 MILLIOHMS.
Obviously, a contactor with 300 milliohms resistance would be
useless.
If one tracks the history of system evolution for aircraft,
the first time this airplane (or it's ancestors) flew, it
was fitted with generators. Generators are noteworthy for
their ability to function without benefit of external
power for excitation support. The history of the 6041
series contactors in aircraft and throughout industry
has been exemplary. However, they DO have a service life
and they do WEAR OUT at some point in time.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Failures/6041_Contactor_Failure.jpg
The MTBF study offered up in the report spoke to "three
failures" . . . of course, these were failures that generated
noteworthy incidents such as the case under study. There
were thousands of failures for both battery and starter
contactors where the difficulty was discovered on the
ground or the contactor was teamed with generators
and the in-flight failure of a battery contactor did not
generate a reportable incident.
This is a GREAT example of how architecture, selection
of components, and plan-a/plan-b operating procedures
can utilize seemingly pedestrian components in a way
that failures are simply maintenance events as opposed
to reportable events (where there was risk of bending
an airplane or occupants).
It was consideration of vulnerabilities demonstrated
by various components that evolved the Z-figures. First
with addition of the e-bus in Z-11. Had the case study
airplane been fitted with an e-bus, they would not have
needed to resort to cell phone communications or augering
around in clouds sans electronic nav aids. The next
step was independent, cross-feed electrical systems,
Z-14. Obviously a giant step above any of the intertwined
architectures that fly in the majority of GA aircraft.
I'm aware of NO production aircraft that features such
an architecture.
The shift to all electric panels vacated the vacuum
pump pad. A second engine driven power source could
utilize the vacated pad and offer up a three layer system
illustrated in Z-11. (1) Battery only + e-bus (2)
battery + e-bus supported by 8A engine driven power
source holding the battery in reserve for approach to
landing and (3) full up battery + e-bus + main bus
supported by ships normal alternator.
With the advent of the SD-20 offered into GA aircraft
and Z-12 architecture, they can come close to a
Z-11 configuration . . . but there is still the specter
of battery contactor failure that could generate a
total loss of system under certain conditions.
We were able to address that issue on the Cessna
337 when for a short time there was a small battery
pack of flashlight cells and a push button offered up
to kick-start a stalled alternator. Later, we took
a 3-phase rectifier off the tach generator to provide
a source of voltage for the same purpose.
Decades later, we're finding alternators that either
by accident or on-purpose design have enough residual
rotor magnetism to come on line self-excited. Given
the speed at which we rotate little automotive
alternators in belt-driven applications, it may
be that most of those installations will come up
without a battery . . . if lightly loaded.
Certainly, there are little features we could explore
but without a broad spectrum of purposeful design
amongst the field of suitable alternators, it's
not likely that we'll be able to recommend exploitation
of this quality . . . hence the configuration
the z-figures as presently published.
Is there value in combing through these reports?
Certainly. There is (1) the potential for making us aware
of previously undiscovered/unconsidered failure
modes and (2) re-enforcement of our confidence in
the state of our art in crafting failure tolerant
systems.
The sad part is the regulatory hurdles that prevent
our brothers on the TC side of the house from exploiting
the simple pleasures of electrical system confidence
we enjoy on OBAM aircraft. Present trends plotted out
into the future do not suggest they will ever be
beneficiaries of such freedoms.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: relay wiring question |
Jerry,
The 12 volt cable from the battery to the battery contactor also provides the power
to the contactor. You run a wire from the single small terminal to your
master switch and another wire from the master switch to ground. The master switch
then provides ground to complete the circuit and activate the contactor.
The starter relay requires that 12 volts be supplied to the small terminal for
the relay to activate. Yes, ground is through the case. If your aircraft is
composite or tube and fabric construction then you should run a ground wire from
the case mount bolt to the firewall ground block. If your aircraft is aluminum
ground should be available directly from the airframe.
I hope this helps,
Bob Borger
Europa XS, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S prop
http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
On Thursday, August 07, 2008, at 08:27AM, "Jerry Ricciotti"
wrote:
>I am looking for the proper way to wire my battery and starter contactor.
>
>I have a Spruce bought battery contactor, which is a White-Rodgers Type 70 DC
power contactor. I expected to see two large posts and two small posts on the
unit but it has only one small post. The manufactures web site refers to this
as a "Terminal Type 3B - Coil Common to Load" . I want to confirm how to properly
wire this to my DPDT master switch, the manufacturers diagram shows a pig
tail to the small post from large post that is connected to battery positive.
I assume I wire from that large post to the master switch and the back to small
post on the contactor. There is no connection from the master switch to ground
in this case?
>
>Part 2
>I have B&C starter relay, it also has only one small post.
