AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-if
October 23, 2008 - November 09, 2008
I just got hold of a new Oddessey PC310 battery, to use as an endurance
backup. I need to product 12 amps for something like 30-45 minutes. It
is rated at 8Ah and here is the product information:
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/battery/pc310.htm
Wanting to see what it really had in it, I hooked up the West Mountain
tester. In the test parameters, I called it and 8Ah battery and tried
to have it run at 12 amps. However, the program didn't like that, so I
stepped the current draw down to 7 amps. I set the cutoff voltage at 9
volts.
I was surprised the test lasted only 24 minutes, but even more surprised
that the resultant Tested Capacity was only 2.82 Ah.
You can see the test results here:
http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/PC310_10-22-08.pdf
So, why the difference? Shouldn't the Tested Capacity be near 8Ah? Am I
misinterpreting the test results? Is there something wrong with this
brand-new battery? Was my test set-up flawed?
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interpreting battery test results |
Sam,
Check that Odyssey web site document again. It shows that the battery will provide
25 amps for 9 minutes. That means that it will only provide 12 amps for
18 minutes at best. If you want 12 amps for 30-45 minutes you need a bigger battery.
Probably something on the order of a 12 amp-hour battery at a minimum.
Bob Borger
Europa XS, short wings, intercooled Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S prop.
99.999% complete. Only some extended testing to do.
On Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 06:58AM, "Sam Hoskins"
wrote:
>I just got hold of a new Oddessey PC310 battery, to use as an endurance
>backup. I need to product 12 amps for something like 30-45 minutes. It is
>rated at 8Ah and here is the product information:
>http://www.odysseybatteries.com/battery/pc310.htm
>
>Wanting to see what it really had in it, I hooked up the West Mountain
>tester. In the test parameters, I called it and 8Ah battery and tried to
>have it run at 12 amps. However, the program didn't like that, so I stepped
>the current draw down to 7 amps. I set the cutoff voltage at 9 volts.
>
>I was surprised the test lasted only 24 minutes, but even more surprised
>that the resultant Tested Capacity was only 2.82 Ah.
>You can see the test results here:
>http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/PC310_10-22-08.pdf
>
>So, why the difference? Shouldn't the Tested Capacity be near 8Ah? Am I
>misinterpreting the test results? Is there something wrong with this
>brand-new battery? Was my test set-up flawed?
>
>Sam Hoskins
>Murphysboro, IL
>www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Interpreting battery test results |
Sam,
The 8AH capacity of this battery is based on a discharge current rate of
0.4A over a 20 hr period. The chart shows a decrease capacity to 7AH
if
you increase the output current to 0.7A.
As you increase the output current the internal resistance increases
resulting in large internal losses at high current. You can normally
get a
higher output current with less loss from a larger capacity battery,
simply
due to the increased plate area, translating to lower internal
resistance at
a given output current.
Look at Duration of discharge vs. discharge current at Bob's site:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Panasonic/LC-LA1233P.p
df
At a 1.65A discharge rate for 20 hrs capacity is 33AH. At 105.5A rate
for
0.7hr.the capacity drops to 12.3AH.
This is a Panasonic battery of a different size, but the characteristics
are
similar across the lead acid battery spectrum.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:58 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Interpreting battery test results
I just got hold of a new Oddessey PC310 battery, to use as an endurance
backup. I need to product 12 amps for something like 30-45 minutes. It
is
rated at 8Ah and here is the product information:
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/battery/pc310.htm
Wanting to see what it really had in it, I hooked up the West Mountain
tester. In the test parameters, I called it and 8Ah battery and tried
to
have it run at 12 amps. However, the program didn't like that, so I
stepped
the current draw down to 7 amps. I set the cutoff voltage at 9 volts.
I was surprised the test lasted only 24 minutes, but even more surprised
that the resultant Tested Capacity was only 2.82 Ah.
You can see the test results here:
http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/PC310_10-22-08.pdf
So, why the difference? Shouldn't the Tested Capacity be near 8Ah? Am I
misinterpreting the test results? Is there something wrong with this
brand-new battery? Was my test set-up flawed?
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Very nice,
I'll buy two.
-----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, October 21, 2008 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Grounding
>
>Myself as well as many other builders in my area have simply used the B
>& C grounding block. It's a thing of beauty. 48 inside and 24 on the
>firewall. If that doesn't cut it, better to chat with Boeing on that
>SFAR88 thingy.
>
>Kudos to B & C for coming up with a simple but elegant solution to
>grounding.
That's a product we developed here and sold for a time
before turning it over to B&C. We're going to be offering
a panel-ground concentrator block in the near future.
It will look like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
We're looking at a more compact version of the forest-
of-ground-tabs too, but that one is not a done deal
yet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interpreting battery test results |
Thanks t all who replied. I now get the picture. Fortunately, I am friends
with the owner of the battery shop and we'll make an adjustment.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:48 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> Sam,
>
>
> The 8AH capacity of this battery is based on a discharge current rate of
> 0.4A over a 20 hr period. The chart shows a decrease capacity to 7AH if
> you increase the output current to 0.7A.
>
>
> As you increase the output current the internal resistance increases
> resulting in large internal losses at high current. You can normally get a
> higher output current with less loss from a larger capacity battery, simply
> due to the increased plate area, translating to lower internal resistance at
> a given output current.
>
>
> Look at Duration of discharge vs. discharge current at Bob's site:
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Panasonic/LC-LA1233P.pdf
>
>
> At a 1.65A discharge rate for 20 hrs capacity is *33AH*. At 105.5A rate
> for 0.7hr.the capacity drops to *12.3AH*.
>
>
> This is a Panasonic battery of a different size, but the characteristics
> are similar across the lead acid battery spectrum.
>
>
> Roger
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:58 AM
> *To:* Aerolectric List
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Interpreting battery test results
>
>
> I just got hold of a new Oddessey PC310 battery, to use as an endurance
> backup. I need to product 12 amps for something like 30-45 minutes. It is
> rated at 8Ah and here is the product information:
> http://www.odysseybatteries.com/battery/pc310.htm
>
> Wanting to see what it really had in it, I hooked up the West Mountain
> tester. In the test parameters, I called it and 8Ah battery and tried to
> have it run at 12 amps. However, the program didn't like that, so I stepped
> the current draw down to 7 amps. I set the cutoff voltage at 9 volts.
>
> I was surprised the test lasted only 24 minutes, but even more surprised
> that the resultant Tested Capacity was only 2.82 Ah.
> You can see the test results here:
> http://www.mistakeproofing.net/transfer/PC310_10-22-08.pdf
>
> So, why the difference? Shouldn't the Tested Capacity be near 8Ah? Am I
> misinterpreting the test results? Is there something wrong with this
> brand-new battery? Was my test set-up flawed?
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Murphysboro, IL
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Continuous Lacing |
I was planning to use the continuous lacing technique suggested in The
AeroElectric Connection, rather than tie wraps, to bundle wires between
support points, (for example the wires I am routing through my wings for
lighting), for the beneficial reasons that Bob provided. However, I just
came across a paragraph in AC 43.13-1B, Section 8 - Wiring Installation
Inspection Requirements - paragraph i., which states "Continuous lacing
(spaced 6 inches apart) is not used, except in panels and junction boxes
where this practice is optional". This seems to conflict with the
continuous lacing suggestion. Can anyone clarify for me?
Thanks,
Dave Van Lanen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Midgley" <tmidge(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: review electric drawing for Jabiru 3300 powered |
>Tim.
What you've drawn will function as advertised but
I'm curious as to why you did not adopt a version
of Z-16 . . .
HYPERLINK
"http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf"http://
www
.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
. . . your proposed system has no control over the
alternator, no ov protection. I presume that your
EIS has some form of low voltage warning but if not,
that should be a component of your design goals as
well. The choice of ignition/starter controls doesn't
impact functionality. Z-16 with the e-bus removed
seems more suited to service in the small airplane.
Bob . . .
Bob,
Thanks for your suggestions, my circuit is still a =93work in
progress=94 and I
think I will adopt a version of Z-16.
Tim.
Checked by AVG.
18/10/2008
6:01 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net |
| Subject: | Re: Continuous Lacing |
Dave,=0A=0ACan't clarify, but I have some experience ripping out old wires
in a C-172. DON"T LACE IT. If you ever (or someone after you) has to trac
e wires or try to remove an old system, it is pure hockey poo getting aroun
d that lacing. Very time consuming also. Just a thought. I plan on using
tie wraps in the 172 and also my RV-9A when I get there.=0A=0ABarry Chapma
n RV-9A Wings=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Dave V
anLanen =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:33:19 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List:
Continuous Lacing=0A=0AContinuous Lacing =0AIwasplanning to use the continu
ous lacing technique suggested inThe AeroElectric Connection, rather than t
ie wraps, to bundle wires between support points,(for example the wiresI am
routing through my wings for lighting), for the beneficial reasons that Bo
b provided. However, I just came acrossaparagraphin AC 43.13-1B, Section 8
'Wiring Installation Inspection Requirements'paragraphi., which states
=93Continuous lacing(spaced 6 inchesapart) is not used, except in panels an
d junctionboxes where this practice is optional=94. This seems to conflict
with the continuous lacing suggestion. Can anyone clarify for me? =0AThan
-========================
==================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Continuous Lacing |
Good Morning Barry,
Just to prove there are always differences of opinion, may I say that I
prefer proper lacing to Tywraps?
What I do is use Tywraps during the layout and build up process, then
replace them with flat waxed lacing cord after the build up is complete. I
do NOT
use a continuous string as was taught fifty to sixty years ago and as is sh
own
in Manual 18, but use individual ties where needed. I think such ties are a
t
least as easy to remove as are Tywraps, and they do not have the large
protrusions such as cutoff Tywraps have. I think they are even just a tiny
bit
lighter!
Back when I attended Aviation Electrician Mate training, we were told to us
e
continuous lacing cord because it supplied some support for the wire run. I
think that thought is no longer in vogue. It probably went away with Manual
18!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 10/25/2008 7:36:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
Dave,
Can't clarify, but I have some experience ripping out old wires in a C-172.
DON"T LACE IT. If you ever (or someone after you) has to trace wires or tr
y
to remove an old system, it is pure hockey poo getting around that lacing.
Very time consuming also. Just a thought. I plan on using tie wraps in th
e
172 and also my RV-9A when I get there.
Barry Chapman RV-9A Wings
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites
,
no registration required and great graphics =93 check it out!
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Facts and Fables about the modern automotive alternator |
. . .
I just got home from a trip to Tijuana, Mexico and
Torrance, California where I was the guess of Motorcar
Parts of America and in the company of 9 other individuals
who make their living distributing and selling car
parts.
The purpose of the trip was to get a first hand
look at what's possible when your fliver's alternator
or starter departs for the happy hunting ground.
We've all been an observer if not the beneficiary
of the work product of Smilely Jack's Pretty Good
Autoparts and Repair Shop. Over most of our lives,
we've acquired some notions what it means to have
an alternator or starter "repaired, refurbished,
or remanufactured". We've also been blessed with
ol' mechanics tales and the sermons of the devoutly
faithful when it comes to the physics and simple
ideas that support the functionality and endurance
of starters and alternators.
Finally, the largest (and most loosely controlled)
variable in selecting an off-the-shelf product is
driven by perceptions of quality . . . with each
of us having a different mental image or faith
with respect to the meaning of quality.
I can tell you that what I witnessed and learned over
the past three days was astounding. The facilities
I was privileged to visit were benchmark examples
of what it means to effectively implement all those
buzz words and phrases that our bosses and employers
have been tossing around for the past 20 years
like TQM, ISO9000, quality circles, etc, etc.
The folks at MPA didn't just go take the courses
we've all attended and then go home expecting
some miracle of transition to Nirvana to take place.
MPA (and their most capable competitors) have hired
the best chefs, given them the necessary authority
and resources to craft an end-to-end process that
starts with a lump of grease and dirt covered salvage
and convert it to a product that you can buy over
the counter with an expectation of equal to or better
performance than the part you took off the car.
I'll be working on a white paper that details what
I've learned. It's my hope that what I have to share
of this experience will be useful to the readers of
this List and my website. As a little teaser for things
to come, know that a great deal of what's been handed
down or even preached with great enthusiasm does not
track with reality. In the final analysis, simple ideas
of physics and the benefits of an honorable exchange
of value in a free-market will prevail. I am pleased
to have witnessed a finely tuned example of what is
possible when ignorant if not dishonorable folks are
prevented from spoiling a recipe for success.
Watch this space.
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: Continuous Lacing |
>Dave,
>
>Can't clarify, but I have some experience ripping out old wires in a
>C-172. DON"T LACE IT. If you ever (or someone after you) has to trace
>wires or try to remove an old system, it is pure hockey poo getting around
>that lacing. Very time consuming also. Just a thought. I plan on using
>tie wraps in the 172 and also my RV-9A when I get there.
>
>Barry Chapman RV-9A Wings
>
>
>From: Dave VanLanen <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:33:19 PM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Continuous Lacing
>
>I was planning to use the continuous lacing technique suggested in The
>AeroElectric Connection, rather than tie wraps, to bundle wires between
>support points, (for example the wires I am routing through my wings for
>lighting), for the beneficial reasons that Bob provided. However, I just
>came across a paragraph in AC 43.13-1B, Section 8 Wiring Installation
>Inspection Requirements paragraph i., which states Continuous lacing
>(spaced 6 inches apart) is not used, except in panels and junction boxes
>where this practice is optional. This seems to conflict with the
>continuous lacing suggestion. Can anyone clarify for me?
Every methodology for the formation and support of
wire bundles is optional. There are lots of ingredients
that go into recipes for success. The end goal is to
keep bundles organized, supported so that they don't
chafe and/or flop around so severely that joints in
wiring are stressed. Finally, there's simply the sense
of craftsmanship.
Continuous lacing has but one advantage over all other
techniques. It probably goes on faster and uses less
string. It is also process-sensitive . . . it takes
perhaps more skill to make it look good.
The process was included in the 'Connection as one
of several options, not a recommendation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Power consumption |
Is there a comprehensive list, maintained on the Connection, of the power
consumption of various devices?
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
Bob,
What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
Sam
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >
>> > What are your requirements for capacity? Have you
>> > done an energy study for battery-only endurance?
>> > The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's
>> > larger siblings.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> > After much discussion, we think this is how my electrically-dependent
>> engine breaks out...
>>
>> > Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines:
>> >
>> > Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps
>> > Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps
>> > Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time)
>> > ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU
>> >
>> > My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on (one LP
>> > Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors, coils,
>> > ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps.
>>
>>
>> We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about 15
>> minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess I
>> might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe.
>>
>
> According to the performance curves at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w
>
> a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just
> under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So
> a battery due for replacement would be suited
> for about 20 minutes of operation.
>
> Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery
> architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an
> I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per
> battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery
> drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4
> per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the
> lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you
> 34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this
> combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration.
>
> A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by
> going to a single 28 a.h. battery.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8
>
> The internal impedance of this battery seems
> better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives
> you the same 60+ minutes at less weight
> and total capacity.
>
> Of course, with a single battery or treating
> two batteries as one battery dictates an
> aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If
> ever there was an power plant begging for
> a second, small alternator, it's this one.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=E9roclub_de_Montaigu? |
*Hello Friends,
I=B4m looking for someone near or currently flying at this French Aerodrome
. I
need to stablish an email contact off-line.
many thanks in advance.
A=E9ro-Clubs**A=E9roclub de Montaigu*
Adresse : A=E9rodrome Montaigu
Les landes de Corprais
85600 SAINT-GEORGES DE MONTAIGU
http://www.flygoto.com/OACI/Aerodrome/GPS/Gpx/LFFW/
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net |
| Subject: | Re: Continuous Lacing |
Bob, et al
I agree. Not hard core "don't do lacing". It has it's place.
Two things for lacing. 1) Neater 2) some weight savings.
I too was taught in the older days of the Air Force (70s) to do the continuous
lacing. I feel lacing of any kind has its place in our wiring scheme. I was
all for the continuous, until I had to pull out the old nav radio harness out
of the 172. It had so many twists and turns under the floor that it was very
difficult (not impossible) to follow the wires. As I didn't have a wiring schematic,
I was at the mercy of following the wires down through the winding route
that Cessna put the wires. It had continuous lacing. Having to pull the wire
back and forth to get at the lacing was the pain I had. I eventually got
it out though.
My suggestion is that if you are going to use continuos lacing, use it somewhere
that every loop is accessible (for that inevitable day that you will need to
get into the harness for whatever reason). If you can't access it after the
area is covered I suggest not doing lacing or tie wraps. I suggest conduit.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is: think of the day that you or someone
will have to acess that wire bundle. Think about how accessible it may or may
not be at that time. Also think of the mechanic (you) when it comes time to
repair the wiring.
Cheers,
Barry Chapman RV-9A
________________________________
>From: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Good Morning Barry,
Just to prove there are always differences of opinion, may I say that I
prefer proper lacing to Tywraps?
What I do is use Tywraps during the layout and build up process, then
replace them with flat waxed lacing cord after the build up is complete. I
do NOT use a continuous string as was taught fifty to sixty years ago and
as is shown in Manual 18, but use individual ties where needed. I think such
ties are at least as easy to remove as are Tywraps, and they do not have the
large protrusions such as cutoff Tywraps have. I think they are even just a tiny
bit lighter!
Back when I attended Aviation Electrician Mate training, we were told
to use continuous lacing cord because it supplied some support for the wire run.
I think that thought is no longer in vogue. It probably went away with Manual
18!
Happy
Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th
Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman
N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
Bob,
What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
Sam
Sam,
Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and - to -.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
Well I KNOW that!
I mean, if you have gone to the trouble to install two batteries, wouldn't
you generally keep them separate, unless you were operating in the enduranc
e
mode?
Otherwise, why go to the trouble to install the engine battery bus and
contactor?
Again, the model is Z19/RB
Sam
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:41 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
>
>
> Bob,
>
> What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/R
B
>
> Sam
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Sam,*
>
> * *
>
> *Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and ' to -.*
>
> * *
>
> *Roger*
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
Never mind. I found the answer here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Sam
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>>
>>
>> >
>>> > What are your requirements for capacity? Have you
>>> > done an energy study for battery-only endurance?