>I assume that it is grounded through it's own case and I should bring positive
line through the starter switch and back to the small post and then pig tail
a ground wire from the case mounting bolt to the firewall ground?
>
>Thanks in advance for your help.
> Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Article from AOPA on Glass EFIS failures |
---- Chuck Jensen wrote:
> We let our customers do all of our beta testing. :-)
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
You work for Microsoft!? 8*)
That's one of my favorite quotes, that I use when I'm getting to the end of my
frustration quota with 'managers' that are just being dumb. "Hell, just ship
it. The customers will ALWAYS tell us what's wrong with it."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fraudulent Purchase Attampt (Off Topic) |
>
>In the hope that even one vendor will be saved from this, I relate my
>recent experience with a guy who wanted to buy some large quantity of my
>stuff and tried to scam me. But, even though I was born in the morning, I
>wasn't born THIS MORNING. Be careful out there.
>
I get several requests per year to confirm that I can
take orders paid for by Visa or MC to be shipped to
Nigeria or some such remote place . . . when my website
clearly states that we do process charge cards.
A number of these inquiries ask me to acquire merchandise
that is not even offered on the website . . . but clearly
available from dozens if not hundreds of sites elsewhere
on the 'net.
You are quite justified in your suspicions.
On a trip to Brazil some years ago, I watched a DC6
being unloaded of PT-6 engines and $millions$ of other
goodies. The location was on a ramp at a well known
aircraft manufacturer. It was illegal to deal in dollars
for external trade . . . but the local currency was running
about 500% per year inflation . . . essentially worthless.
The government choose to 'overlook' these flights between
Florida and Brazil where the plane came in with much needed
parts to keep the workers employed, and flew back with literally
$millions$ in suitcases full of dollars!
Drop your customer a note telling him that his courier
is most welcome to pick up the shipment if he first hands
you a fist full of dollars!
It's the way honorable criminals conduct themselves!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aux Power Socket |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Is there a convention for which of the 2 terminals in an Aux/cigar lighter port
goes to + or -? I'm currently wiring my Aux power socket and wondered what everyone
else does. I can't seem to find anything definite on whether to wire
the centre pin or the outside pin to the +. Does it actually matter?
Thanks in advance.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197164#197164
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aux Power Socket |
| From: | "Alfio" <longeron(at)gmail.com> |
Yes it matters. Center pin is positive.
You'll note that the pin that is off-center will be shorted to the case of the
receptacle, which in turn would be shorted in the panel. You would quickly know
you wired it wrong.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197167#197167
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aux Power Socket |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks Alfio. Good job I checked. It never ceases to amaze me that these things
can be produced and not labeled, assuming that everyone knows what they're
doing - clearly wrong in my case!
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197169#197169
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ivor Phillips" <ivor.phillips(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Aux Power Socket |
The standard convention is Positive + to the centre pin and Negative -
to the outside body or pin,
Yes it definitely matters!
Ivor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ianwilson2
Sent: 07 August 2008 19:19
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux Power Socket
Is there a convention for which of the 2 terminals in an Aux/cigar
lighter port goes to + or -? I'm currently wiring my Aux power socket
and wondered what everyone else does. I can't seem to find anything
definite on whether to wire the centre pin or the outside pin to the +.
Does it actually matter?
Thanks in advance.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197164#197164
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 08/06/08 |
> I'll have to talk to Tom and Brad . . . my short
> visit with them last year left me with an impression
> of much smarter-than-average-bears. I'd like to believe
> their product is equal to or better than DO-160 qualification
> recommendations for aircraft.
>
> Of course, you could call them too!
I would expect a "sales" answer to a call like this :-(
An outsider who has seem the schematics and heard the behind the
scenes stories can usually provide the more truthful answer I am
looking for.
I had a lot of trouble with the intercom on my Cessna last year. It
turned out that the headset used the mic bias voltage to power the
audio amplifier. After reverse engineering much of the intercom
circuitry, I was appalled at the design. Although it was a 4 place
intercom, the co-pilot circuitry "borrowed" some of the pilot's
circuitry during transmit. So the pilot lost mic bias voltage and the
audio disappeared whenever the co-pilot transmitted. No problem when
normal headsets were used with the intercom and no problem when these
headsets were used with other intercoms. Yuck.
The headset manufacturer was very forthcoming with the design details
necessary for me to figure this out. The intercom manufacturer
(including the president) absolutely insisted there was nothing wrong
with the design of the intercom. They were very helpful swapping out
my intercom for another to confirm it was functioning correctly, but
that did not fix the problem of course.
Having finally solved it, I encouraged the intercom manufacturer to at
least make all their tech support people aware of this issue, since
with the number of those intercoms in the field and the popularity of
the headsets being sold, the problem would certainly be an issue for
others. They treated this like an unusual case that concerned no one
else.
Based on this, I am hesitant to purchase a new audio panel for my
Tundra from this very popular intercom manufacturer. What if the same
guy designed this product too ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 08/06/08 |
Afternoon, Jeff...
>>I would expect a "sales" answer to a call like this :-( <<
Excuse me for inserting my two cents here, but I think I have something
to offer as well.
I doubt very much that you would get a salesmen's type of reply to any
call you make to Brad. Tom and Brad ARE Emagair ... not salesmen or
support staff. Even though, come to think of it, they also ARE salesmen
AND the support staff. And the designers, and the technicians...well you
get the picture.
A more helpful and knowledgeable couple of guys I've never run across
with any company. They would not pull any punches or give you any false
information about their products. No one, either in their company or
users, knows their products better than they do, and in this case, I
relying on information from "An outsider who has seem the schematics and
heard the behind the scenes stories" would not be as informed or helpful
as Brad would be.
Excellent company to do business with...
As far as user stories, I think there are some here in the archives if
you want to search for them...maybe also in the Canard-Aviators Yahoo
group, if you belong to that as well.
Harley Dixon (biased...2 P-mags )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Page wrote:
>
>> I'll have to talk to Tom and Brad . . . my short
>> visit with them last year left me with an impression
>> of much smarter-than-average-bears. I'd like to believe
>> their product is equal to or better than DO-160 qualification
>> recommendations for aircraft.
>>
>> Of course, you could call them too!
>
> I would expect a "sales" answer to a call like this :-(
> An outsider who has seem the schematics and heard the behind the
> scenes stories can usually provide the more truthful answer I am
> looking for.
>
> I had a lot of trouble with the intercom on my Cessna last year. It
> turned out that the headset used the mic bias voltage to power the
> audio amplifier. After reverse engineering much of the intercom
> circuitry, I was appalled at the design. Although it was a 4 place
> intercom, the co-pilot circuitry "borrowed" some of the pilot's
> circuitry during transmit. So the pilot lost mic bias voltage and the
> audio disappeared whenever the co-pilot transmitted. No problem when
> normal headsets were used with the intercom and no problem when these
> headsets were used with other intercoms. Yuck.
>
> The headset manufacturer was very forthcoming with the design details
> necessary for me to figure this out. The intercom manufacturer
> (including the president) absolutely insisted there was nothing wrong
> with the design of the intercom. They were very helpful swapping out
> my intercom for another to confirm it was functioning correctly, but
> that did not fix the problem of course.
>
> Having finally solved it, I encouraged the intercom manufacturer to at
> least make all their tech support people aware of this issue, since
> with the number of those intercoms in the field and the popularity of
> the headsets being sold, the problem would certainly be an issue for
> others. They treated this like an unusual case that concerned no one
> else.
>
> Based on this, I am hesitant to purchase a new audio panel for my
> Tundra from this very popular intercom manufacturer. What if the same
> guy designed this product too ?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Ricciotti" <gfr56(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: relay wiring question |
Thanks for the reply
A comment and an additional question.
I noticed the battery contactor only works with the large post opposite the
small post connected to positive and does not work with the other large post
connected to positive (i.e.. flip flopping the positive)
This does not seem to be the case for the starter contactor, it seems to
work with either post connected to positive.
Is there a reason for this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Borger" <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: relay wiring question
>
> Jerry,
>
> The 12 volt cable from the battery to the battery contactor also provides
> the power to the contactor. You run a wire from the single small terminal
> to your master switch and another wire from the master switch to ground.
> The master switch then provides ground to complete the circuit and
> activate the contactor.
>
> The starter relay requires that 12 volts be supplied to the small terminal
> for the relay to activate. Yes, ground is through the case. If your
> aircraft is composite or tube and fabric construction then you should run
> a ground wire from the case mount bolt to the firewall ground block. If
> your aircraft is aluminum ground should be available directly from the
> airframe.
>
> I hope this helps,
> Bob Borger
> Europa XS, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S prop
> http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
>
> On Thursday, August 07, 2008, at 08:27AM, "Jerry Ricciotti"
> wrote:
>>I am looking for the proper way to wire my battery and starter contactor.
>>
>>I have a Spruce bought battery contactor, which is a White-Rodgers Type 70
>>DC power contactor. I expected to see two large posts and two small posts
>>on the unit but it has only one small post. The manufactures web site
>>refers to this as a "Terminal Type 3B - Coil Common to Load" . I want to
>>confirm how to properly wire this to my DPDT master switch, the
>>manufacturers diagram shows a pig tail to the small post from large post
>>that is connected to battery positive. I assume I wire from that large
>>post to the master switch and the back to small post on the contactor.