>>> > The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's
>>> > larger siblings.
>>> >
>>> > Bob . . .
>>> >
>>> > After much discussion, we think this is how my electrically-dependent
>>> engine breaks out...
>>>
>>> > Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines:
>>> >
>>> > Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps
>>> > Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps
>>> > Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time)
>>> > ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU
>>> >
>>> > My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on (one LP
>>> > Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors, coils,
>>> > ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps.
>>>
>>>
>>> We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about 15
>>> minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess I
>>> might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe.
>>>
>>
>> According to the performance curves at:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w
>>
>> a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just
>> under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So
>> a battery due for replacement would be suited
>> for about 20 minutes of operation.
>>
>> Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery
>> architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an
>> I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per
>> battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery
>> drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4
>> per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the
>> lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you
>> 34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this
>> combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration.
>>
>> A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by
>> going to a single 28 a.h. battery.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8
>>
>> The internal impedance of this battery seems
>> better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives
>> you the same 60+ minutes at less weight
>> and total capacity.
>>
>> Of course, with a single battery or treating
>> two batteries as one battery dictates an
>> aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If
>> ever there was an power plant begging for
>> a second, small alternator, it's this one.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
>Bob,
>
>What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB
>Sam
If you're paralleling two batteries for
a simple increase of capacity and reduction
of internal resistance, then just hook 'em
up.
If you have two batteries that need to be
partitioned off to separate tasks during alternator
out operations, then separate battery contactors
and busses are called for . . . precisely as
illustrated in Z-19. Those batteries are operated
in parallel when the alternator is working . . .
and separated to separate tasks when the alternator
is not working.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum
that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface
with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack.
They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded.
Is this correct? If yes, why?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Audio Jacks |
>I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum
>that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
>surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface
>with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
>
>However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
>washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack.
>
>They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded.
>
>
>Is this correct? If yes, why?
It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate
small signal systems from airframe ground . . .
See
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
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: Installing Audio Jacks |
Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this
> forum that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other
> aluminium surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the
> metal surface with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
>
> However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and
> include washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the
> Headphone jack.
>
> They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally
> grounded.
>
>
>
> Is this correct? If yes, why?
>
>
>
> Carlos
>
The non-physics-based answer is probably: ground loop induced noise on
the input (mic) side gets amplified; the output side is less likely to
cause problems.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
Bob
I really didn't find anything about my question in the link you provided,
although it is your book's chapter about Audio Systems.
Can you please be more specific about what you think about not insulating
the Headphone jack?
And if I isolate it, to where exactly should I connect the ground lug of the
Headphone jack?
Carlos
> -----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: domingo, 26 de Outubro de 2008 20:23
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks
>
>
>
>
> >I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this
forum
> >that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
> >surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal
surface
> >with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
> >
> >However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
> >washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone
jack.
> >
> >They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally
grounded.
> >
> >
> >
> >Is this correct? If yes, why?
>
> It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate
> small signal systems from airframe ground . . .
>
> See
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pienaar" <mjpienaar(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
The "AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE" illustrated on page 2 in the article
mentioned, can I buy that or do I have to make it.
Cheers
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
Never mind. I found the answer here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
Sam
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins
wrote:
Bob,
What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using
Z19/RB
Sam
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> What are your requirements for capacity? Have you
> done an energy study for battery-only endurance?
> The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's
> larger siblings.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> After much discussion, we think this is how my
electrically-dependent engine breaks out...
> Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines:
>
> Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps
> Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps
> Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time)
> ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU
>
> My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on
(one LP
> Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors,
coils,
> ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps.
We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about
15 minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess
I might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe.
According to the performance curves at:
http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w
a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just
under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So
a battery due for replacement would be suited
for about 20 minutes of operation.
Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery
architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an
I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per
battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery
drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4
per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the
lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you
34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this
combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration.
A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by
going to a single 28 a.h. battery.
http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8
The internal impedance of this battery seems
better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives
you the same 60+ minutes at less weight
and total capacity.
Of course, with a single battery or treating
two batteries as one battery dictates an
aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If
ever there was an power plant begging for
a second, small alternator, it's this one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Durocell Leaking Batteries |
Hi,
Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking
in devices in the last couple years. I've used them for years in
test equipment, cameras, and high dollar radios because they didn't
leak. Can't say that no more. So far I had them leak in a couple
small Mag flashlights, my PDA device, and my GPS. A little further
back they done in my red/white lens aviation flash light also. I
never used to have a problem with them. They cost more than ever
today and appear to leak more, is there a relationship here. I never
recharge them.
Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled
the name right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their
has leaked. Crap.... Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is
different with these batteries selling now?
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Durocell Leaking Batteries |
Following Bob's report on the quality of alkaline batteries from Dollar
General several years ago, I've been using them exclusively. Never had the
problem you're experiencing with a single one and they're half the price of
the major brands, typically 20 for $5.
Rick
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:18 PM, jerb wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking in
> devices in the last couple years. I've used them for years in test
> equipment, cameras, and high dollar radios because they didn't leak. Can't
> say that no more. So far I had them leak in a couple small Mag flashlights,
> my PDA device, and my GPS. A little further back they done in my red/white
> lens aviation flash light also. I never used to have a problem with them.
> They cost more than ever today and appear to leak more, is there a
> relationship here. I never recharge them.
>
> Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled the name
> right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their has leaked.
> Crap.... Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is different with these
> batteries selling now?
> jerb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
Speaking of standby power, here is an interesting preliminary NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 081007X03940&key=1
I wonder why they didn't land when they first switched to battery power,
since "The QRH procedure also referenced that, "The battery will provide bus
power for approximately 30 minutes." ".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
>Bob
>
>
>I really didn t find anything about my question in the link you provided,
>although it is your book s chapter about Audio Systems.
My apologies, I thought I'd touched on signal grounds
in that chapter . . .
In complex machines where there is a mix of power (100 ma and
up) and signal systems (milliamperes and down) it is useful to
make some effort to isolate these systems from each other as
much as practical.
This starts with single point grounding so that no potential
victim (in this case headphones) has it's desired signal (ATC
talking to you) polluted with undesired signals (alternator
whine) because the power and signal ground paths are shared
along some portion of the airframe.
The underlying thought here is that "ground is not ground"
for all systems when you simply tie the ground wires to the
vehicle structure. At Cessna way back when, we simply tied
mic and headset jacks to airframe ground at the lower edge
of the panel. As loads in the airplane went up and generators
were replaced with alternators, there was the occasional situation
where alternator noise was heard by folks at the other end of
your transmission . . . or you could hear alternator whine
in your headsets.
NONE of the noise mitigating techniques (isolation washers,
single point grounds, shielded wires, etc) are absolute
guarantees against having to wrestle with a noise issue. These
are easy to accomplish, prophylactic measures that have been
shown to be useful in the past and when implemented in total
one can expect eliminating 99.9% of all potential noise
propagation paths . . . therefore we recommend that they be
implemented as standard practice.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Can you please be more specific about what you think about not insulating
>the Headphone jack?
>
>And if I isolate it, to where exactly should I connect the ground lug of
>the Headphone jack?
>
>
>Carlos
>
>
> > -----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: domingo, 26 de Outubro de 2008 20:23
>
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > >I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum
>
> > >that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium
>
> > >surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface
>
> > >with plastic or rubber insulating washers.
>
> > >
>
> > >However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include
>
> > >washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone
> jack.
>
> > >
>
> > >They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally
> grounded.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >Is this correct? If yes, why?
>
> >
>
> > It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate
>
> > small signal systems from airframe ground . . .
>
> >
>
> > See
>
> > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bob . . .
>
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------)
>
> > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>
> > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>
> > ( appearance of being right . . . )
>
> > ( )
>
> > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>
> > ----------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
>
> > browse
>
> > Un/Subscription,
>
> > FAQ,
>
> >
>
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> > ==========
>
> > bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
> > Forums!
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> > bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
>
> >
>
> > bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> > ==========
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>2:52 PM
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <neilak(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Vision Microsystems IO Board |
Does anyone have any information of the Vision Micros systems IO Board? I'd
like to add one to my existing EPI800 system but JPI/VMS no longer stock the
item. They're not particularly helpful in locating one or providing
information so I can build one (I have the technology). Any information
would be helpful. A manual, wiring diagram, schematic, hi-res picture,
anything. Thanks Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Durocell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Confirming an increased rate in the Duracell batteries, AA and AAA
purchased at Costco in large quantity packs in the last 36 months.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jerb
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Durocell Leaking Batteries
Hi,
Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking
in devices in the last couple years. I've used them for years in
test equipment, cameras, and high dollar radios because they didn't
leak. Can't say that no more. So far I had them leak in a couple
small Mag flashlights, my PDA device, and my GPS. A little further
back they done in my red/white lens aviation flash light also. I
never used to have a problem with them. They cost more than ever
today and appear to leak more, is there a relationship here. I never
recharge them.
Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled
the name right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their
has leaked. Crap.... Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is
different with these batteries selling now?
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 10/26/08 |
Jerb,
-
YES !!!
-
I have seen them fail most recently in my 121.5Mhz ELT - ruined it, they le
aked so bad.
Also, I pitched out a new LED flashlight that used 1 AA battery. The batter
y was so swelled and caused so much corrosion in the casing that I couldn't
extract it.
-
Not sure what's up with DURACELL, but this is killin' me. I need a new ELT
and don't want to buy an old 121.5 unit, and my cheap slef isn't willing to
buy an overpriced 405 unit.
-
John
Glasair 2FT
Hi,
Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking
in devices in the last couple years.- I've used them for years in
test equipment, cameras,- and high dollar radios because they didn't
leak.- Can't say that no more.- So far I had them leak in a couple
small Mag flashlights, my PDA device, and my GPS.- A little further
back they done in my red/white lens aviation flash light also.- I
never used to have a problem with them.- They cost more than ever
today and appear to leak more, is there a relationship here.- I never
recharge them.
Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled
the name right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their
has leaked.- Crap....- Might they relabeling Rayovac's.---What is
different with these batteries selling now?
jerb
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Davidson <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
Background: I tried to start my Jabiru 3300A yesterday. It didn't start because
of a lack of fuel. I can address that. At the same time, an electrical system
question has come up. The battery is a 2-3 year old 17 Amp Hour motorcycle
battery. It was charged up and eventually spun the engine fast enough to start
under normal circumstances in my opinion. I intend to replace it soon.
The ship's wiring diagram is a combination of Jabiru's design from their installation
manual augmented with Aeroconnection techniques like the forest of ground
tabs. As such, with the Permanent Magnet alternator, I followed Jabiru's
advice that Over Voltage protection is not needed.
Question: My question here is about the wiring of the Dynon EMS and EFIS to the
main bus. They are powered up when the Master Switch grounds the Battery Contactor.
The starter contactor is downstream of the battery contactor. When the
starter is engaged by grounding the starter contactor with the ignition switch,
both Dynons lost ship's power and came up on the backup battery. When we
had tried this several times, the Dynon backup battery was exhausted and the
Dynons simply went off. Again, the engine never started so all this was happening
while the starter was engaged. My question is whether or not the Dynons
should be moved to the Avionics bus. Yes, I have an Avionics Master and understand
the concern about it. The functional problem is that the tachometer and
oil pressure are displayed on the EMS and nowhere else. In the certified planes
with glass panels that I'm familiar with, the glass panels are similarly connected
to the Master Switch and stay on when the engine is started. I need
to be able to check oil pressure as soon as the engine starts.
Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Next time, I'll move the fuel selector
from the Off position!
Jeff Davidson (still an electrical newbie)
CH601-HD w/Jabiru3300A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Batteries? |
>The "AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE" illustrated on page 2 in the article
>mentioned, can I buy that or do I have to make it.
>
That version of the device is no longer in production. For a time
I was offering bare boards . . . so you could do your own. There's
a DIY article on the website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf.
However, depending on how soon you need it, there's
a new product under development (we started the software
last week) intended to replace the LV_Warn/ABMM with
a LV_Warn/On_Board_Battery_Capacity Meter.
Since Z-19 cannot readily make good use of a battery
capacity meter (two batteries that need to be tracked)
then perhaps we should consider a version of the new
product that drops in to replace the LV_Warn/ABMM . . .
I'll consider that as an option.
I just checked an we're out of the bare boards and
don't plan to restock those. If you'd like to go the
DIY route, there's artwork for the boards posted
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
You need to download free ECB crafting and ordering
software from:
http://expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Free_cad_software.htm
The minimum order for the boards is 3 coupons that
make 2 boards each for total of 6. This will cost
you about $61 total but perhaps you can find some
other DIY enthusiasts to share the board costs with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
>Speaking of standby power, here is an interesting preliminary NTSB report:
><http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 081007X03940&key=1>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 081007X03940&key=1
>
>I wonder why they didn't land when they first switched to battery power,
>since "The QRH procedure also referenced that, "The battery will provide
>bus power for approximately 30 minutes." ".
I'm presently involved in a task to upgrade and
airframe with new engines and associated accessories
along with a total overhaul of the cockpit to glass
screens. The customer is adamant that systems
functionality and operations in the upgraded electrical
system be identical to the older versions. The
rationale is that flight crews need to transition
across the fleet of aircraft with minimal risk
of doing the wrong thing in a new airplane based
on their experience with the old airplane.
This is a subtle if not overt admission that
in spite of specific perfectly accurate written
instructions, folks in command are vulnerable
to episodes of logic-lock . . .
Having a carefully crafted plan-B to back up
plan-A is one of those seemingly innocuous ideas
that can be exceedingly useful during situations
that are rare by design goal. Here our design goal
is to mini
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
Many thanks Bob
Now I got the whole picture!! Obviously I will isolate the headphone jacks
as well.
Now, isolating the headphone jacks from the airframe, where should I connect
its ground lugs to?
Shall I run a dedicated wire from each jack ground lug?
Shall this wire go to the firewall single point ground, or to pin 13 (mic
return) or pin 1 (ground) of the Intercom?
By the way (and forgive me for asking so many questions), since I am using
shielded wire to connect Mic and Headphone jacks to the Intercom, on which
side should I connect the shield mesh to ground, the jack or the Intercom?
Carlos
> -----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: segunda-feira, 27 de Outubro de 2008 13:54
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks
>
>
>
>
> >Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >I really didn t find anything about my question in the link you provided,
> >although it is your book s chapter about Audio Systems.
>
> My apologies, I thought I'd touched on signal grounds
> in that chapter . . .
>
> In complex machines where there is a mix of power (100 ma and
> up) and signal systems (milliamperes and down) it is useful to
> make some effort to isolate these systems from each other as
> much as practical.
>
> This starts with single point grounding so that no potential
> victim (in this case headphones) has it's desired signal (ATC
> talking to you) polluted with undesired signals (alternator
> whine) because the power and signal ground paths are shared
> along some portion of the airframe.
>
> The underlying thought here is that "ground is not ground"
> for all systems when you simply tie the ground wires to the
> vehicle structure. At Cessna way back when, we simply tied
> mic and headset jacks to airframe ground at the lower edge
> of the panel. As loads in the airplane went up and generators
> were replaced with alternators, there was the occasional situation
> where alternator noise was heard by folks at the other end of
> your transmission . . . or you could hear alternator whine
> in your headsets.
>
> NONE of the noise mitigating techniques (isolation washers,
> single point grounds, shielded wires, etc) are absolute
> guarantees against having to wrestle with a noise issue. These
> are easy to accomplish, prophylactic measures that have been
> shown to be useful in the past and when implemented in total
> one can expect eliminating 99.9% of all potential noise
> propagation paths . . . therefore we recommend that they be
> implemented as standard practice.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Installing Audio Jacks |
>Many thanks Bob
>
>Now I got the whole picture!! Obviously I will isolate the headphone jacks
>as well&
>
>
>Now, isolating the headphone jacks from the airframe, where should I
>connect its ground lugs to?
back to ground at the same device that drives the
headphones (iso amp, intercom?). See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf
. . . in every schematic, I show the signal ground for EACH
headset and EACH microphone jack returned to ground on the
device that gets the signal wires.
>Shall I run a dedicated wire from each jack ground lug?
For headsets, I use single shielded (shielded pair for
stereo) and often use the shield itself as the ground
return. This way all the conductors stay together. Mic
jacks can be a shielded trio (or shielded pair with
ground being the signal ground for the mic jack. Either
way works fine.
>Shall this wire go to the firewall single point ground, or to pin 13 (mic
>return) or pin 1 (ground) of the Intercom?
To the device that needs or delivers signals to the other
end.
The next audio isolation amp under design will have LOTS
of extra ground pins to accommodate minimum-risk wiring
techniques without having to splice a half dozen grounds
before dropping them into a single pin. These grounds
never go to an airframe ground like g1 thru g5 unless
specifically called out on the diagram.
Bob . . .
>
>
>By the way (and forgive me for asking so many questions), since I am using
>shielded wire to connect Mic and Headphone jacks to the Intercom, on which
>side should I connect the shield mesh to ground, the jack or the Intercom?
At the intercom end only unless you're using that
ground as part of the signal path.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pienaar" <mjpienaar(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE |
Thanks,
No rush, I'll wait for your module
Cheers
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries?
>
>
>>The "AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE" illustrated on page 2 in the article
>>mentioned, can I buy that or do I have to make it.
>>
>
> That version of the device is no longer in production. For a time
> I was offering bare boards . . . so you could do your own. There's
> a DIY article on the website at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf.
>
> However, depending on how soon you need it, there's
> a new product under development (we started the software
> last week) intended to replace the LV_Warn/ABMM with
> a LV_Warn/On_Board_Battery_Capacity Meter.
>
> Since Z-19 cannot readily make good use of a battery
> capacity meter (two batteries that need to be tracked)
> then perhaps we should consider a version of the new
> product that drops in to replace the LV_Warn/ABMM . . .
> I'll consider that as an option.