>>There is no connection from the master switch to ground in this case?
>>
>>Part 2
>>I have B&C starter relay, it also has only one small post.
>>I assume that it is grounded through it's own case and I should bring
>>positive line through the starter switch and back to the small post and
>>then pig tail a ground wire from the case mounting bolt to the firewall
>>ground?
>>
>>Thanks in advance for your help.
>> Jerry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | SD-20 repairable? |
I had a secondary buss failure in the last couple of day. Tracked it back
to the alternator and SD-20. After some simple debugging, I decided to see
if I could see anything move inside it when I turned the engine over by
hand. While the ratio is pretty small, I could detect no movement. Further
I found that the cooling fins that I could see where moveable with a simple
small pointy tool inserted in the back of the unit while it was still
attached to the engine.
Long story short, after removal, I found that the input spline shaft was
intact (all of it's teeth there), but it freely spins and it's obvious that
it's not attached to the central armature of the SD-20 any longer.
Are these things serviceable? I called B&C, but no tech people until Monday
due to travel back from OSH.
Thot I'd ask here?
Thanks in advance,
Alan Adamson
Atlanta, Ga
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: relay wiring question |
Hi Jerry,
The reason is on the starter relay, the coil is activated by a positive
voltage to the small terminal and the case is grounded. It has nothing
to do with the large terminals. On the contactor, one side of the
coil is connected to one of the large terminals (BAT). The other side
is connected to ground through the master switch. If you connect the
large terminals backwards, then one side of the coil is NOT connected
to the battery and you can't activate the coil.
You have to get 12V across the coil to activate the contacts on both
devices. Look at the attached drawing and it should be easy to see why
you can't switch the large terminals on the contactor.
Bob W.
"Jerry Ricciotti" wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
> A comment and an additional question.
> I noticed the battery contactor only works with the large post opposite the
> small post connected to positive and does not work with the other large post
> connected to positive (i.e.. flip flopping the positive)
> This does not seem to be the case for the starter contactor, it seems to
> work with either post connected to positive.
>
> Is there a reason for this?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Borger" <rlborger(at)mac.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: relay wiring question
>
>
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > The 12 volt cable from the battery to the battery contactor also provides
> > the power to the contactor. You run a wire from the single small terminal
> > to your master switch and another wire from the master switch to ground.
> > The master switch then provides ground to complete the circuit and
> > activate the contactor.
> >
> > The starter relay requires that 12 volts be supplied to the small terminal
> > for the relay to activate. Yes, ground is through the case. If your
> > aircraft is composite or tube and fabric construction then you should run
> > a ground wire from the case mount bolt to the firewall ground block. If
> > your aircraft is aluminum ground should be available directly from the
> > airframe.
> >
> > I hope this helps,
> > Bob Borger
> > Europa XS, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S prop
> > http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
> >
> > On Thursday, August 07, 2008, at 08:27AM, "Jerry Ricciotti"
> > wrote:
> >>I am looking for the proper way to wire my battery and starter contactor.
> >>
> >>I have a Spruce bought battery contactor, which is a White-Rodgers Type 70
> >>DC power contactor. I expected to see two large posts and two small posts
> >>on the unit but it has only one small post. The manufactures web site
> >>refers to this as a "Terminal Type 3B - Coil Common to Load" . I want to
> >>confirm how to properly wire this to my DPDT master switch, the
> >>manufacturers diagram shows a pig tail to the small post from large post
> >>that is connected to battery positive. I assume I wire from that large
> >>post to the master switch and the back to small post on the contactor.
> >>There is no connection from the master switch to ground in this case?
> >>
> >>Part 2
> >>I have B&C starter relay, it also has only one small post.
> >>I assume that it is grounded through it's own case and I should bring
> >>positive line through the starter switch and back to the small post and
> >>then pig tail a ground wire from the case mounting bolt to the firewall
> >>ground?
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance for your help.
> >> Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flightline FL-760 Tranceiver and Sigtronics SPA-400 |
Intercom
| From: | "ccsmith51" <ccsmith51(at)yahoo.com> |
I have a very, very strange issue that has to do with the FL-760 radio and the
Sigtronics SPA-400 intercom.
Here is the installation:
Pilot's head set and PTT, and Co-pilot's headset and PTT are wired to the intercom
with shielded cable. There are three wires from the intercom to the FL-760;
audio out (mic to radio), audio in (from radio to intercom) ad transmit.
Connection between the radio and intercom is through a Molex connector.
Power to the radio and intercom are from a single avionics switch. The avionics
switch goes to a terminal strip and there are separate power wires to the intercom
and radio. The intercom and radio each have a power switch on them.