>
> I just checked an we're out of the bare boards and
> don't plan to restock those. If you'd like to go the
> DIY route, there's artwork for the boards posted
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
>
> You need to download free ECB crafting and ordering
> software from:
>
> http://expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Free_cad_software.htm
>
> The minimum order for the boards is 3 coupons that
> make 2 boards each for total of 6. This will cost
> you about $61 total but perhaps you can find some
> other DIY enthusiasts to share the board costs with.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
I fly the B757/B767 now, but I'm typed on the B737. I flew it for 6 years.
I also was an instructor on the B757-400. This INFO 100% off the top
of my head and should NOT be used for training or operation of a Boeing
Jet. (my lawyer would be happy.)
Boeing has very similar electrical architecture between models. I don't
have time to read the report, but I can almost certainly say what can
(and likely) happen.
The battery switch got into the position that turns the battery chargers OFF.
Battery power is critical even with all 2, 3 or 4 generators on line. On a
Boeing twin engine you can have up to 4 Gens, two engine, APU and
optional hyd motor driven gen (HMDG). The battery drives some items in
parallel or is the only source of power to others. It can cause loss of some
systems and have "unintended conciquences". It's indeed the last chance
power with out Gen power, as you say for 30 min. (Some have optional 60
or 90 min battery power.)
There is a battery switch that goes in AUTO position (or BAT) at the
start of the day. That is where it belongs and NEVER is moved in normal
operations. The other normal position is OFF, used at the end of the day
when parked overnight, some times not even than. If you left it off you
would know it and not be able to start the plane. However there are other
positions. One of these positions overrides the battery chargers (only
used for non normal events or maintence). You can put it in that
non normal postion after start with effort, but you would NEVER do that,
unless directed by a check list; you should know you did it. The issue
is accidental (brain dead) movement of the BAT switch to over ride the
battery chargers. [1]
It is VERY subtle to turn the battery chargers off in flight and the pilots
might not notice if they're not paying attention, could and has happened.
The only real in indication is an EICAS message. [2] (see B737 warning
system below) The level of the message is just advisory on the B757/767
and 747-400. Advisory is a white text message with an annunciation light,
but it does not make the bells and whistles go off.
******
So if you accidentally put the BAT in over ride and leave it there, you can
drain the batteries in flight with the Gens on line! NOTE: there is no reason
to turn the BAT to that position after its put in AUTO. It has to be in AUTO
or BAT to start the plane, so you would have to do a second (improper) step
to configure the switch.
******
So say the pilot accidentally turned the battery chargers OFF for some
reason. (This switch is not easily mistaken and requires a pull twist or
guard moved.) So the batteries keep doing thier thing, driving what they
need to, even while the Gens are all on line. When the battiers die all kinds
of weird stuff happens and the plane can be in serious dodo. The engines
will continue to run because they have continuous ignition (of jet engine
principles) and mechanical fuel pumps. Hydraulics will work, like flight
controls but you may have gear extension issues. [3]
The bottom line is the airplane assumes that during pref light the pilots
put all the switches in the proper position. There is no way an aircraft can
account for all human factors. That is why the crews are well trained. I go
through recurrance evey 6 months and have engine failures, fires,
decompression, single engine ILS to mins and every electrical, pneumatic
and hydraulic failure the sadistic instructor can think of. We use check list
and two crew cross check and standard procedures. That is why we get
paid the big bucks, to put switches in the right position.
Long story short this has happend before (one time on a B747-400 with
Asian airline).
[1] The batteries are not directly connected to the aircraft electrical system,
in that they are powered/chargers through battery chargers. As you may
know the primary gens are all AC. DC is from inverters.
[2] EICAS (engine indicating alert/annunciation system). The levels are
WARNING, CAUTION, ALERT and ADVISORY. They should notice it but
some times its missed. The Boeing 737 goes back to the 60's and had
it's first major upgrade in mid 80's and than later the "new gen" which
was a new wing. The cockpit got incremental upgrades in glass and EFIS,
however the EICAS system is rudimentary. In fact it is non existent. They
have the classic annunciation lights all over the panels and one "6-Pak"
master caution annunciation on the glare shield. You have to physically
look at of for the light in the panel. The later EICAS has a tube with actual
text message that often jives with the title of the check list you need to
address. SO ITS EASIER TO MISS IT ON THE B737, BUT YOU HAVE
TO REALLY NOT BE PAYING ATTENTION.
[3] Please arm chair expert save us your sanctimonious outrage how
stupid the engineers are and how you know better. You can't make a
system fool proof or take all control out of the hands of the crew. You
have to put a switch in the right position at the start of the flight and off
at the end of the day. Not every contingency or multiple failures can be
garded against. A well trained competent crew is required to fly a jet. For
example the fuel control switches even if garded can be turned off
(meaning inadvertent engine shut down). It happened once. You have to
pay attention when flying any plane but even more in a large jet. Things
happen fast. That is why I like my Cubs and RV. They have less
complication. I suggest every one strive for simplicity in their kit plane
system designs. (internally regulated alternators ROCK!@; externally
regulated alternators SUCK! LOL)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
Good Morning Mr Jet Pilot,
For What It Is Worth, the aircraft in question was a Boeing 757, not a 737.
Just a little bit of research could have revealed that fact
Happy Skies
Old Bob
Also rated on the 737 and 757/767 as well as many other aircraft.
In a message dated 10/28/2008 8:23:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
I fly the B757/B767 now, but I'm typed on the B737. I flew it for 6 years.
I also was an instructor on the B757-400. This INFO 100% off the top
of my head and should NOT be used for training or operation of a Boeing
Jet. (my lawyer would be happy.)
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites
,
no registration required and great graphics =93 check it out!
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Hudes <phudes(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:16 AM,
wrote:
> I fly the B757/B767 now, but I'm typed on the B737. I flew it for 6
> years.
> I also was an instructor on the B757-400.
Is this a new variant? I didn't know Boeing made a 757-400.
Pete Hudes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
>Question: My question here is about the wiring of the Dynon EMS and EFIS
>to the main bus. They are powered up when the Master Switch grounds the
>Battery Contactor. The starter contactor is downstream of the battery
>contactor. When the starter is engaged by grounding the starter contactor
>with the ignition switch, both Dynons lost ship's power and came up on the
>backup battery. When we had tried this several times, the Dynon backup
>battery was exhausted and the Dynons simply went off. Again, the engine
>never started so all this was happening while the starter was engaged. My
>question is whether or not the Dynons should be moved to the Avionics
>bus. Yes, I have an Avionics Master and understand the concern about
>it. The functional problem is that the tachometer and oil pressure are
>displayed on the EMS and nowhere else. In the certified planes with glass
>panels that I'm familiar with, the glass panels are similarly connected to
>the Master Switch and stay on when the e!
> ngine is started. I need to be able to check oil pressure as soon as
> the engine starts.
>
>Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Next time, I'll move the fuel
>selector from the Off position!
The spirit and intent of avionics master switch
was to "protect sensitive avionics from hazardous
spikes generated during engine cranking."
In years since, it has been discovered that while
there was significant brown-out during the first
few milliseconds of starter operation similar to
that shown here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif
there were no high-voltage excursions that could
not be easily handled by simple components in the
potential victim's power input conditioning.
Further, the industry tapped a huge experience base
by forming RTCA and inviting all interested parties
in aviation to participate in quantifying and documenting
the magnitude and type of stresses a piece of avionics
should shrug off.
Based on our current knowledge and skill in crafting
airplanes and their accessories, there is no need
for an avionics master switch to "protect" anything.
I believe you stated that all batteries involved in
your test were of questionable condition either by
reason of age or state of charge. I'll suggest
then that what you experienced was not worthy
of generating concerns. You need to repeat the
experiment with a known-good ship's battery and
fully charged stand-by batteries.
It's doubtful that anything was damaged. Everything
you observed appears to be the byproduct of soggy
batteries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | navaid ap1 autopilot |
Can anyone tell me if their is any source that can fix on an inop.
navaid ap 1 autopilot head? Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | SD-8 self excitation |
Hi Bob and everyone
Note 25 on page Z-10, mentions the work-around needed to self excite
the older SD-8 regulators. Does this imply that the new regulators
don't need this, and that the regulator will come alive as soon as
the engine starts turning?
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Ironically, I had cause to pull one of Eric's zippy LED flashlights out of my flight
bag early this AM only to find the AA Duracells had leaked in the body of
the light. Yeachh...
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 self excitation |
>
>
>Hi Bob and everyone
>
>Note 25 on page Z-10, mentions the work-around needed to self excite
>the older SD-8 regulators. Does this imply that the new regulators
>don't need this, and that the regulator will come alive as soon as
>the engine starts turning?
Unknown. The change to the regulator's internal are very
simple and I would hope that B&C would consider this
an upgrade worthy of consideration . . . but unless they're
advertising the ability to come on line without battery
support, it's fair to assume that no changes have been
made to their product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
The reason I posted the question is I have experienced a number of
them leaking in the last couple years, a large number of them in the
last year whereas before they we rock solid. What has changed, shift
in the magnetic field, alignment of the planets, year 2012
approaching. Sorry I have to say I just become very disappointed in
their product now.
jerb
At 02:41 PM 10/28/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Ironically, I had cause to pull one of Eric's zippy LED flashlights
>out of my flight bag early this AM only to find the AA Duracells had
>leaked in the body of the light. Yeachh...
>
>Glen Matejcek
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic - 737 runs out of battery power |
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Good Morning Mr Jet Pilot,
>For What It Is Worth, the aircraft in question was a Boeing 757, not a 737.
Thanks, as I said you can turn the battery chargers off on all Boeing jets. I don't
know the specifics of the case because I did not look it up, sorry, but from
the description this is one of those gotchas.
>From: Peter Hudes <phudes(at)ix.netcom.com>
>Is this a new variant? I didn't know Boeing made a 757-400.
>Pete Hudes
They don't. It was a typo, 747-400. Sorry my bad; I taught it from 1989-1993.
Haven't been in one since. This model did have an inadvertent battery charger
shut down as I mentioned. It's just not something that's suppose to happen, if
the crew is paying attention, but stuff does happen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
>My cheap boss bought a jumbo pack of Radio Shack Gold AA's. I loaded up my
>brand new Dymo thermal label maker with 6 of them a week ago and used it a
>little. Today, went to make a label and it was completely dead. Opened it
>up and every single one of them had oozed slime in my new printer. Cleaned
>up good with a toothbrush and some contact cleaner. Went and bought some
>USA mad Energiser Brand. We will see how that works out.
>Where are Duracells made, USA or China?
I've not had anyone's alkaline batteries leak on
me in many years including Duracells. That's not
to argue with anyone's experiences . . . only to
add a data point. I'm not sure exactly what happens
with chemistry internal to the cell but I seem to
recall the evil stuff inside doesn't need to get
out until the cell is depleted. This is why virtually
every manufacturer recommends removal of cells
when the device is store for long periods of time.
We use a goodly number of cells per year and our
time in the appliance is pretty short. I.e., cells
with expiration dates way out in the future don't
set around long in the appliance. I'll keep some
used cells around next time I change them out . . .
deplete them totally and see if they leak at some
later time.
In the mean time, Duracell offers to repair or
replace a damaged appliance in their sales literature
at:
http://www.duracell.com/procell/about/care.asp
Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
somehow their analysis says the cell was left
installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
What should one use to neutralize the 'leaked' gel/deposits
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
>
>
>>My cheap boss bought a jumbo pack of Radio Shack Gold AA's. I loaded up my
>>brand new Dymo thermal label maker with 6 of them a week ago and used it a
>>little. Today, went to make a label and it was completely dead. Opened it
>>up and every single one of them had oozed slime in my new printer. Cleaned
>>up good with a toothbrush and some contact cleaner. Went and bought some
>>USA mad Energiser Brand. We will see how that works out.
>>Where are Duracells made, USA or China?
>
> I've not had anyone's alkaline batteries leak on
> me in many years including Duracells. That's not
> to argue with anyone's experiences . . . only to
> add a data point. I'm not sure exactly what happens
> with chemistry internal to the cell but I seem to
> recall the evil stuff inside doesn't need to get
> out until the cell is depleted. This is why virtually
> every manufacturer recommends removal of cells
> when the device is store for long periods of time.
>
> We use a goodly number of cells per year and our
> time in the appliance is pretty short. I.e., cells
> with expiration dates way out in the future don't
> set around long in the appliance. I'll keep some
> used cells around next time I change them out . . .
> deplete them totally and see if they leak at some
> later time.
>
> In the mean time, Duracell offers to repair or
> replace a damaged appliance in their sales literature
> at:
>
> http://www.duracell.com/procell/about/care.asp
>
> Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
> somehow their analysis says the cell was left
> installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
> lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
> perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
Duracells are manufactured in Lancaster SC and Cleveland Tennessee.
The Goo is comprised of Sodium Hydroxide, Manganese dioxide, Mercury and a secret
Brew inside a steel can. They will usually not leak until the Manganese dioxide
shell is depleted then the steel can is oxidized by th "goo"
Duracell will replace any item that is damaged by a leaking battery. For low dollar
items it is no questions asked, for a big ticket item they will probably
want to see the battery to make sure it isn't 20 years old.
Best thing to clean with is vinegar rinse with water.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210950#210950
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Durocell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is
> different with these batteries selling now?
> jerb
>
I do not know if they still do but Duracell used to make the Ray o Vac alkaline
batteries. Ran them down the same assembly line just put a different cover on
them.
If you are buying them in bulk from Costco you might want to check the dates they
could be really old.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210952#210952
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
John...
Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)works well for acids. Make a paste by mixing with
water. Apply to the area to be cleaned. If there is acid present you will
see the paste fizz on contact with the acid. Rinse with water and dry with
air or alcohol.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
>From: JOHN TIPTON <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
>Sent: Oct 29, 2008 7:38 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
>
>
>What should one use to neutralize the 'leaked' gel/deposits
>
>John
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:26 AM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
>
>
>>
>>
>>>My cheap boss bought a jumbo pack of Radio Shack Gold AA's. I loaded up my
>>>brand new Dymo thermal label maker with 6 of them a week ago and used it a
>>>little. Today, went to make a label and it was completely dead. Opened it
>>>up and every single one of them had oozed slime in my new printer. Cleaned
>>>up good with a toothbrush and some contact cleaner. Went and bought some
>>>USA mad Energiser Brand. We will see how that works out.
>>>Where are Duracells made, USA or China?
>>
>> I've not had anyone's alkaline batteries leak on
>> me in many years including Duracells. That's not
>> to argue with anyone's experiences . . . only to
>> add a data point. I'm not sure exactly what happens
>> with chemistry internal to the cell but I seem to
>> recall the evil stuff inside doesn't need to get
>> out until the cell is depleted. This is why virtually
>> every manufacturer recommends removal of cells
>> when the device is store for long periods of time.
>>
>> We use a goodly number of cells per year and our
>> time in the appliance is pretty short. I.e., cells
>> with expiration dates way out in the future don't
>> set around long in the appliance. I'll keep some
>> used cells around next time I change them out . . .
>> deplete them totally and see if they leak at some
>> later time.
>>
>> In the mean time, Duracell offers to repair or
>> replace a damaged appliance in their sales literature
>> at:
>>
>> http://www.duracell.com/procell/about/care.asp
>>
>> Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
>> somehow their analysis says the cell was left
>> installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
>> lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
>> perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Battery story--I posted some years ago my tale of using a 12V lantern battery drycell
to power my Telex intercom. When I rented airplanes I would use it, since
the small battery that came with the Telex was always going flat and the Cessnae
I rented often had no cigar-lighter power.
The first big lantern battery died in just a couple hours. I assumed it had been
used and returned to the store by a dishonest customer....But the replacement
battery was SMOKING when I landed and was so hot I had to remove it from my
flight bag by its attachment wires. I put in on the asphalt and it left a melted
mark. How close to a disaster I was, I shall never know.
I assumed the internal cells had crushed from the change in altitude, but I left
it in a metal trash can and never had it dissected.
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- Eolake Stobblehouse
--------
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=210966#210966
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
rv8iator wrote:
> John...
>
> Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)works well for acids. Make a paste by mixing
with water. Apply to the area to be cleaned. If there is acid present you will
see the paste fizz on contact with the acid. Rinse with water and dry with
air or alcohol.
>
> Chris
>
> --
Alkaline batteries (Duracells) are a base (same as baking soda) only much stronger.
As such a weak acid ie vinegar or lemon juice should be used for cleaning/neutralizing.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210973#210973
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
jeffrey_davidson(at)earth wrote:
>
> Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Next time, I'll move the fuel selector
from the Off position!
>
> Jeff Davidson (still an electrical newbie)
> CH601-HD w/Jabiru3300A
I'm not going to address the whole avionics master switch issue. What concerns
me is what sounds like a limited life on the Dynon internal battery.
I've heard stories of people getting them, taking them out of the box or testing
them during the building process and then not turning them off properly and
when the plane's power is disconnected they think there is a power outage and
just drain the internal battery.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210980#210980
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
>
>Battery story--I posted some years ago my tale of using a 12V lantern
>battery drycell to power my Telex intercom. When I rented airplanes I
>would use it, since the small battery that came with the Telex was always
>going flat and the Cessnae I rented often had no cigar-lighter power.
>
>The first big lantern battery died in just a couple hours. I assumed it
>had been used and returned to the store by a dishonest customer....But the
>replacement battery was SMOKING when I landed and was so hot I had to
>remove it from my flight bag by its attachment wires. I put in on the
>asphalt and it left a melted mark. How close to a disaster I was, I shall
>never know.
>
>I assumed the internal cells had crushed from the change in altitude, but
>I left it in a metal trash can and never had it dissected.
Interesting hypothesis. I have a small
altitude chamber that fits into my temperature
chamber to do temperature/altitude combination
stress on small articles. Next time we get it
out and set up, I'll do some bashing on AA and
F-cells to see if I can precipitate a failure.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Yeah, I wonder if your Dynon battery was fully charged prior to this exercise.
On a typical Jabiru start with a charged main battery, my Dynon D180 does not
even see low enough main voltage to go on the internal battery. This is mainly
due to the rapidity with which the Jabiru normally starts. Now that it is
cold, and I did not richen up my idle mixture screw, it took me about 6 cranks
to get started the other day. Towards the end, my Dynon told me that it was
going on internal battery during the cranks. Even without an internal battery,
Dynon emphatically says that it is no problem to have it hooked live to the
main bus during cranking.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210999#210999
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Good Afternoon Bob,
Just as a datapoint, I had a D sized DuraCell leak in a four cell Mag Lite.
I sent the unit to the company as directed by their website. They sent me a
check which covered the price of a new four cell MagLite and my shipping
expenses. I would still like it better if the cells never leaked, but the warranty
was honored. I do not have any idea whether or not the battery was beyond
it's 'use before' date as it was stuck so hard in the flashlight, that I
couldn't get it out!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 10/29/2008 6:32:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
somehow their analysis says the cell was left
installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
Bob . . .
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
FWIW, today I found one unused Duracell MN1300 battery within a package
of 12(with a "Guaranteed fresh through 2008" label) was leaking and
showed 0.1 volt open circuit. The remaining other two in the package
were clean and measured an open circuit voltage of 1.515. These are
marked as manufactured in USA in 2001, Bethel, CT 06801.
The Guarantee on the package says "Should any device be damaged due to a
battery defect, we will repair or replace it if sent with the batteries,
postage paid to Duracell Consumer Dept" followed by the address in
Bethel, CT.
Five years ago, I complied with the ACK Technologies Inc. Model E-01 ELT
product warranty statement that use of any other batteries than DURACELL
would VOID the WARRANTY and be in VIOLATION of the requirements of
TSO-91a OR FAR 91.52.
On the first annual inspection thereafter there were two of the
Duracells with significant leakage that had severly corroded the
electrical contacts in the unit. These batteries were only one year into
their multi-year life as printed on the batteries. ALL of the batteries
in the ELT still measured above 1.5 volts open circuit and the ELT
produced normal signal strength during the short-test performance check
prior to finding the corrosion/leakage.
It appears that leakage/corrosion of DURACELLS can happen while never
being removed from their original package during their Guaranteed-Fresh-
Dated-Life, as well as when they are installed fresh from manufacture,
in a device that essentially places no load on them throughout less than
a year, after which they are still capable of the same "like-new"
performance as the other cells in the same installation which did NOT
leak.
Jim McCulley
===========================================================================================
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> My cheap boss bought a jumbo pack of Radio Shack Gold AA's. I loaded
>> up my brand new Dymo thermal label maker with 6 of them a week ago and
>> used it a little. Today, went to make a label and it was completely
>> dead. Opened it up and every single one of them had oozed slime in my
>> new printer. Cleaned up good with a toothbrush and some contact
>> cleaner. Went and bought some USA mad Energiser Brand. We will see how
>> that works out.
>> Where are Duracells made, USA or China?
>
>
> I've not had anyone's alkaline batteries leak on
> me in many years including Duracells. That's not
> to argue with anyone's experiences . . . only to
> add a data point. I'm not sure exactly what happens
> with chemistry internal to the cell but I seem to
> recall the evil stuff inside doesn't need to get
> out until the cell is depleted. This is why virtually
> every manufacturer recommends removal of cells
> when the device is store for long periods of time.
>
> We use a goodly number of cells per year and our
> time in the appliance is pretty short. I.e., cells
> with expiration dates way out in the future don't
> set around long in the appliance. I'll keep some
> used cells around next time I change them out . . .
> deplete them totally and see if they leak at some
> later time.
>
> In the mean time, Duracell offers to repair or
> replace a damaged appliance in their sales literature
> at:
>
> http://www.duracell.com/procell/about/care.asp
>
> Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
> somehow their analysis says the cell was left
> installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
> lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
> perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
>
> Bob . . .
=========================================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
My Dynon cable has 3 power leads which I assume is done in an effort to
alleviate this issue. Cable is from http://approachfaststack.com/
1. Main bus (DC primary power switch)
2. Essential bus (or alternate backup source)
3. Battery bus (or always on connection)
I have not experienced this behavior. If I start the Dynon while sitting
with the power off, I get the message, but If I add ship power I do not
get another message that it is on ship power. By pressing any button
then Next->Next->Info you can monitor the battery charge and the ships
battery level.
Did you connect the always on lead to your battery bus?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus
>Question: My question here is about the wiring of the Dynon EMS and
EFIS
>to the main bus. They are powered up when the Master Switch grounds
the
>Battery Contactor. The starter contactor is downstream of the battery
>contactor. When the starter is engaged by grounding the starter
contactor
>with the ignition switch, both Dynons lost ship's power and came up on
the
>backup battery. When we had tried this several times, the Dynon backup
>battery was exhausted and the Dynons simply went off. Again, the
engine
>never started so all this was happening while the starter was engaged.
My
>question is whether or not the Dynons should be moved to the Avionics
>bus. Yes, I have an Avionics Master and understand the concern about
>it. The functional problem is that the tachometer and oil pressure are
>displayed on the EMS and nowhere else. In the certified planes with
glass
>panels that I'm familiar with, the glass panels are similarly connected
to
>the Master Switch and stay on when the e!
> ngine is started. I need to be able to check oil pressure as soon as
> the engine starts.
>
>Thanks for any light you can shed on this. Next time, I'll move the
fuel
>selector from the Off position!
The spirit and intent of avionics master switch
was to "protect sensitive avionics from hazardous
spikes generated during engine cranking."
In years since, it has been discovered that while
there was significant brown-out during the first
few milliseconds of starter operation similar to
that shown here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif
there were no high-voltage excursions that could
not be easily handled by simple components in the
potential victim's power input conditioning.
Further, the industry tapped a huge experience base
by forming RTCA and inviting all interested parties
in aviation to participate in quantifying and documenting
the magnitude and type of stresses a piece of avionics
should shrug off.
Based on our current knowledge and skill in crafting
airplanes and their accessories, there is no need
for an avionics master switch to "protect" anything.
I believe you stated that all batteries involved in
your test were of questionable condition either by
reason of age or state of charge. I'll suggest
then that what you experienced was not worthy
of generating concerns. You need to repeat the
experiment with a known-good ship's battery and
fully charged stand-by batteries.
It's doubtful that anything was damaged. Everything
you observed appears to be the byproduct of soggy
batteries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Chris;
You're correct that baking soda works for neutralizing acids, but by
definition an alkaline battery is ALKALINE not acidic and therefore a
weak acid is required to neutralize it. (vinegar, lemon juice etc)
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Stone" <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
>
> John...
>
> Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)works well for acids. Make a paste by
mixing with water. Apply to the area to be cleaned. If there is acid
present you will see the paste fizz on contact with the acid. Rinse
with water and dry with air or alcohol.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: JOHN TIPTON <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
> >Sent: Oct 29, 2008 7:38 AM
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
> >
> >
> >What should one use to neutralize the 'leaked' gel/deposits
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:26 AM
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>My cheap boss bought a jumbo pack of Radio Shack Gold AA's. I
loaded up my
> >>>brand new Dymo thermal label maker with 6 of them a week ago and
used it a
> >>>little. Today, went to make a label and it was completely dead.
Opened it
> >>>up and every single one of them had oozed slime in my new printer.
Cleaned
> >>>up good with a toothbrush and some contact cleaner. Went and bought
some
> >>>USA mad Energiser Brand. We will see how that works out.
> >>>Where are Duracells made, USA or China?
> >>
> >> I've not had anyone's alkaline batteries leak on
> >> me in many years including Duracells. That's not
> >> to argue with anyone's experiences . . . only to
> >> add a data point. I'm not sure exactly what happens
> >> with chemistry internal to the cell but I seem to
> >> recall the evil stuff inside doesn't need to get
> >> out until the cell is depleted. This is why virtually
> >> every manufacturer recommends removal of cells
> >> when the device is store for long periods of time.
> >>
> >> We use a goodly number of cells per year and our
> >> time in the appliance is pretty short. I.e., cells
> >> with expiration dates way out in the future don't
> >> set around long in the appliance. I'll keep some
> >> used cells around next time I change them out . . .
> >> deplete them totally and see if they leak at some
> >> later time.
> >>
> >> In the mean time, Duracell offers to repair or
> >> replace a damaged appliance in their sales literature
> >> at:
> >>
> >> http://www.duracell.com/procell/about/care.asp
> >>
> >> Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
> >> somehow their analysis says the cell was left
> >> installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
> >> lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
> >> perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
> >>
> >> Bob . . .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Milt;
According to the current Duracell website all mercury has been removed
from their batteries and they are now safe to dispose of in household
garbage without the risk of environmental contamination. (So they say !)
Maybe the changes necessitated by the removal of the mercury is why
these leaks are starting to turn up?? Quite a few things these days have
been modified from their original composition to the detriment of
function and for betterment of the environment.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
>
> Duracells are manufactured in Lancaster SC and Cleveland Tennessee.
>
> The Goo is comprised of Sodium Hydroxide, Manganese dioxide, Mercury
and a secret Brew inside a steel can. They will usually not leak until
the Manganese dioxide shell is depleted then the steel can is oxidized
by th "goo"
>
>
> Duracell will replace any item that is damaged by a leaking battery.
For low dollar items it is no questions asked, for a big ticket item
they will probably want to see the battery to make sure it isn't 20
years old.
>
>
> Best thing to clean with is vinegar rinse with water.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210950#210950
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
I am going to guess it is a QC problem in the factory.
I was an engineer for them in the mid 70s and we had a really tough time with new
automated equipment in preventing "leakers". Problem was so bad at one plant
we almost had to shut it down. They (Duracell/Mallory Battery) really took the
problem of leaking batteries seriously. I am really shocked to read this thread.
As you say things change and not always for the better.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211113#211113
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Yes, including the glue that holds the foam on the external tank of the
orbital space shuttle.
Bruce
<http://www.glasair.org/> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
Milt;
According to the current Duracell website all mercury has been removed from
their batteries and they are now safe to dispose of in household garbage
without the risk of environmental contamination. (So they say !) Maybe the
changes necessitated by the removal of the mercury is why these leaks are
starting to turn up?? Quite a few things these days have been modified from
their original composition to the detriment of function and for betterment
of the environment.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" < <mailto:Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries
Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
>
> Duracells are manufactured in Lancaster SC and Cleveland Tennessee.
>
> The Goo is comprised of Sodium Hydroxide, Manganese dioxide, Mercury and
a secret Brew inside a steel can. They will usually not leak until the
Manganese dioxide shell is depleted then the steel can is oxidized by th
"goo"
>
>
> Duracell will replace any item that is damaged by a leaking battery. For
low dollar items it is no questions asked, for a big ticket item they will
probably want to see the battery to make sure it isn't 20 years old.
>
>
> Best thing to clean with is vinegar rinse with water.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210950#210950>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210950#210950
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> Features Browse, Chat,
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> bsp; via the
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> bsp; - generous support!
> bsp; <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Davidson <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS & EMS power on the main bus |
I USE THE DIGEST VERSION OF THE LIST SO ILL RESPON EN MASS. THE CAPITALS ARE NOT
SHOUTING, JUST SO YOU CAN EASILY FIND MY RESPONSES. THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR
THEIR INPUT.
Jeff
Gig wrote:
I'm not going to address the whole avionics master switch issue. What concerns
me is what sounds like a limited life on the Dynon internal battery. I've ..
just drain the internal battery. NOT THE SITUATION HERE. THE DYNONS ARE FINE.
Dave wrote:
Yeah, I wonder if your Dynon battery was fully charged prior to this exercise.
On a typical Jabiru start ., Dynon emphatically says that it is no problem to
have it hooked live to the main bus during cranking. THE DYNON BATTERY WAS NOT
FULLY CHARGED.
Longg wrote:
My Dynon cable has 3 power leads which I assume is done in an effort to alleviate
this issue. Cable is .. Did you connect the always on lead to your battery
bus? THE DYNON KEEP ALIVE IS NOT CONNECTED SINCE IM JUST FINISHING BUILDING AND
NOT FLYING REGULARLY. THE MAIN IS ALSO NOT ON A LOT SO THE DYNON BATTERY IS
ONLY CHARGING SPORADICALLY.
Bob Wrote:
You need to repeat the experiment with a known-good ship's battery and fully charged
stand-by batteries. It's doubtful that anything was damaged. Everything
you observed appears to be the byproduct. SOUND ADVICE. WITH A LITTLE FUEL I
EXPECT IT TO RUN!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
I too had a Duracell leaker. One of the D cells in my ELT let the
slime out. The ELT worked, when tested. But the A&P on the field
warned me to "look" at them during annual. The cells were three or
four years from the expiration date. Had been in the ELT for two
years. NOW I check them during every annual. Even checked them for
voltage. No leaks, voltage above 1.5V per cell.
Just one more data point.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 111.5 hours
Luana, IA.
On Oct 29, 2008, at 1:30 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Bob,
>
> Just as a datapoint, I had a D sized DuraCell leak in a four cell
> Mag Lite. I sent the unit to the company as directed by their
> website. They sent me a check which covered the price of a new four
> cell MagLite and my shipping expenses. I would still like it better
> if the cells never leaked, but the warranty was honored. I do not
> have any idea whether or not the battery was beyond it's 'use
> before' date as it was stuck so hard in the flashlight, that I
> couldn't get it out!
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 10/29/2008 6:32:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
> Now it may be that they could claim no fault if
> somehow their analysis says the cell was left
> installed long after it was depleted. I.e., flash
> lights, radios, etc inadvertently left on or
> perhaps the auto off feature isn't working, etc.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5
> Travel Deals!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duracell Leaking Batteries |
Until recently, I had very few batteries leak, but within the last
year, a number have, including one or two still in the package.
Little damage to equipment, since I don't generally leave batteries in
devices such as camera flashes. I have never had a rechargeable NiMH
battery leak. I use those wherever a lower voltage is acceptable to
the device.
I save up used batteries and take them to the hazardous waste
disposal. So I counted the results of the batteries in my discard pile:
Leaked/Total Brand
6/18 Rayovac
3/13 Duracell
0/19 Memorex
3/19 Miscellaneous
That's a lot of leaky batteries, although some have probably been in
the pile as long as 3 years. The Memorex ones seem like a good deal,
since they are quite inexpensive in bulk packages.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 self excitation |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks...
I've emailed Greg at B&C to see if the regulator has been updated,
and will post his response for the archives and general knowledge.
Etienne
On 28 Oct 2008, at 11:38 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Unknown. The change to the regulator's internal are very
> simple and I would hope that B&C would consider this
> an upgrade worthy of consideration . . . but unless they're
> advertising the ability to come on line without battery
> support, it's fair to assume that no changes have been
> made to their product.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Gentlemen:
I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've researched
thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what the
"Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards BLACK
Lettering...it stands out better.
I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
Henry
Pittsburgh, Pa.
RV-9A - wiring started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Greetings Henry,
I will be using flat gray for my panel. My experience has been that
white stands out much better in a low light situation. I think white will
give better readability in low ambient light and allow me to have the
instruments lights dimmer which will allow better night adaptation of my
eyes.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
> Gentlemen:
>
> I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
> didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've
> researched
> thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what the
> "Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
>
> I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards BLACK
> Lettering...it stands out better.
>
> I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
>
>
> Henry
> Pittsburgh, Pa.
> RV-9A - wiring started
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
5:27 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Hi Henry,
I don't think there is an actual FAR for coloring of labels, but
conventional practice in the business (we do this for a living, so we see it
every day) is to use a contrasting color. If the panel is light-use dark
labels, if the panel is dark - use light labels. We see the most popular
panel colors as Black, Greys, Tan's/Beige and off white colors. If we were
building your panel with the color you've attached, I'd really push you
towards black lettering for a number of reasons.
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
Minneapolis, MN
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Henry
>Trzeciakowski
>Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
>
>
>Gentlemen:
>
>I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
>didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've
>researched
>thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what the
>"Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
>
>I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards BLACK
>Lettering...it stands out better.
>
>I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
>
>
>Henry
>Pittsburgh, Pa.
>RV-9A - wiring started
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
SteinAir, Inc. a crit :
> I'd really push you
> towards black lettering for a number of reasons.
>
I personally would tend to use white against medium gray for reasons of
low light visibility.
Not everyone has the same perception under such conditions, so I'd
conduct some tests in low light : what about visibility at dusk with no
panel lights ? What about readability under fluorescent light or
whatever is installed/employed for night lighting ?
I get the impression that white stand out better than dark figures, just
like instrument numbers, but of course others may differ.
FWIW,
Best regards,
--
GillesThesee
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Henry,
Attached are a few examples from my project.
Bill
RV-7 N151WP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry
Trzeciakowski
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
Gentlemen:
I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've
researched
thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what
the
"Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards
BLACK
Lettering...it stands out better.
I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
Henry
Pittsburgh, Pa.
RV-9A - wiring started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Gill
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
Henry,
Attached are a few examples from my project.
Bill
RV-7 N151WP
Bill: How are your labels created?
Gordon Comfort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Hi Gilles,
I tend to respectfully disagree here. White lettering on Gray panels is
notoriously poor under almost all conditions. Unless the gray is fairly
dark (almost a charcoal color), white letters get washed out and lost, and
it happens in both high brightness and low brightness situations. Night
time will highlight the differences even more. While you may lean towards
thinking white is better at night, if it's over a light base, the letters
get lost even quicker and worse than in bright light. It may be a bit
counter intuititve to first thought, but white letters on light panels just
doesn't work well at all for the most part. The main goal is to get the
most contrast you cat between the base panel color and the lettering,
regardless of what those colors may be. For example the best you can get on
black is to use silver lettering (it's even better than white). On a dark
maroon panel it happens to be gold foil lettering. Panels that are the most
difficult are brown and some dark colors like green and red. Those are hard
to get any lettering that pops really well. I think we've experimented and
painted almost every color in the rainbow over the hundreds of panels we've
painted/labeled. I've seen the best and worst so I'm just passing along
what we've been exposed to.
My 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of GTH
>Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:02 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
>
>
>SteinAir, Inc. a crit :
>> I'd really push you
>> towards black lettering for a number of reasons.