Here is the problem:
If the intercom is plugged into the radio and I turn on the avionics switch, and
then the radio switch, the radio turns on (I can transmit and receive) but the
LCD display does not come on. It does not matter the state of the intercom
power switch.
If the intercom is plugged into the radio and I turn on the radio switch, and then
the avionics switch, the radio turns on (I can transmit and receive) and the
LCD display comes on! It does not matter the state of the intercom power switch.
If the intercom is not plugged into the radio, the radio LCD display comes on regardless
of the power switch sequence.
I can't see any connection at all between the LCD display and the intercom, but
there obviously is one!
This has me completely stumped, so if anyone has any ideas, I'll give anything
a try!!
Thanks!!
--------
Chris Smith
N694CS
www.cleanex.cmsdreams.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197288#197288
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fraudulent Purchase attempt (Off Topic) |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Eric,
I have a small business and was also a "victim" of this style
fraud. They wanted about $500 worth of "bearings" that I sell. They
used a third party phone conversation. They provided a "good" charge
card and promised the same deal. But then, said they could not come by
and pick the order up. Would I send it FED X to the address given. When
I called Fed X, they said it was going to Nigeria with out me even
giving them the complete address. They turned me over to their fraud
division of Fed X and they confirmed it was a scam. They said I should
call the FBI here in Tampa and report it. The FBI said that they get
about 10 to 20 a day reported to them. I thank Fed X for the heads up.
BTW, the credit card will go through as a good transaction but the
charge will be declined later as the card will be found to be stolen.
Your are then out of the merchandise and freight charges.
Been there, done that Glad you were not "had" by the scum of
the world. Also, most of these scams originate in Nigeria.
Jim Nelson
N15JN
leaking tank--
____________________________________________________________
Click here for free info on Graduate Degrees.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNPPsIHgZAnN0gGTzFdIuVlBbx6TH3q1cDwtK6doEMCrZ7D/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Hall <dhall(at)donka.net> |
| Subject: | fwf wiring questions... |
1) Alternator. Is it normal\ok to run the alt-field line along the
same route as the heavy gauge power output line from the alternator,
along the underside of the engine around the top of the sump? (my
case: rv7/io360)
2) What is typically used for small gauge connections under the
cowl? For instances, leads to rpm sensor, fuel flow, etc solder,
butt-splice, small fastons?
Also fwf, my direct crank sensor has a 2-pair shielded line
that needs to be joined. Is 9-pin D-Sub ok fwf? or should I just
KISS and splice...
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 08/06/08 |
>Afternoon, Jeff...
>
> >>I would expect a "sales" answer to a call like this :-( <<
>
>Excuse me for inserting my two cents here, but I think I have something to
>offer as well.
>
>I doubt very much that you would get a salesmen's type of reply to any
>call you make to Brad. Tom and Brad ARE Emagair ... not salesmen or
>support staff. Even though, come to think of it, they also ARE salesmen
>AND the support staff. And the designers, and the technicians...well you
>get the picture.
>
>A more helpful and knowledgeable couple of guys I've never run across with
>any company. They would not pull any punches or give you any false
>information about their products. No one, either in their company or
>users, knows their products better than they do, and in this case, I
>relying on information from "An outsider who has seem the schematics and
>heard the behind the scenes stories" would not be as informed or helpful
>as Brad would be.
>
>Excellent company to do business with...
>
>As far as user stories, I think there are some here in the archives if you
>want to search for them...maybe also in the Canard-Aviators Yahoo group,
>if you belong to that as well.
Thank you Harley, you beat me to it. I'll confirm that
Emagair is a very small company, Brad, Tom (and when I
was there) one other fellow who helped out in a variety
of tasks. They were forthcoming about their design
and business philosophies and willing to share their
knowledge.
If you have any questions, I'll suggest you e-mail
so that they can work you in as time becomes available.
I've not heard from them on my questions of several
days ago . . . but they just got back from OSH and
probably have dozens of items in their mailbox.
If anyone has a pressing issued (broken airplane)
then by all means call. You won't be disappointed
in the treatment you receive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-20 repairable? |
>I had a secondary buss failure in the last couple of day. Tracked it back
>to the alternator and SD-20. After some simple debugging, I decided to
>see if I could see anything move inside it when I turned the engine over
>by hand. While the ratio is pretty small, I could detect no
>movement. Further I found that the cooling fins that I could see where
>moveable with a simple small pointy tool inserted in the back of the unit
>while it was still attached to the engine.
>
>Long story short, after removal, I found that the input spline shaft was
>intact (all of it's teeth there), but it freely spins and it's obvious
>that it's not attached to the central armature of the SD-20 any longer.