>>
>
>I personally would tend to use white against medium gray for reasons of
>low light visibility.
>Not everyone has the same perception under such conditions, so I'd
>conduct some tests in low light : what about visibility at dusk with no
>panel lights ? What about readability under fluorescent light or
>whatever is installed/employed for night lighting ?
>I get the impression that white stand out better than dark figures, just
>like instrument numbers, but of course others may differ.
>
>FWIW,
>Best regards,
>--
>GillesThesee
>http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wickert <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Henry good looking work what did you use to make these great job!
Jim Wickert
Vision #159
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Gill <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Oct 30, 2008 8:59 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
>
>Henry,
>
>Attached are a few examples from my project.
>
>Bill
>RV-7 N151WP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry
>Trzeciakowski
>Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
>
>Gentlemen:
>
>I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
>didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've
>researched
>thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what
>the
>"Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
>
>I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards
>BLACK
>Lettering...it stands out better.
>
>I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
>
>
>Henry
>Pittsburgh, Pa.
>RV-9A - wiring started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Using relay for engine control . . . |
>Comments/Questions: I have your book, and I read the section on relays,
>but I'm still not sure a decision I made long ago is the right one. I have
>an automotive engine in a pusher, and for whatever reason the engine must
>be shut off by removing power from the computer. Rather than depend upon a
>switch and a long run of wire, I connected the computer directly to the
>battery contactor, through the normally closed contacts of a relay. This
>way, the switch and wire are only used to activate the relay, which shuts
>down the engine. By the way, the engine can also be shut off by pulling
>breakers and shutting off fuel if necessary. Questions: What are the
>consequences of using the normally closed contacts for this purpose? I ask
>because they are rated lower and probably held closed with a spring. How
>about a latching relay instead? Or a more appropriate relay for the task
>that a layman such as myself might not know about? Thanks for the help.
Is the computer the only device that needs
power to keep the engine running? How about fuel
pump?
It's been my recommendation for years that electrically
dependent engines run from the always-hot, battery-bus.
This means that if you have smoke in the cockpit, you
can shut off the alternator-battery-master switch and
kill everything electrical without having the engine
quit.
Since you already have a switch and some length of
wire in place to control a relay, there is little value
in adding the relay unless the current needed to run
the computer is too large to consider running through
the switch and its associated wiring. There is a reliability
factor for the switch an associated wire . . . which can
only get worse by adding the relay. However, if there
is a performance driver for adding the relay (you don't
want to run 20A the length of the airplane twice and
a 20A rated switch is a real pig), then using a smaller
switch, wire and a relay to control that pathway is a
rational decision. This is what battery and starter
contactors are about also.
Why the n.c. contacts? Modern relays are pretty robust
and have excellent service lives under the hood of
an automobile. If this pathway and its controls have
to be 100% golden for the engine to run, then perhaps
a normally open solid state relay is called for. Eric
Jones has one, we'll have one too pretty soon. How
much current are you talking about?
What does this computer control? What other electro-
whizzies need to be powered up to keep the engine
runnnig?
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
I check the List several times a day and attempt to be as
responsive as time will allow. Further, there are 1800
or so subscribers that include many technically capable
teachers. This is the best venue for assisting you in
your studies.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power consumption |
vertical power has a bit of a list, I'd do your on document research and
test though.
Chris Lucas
RV-10
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: Aerolectric List
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power consumption
Is there a comprehensive list, maintained on the Connection, of the
power consumption of various devices?
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November! |
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through soley through the
Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site ( http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matronics.com/search ), List Browse ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few days
reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the
bills associated with running these lists. Your personal Contribution counts.
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with
the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided
by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and
have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective
web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product
line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy, and Jon for their generous support
of the Lists again this year!!
You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this
year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods
afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with
a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
https://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you guys really
do feel like family.
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Using relay for engine control . . . |
11/1/2008
Hello Layman, Bob Nuckolls wrote:
1) "It's been my recommendation for years that electrically dependent
engines run from the always-hot, battery-bus.This means that if you have
smoke in the cockpit, you can shut off the alternator-battery-master switch
and kill everything electrical without having the engine quit."
I'd like to add another reason to have the electrically dependent engine
(and its electrically dependent vital accessories) run from the always-hot,
battery-bus: I am personally aware of the failure of two different
manufacturer's master battery contactors that left the two different
aircraft without any electrical supply whatever downstream of the contactor.
2) "Modern relays are pretty robust and have excellent service lives under
the hood of
an automobile."
Neither of the master battery contactors mentioned in 1 above were "modern",
but both (one in a type certificated airplane and one in an amateur built
airplane) are in very common use.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: You wrote: "By the way, the engine can also be shut off by pulling
breakers and shutting off fuel if necessary."
Do the electrical circuit(s) running through these breaker(s) also represent
some single point(s)of unwanted engine shut down possibilities?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using relay for engine control . . .
>Comments/Questions: I have your book, and I read the section on relays,
>but I'm still not sure a decision I made long ago is the right one. I have
>an automotive engine in a pusher, and for whatever reason the engine must
>be shut off by removing power from the computer. Rather than depend upon a
>switch and a long run of wire, I connected the computer directly to the
>battery contactor, through the normally closed contacts of a relay. This
>way, the switch and wire are only used to activate the relay, which shuts
>down the engine. By the way, the engine can also be shut off by pulling
>breakers and shutting off fuel if necessary. Questions: What are the
>consequences of using the normally closed contacts for this purpose? I ask
>because they are rated lower and probably held closed with a spring. How
>about a latching relay instead? Or a more appropriate relay for the task
>that a layman such as myself might not know about? Thanks for the help.
Is the computer the only device that needs
power to keep the engine running? How about fuel
pump?
It's been my recommendation for years that electrically
dependent engines run from the always-hot, battery-bus.
This means that if you have smoke in the cockpit, you
can shut off the alternator-battery-master switch and
kill everything electrical without having the engine
quit.
Since you already have a switch and some length of
wire in place to control a relay, there is little value
in adding the relay unless the current needed to run
the computer is too large to consider running through
the switch and its associated wiring. There is a reliability
factor for the switch an associated wire . . . which can
only get worse by adding the relay. However, if there
is a performance driver for adding the relay (you don't
want to run 20A the length of the airplane twice and
a 20A rated switch is a real pig), then using a smaller
switch, wire and a relay to control that pathway is a
rational decision. This is what battery and starter
contactors are about also.
Why the n.c. contacts? Modern relays are pretty robust
and have excellent service lives under the hood of
an automobile. If this pathway and its controls have
to be 100% golden for the engine to run, then perhaps
a normally open solid state relay is called for. Eric
Jones has one, we'll have one too pretty soon. How
much current are you talking about?
What does this computer control? What other electro-
whizzies need to be powered up to keep the engine
runnnig?
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
I check the List several times a day and attempt to be as
responsive as time will allow. Further, there are 1800
or so subscribers that include many technically capable
teachers. This is the best venue for assisting you in
your studies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Using relay for engine control . . . |
>
>11/1/2008
>
>Hello Layman, Bob Nuckolls wrote:
>
>1) "It's been my recommendation for years that electrically dependent
>engines run from the always-hot, battery-bus.This means that if you have
>smoke in the cockpit, you can shut off the alternator-battery-master
>switch and kill everything electrical without having the engine quit."
>
>I'd like to add another reason to have the electrically dependent engine
>(and its electrically dependent vital accessories) run from the
>always-hot, battery-bus: I am personally aware of the failure of two
>different manufacturer's master battery contactors that left the two
>different aircraft without any electrical supply whatever downstream of
>the contactor.
Bet they didn't have a dual feed e-bus either.
>2) "Modern relays are pretty robust and have excellent service lives under
>the hood of
> an automobile."
>
>Neither of the master battery contactors mentioned in 1 above were
>"modern", but both (one in a type certificated airplane and one in an
>amateur built airplane) are in very common use.
It matters not whether one paid $25 for a contactor . . . or $2500
there no guarantees that the contactor or combination of wires, terminals,
switches, etc that control them will not fail to perform as intended
at some point in time. Folks spend tens of $thousands$ on engines and
they run as advertised MOST of the time . . . but nothing is guaranteed
infallible.
This is why the prudent builder/owner/operator of any machine upon
which life and limb depend plans for and designs in support for the
most critical failures . . . or procures, designs, tests and maintains
what is believed to be a SYSTEM failure rate of less than one per
million flight hours.
The gentleman who started this thread appears to be planning
on an automotive conversion that like propellers and wing struts,
offers no options for graceful recovery from failure other than to
bail out . . . or perhaps fly day-vmc only over terrain likely
to offer high probability of survivable dead-stick arrivals.
The best he can do is minimize parts count and use parts
that are lightly stressed . . . and in this case, he might
want to consider a Honeywell/Microswitch toggle for computer
control . . . but there is still the terminal that's poorly
crimped, screw that is over or under torqued, etc. But when
all is said and done, his selection of hardware has increased
the numbers of single-failure items that will force an
uncomfortable if not dangerous termination of flight.
The ingredients that go into the final recipe for success
have to be gauged against his skills, operational plans for
the aircraft and amount of risk he's willing to accept. The
best we can do for him here is help drive the risk numbers
in the right direction.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contribution Site URL Clarification |
Dear Listers,
In my List Fund Raiser kickoff email last night, I mistyped the URL for the *initial*
Contribution web site and couple of people reported receiving SSL certificate
errors. The actual payment entry pages where were correct, however, so
there were no certificate issues that impacted payment data. I'm sorry for the
confusion.
Please use the following URL to start your List Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Refurbished wire strippers . . . |
For those who have wire strippers on order, know that
my supplier got me another dozen pair yesterday. His
barrel of serviceable parts is running low and he thinks
he may get another 5 pair before this offer runs out.
At the present rate of attrition, this opportunity will
run perhaps another 30 days.
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: | Filtered Buck-Puck LED Drivers |
There has been sufficient demonstrated interest in the
AEC9051 series Buck-Puck LED drivers that we've turned
this into an "official" product of The 'Connection.
I've crafted on-purpose installation documentation and
expanded the offerings to cover lower current versions
of the LED driver in addition to the bare-bones Filter
Assembly to which users may add their own Buck-Puck
LED drivers. See:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
and
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sub Panel Labeling |
Bill:
Would you mind posting details of how you made your labels.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
> Henry,
>
> Attached are a few examples from my project.
>
> Bill
> RV-7 N151WP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry
> Trzeciakowski
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:42 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sub Panel Labeling
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I've seen numerous e-mails, etc regarding panel labeling, but I really
> didn't see comments regarding the "COLOR" of the lettering. I've
> researched
> thru various FAA sites, etc., and I couldn't find articles as to what
> the
> "Legal" color for lettering should be (black, white).
>
> I have a meduim Gray Panel (see attachment) and I'm leaning towards
> BLACK
> Lettering...it stands out better.
>
> I woud appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
>
>
>
> Henry
> Pittsburgh, Pa.
> RV-9A - wiring started
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wschertz(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | COM-ELT INTERFERENCE |
I have just finished a composite airplane and am preparing for FAA inspection.
Testing final systems, etc. I have run into a vexing problem that I need help
with, when I transmit on COM 1, it triggers the ELT to start broadcasting. Transmitting
on COM 2 does not cause the problem.
Below are the facts that I have uncovered so far:
Plane: KIS Cruiser, composite low wing 4 place airplane
COM 1 SL-30
COM 2 SL-40
Intercom: PS Engineering 6000
COM2 Antenna Copper foil in vertical Stabilizer
COM1 Antenna Bob Archer folded dipole on fuselage wall behind baggage compartment
bulkhead
ELT ACK Model E-01
ELT Antenna 18" whip with copper foil strips bonded to fuselage body to form
ground plane, located close to centerline of compartment that COM 1 antenna is
located.
ELT has remote panel that allows you to reset the ELT if it is transmitting, along
with flashing diode. Disconnecting this remote panel does not affect the behavior.
Disconnecting the ELT antenna from the ELT, does not alleviate the problem
If I insert my head and shoulders into the space, the problem goes away. As I
withdraw, when I exit the compartment fully, the problem returns. Therefore it
appears that having some mass/capacitance? near the antennas has a positive affect.
What kind of better solution can be implemented/tried to eliminate this interference?
I cannot carry a body around in that compartment because of weight and
balance considerations.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | COM-ELT INTERFERENCE |
You have to move the COM 1 antenna to give more separation or buy a higher
quality ELT. The low end ELT's are susceptible to resonance from nearby
transmitters broadcasting. The resonance causes the ELT to trigger. Most of
the better ELT's have circuitry to block this action.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
wschertz(at)comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 3:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: COM-ELT INTERFERENCE
I have just finished a composite airplane and am preparing for FAA
inspection. Testing final systems, etc. I have run into a vexing problem
that I need help with, when I transmit on COM 1, it triggers the ELT to
start broadcasting. Transmitting on COM 2 does not cause the problem.
Below are the facts that I have uncovered so far:
Plane: KIS Cruiser, composite low wing 4 place airplane
COM 1 SL-30
COM 2 SL-40
Intercom: PS Engineering 6000
COM2 Antenna Copper foil in vertical Stabilizer
COM1 Antenna Bob Archer folded dipole on fuselage wall behind baggage
compartment bulkhead
ELT ACK Model E-01
ELT Antenna 18" whip with copper foil strips bonded to fuselage body to
form ground plane, located close to centerline of compartment that COM 1
antenna is located.
ELT has remote panel that allows you to reset the ELT if it is transmitting,
along with flashing diode. Disconnecting this remote panel does not affect
the behavior.
Disconnecting the ELT antenna from the ELT, does not alleviate the problem
If I insert my head and shoulders into the space, the problem goes away. As
I withdraw, when I exit the compartment fully, the problem returns.
Therefore it appears that having some mass/capacitance? near the antennas
has a positive affect.
What kind of better solution can be implemented/tried to eliminate this
interference? I cannot carry a body around in that compartment because of
weight and balance considerations.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: COM-ELT INTERFERENCE |
>
>I have just finished a composite airplane and am preparing for FAA
>inspection. Testing final systems, etc. I have run into a vexing problem
>that I need help with, when I transmit on COM 1, it triggers the ELT to
>start broadcasting. Transmitting on COM 2 does not cause the problem.
>
>Below are the facts that I have uncovered so far:
>
>Plane: KIS Cruiser, composite low wing 4 place airplane
>COM 1 SL-30
>COM 2 SL-40
>Intercom: PS Engineering 6000
>
>COM2 Antenna Copper foil in vertical Stabilizer
>COM1 Antenna Bob Archer folded dipole on fuselage wall behind baggage
>compartment bulkhead
>ELT ACK Model E-01
>ELT Antenna 18" whip with copper foil strips bonded to fuselage body to
>form ground plane, located close to centerline of compartment that COM 1
>antenna is located.
>ELT has remote panel that allows you to reset the ELT if it is
>transmitting, along with flashing diode. Disconnecting this remote panel
>does not affect the behavior.
>
>Disconnecting the ELT antenna from the ELT, does not alleviate the problem
Your ELT was probably not qualified to conditions that
are now routinely levied on new designs for resistance
to high-intensity radio frequency fields. These antagonist
fields have always been around and include transmitters of
all types aboard the aircraft including comm, xpndr, dme, radar,
hf, telephone services, etc.
External antagonists include radio and television stations,
ground and airborne radar, etc.
We had little need to concern ourselves with these threats
before plastic airplanes came along.
It's almost a sure bet that your ELT is suffering a HIRF
moment due to proximity of the transmitting antenna. A
useful experiment is to swap atennas between the two
comm radios and see if the antagonist shifts to the other
radio.
>If I insert my head and shoulders into the space, the problem goes
>away. As I withdraw, when I exit the compartment fully, the problem
>returns. Therefore it appears that having some mass/capacitance? near the
>antennas has a positive affect.
>
>What kind of better solution can be implemented/tried to eliminate this
>interference? I cannot carry a body around in that compartment because of
>weight and balance considerations.
Assuming the experiment described above confirms
vulnerability to signals emitted from the close
proximity antenna, Just because the Com 2 radio doesn't
trip the ELT doesn't mean that it's sufficiently weak
to NEVER trip it. The fact that your body alters the
coupling between antenna and ELT sufficiently to stop
the problem suggests a marginal condition . . . that
could shift either way with either radio in time.
This is why we test most devices at 10x to 100x the
energy we ever expect them to see. LOTS of head-room!
I'd go for shielding the ELT. Is this one of those plastic
case things? Alternatively, you would need a better
location for the ELT or the offending antenna. But
shielding is likely to offer a 10x reduction in
coupling for both radios and be a much more robust
solution.
Have you talked to the ELT folks? This can't be
the first time this has happened.
But if push comes to shove, you can get a really
whippy GPS enhanced crash-locator beacon that's
about 100x more likely to get you found than a
121.5/243 ELT. See:
http://www.marvgolden.com/elt-encoders/acrterrafix.htm
An aluminum foil shield that is connected to the outer
shell of the antenna coax connector may make your
problem go away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of
these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying
Contribution too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "caldwell" <caldwell(at)mswin.net> |
| Subject: | Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected. For
the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was apparent
the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by your Sales
Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time we
had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking for
good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of the
connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all of the
voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look for
any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the manufacturer
of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software.
We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I have
been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is well versed
in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge ECUs and
Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a person in Norway
who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine. DTA pointed out that
if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the ECU will not fire the
injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in such
cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had.
Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes
circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had
grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine started.
DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted
spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their
installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from the
DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow
at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to
shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more
than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell(at)mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" <j.e.tiethoff(at)hccnet.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked
all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU
to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover
the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver
3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked
with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the
forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and
in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain.
You had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an
Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the
drain. This causes circulating currents and will induce no end of
noise. I found you had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank
sensor signal line. We clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and
behold the engine started. DTA also states that one should not put the
coils in parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two coils
in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the
proper design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions
from the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil
driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not
been run prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start
the engine any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell(at)mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM-ELT INTERFERENCE |
| From: | "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net> |
Bill,
We had a similar problem in our composite Europa. We solved it by shielding.
Changed the cable from the remote to the ELT to a shielded cable and grounded
the shield at the remote end to the common ground point for the aircraft. Also
wrapped the ELT in aluminum foil and mechanically connected the ground in the
shielded cable to the foil. Cured the problem!
Jim & Heather Butcher
N241BW Europa XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212006#212006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of
efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930's and 40's designs of the,
not so
modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell <mailto:caldwell(at)mswin.net>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For
the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent
the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by your
Sales
Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we
had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking for
good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of the
connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all of
the
voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look
for
any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the
manufacturer
of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the
software.
We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I have
been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is well
versed
in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge ECUs and
Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a person in
Norway
who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine. DTA pointed out
that
if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the ECU will not fire the
injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such
cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had.
Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes
circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had
grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started.
DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted
spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their
installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the
DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow
at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior
to
shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any
more
than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell(at)mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matroni
cs.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jay(at)horriblehyde.com |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear other Jay ;-) I too am using the Subaru engine- there are some
problems with the application of these in aircrft, but there are also
good reasons to use well proven, fantastically engineered engines that
have been perfected in automotive applications, where these engines have
benfited from HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS of hours of testing and are used
globally in a very demanding and compeditive market. A small example,
automotive spark plugs are warranted for 100,000 miles of use, and cost
almost nothing (but are amongst the best engineered bits in the vehicle)
- where do you get that in an aircraft? The economies of scale simply
means that automotive engines are vastly more well researched and
produced than aero engines- and for a fraction of the cost because of
these economies of scale. We just have to figure out how the heck to best
apply all of those advantages to our applications. I have also been
having some problems with Crossflow, and I am being patient because these
guys simply do not have the market that allows them the luxury of large
R&D budgets. I hope that these engines are successful and that Crossflow
addresses these problems quickly... I am somewhat concerned about the
post here though...
Jay from South Africa...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:44:54 +0100
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwellSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'Subj
ect:
AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I
was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left
your factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it.
By this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was
confident all of the connections were good and this proved to be the
case. We checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally
we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but
we did discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was
the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded
their software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself
and my son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have
worked with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned
the forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We
were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series. To
conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers
of these issues and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay
CaldwellCaldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell@
mswin.netVoice
858-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jay(at)horriblehyde.com |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Uh-oh; just realised that I should have addressed my response to Eric,
not 'the other Jay'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:44:54 +0100
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwellSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'Subj
ect:
AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I
was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left
your factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it.
By this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was
confident all of the connections were good and this proved to be the
case. We checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally
we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but
we did discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was
the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded
their software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself
and my son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have
worked with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned
the forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We
were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series. To
conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers
of these issues and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay
CaldwellCaldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell@
mswin.netVoice
858-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" <j.e.tiethoff(at)hccnet.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market. But they
are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They are designed for
aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density changes etc. With an
automotive engine you could probably taxi for 20.000 miles without any
problem. You can fill in the rest...
From: ROGER & JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930's and 40's designs of the,
not so modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked
all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU
to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover
the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver
3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked
with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the
forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and
in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain.
You had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an
Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the
drain. This causes circulating currents and will induce no end of
noise. I found you had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank
sensor signal line. We clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and
behold the engine started. DTA also states that one should not put the
coils in parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two coils
in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the
proper design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions
from the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil
driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not
been run prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start
the engine any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell(at)mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
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-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.
com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?A
eroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jay(at)horriblehyde.com |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product to
handle that...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market. But they
are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They are designed for
aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density changes etc. With an
automotive engine you could probably taxi for 20.000 miles without any
problem. You can fill in the rest...
From: ROGER & JEAN CURTISSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PMTo:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow
Subaru Engine
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930=92s and 40=92s designs of the, n
ot
so modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all
of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to
look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the
manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of
the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their software and
manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael.
He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge
ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a
person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine.
DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the
ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell(at)mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
-
-
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-
-
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
And few automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few seconds
at a time. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an auto engine
is in the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in aircraft engines
with electronic ignition. There is no efficiency difference between
aircraft injection systems and automotive beyond the closed loop oxygen
sensor feedback, which won't live with leaded fuel. So far, an
intelligent pilot can do a better job managing mixture than an
electronic system.
jay(at)horriblehyde.com wrote:
> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
> to handle that...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>
> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>
> *From:* ROGER & JEAN CURTIS
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> */Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great
> advantage of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the
> newer automotive engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930s and
> 40s designs of the, not so modern, certified aviation engine./*
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer
> like you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
>
> *From:* caldwell
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
>
> *To:* 'jorge alonso'
>
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Jorge...
>
> I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my
> Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
> connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
> engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not
> firing. I was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been
> run before it left your factory.
>
> In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this
> time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
> circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I
> was confident all of the connections were good and this proved to
> be the case. We checked all of the voltages and they were
> acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of
> damage. We found none, but we did discover the manufacturer of the
> ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software.
> We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I
> have been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is
> well versed in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge
> ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found
> a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did with an
> engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
> Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
>
> We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance
> pick up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage
> signal and in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted
> pair with a drain. You had. Now one other thing that is sound
> engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you
> don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes circulating
> currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had grounded
> both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
> clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
> started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in
> parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
> coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two
> coils in series.
>
> To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your
> design and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't
> understand the proper design for signal lines and don't seem to
> follow the instructions from the DTA ECU designers. It would
> severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It
> is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to shipment
> because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more
> than I could.
>
> I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues
> and immediately issue corrective instructions.
>
> Jay Caldwell
>
> Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
>
> San Diego, CA 92122
>
> caldwell(at)mswin.net
>
> Voice 858-453-4594
>
> Facsimile 858-452-1560
>
> Mobile 858-336-0394
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< -- Month This Lists Your Support Please >*
>
> *< FREE AWESOME Some Get (And >*
>
> **
>
> *< the is Click Raiser. Fund List Annual November>*
>
> *< more out find to below Contribution>*
>
> *< Incentive Free Terrific>*
>
> **
>
> *< Web>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> *< generous for you Thank>*
>
> **
>
> *< Dralle, -Matt >*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - Forum Email AeroElectric-List The >*
>
> *< List Navigator Features Matronics>*
>
> *< Un>*
>
> *< Chat, Browse, 7-Day Download, & Search>*
>
> *< much and Photoshare,>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - FORUMS WEB MATRONICS >*
>
> *<>*
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
> ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Because we CAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" wrote:
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like yo
u use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is c
onnected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine
. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was a
ssured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your
factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By
this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuit
s checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confide
nt all of the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We
checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened
the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did
discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8
w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked wi
th Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum
and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did wit
h an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank Positio
n signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We were susp
icious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up as you we
ll know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in such cases
it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had. Now
one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes ci
rculating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had gro
unded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We clipp
ed the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine started. DT
A also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted s
park applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their installa
tion instructions are to put the two coils in series. To conclude, I am
significantly disappointed and upset at your design and manufacturing of
this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper design for sign
al lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from the DTA ECU desi
gners. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow at 12000
feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to shipmen
t because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more than
I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issue
s and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay CaldwellCaldwell Sy
stems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell(at)mswin.netVoice 8
58-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394 href="http://www.
matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?AeroElectric-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://foru
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
====================
_____________________________________________________________
Find precision scales that can weigh anything. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tKsNIqRgINGDy4DeYm
Gh6WG08c7SSvpD93Ao9dBf9urBobn/?count=1234567890
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Good Morning airlincoln,
Doesn't that sound a lot like the commercial venture called SPOT?
They sold like hot cakes at Oshkosh this year.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 11/3/2008 8:30:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which
is
picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where
the path ends.
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
The beauty is no recurring fees, unlike spot.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Robinson
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
This sounds a lot like SPOT
JimRobinson
Glll N79R
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Lincoln Keill wrote:
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:25 AM
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed
an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is
picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes
down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the
ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what
the downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't
seem to draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for
his
wingtip mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a
wingtip
antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult.
I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly
consider installing another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I
could
get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential
problems?
DO NOT
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0ASure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.=0A=0A =0A=0AThose of U
S that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the advantages are.
Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a negative attitude towar
ds computers, any type of carriage other than horse-drawn, and believe that
the solar system revolves around the earth. Please do some actual researc
h before spewing old-wives tales and century old opinions....=0A=0A =0A=0AJ
on=0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@a
viating.com>=0ASent: Monday, November 3, 2008 9:08am=0ATo: aeroelectric-lis
t(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few seconds =0Aat a ti
me. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an auto engine =0Ais in
the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in aircraft engines =0Awith
electronic ignition. There is no efficiency difference between =0Aaircraft
injection systems and automotive beyond the closed loop oxygen =0Asensor fe
edback, which won't live with leaded fuel. So far, an =0Aintelligent pilot
can do a better job managing mixture than an =0Aelectronic system.=0A=0Ajay
@horriblehyde.com wrote:=0A> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cy
cles that an auto engine =0A> has to go through? - you have to have a reall
y well engineered product =0A> to handle that...=0A>=0A> ----- Original Mes
sage -----=0A> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"=0A> To: aeroelectric-list@mat
ronics.com=0A> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine=0A>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100=0A>=0A> Dear Jay, there are also moder
n aviation engines on the market.=0A> But they are certainly not cheaper th
an automotive engines. They=0A> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudde
n temp changes, density=0A> changes etc. With an automotive engine you coul
d probably taxi for=0A> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in t
he rest...=0A>=0A> *From:* ROGER & JEAN CURTIS =0A> *Sent:* Monday, Novembe
r 03, 2008 1:31 PM=0A> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A> =0A> *Subj
ect:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine=0A>=0A> */Dear Eric, A
Professional Systems Engineer can see the great=0A> advantage of efficienc
y and proven reliability designed into the=0A> newer automotive engines, as
opposed to the antiquated 1930=99s and=0A> 40=99s designs of t
he, not so modern, certified aviation engine./*=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can continuously
monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down, it's a simple
matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where the path
ends.
>
> This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT that
may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the downside
is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power
(the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED position
lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna that can transmit
on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in
one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the other
wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane.
Comments? Potential problems?
>
>
Lincoln, there are other neat aspects.
-The devices can be transceivers, retransmitting packets received from
other airplanes in the area.
-The devices can attach a small amount of text data to the packets. It
is trivial to attach an emergency call number to the packet. It would
be equally trivial to attach an emergency "We're going in!!" message to
a packet when a switch is thrown. An inertial switch is cheap (there's
one in every seat-belt on modern cars), and once the switch is thrown a
SAR plane can get an immediate GPS fix.
-The devices are cheap, low power, low bandwidth and use an existing an
infrastructure for communication.
The FAA leadership needs to be informed that their existing plans for
the next generation of see-and-be-seen is an expensive, heavyweight
boondoggle. We have a chance to grow a system from the ground up that
is effective and provides a benefit to everyone, instead of a burdensome
set of electronics that is overkill for most GA and would be the straw
that grounds many aircraft. Think about it. If I own an $18,000 Cessna
that I flew a few sunny days per month, would I be willing to pay
$10,000 for a set of electronics so I could have a highway in the sky?
Would $150 be to painful for an ELT replacement?
If someone wants all the gee-whiz, highway-in-the-sky features, a
satellite download, ala XM-Satellite Weather, is the proper solution.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Your description of how APRS works is basically correct and some of us
have been doing it for years. Recently there has been a flurry of
interest in the RV community.
> Comments? Potential problems?
I have plenty of both :-) although I'll keep this brief.
Coverage is superb at moderate altitudes (say, 5000 AGL and up) but
varies from superb to non-existent when lower, depending on the
proximity of a ground station and the efficacy of your installation
(mainly the antenna). My Long-EZ with its full-sized vertical dipole
and 10W of power does well at 12,500 MSL across the wilderness of Idaho
(http://tinyurl.com/5u5klc) but some of the RVers have less success with
horizontally-polarized wingtip antennas and (especially) at lower altitudes.
While it's true that anyone can glean your last reported position,
"obviously superior to our current 'search for the ELT ...'" would
depend on who is "following" your flights. It's best to find family
members or close friends and train them specifically how to "flight
follow". Then notify them of proposed flights (Email or phone call
before takeoff). I've found that people have differing levels of
computer savvy. What if the web site goes down? What if they get an
error message? What if the track stops for no apparent reason? Younger
people seem to do the better (my daughter calls my cellphone and says "I
see you just landed in Boise" while others say "I forgot the URL for
your tracker" :-(
My biggest problem is self-induced: sometimes I bump a switch and
accidentally turn off my tracker. Or I manually turn it off to use the
radio for something else (ATIS, general purpose hamming, etc.). This
can cause a casual "flight follower" to "freak out". It would be best
to have a dedicated tracking unit with a guarded switch. I try to
mitigate this with an FAQ item (http://www.mail2600.com/faq.htm#Crash).
IMO an APRS tracker is a good supplement to the other SAR tools but not
a panacea. In addition, it's enjoyable from a hobby standpoint: I like
having a record of my flights to include ground speed and altitude.
There is no real downside: the power requirements, weight, and cost are
minimal. I encourage you to join in but want to be sure your
expectations are right.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
Aircraft Position: http://www.mail2600.com/position
Aircraft Last Track: http://www.mail2600.com/track
On 11/03/2008 06:25 Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can continuously
monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down, it's a simple
matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where the path
ends.
>
> This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT that
may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the downside
is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power
(the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED position
lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna that can transmit
on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in
one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the other
wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane.
Comments? Potential problems?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines and vendors (Long) Was: Crossflow |
Subaru Engine
An Alternative engine - your cup of tea???
An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone - or even most,
whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for those
who find it a challenge and are interested in something different - its
kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and challenges
- not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
Vendors
One thing that is a fact of life for any alternative engine project is at
some point in the project you are probably going to have to purchase a
critical item from a vendor. The problem is that some vendors (not all and
not most), but some, do not fully understand how to design a subsystem, may
not even understand the engineering/physics/chemistry basics or limitations
behind it or may not understand some of the manufacturing limitations in
implementing a design. Heck, they may not know even what performance data to
collect or how to assess it. That's not to say a successful product can
not result when this situation exits - however, as you can imagine the
likelihood of a good robust design that can handle all conditions decreases
considerably.
We have all seen outrageous claims like 200 HP on 7 GPH, save 50% on fuel -
convert H20 to fuel, etc. - those are easy to disregard - it's the more
complex and subtle ones, like electronic designs of an ignition or fuel
injection CPU, etc. not readily or easily verified that can get you.
The problem, of course, is how to identify the vendors who have the right
product for your conversion. That is a problem and one I don't have a clear
answer for. However, I would not buy from a vendor who was not flying that
product in his own aircraft and had reasonable flight data to support its
performance. I don't care how well the design is though out, until it is
flight proven it doesn't belong in my aircraft and shouldn't in yours - if
it is a flight critical component.
But, how do you separate the reportedly "Proven" designs/products claims
from reality - it can be tough to do. About the only two things I would
rely on is 1. A long, proven history of quality engineed products from that
vendor (may be hard to find a long term vendor serving alternative engine
needs) and/or 2. The vendor can/will provide contact information on at
least 10 individuals who have purchased the product.
Then it's up to you to check with each and see if the claims are verifiable.
Also, check and see if the vendor will admit to any problems encountered -
rare that there are not some problems even in the best designs, but a good
vendor will admit to them and tell you why they occurred and how they fixed
them. A vendor who vemonly denies any problem always raises my suspicions a
bit.
If you have not gathered by now, yes, I am one of those "Alternative Engine"
crazies.
Last month was the 10th anniversary of the first flight of my rotary powered
RV-6A. Any engine that can function in the intended operating regime with
sufficient power and reliability has the potential to make an excellent
aircraft power plant. Problems are generally not with the alternative power
plant itself, but all the auxiliary systems (ignition, fuel, cooling, etc)
which are of necessity a once-off design process done by individuals (of
varying skills, experience and knowledge levels) rather than $$$ companies
with engineering staffs.
I personally chose the rotary because, as an engineer, I could see that it
was inherently more reliable than any piston engine primarily (but not
solely) due to its much lower parts count. There is no camshaft, no rocker
arms, no valves, no valve springs, no lifter rods, no connecting rods, no
cylinder heads, etc. Those items which are frequently the source of failure
in a reciprocating engine. Yes, like anything mechanical, the rotary engine
can fail - but, it tends to do so somewhat gracefully. We have found that
as long as fuel and spark is provided that the engine will generally
continue to run (perhaps at reduced power but generally enough to get you to
a safe landing) regardless of damage. The one thing it will succumb to is
the lost of oil to the bearings. The most common cause of failure (with
just about any engine) is failure of an auxiliary system - and not an
engine block failure.
Then you also have the fact that there is no necessity to translate linear
motion (of pistons and connecting rods) to circular motion (via a crankshaft
journal) as the rotors are of course design for rotation. This reduces the
inertia loads on parts considerably. The fact that the rotor is iron alloy
and its housing is aluminum means the rotary does not seize when overheated
- it does loose some compression as the aluminum housing expands faster/more
than the iron rotor. In two cases, where all coolant was lost, the rotary
got the aircraft back to a safe airport landing - true the engine was cooked
and required a rebuild - but it got the pilot back. A brand-new, Renesis
Rotary engine, Rx-8 crate engine from the manufacture or other sources can
be purchased for between $4000 -$6000 depending on model and long or short
bock. Of course, if you rebuild an older rotary on your own, you lower the
price further.
I have over 500 hours time on a flying rotary engine - and I am not the high
time rotary flier. One individual has over 1600 rotary flying hours in an
RV-4.
There are other auto engines that have proven suitable for aircraft use,
when used within reasonable operating limits and appropriate matched to the
airframe power requirements - the Subaru and Corvair engines are two that
come to mind, but there are obviously others as well. One of problems is
that no two installations are exactly alike and when they are not identical
and operated in identical regimes - then you have two different systems. I
have frequently seen Joe copy Bill's design and then discover his
installation does not work as well as Bills - only to find that Joe made a
few changes. If it's not identical, it's a different system and don't be
surprised if it reacts differently.