>
>Are these things serviceable? I called B&C, but no tech people until
>Monday due to travel back from OSH.
It sounds like the shear section on your spline shaft
has opened up. Yes, that's imminently repairable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: relay wiring question |
Thanks for the reply
A comment and an additional question.
I noticed the battery contactor only works with the large post opposite the
small post connected to positive and does not work with the other large
post connected to positive (i.e.. flip flopping the positive)
This does not seem to be the case for the starter contactor, it seems to
work with either post connected to positive.
Is there a reason for this?
Nothing special . . . it's the factory's way of accommodating a variety
of design goals for incorporating the device into an electrical system.
I'll refer you to the 3rd and 4th pages of the .pdf catalog for
the 70 series contactors from Stancor:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_70-Series.pdf
Note that the 4-terminal device features no internal
coil connections. This is the style contactor I used to
offer (B&C still does) as "universal" to the task of battery
contactor, cross-feed contactor, hydraulic pump contactor,
alternator b-lead contactor, etc. In all these instances,
the little terminals and fat terminals are interchangeable.
In cases where you want to purchase a bunch of contactors
for use as a battery contactor only, then they'll be pleased
to sell you a version wherein one coil connection is tied to
a fat terminal. Obviously, one of the fat terminals needs to
be designated "BATTERY" and if you look at the contactor
shell, this terminal will be labeled "BAT" or "BATTERY".
This leaves you but one wire to hook up to the battery
master that pulls the free end of the coil to ground to
energize the contactor.
This feature can be used in a variety of applications
where "pull to ground" control is desired. Just connect
the BAT terminal to power source and the other terminal to
supply the load.
If you want to use the contactor in a "pull to bus"
situation, you can also purchase a version where one
end of the coil is internally connected to contactor
case. Now, the fat terminals are still interchangeable
but attention must be paid to the small terminal(s)
where one will be internally connected to case. This
wiring convention is quite common in intermittent
duty, starter contactors.
----------------------
On Thursday, August 07, 2008, at 08:27AM, "Jerry Ricciotti"
wrote:
I am looking for the proper way to wire my battery and starter contactor.
I have a Spruce bought battery contactor, which is a White-Rodgers Type 70
DC power contactor. I expected to see two large posts and two small posts
on the unit but it has only one small post. The manufactures web site
refers to this as a "Terminal Type 3B - Coil Common to Load" .
The term "3B" comes from the schematic description of
functionality from the 4th page of the above catalog
excerpt. In this case, your coil suppression device would
go between the small terminal and the one marked "BAT" as
opposed to the externally jumpered wiring depicted
in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1.jpg
I want to confirm how to properly wire this to my DPDT master switch, the
manufacturers diagram shows a pig tail to the small post from large post
that is connected to battery positive. I assume I wire from that large post
to the master switch and the back to small post on the contactor.
No, you wire the battery to the BAT terminal of the contactor
and take a single wire from the small terminal through your battery
master switch to ship's ground. This is illustrated in all of the
z-figures.
There is no connection from the master switch to ground in this case?
Yes there IS a master switch ground connection . . .
as shown in the z-figures.
Part 2
I have B&C starter relay, it also has only one small post.
I assume that it is grounded through it's own case and I should bring
positive line through the starter switch and back to the small post and
then pig tail a ground wire from the case mounting bolt to the firewall ground?
Yes, except if you have a metal firewall, there's no need
for an extra ground between the mounting flange and
the firewall ground.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fraudulent Purchase attempt (Off Topic) |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
And let's not forget the Western Union payment to the consolidator. WU takes only
cash in hand...no CCs or checks. That $230.00 would have come out of my pocket.
Eric
--------
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=197374#197374
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: relay wiring question |
I discovered a diagram I'd published a few years ago at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Contactors_PU_and_PD.pdf
In this drawing, you see the control paths for the
classic "pull down" to ground control of battery contactor
(shown in red) and the "pull up" to bus control typical
of starter contactors (shown in green). I've also published
a one-pager on the three common contactor wiring conventions
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Contactor_Wiring_Conventions.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator part number? |
| From: | eddyfernan(at)aol.com |
On the way back from Oshkosh to Florida my alternator died (lasted 2 years).? Switched
off the main bus and ran the E bus all the way home (thanks Bob N.).?
It was a 35 amp externally regulated part #14184.? Anyone out there know what
the part number is for the same type of alternator?except in?55 amp unit externally
regulated?
Eddy Fernandez
RV9A 300 TT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fwf wiring questions... |
>
>1) Alternator. Is it normal\ok to run the alt-field line along the
>same route as the heavy gauge power output line from the alternator,
>along the underside of the engine around the top of the sump? (my
>case: rv7/io360)
Sure
>2) What is typically used for small gauge connections under the
>cowl? For instances, leads to rpm sensor, fuel flow, etc solder,
>butt-splice, small fastons?