I am certainly not knocking the traditional aircraft engine - given the
economies of their production run sizes and the enormous investment required
to make a major redesign of the typical aircraft engine - has just made
major changes a unattractive capital investment. Things are beginning to
change for the better I believe - but we are still talking about basically
1930's engine designs. Yes, a lot of improvements have been made - but
there is a limit to how much incremental improvements can do for any basic
engine design.
I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone - or
even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But,
for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something different
- its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
challenges - not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution and task
of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of mouth from
customers is probably the best source - but, even there you need to separate
real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customers will bad-mouth a
vendor when the real problem is the customer's lack of understanding or
misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major of a vendor's
customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
Just my $0.02
Keep flying and keep it safe.
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com/> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | APRS for aircraft? |
It is a lot like SPOT minus the fairly steep yearly user fee.
The downside that the repeaters do lose track of the signal in remote areas
..It is pretty reliable for the most part however.
The other issue is the pilot has to declare a mayday and the search folks n
eed to know how to go looking for the tracking website...I have occasionall
y hit the "track me" link on people's web pages but have never gotten it to
work..I.e I don't know how to see the data.
Oh you also need a Ham radio license.
Frank
RV7a IO360
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Robinson
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
This sounds a lot like SPOT
JimRobinson
Glll N79R
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Lincoln Keill wrote:
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:25 AM
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I underst
and
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picke
d up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what
the downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't
seem to draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for his
wingtip mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingti
p
antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult.
I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly
consider installing another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I cou
ld
get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential
problems?
DO NOT
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
.com/contribution">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
A couple of points.
APRS is free (unlike SPOT), but requires a Ham license, and only works where
there are repeaters or igates available.
Many 401 ELT's can also do position reporting via gps.
Brett
Quoting BobsV35B(at)aol.com:
> Good Morning airlincoln,
>
> Doesn't that sound a lot like the commercial venture called SPOT?
>
> They sold like hot cakes at Oshkosh this year.
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2008 8:30:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
> Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
> understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz
> which is
> picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so
> anyone can
> continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
> it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
> where
> the path ends.
>
>
> **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
> 5 Travel Deals!
>
--
A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Joe Dubner wrote:
> I've found that people have differing levels of
> computer savvy. What if the web site goes down? What if they get an
> error message? What if the track stops for no apparent reason? Younger
> people seem to do the better (my daughter calls my cellphone and says "I
> see you just landed in Boise" while others say "I forgot the URL for
> your tracker" :-(
>
Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
sign, WL4ME."
Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
>Sure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.
>
>Those of US that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the
>advantages are. Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a
>negative attitude towards computers, any type of carriage other than
>horse-drawn, and believe that the solar system revolves around the
>earth. Please do some actual research before spewing old-wives tales and
>century old opinions....
I had occasion to visit the Air Force National
Aviation Museum in Dayton last summer. Of particular
interest was the evolution of power plants and
the pilots willing to fly them. When I tracked
the changes from Orville and Wilbur's first
efforts through history to modern engines, two
things stood out strongly:
(1) Change is constant and good. There's no reason
to lock our choice of engines to the best-we-knew-
how-to-do in 1980, or 1960, . . . . or 1935 simply
because the user is "comfortable" with the technology.
There are individuals who have done their best
to duplicate the engines used by the Wrights and
they are comfortable with their performance and
limitations.
(2) The most profound and useful changes tend to
come from "outlyers" . . . folks NOT currently
occupied with satisfaction of market demands.
The market seldom demands advancement
of anything. New technologies should first be
examined by folks who are not part of the
established market.
I'd like to think that the leading edge of development
and exploration is not limited to the shops at
Mojave or Edwards. It's going on everywhere and
the fleet of OBAM aircraft is the logical market
for proving the value of any product that a owner/
pilot is willing to fly.
A lot of words used here on the List go to
procurement, integration, testing and flying
the best-we-knew-how-to-do from decades of
development already gone by. Just because
a discussion focuses on the best-yet-to-be
does not change our mission.
One cannot spend too much time sifting
the simple-ideas that go into any installation
be it a 1940 or 2008 design. Irrespective of
the age of the technology, sifting out the
'clinkers' goes directly to risk reduction.
I'll suggest this subject is entirely appropriate
to a technical forum.
If one has data or logical anecdotes to share
that rebut an "ol wives tale" or advance an idea
it is sufficient to refine the thinking while
avoiding comments personal to the participants.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines and vendors |
>An Alternative engine your cup of tea???
>
>
>An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or even most,
>whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for those
>who find it a challenge and are interested in something different its
>kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
>challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
>
>I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or
>even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But,
>for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something
>different its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the
>risks and challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution
>and task of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of
>mouth from customers is probably the best source but, even there you need
>to separate real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customers
>will bad-mouth a vendor when the real problem is the customer s lack of
>understanding or misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major of
>a vendor s customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
>
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>
>Keep flying and keep it safe.
>
>
>Ed Anderson
Right on! Let's strive to stock the AeroElectric-List
archives with finely sifted ideas rich in recipes for
success and illumination of those ideas which should
be avoided. Thank you for this objective enhancement
to the conversation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | APRS for aircraft? |
Already done. Head over to
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=104.
RF
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln
Keill
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
-->
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz
which is picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow)
so anyone can continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane
goes down, it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and
seeing where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the
downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to
draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip
mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna
that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an
Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing
another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS
system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential problems?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Brett Ferrell wrote:
>
> A couple of points.
>
> APRS is free (unlike SPOT), but requires a Ham license, and only works where
> there are repeaters or igates available.
>
>
The ham radio license is nearly a non-sequitor. The FCC has removed the
requirement to know Morse Code. The study book is now a small pamphlet
and doesn't require much study at all.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AOk, if REALLY interested in learning, a good place to start is with the
articles listed here:=0A=0A[http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/AutomotiveEn
gineConversions/tabid/213/Default.aspx] http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/
AutomotiveEngineConversions/tabid/213/Default.aspx (watch for line wrap).
=0A=0A =0A=0ABoth of these are from Ross Farnam of SDS EFI in Canada. Both
present lots of information and facts that the reader can research further
if interested. A good example is the "old wives tale" that auto engines a
re not designed for continuous high power settings. It actually takes very
little research to find that this is false. The problem is, most of the p
eople that believe this "wives tale" are unwilling to do enough research to
discover this for themselves. I'm not a psychologist but, as near as I ca
n tell, it because this is an emotional topic to them so they convince them
selves that they already know the truth. However; the AeroElectric group i
s a pretty savvy bunch so I am sure all the nay-sayers will take the time t
o read and do further research so that they are fully educated on the subje
ct prior to posting responses or spreading "old wives tales".=0A=0A =0A=0AJ
on=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Robert L. N
uckolls, III" =0AI'll suggest this subject is entirel
y appropriate=0Ato a technical forum.=0A=0AIf one has data or logical anecd
otes to share=0Athat rebut an "ol wives tale" or advance an idea=0Ait is su
fficient to refine the thinking while=0Aavoiding comments personal to the p
articipants.=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
One would hope so, Ernest. The technology is certainly possible but,
alas, much of that infrastructure does not currently exist.
Actually, the first instruction I give out is to attempt to contact me
by cellphone (or failing that, by landline at the intended destination).
After loss of contact is deemed not to be a false alarm, the key
questions would be "what to do?" or "whom to call?".
There are plenty of possibilities and blue-skying them is fun but IMO
the current state of the art calls for lowered expectations on the part
of those looking for an ELT replacement.
--
Joe
On 11/03/2008 08:30 Ernest Christley wrote:
> Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
> show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
> sign, WL4ME."
>
> Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
> reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
> initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
> switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
> aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> One would hope so, Ernest. The technology is certainly possible but,
> alas, much of that infrastructure does not currently exist.
>
>
I agree with what you said, except for a slight modification to the
above point. The infrastructure is there, what is missing is
'awareness'. For nearly all intents and purposes, the two are the same
except that building infrastructure is hard, while building awareness is
easy. The FAA could fix the awareness issue with one of their
pamphlets, or a bulletin to their personnel. Aviation is a small
community, so word of mouth is highly effective. It would be easy to
make sure every CAP chapter has a handheld APRS reciever, and knows to
ask the question, "Did the pilot carry an APRS transmitter and what was
his call sign?" The EAA is doing a good job. AOPA probably is, too. A
simple note specifying a call sign in the remarks field of any flight
plan filed would assist SAR.
ELTs were a good idea that was hamstrung by legislation. The
technologist had to rush an implementation with existing technology
under orders from people without any expertise. APRS is a technology
that has grown through a consensus of technologist making the most of
the technology. I think it is a viral game changer. It is cheap and
effective enough that everybody will want at least one 8*)
> Actually, the first instruction I give out is to attempt to contact me
> by cellphone (or failing that, by landline at the intended destination).
>
> After loss of contact is deemed not to be a false alarm, the key
> questions would be "what to do?" or "whom to call?".
>
> There are plenty of possibilities and blue-skying them is fun but IMO
> the current state of the art calls for lowered expectations on the part
> of those looking for an ELT replacement.
>
> --
> Joe
>
>
> On 11/03/2008 08:30 Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>> Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
>> show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
>> sign, WL4ME."
>>
>> Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
>> reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
>> initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
>> switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
>> aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
jay(at)horriblehyde.com wrote:
> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
> to handle that...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>
> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>
I don't get this temp change argument.
Most automotive engines are water cooled. The temp changes you will see
is somewhere along the lines of -20*F to 200*F. Below -20, your coolant
has frozen and you're not going to fly. Much above 200 and your coolant
has boiled off, and you're not going to fly much longer.
The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks more
that the steel piston. Above 400 and the cylinder head starts melting.
Aviation engines have more blow-by, because they need to be built with
looser tolerances to account for the temperature changes. The
automotive engines see less severe temp changes, and the changes it does
see are less drastic due to the heat carrying capacity of the water
bath. The air-cooled engine can suffer from temperature gradients that
can lead to uneven wear and even warping (in extremely rare cases).
If the point is that air-cooled engines are specifically engineered to
handle sudden temp changes, I would counter that water-cooled systems
handle the problem as a matter of course. You don't require special
engineering for a non-existent problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Some of us know that most current aircraft engines were actually
developed in the sixties, and have worked on both types of engine for
years, and know what the actual differences are, and what the limited
benefits the newer design auto engines have. For instance Porsche did
their damnest to design an engine to improve on the Lycoming IO-360. The
result was heavier, no more powerful and used more fuel, and failed on
the market. That design was done in the late 80's, so don't tell me
about the great new auto technology. Most of what you have now was
developed in the 60s and 70s.
KM
A&P/IA
certified emissions tech
jon(at)finleyweb.net wrote:
> Sure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.
>
> Those of US that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the
> advantages are. Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a
> negative attitude towards computers, any type of carriage other than
> horse-drawn, and believe that the solar system revolves around the
> earth. Please do some actual research before spewing old-wives tales
> and century old opinions....
>
> Jon
>
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ernest Christley wrote:
> ...
> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
> more that the steel piston.
Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
loads on the crank throws.
Dale R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
repeaters.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Yeah, the piston is aluminum. I don't believe that they are even forged,
unless aftermarket. The OEM pistons are cast. The head is aluminum. The
barrel is steel.
Seizing problems are a lot more likely to be at the hot end than the
cold, but I've never heard of one seizing a piston. Melting a piston
from detonation, yes.
Cold starting issues have more to do with lack of lubrication with cold,
thick oil than with clearances. The old radials had provisions for
diluting the oil with fuel before shutdown if a cold start was
anticipated for the next morning. Once it warms up, the fuel evaporates
off and the oil regains its normal viscosity.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> ...
>> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
>> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
>> more that the steel piston.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
> steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
> would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
> loads on the crank throws.
>
> Dale R.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> ...
>> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
>> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
>> more that the steel piston.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
> steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
> would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
> loads on the crank throws.
>
> Dale R.
It may very well be my ignorance, but it was my understanding that the
aluminum shrank more than the pistons with the cold. Air cooled engines
are force to have tighter tolerances for that reason. It is probably
just the rings that are steel.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, the piston is aluminum. I don't believe that they are even
> forged, unless aftermarket. The OEM pistons are cast. The head is
> aluminum. The barrel is steel.
>
> Seizing problems are a lot more likely to be at the hot end than the
> cold, but I've never heard of one seizing a piston. Melting a piston
> from detonation, yes.
>
> Cold starting issues have more to do with lack of lubrication with
> cold, thick oil than with clearances. The old radials had provisions
> for diluting the oil with fuel before shutdown if a cold start was
> anticipated for the next morning. Once it warms up, the fuel
> evaporates off and the oil regains its normal viscosity.
...hmmm....old wive's tale....busted.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Lincoln Keill wrote:
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane.
Here's a good thread on getting started with APRS:
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=27773>
Once they get the Smart Digipeater function implemented in this device
<http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak4/>, this will make a fairly cheap APRS
option. The digipeater function will relay packets from other aircraft,
thus extending the range of ground based APRS stations.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Here is an example of a stock auto engine that was run for something a
little more than a few seconds - in fact they ran two of them and they
both finished in fine shape.
The original Legacy speed record was set between January 2nd and 21st,
1989, with a Japanese-spec RS sedan at the Arizona Test Center outside
of Phoenix, Arizona. It broke the 100,000 km FIA World Land Endurance
Record by maintaining an average speed of 138.780 mph (223.345 km/h) for
447 hours, 44 minutes and 9.887 seconds, or 18 1/2 days. Pit stops were
made every two hours with a driver change and refueling, while tire
changes were made at 96 hour intervals, or every 13,400 miles driven.
And, yes, I am using a Subaru engine, the 2.5L version.
Dick Tasker
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> And few automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few
> seconds at a time. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an
> auto engine is in the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in
> aircraft engines with electronic ignition. There is no efficiency
> difference between aircraft injection systems and automotive beyond
> the closed loop oxygen sensor feedback, which won't live with leaded
> fuel. So far, an intelligent pilot can do a better job managing
> mixture than an electronic system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
<http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
>
>Some of us know that most current aircraft engines were actually developed
>in the sixties, and have worked on both types of engine for years, and
>know what the actual differences are, and what the limited benefits the
>newer design auto engines have. For instance Porsche did their damnest to
>design an engine to improve on the Lycoming IO-360. The result was
>heavier, no more powerful and used more fuel, and failed on the market.
>That design was done in the late 80's, so don't tell me about the great
>new auto technology.
Are you suggesting that one failure of an automotive
derivative in the marketplace is a benchmark for all
such endeavors? For every success in the marketplace,
there are dozens of failures in the lab or engineering
test vehicles.
The first engines installed on the B-29 were the most
parts-intensive products of their time and failure rates
on the order of 1 every 10-40 hours. The first fielded
B-29's were pampered to the extreme to keep the airplane
marginally useful while development efforts worked out
the bugs. THOSE engines were produced by a company with
a great deal of experience in the design and manufacture
of aircraft engines.
Toyota built some air racing engines . . . but we're
not seeing those on TC aircraft either. But then, why
put $millions$ into developing an engine that will be sold
at perhaps 1000 pcs per year when the same $millions$ might
produce an engine that is sold into millions of cars?
As I suggested earlier, the breakthrough developments
will probably not come from the established suppliers
to the marketplace. This is demonstrated by the fact that
the most successful automotive derivatives flying are
not offered by the original manufacturer of the
engine. The fact that Toyota or Porsche stubbed
their toes was probably predictable but the lessons
learned were invaluable.
But it's disingenuous to paint all automotive
conversion efforts with a brush dipped into the
failures of a few.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | APRS for aircraft? |
Thanks to all who responded. The link to the Van's Air Force forum was very helpful.
Despite its limitations, I will be installing such a system in the wingtip
of my RV-7. It seems a wonderful complement to an ELT in the event someone
needs to come look for me. Thanks again. Now I just need to figure out how
long that wingtip antenna needs to be...
Lincoln
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Hi All,
Just a small reflection here - not of the standing wave type. I've
seen a few messages extolling the virtues of the APRS "system", one of
which was "it's free". I would like to remind those who think that way,
that those repeaters are there because some ARRL members (and maybe some
Hams who are not ARRL), out of their own pockets, have paid to build
those repeaters and installed the antennas, and continue to pay to power
the equipment. No government fees doesn't mean it's "no cost."
~Someone~ is paying for it.
If you are using the system, you might want to find out who's operating
the repeater you use the most and donate a few bucks to help defray the
costs of keeping it on the air.
Dale R.
Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who responded. The link to the Van's Air Force forum was very
helpful. Despite its limitations, I will be installing such a system in the wingtip
of my RV-7. It seems a wonderful complement to an ELT in the event someone
needs to come look for me. Thanks again. Now I just need to figure out
how long that wingtip antenna needs to be...
>
> Lincoln
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Dale,
Well put!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212247#212247
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use it.
-Bill B
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil wrote:
>
> Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
> this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
>
> Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
> license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
> data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
>
> The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
> are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
> density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
> typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
> peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
> enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
> repeaters.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> If you are using the system, you might want to find out who's
> operating the repeater you use the most and donate a few bucks to help
> defray the costs of keeping it on the air.
Or put up an APRS ground based system of your own to help expand the
network. I'll be putting one up in my area at my house at some point.
It is not terribly expensive to do so - an old PC, some free software, a
cheap ham radio (or even an old scanner) and an external antenna.
Here is some more detailed information on how to do so:
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30180>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I have to think APRS is worlds better than a 121.5 ELT. It doesn't have
to be perfect for it to be worthy of implementing - just markedly better.
I think EPIRB's and APRS should be proposed as an Alternate Means Of
Compliance for the ELT requirements - at least in amateur built aircraft.
If you can demonstrate that you will use a different and largely superior
system, the feds should be happy with that. I realize it may tend to
create administrative/regulatory headaches.. Too bad. :)
Regards,
Matt-
> Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use
> it.