The no-arguments best joining of wires happens with
permanent splices of some variety . . . .crimped or
soldered.
The automotive experience with under-the-hood connectors
has been a mixed bag . . . but sealed connectors over
the past 15 years or so seem to hang in there quite well.
Problem is that these critters are not easy to get in
small end-user quantities . . . nor are the installation
tools cheap.
There's a host of options that range from permanent solder
lap joints (how often do you expect to open these joints?)
as shown at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
> Also fwf, my direct crank sensor has a 2-pair shielded line
>that needs to be joined. Is 9-pin D-Sub ok fwf? or should I just
>KISS and splice...
. . . I'd consider lap-solder-and-shrink for this important
signal path. I'm aware of no reasonably priced, easily acquired
crimp connector/tools combination that would be very attractive.
Hirose makes a line of solderable connectors which are very
small and environmentally pretty tight. See:
http://www.hirose.co.jp/cataloge_hp/e11000216.pdf
You can get these from Digikey.com
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=HR1598-ND
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=HR1583-ND
A mated pair will set you back about $25.
A d-sub with metal backshells would probably work well
for you also.
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: Alternator part number? |
>On the way back from Oshkosh to Florida my alternator died (lasted 2
>years). Switched off the main bus and ran the E bus all the way home
>(thanks Bob N.). It was a 35 amp externally regulated part
>#14184. Anyone out there know what the part number is for the same type
>of alternator except in 55 amp unit externally regulated?
I'm wondering if that was originally an externally regulated
unit. There's a lot of not terribly favorable traffic that
comes up on a Google search about that part number as a Van's
supplied alternator. There's a 'stock', probably internally
regulated version offered on Ebay right now:
http://tinyurl.com/6crakr
It appears to be an older, external fan ND. If yours
runs externally regulated, then do you know who might
have modified it to bypass the internal regulator?
About any of the more modern, internal fan ND alternators
would mechanically adapt to your installation and are
pretty easy to acquire up to at least 60A output.
If you're presently using external regulation, you have
a choice of changing over to keep the internal regulator
that will certainly come with the alternator, or to
embark upon an external regulator mod-program that's not
terribly hard to do.
That same supplier on Ebay is offering a wide variety
of alternators that are sure to include a 50-60 amp
machine in the more modern frame. You might drop them
an email and inquire. For example, this item
http://tinyurl.com/5bu25h
is a husky looking ND product and I can't see a fan
so it might be an attractive alternative to the
device you have installed at the moment. They talk
about "custom" reman . . . they might be willing
to supply you an alternator with the regulator
already by-passed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | I-Phone Inclinometer |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
My partner just showed me the 2 axis Inclinometer on his I-Phone.
Curious if one can use it as emergency attitude indicator? Degree wheel
for roll, pitch you would use the less definitive widening line?
Anyone want to give it a try?
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Phone Inclinometer |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Would you suppose it uses force or acceleration sensors for this data. I
did a minor amount of googling to try to learn that.. If force, I doubt
it would provide reliable pitch and roll data - just like the 'ball'
doesn't provide bank angle while in coordinated flight. Even if it's a
mems gyro I suspect for that application, very little effort would have
been made to cancel out drift rates. I'd be happy to be wrong, however...
Matt-
>
> My partner just showed me the 2 axis Inclinometer on his I-Phone.
>
> Curious if one can use it as emergency attitude indicator? Degree wheel
> for roll, pitch you would use the less definitive widening line?
>
> Anyone want to give it a try?
>
> Ron P.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | I-Phone Inclinometer |
Won't work because it doesn't have a gyro. Would get fooled just like a
weight on a string.
RF
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: I-Phone Inclinometer
My partner just showed me the 2 axis Inclinometer on his I-Phone.
Curious if one can use it as emergency attitude indicator? Degree wheel for
roll, pitch you would use the less definitive widening line?
Anyone want to give it a try?
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
Jeff wrote:"I am using it as a battery contactor but with a Very High
out alternator, 200amps ..... So I am thinking I need to find a bigger
contactor ? or my other thought - guess was maybe to run TWO Stancor
70-902 contactors in parallel ? with the extra wires also... but concern
here is that something I haven't thought of will smoke something if both
are not closed ? Maybe I am overlooking a simple cheaper solution...."
Jeff,The size of the alternator has nothing to do with the current
rating of the battery contactor. The ampacity of the battery contactor
should be determined by the engine starting current and by the battery
charging current. These two currents are the only significant currents
normally flowing through the battery contactor. Even if you have a very
large load such as an electric cockpit heater, that current would flow
directly from the alternator to the heater without going through the
battery contactor. Just because the alternator is rated at 200 amps
does not mean that it will be supplying that much. The alternator will
only be putting out that current which is needed to operate the loads
that are turned on, most likely only a fraction of the alternator's
ampacity. I would use the same battery contactor regardless of the
alternator size.Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BnC Continuous Duty Contactor 12 v |
>Jeff wrote:
>
>"I am using it as a battery contactor but with a Very High out alternator,
>200amps ..... So I am thinking I need to find a bigger contactor ? or my
>other thought - guess was maybe to run TWO Stancor 70-902 contactors in
>parallel ? with the extra wires also... but concern here is that something
>I haven't thought of will smoke something if both are not closed ? Maybe I
>am overlooking a simple cheaper solution...."
Interesting! Help us understand a bit more about
your proposed system. Under what conditions would
you expect your 200A alternator to deliver this
kind of power. In other words, what design goals
for the vehicle drove the selection of this size
machine?
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>The size of the alternator has nothing to do with the current rating of
>the battery contactor. The ampacity of the battery contactor should be
>determined by the engine starting current and by the battery charging
>current. These two currents are the only significant currents normally
>flowing through the battery contactor. Even if you have a very large load
>such as an electric cockpit heater, that current would flow directly from
>the alternator to the heater without going through the battery
>contactor. Just because the alternator is rated at 200 amps does not mean
>that it will be supplying that much. The alternator will only be putting
>out that current which is needed to operate the loads that are turned on,
>most likely only a fraction of the alternator's ampacity. I would use the
>same battery contactor regardless of the alternator size.
>
>Joe Gores
Joe is quite correct. The battery contactor must CARRY, not
SWITCH starting currents that include some bodacious inrush
currents. Then it must CARRY, not SWITCH the battery recharge
currents and/or expected battery discharge currents during
alternator-out operations. The 80-amp, lowly 70 series devices
have given good service. But let's be sure that we're not
giving you marginal advice. Do you also plan a big battery?
If the battery is "up-sized" in concert with a larger alternator,
then it follows that your system MIGHT be capable of extra-
ordinary stress on the battery contactor . . . like recharging
a big battery with you 200A energy source.
There are some up-sized contactors not the least of which
are the 586 series devices from Stancor.
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_586-Series.pdf
. . . but we don't have enough information about your
design goals to make confident recommendations.
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: Alternator part number? |
>
>
>>On the way back from Oshkosh to Florida my alternator died (lasted 2
>>years). Switched off the main bus and ran the E bus all the way home
>>(thanks Bob N.). It was a 35 amp externally regulated part
>>#14184. Anyone out there know what the part number is for the same type
>>of alternator except in 55 amp unit externally regulated?
>
> I'm wondering if that was originally an externally regulated
> unit. There's a lot of not terribly favorable traffic that
> comes up on a Google search about that part number as a Van's
> supplied alternator. There's a 'stock', probably internally
> regulated version offered on Ebay right now:
Followup: Another member on the List has turned me on to
the following website:
http://www.motorcarparts.com/catalog.htm
This link takes you to a YMME selection form that
may not be of much use in researching alternators.
However, stick anything in, like 2000 Honda Accord
with 2.3L engine. Then click on "alternator" for that
car.
This takes you to a cool screen that offers specs and
a 3-view for the alternator. Moreover, there's a box
on this page for inserting another part number.
Pun in your 14184 number and we get an
35A EXTERNALLY regulated ND alternator with three photographic
views.
Now we know a lot more about the alternator that started
this thread. We also know about an information resource
that many of you will find valuable in identifying
and perhaps integrating certain kinds of alternators
into your projects.
This website also offers a technical bulletin against
that alternator which speaks to the need to retain
the b-lead filter capacitor from your old alternator
when replacing it with a new one. It also identifies
the functionality the rear mounted receptacle.
Pretty cool stuff.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | need a tool spec on vacation |
I'm at the beach and Tower informs me my transponder has quit working
(again!) I am 99% sure from past trouble with this thing that I can fix it
by removing, cleaning and reinstalling the Garmin adapter in the Narco tray,
but need a foot-long Allen wrench to reach in there, and don't have it with
me. One can buy most anything at the beach these days, but I need the size
to look for at the hardware store: what is the dimension of the hex screw
that holds radios in avionics trays? 3/32"? Thanks for the help. I'm sure
they'll let me back out of the class D with an inop transponder, but it's
just not right having stuff not functioning.
-Stormy / Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | need a tool spec on vacation |
3/32 is correct.
Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Boyd
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 6:13 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
July 25, 2008 - August 09, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ia