>
> -Bill B
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil wrote:
>
>>
>> Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
>> this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
>>
>> Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
>> license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
>> data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
>>
>> The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
>> are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
>> density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
>> typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
>> peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
>> enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
>> repeaters.
>>
>> --------
>> Ira N224XS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
I'd like to address some things related to APRS.
If we treat APRS as a technology trial, it becomes pretty clear what the
limitations and advantages are. In my long career in high tech, I found
that the probability of success of a new technology was more positively
related to low cost than technical perfection. In that spirit, I think
some
type of APRS has tremendous potential.
Here's my model:
Based on the proven amateur-radio developed APRS, we could build an
infrastructure as follows:
1) The FCC/FAA (or equivalents) allocate a discreet VHF frequency in the
aviation comm or nav bands for APRS tracking.
2) This frequency must be able to run FM (rather than the normal AM) so
that
APRS will work as proven in the VHF Ham band. FM is essential to the
broadcast nature of APRS because it exhibits what's called "capture
effect"
in which the strongest signal at the receiver is decoded and others are
rejected. This is like the "cocktail-party" effect. When you are
talking
in normal voices in small groups, you can hear each other, and you brain
blocks out all of the other conversations around you. Contrast this
with
the "frat party" effect where everyone is shouting and nobody can hear.
This approach also works better with low-power transmitters, not the 8
or 10
watt blasters that some people fly with--- no need to shout in small
groups!
3) This also takes care of the transmit-only problem. Many Hams think
that
it's unethical to transmit before listening on a radio band. In
general,
this is true, but for low-power FM APRS the opposite is true. If all
APRS
stations listened before talking, they would all eventually end up in a
deadlock situation where they all transmit at the same time! Think of a
rule at a very large frat party where only one person is allowed to talk
at
once. Everyone else is waiting for the speaker to finish before jumping
in
with their full-power transmissions... they'd all synchronize to
shouting at
the same time, even though they think it's ok to talk! APRS has a line
of
sight range of hundreds of miles, so you can see the problem with
waiting
for a quiet time to talk, even if you only need to reach the digipeater
5
miles away.
4) Equip all existing VHF groundstations (Comm and Nav) with APRS
digital
repeaters and/or internate gateways (digipeaters, igates). Very
economical.
Have the FAA or equivalent run a website like www.aprs.fi .
5) Encourage digital repeaters (digipeaters) to be installed in aircraft
rather than just position transmitters. Perhaps mandate (encourage?)
commercial aircraft first. Now you have a constellation of aircraft
overhead listening to APRS position reports and relaying them
potentially
thousands of miles. (BTW there is already an amateur APRS digipeater in
orbit). This should take care of the spotty coverage at low altitudes
or
mountainous terrain. Combined with (4), we have a redundant distributed
(and cheap) system that is extremely fault tolerant.
The downside of the above is that it requires new hardware in aircraft.
OK
for amateur builts, but nothing is cheap for certified aircraft. With
ADS-B
coming, some may ask why? I go back to my first statement... make it
cheap
enough and it will become good enough! A transmit-only device can be
made
very cheaply (mine cost $100.00). A digipeater will be more expensive
($200.00?). Installation costs are more expensive than the hardware.
Make
it common and it will be eventually built into VHF comms. Think of an
SL-40
(already has a GPS input), internally modified to transmit APRS packets
when
not being used for voice R/T. Installation now becomes a box swap.
I've oversimplified this, of course, but my point is that this
technology is
very powerful, intrinsically reliable and fault tolerant and cheap.
Even
with the FAA involved (add some zeros to my costs), there is a rational
deployment scenario where coverage improves over time. Eventually, if
all
aircraft have it, it can be used for traffic awareness, but that's
another
topic.
All of this started because of the ELT debate, but APRS (for that
matter,
SPOT) has other benefits than just finding crumpled metal.
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Boyd
Sent: November 4, 2008 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: APRS for aircraft?
Nevertheless, APRS works well airborne for those of us who actually use
it.
-Bill B
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:54 PM, rampil wrote:
Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
repeaters.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Terra Tri Nav C Wireing |
Have a question on the wiring of a tri nav c. I have the manual but
one thing is not very clear.
I am using a terra txn 920 nav/com and a Navaid ap 1 autopilot. I guess
my question is,
What is done with green wire from Tri Nav C Plug #1 pin # 7 ?
The tri nav c manual states that it is grounded (Where?)
The Txn 920 manual diagram shows it connected to Pin #9 on plug
#1. Is Pin #9 a proper ground? When connected to a
navaid ap 1 autopilot.
Thanks Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Folks,
At one time I was very interested in a converted Subaru. IMO, there is a
wonder of technology in this fine engines... in cars. Problem is for aircraft...
It needs a gearbox (PRSU heavy), also has to get rid of the same amount of
heat as a Lycosaurus per HP and do it with radiators (heavy, heavy, heavy),
usually needs redundant electrical systems (batteries, heavy), special propellers,
etc., etc. the list goes on.
Did I mention these are a lot heavier than LycoCont?
Buyers should be aware that all these products from vendors are "experiments
in progress". For a time I ran a website devoted to alternative engines and
heard numerous complaints about vendors and their problems with non delivery,
failed products, poor business practices, and lawsuits (Crossflow) by
customers.
I believe Eggenfellner has really tried to get a good foothold in this market
and is pretty honest, but assuming the best of intentions, has orphaned
engines, the STI Subaru for instance.
The idea that these are "plug and play" and can just be popped into your
airframe like a Lyco is false, and has led to many folks with empty pockets. So,
do extensive research before committing to same.
Be totally prepared to do your own engineering, also, just like the author of
this thread. Good thing he's an EE.
Get your money back? Not a chance. Usually these folks fund their operations
with deposits. Other words, to deliver end product, they rely on current
deposts, and this is very common in aviation.
As usual, my dime's worth,
Jerry Cochran
Sherwood, OR
18XP RV-6a 150hrs on Superior XP-IO-360 169 knots at 8500' 7.7 GPH LOP
In a message dated 11/4/2008 12:01:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Are you suggesting that one failure of an automotive
derivative in the marketplace is a benchmark for all
such endeavors? For every success in the marketplace,
there are dozens of failures in the lab or engineering
test vehicles.
The first engines installed on the B-29 were the most
parts-intensive products of their time and failure rates
on the order of 1 every 10-40 hours. The first fielded
B-29's were pampered to the extreme to keep the airplane
marginally useful while development efforts worked out
the bugs. THOSE engines were produced by a company with
a great deal of experience in the design and manufacture
of aircraft engines.
Toyota built some air racing engines . . . but we're
not seeing those on TC aircraft either. But then, why
put $millions$ into developing an engine that will be sold
at perhaps 1000 pcs per year when the same $millions$ might
produce an engine that is sold into millions of cars?
As I suggested earlier, the breakthrough developments
will probably not come from the established suppliers
to the marketplace. This is demonstrated by the fact that
the most successful automotive derivatives flying are
not offered by the original manufacturer of the
engine. The fact that Toyota or Porsche stubbed
their toes was probably predictable but the lessons
learned were invaluable.
But it's disingenuous to paint all automotive
conversion efforts with a brush dipped into the
failures of a few.
Bob . . .
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ANL current limiter location on rear battery installations |
| From: | "Beemer" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
> > That interested me since in another context I had been wondering about ANL
location. I was
> puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the internally regulated
alternator
> isolation contactor. My thinking was that by having it close to the alternator
it would blow if
> anything (including the isolation contactor) ran amok downstream. What is the
advantage of
> having it at the main bus end ?
> A The ANL limiter (fat fuse) is there to protect the alternator b-lead wire .
. . the source of
> energy that places this wire at risk is NOT the alternator but the battery. An
alternator is
> incapable of putting out enough current to open its own b-lead protection while
the battery is
> capable of fat-wire faults approaching 1000 amps. So, while selecting the SIZE
of the protection
> device is driven by alternator output capability, selecting LOCATION is associated
with the risk
> source . . the BATTERY.
> On some occasions, we have fat wires that can source a fault from either end
. . . in
> which case, you might have a limiter at both ends of the same conductor. However,
I've never
> encountered a situation like this for small aircraft. Bob . . .
The above is in the FAQ's for the list. I would like to clarify a bit further:
If the battery is the current feeder in a frayed B-lead scenario, and the battery
is in the tail (with the master contactor and eng power bus (FI auto)), then
wouldn't the ANL current limiter be located back there as well? If so, between
the battery and contactor, or between the contactor and main bus loads?
My situation seems to dictate a current limiter on both ends of the B-lead...
Thanks,
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212311#212311
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alt to starter connection |
| From: | "Beemer" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
Sorry if this has been covered, but I can't find it anywhere.
First, I'm using a NipponDenso IR alternator of 55amps, and a Bosch starter from
the car the engine came from. I am not planning on using a separate starter
contactor.
On my install, it would be very convenient to run the power lead from the big starter
post to the alternator B-lead post, then 4AWG back to the battery.
Is it harmful to run the starter voltage through the alternator this way when cranking
the engine?
Thanks,
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212312#212312
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beemer" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
>From the list FAQ:
>
> >Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module shorts
the breaker
> as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it kills the voltage to the
field of the
> contactor which is connecting the alternator output (B lead) to the battery,
thus removing the
> offending voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
power internally
> to the alternator itself.
>
> A Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly different in the
way that the
> OVM tames a runaway alternator. For internally regulated machines, the external
B-lead
> contactor is not necessary. Bob . . .
Bob,
Is the above response a typo? Figure Z-24 was conceived FOR an IR alternator, no?
It basically adds an alt disconnect contactor and shows how to wire it up.
But the above comment suggests it is not necessary.
I'm confused...
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212314#212314
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Which is all mostly true but mostly surmountable with effort.
My one off 2.2 liter subaru with dual multi port EFI and electrical
systems comes in at about the same weight as an 0-320. The mission
weight with fuel for the same range is arguably quite a bit less. SFC's
are similar to a Lyc running LOP but I happily cruise at very low power
(just over 4 gph) with no fouling, temperature, or mixture issues. Yet
it seems to match a fixed pitch 0-320 for take off and climb
performance. All with an economical Warp Drive prop. I cruise slow but I
usually catch up to my buddies (same aircraft types) by the time they've
finished refueling. At the end of the day I've burnt about half the fuel
quantity and it is cheaper mogas. I don't participate in the "how hot is
your engine" conversations, and I'm there in time for the first beer ;)
My only issue has been the gearbox which in my case is indeed heavy and
expensive. But so far I'm happy with the second one. Conversions are
over hyped and definitely not for everyone but they can be absolutely
wonderful for some applications like mine. 0-320 STOL performance, the
advantages of EFI, rotax 912 fuel consumption in cruise, hassle free
winter flying, etc.
Downside includes: I'm on my own if anything needs repair. Since I avoid
leaded fuel, it is sometimes less convenient obtaining mogas on long
trips. (Long means more than 7 hours in my case). It is getting harder
to avoid alcohol but I will burn it in preference to 100LL as long as it
is consumed within about 24 hours.
Ken
(I promise not to say any more on this list)
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> At one time I was very interested in a converted Subaru. IMO, there is a
> wonder of technology in this fine engines... in cars. Problem is for
> aircraft... It needs a gearbox (PRSU heavy), also has to get rid of the
> same amount of heat as a Lycosaurus per HP and do it with radiators
> (heavy, heavy, heavy), usually needs redundant electrical systems
> (batteries, heavy), special propellers, etc., etc. the list goes on.
>
> Did I mention these are a _lot_ heavier than LycoCont?
>
> Buyers should be aware that all these products from vendors are
> "experiments in progress". For a time I ran a website devoted to
> alternative engines and heard numerous complaints about vendors and
> their problems with non delivery, failed products, poor business
> practices, and lawsuits (Crossflow) by customers.
>
> I believe Eggenfellner has really tried to get a good foothold in this
> market and is pretty honest, but assuming the best of intentions, has
> orphaned engines, the STI Subaru for instance.
>
> The idea that these are "plug and play" and can just be popped into your
> airframe like a Lyco is false, and has led to many folks with empty
> pockets. So, do _extensive research_ before committing to same.
> Be totally prepared to do your own engineering, also, just like the
> author of this thread. Good thing he's an EE.
>
> Get your money back? Not a chance. Usually these folks fund their
> operations with deposits. Other words, to deliver end product, they rely
> on current deposts, and this is very common in aviation.
>
> As usual, my dime's worth,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Mechanical noise cancellation experiment |
Bob, I've been thinking of ways to overcome the noise issues we encountered
while flying the trike this summer and came to the conclusion that some sort
of mechanical cover might help. I have searched the housewares aisle at
various box stores and wandered Ace Aircraft Supply looking for inspiration.
The other night I had an Aha! moment. The picture shows the result. I held
the terminal boots in my closed hand to warm them up before I tried to slide
them over the headset mic and the boom joint. I used a bamboo skewer with a
rounded end to gently pry and stretch the opening when it wanted to catch on
the screw head at the swivel. After they were on I cut some thin porous foam
to make a muff over the mic element and pushed it in the boot and around the
mic with the skewer.This afternoon Lou and I went out in the back yard and
did a test to see how well the idea worked. The wind was blowing at almost
flight speed for the trike and the results were very good. It took very
little squelch to knock down what little noise came through and the wind did
not activate the mic at all. I don't know how well it will work with the
ambient noise in the trike with the engine behind us, but the first pass
test seems promising.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser |
A couple of years ago I implemented an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for
the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes
a
Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, he or she will instantly
cease to receive these Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its
just that simple. Don't you wish PBS worked that way! :-)
I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
and
software that are required to run a List Site like this. It also goes to pay for
the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill
to
keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of
the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to
control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance.
Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such
as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept
exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand
the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are
anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> The idea that these are "plug and play" and can just be popped into
> your airframe like a Lyco is false,
The idea that a Lyco is "plug and play" and can just be popped into your
airframe is false also. A proper Lyco installation requires no less
engineering than an auto installation. What is different is that
usually all the engineering has already been done by the plane's
designer. It is not at all uncommon to here of engine problems in a new
airplane design. Those problems are generally dismissed with a "Yeah,
we know how to handle that" or "That's just the way Lycomings are."
(Oil seeping cases anyone?)
It boils down to the simple fact that using an alternative engine means
that you are working on an alternative airplane design. You can't pull
just one string of a spider's web. For planes that are designed for an
alternative engine*, just popping in a Lyco would be the difficult choice.
*If it is designed for an alternative engine, wouldn't that make the
Lyco the alternative?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Intercom Audio Ground |
Hi there fowkes
I am installing my Flightcom 403 intercom and I have a problem to solve.
I need to connect several (4 or 5) audio ground wires that come from the
pilot and co-pilot mic and headset jacks to a single pin in the D-Sub 25-pin
connector.
Can somebody please indicate me the best technique to do it?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Audio Ground |
Carlos;
This has been covered in the archives , but try techniques similar to
these illustrated on Bob's web site.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html or the
"practical example" at the bottom of this page;
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html One of
these should work for you.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Trigo
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Intercom Audio Ground
Hi there fowkes
I am installing my Flightcom 403 intercom and I have a problem to
solve.
I need to connect several (4 or 5) audio ground wires that come from
the pilot and co-pilot mic and headset jacks to a single pin in the
D-Sub 25-pin connector.
Can somebody please indicate me the best technique to do it?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <neilak(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Intercom Audio Ground |
Carlos
Solder the 4-5 wires together with one extra wire and heat
shrink the solder joint bundle. Take the one extra wire and put that into
the D-sub connector.
Neil
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Intercom Audio Ground
Hi there fowkes
I am installing my Flightcom 403 intercom and I have a problem to solve.
I need to connect several (4 or 5) audio ground wires that come from the
pilot and co-pilot mic and headset jacks to a single pin in the D-Sub 25-pin
connector.
Can somebody please indicate me the best technique to do it?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . . . |
Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
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: Alt to starter connection |
>
>Sorry if this has been covered, but I can't find it anywhere.
>
>First, I'm using a NipponDenso IR alternator of 55amps, and a Bosch
>starter from the car the engine came from. I am not planning on using a
>separate starter contactor.
>
>On my install, it would be very convenient to run the power lead from the
>big starter post to the alternator B-lead post, then 4AWG back to the battery.
That works. It's been done on lots of Lycoming
installations where the alternator and starter are
in close proximity.
How long is the wire from your alternator b-terminal
and the starter fat-wire terminal?
>Is it harmful to run the starter voltage through the alternator this way
>when cranking the engine?
No, what you've proposed is electrically no different
than other architectures published. In most installations
the b-lead is generally connected to the bus all the time.
You're only re-arranging the mechanics of the same
connections.
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: FAQ question... |
>
> >From the list FAQ:
>
>
> >
> > >Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV
> module shorts the breaker
> > as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it kills the voltage
> to the field of the
> > contactor which is connecting the alternator output (B lead) to the
> battery, thus removing the
> > offending voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field
> is receiving power internally
> > to the alternator itself.
> >
> > A Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
> different in the way that the
> > OVM tames a runaway alternator. For internally regulated machines, the
> external B-lead
> > contactor is not necessary. Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob,
>Is the above response a typo? Figure Z-24 was conceived FOR an IR
>alternator, no? It basically adds an alt disconnect contactor and shows
>how to wire it up. But the above comment suggests it is not necessary.
Understand. Yes that is a typo. For externally regulated
machines, it's easy to tame a runaway system by breaking
the field power lead. To do the same thing on an internally
regulated hardware, you have to modify it (like Plane-Power)
to get access to the field power path . . . or do some form
of external disconnect of the b-terminal as suggested in
Z-24 and the document I published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
I mentioned a trip to visit Motorcar Parts of America
alternator and starter fabrication facilities last
month. What I learned one that trip re-enforces my
understanding for achieving design goals on an ON/OFF,
any time, any conditions control of an internally regulated
alternator.
Z-24 is just fine for alternators designed and tested
to survive their own load dumps . . . like the MPA
products. Unfortunately, some alternators are not blessed
with such diligence on the part of their designers.
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: ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
>
>
> > > That interested me since in another context I had been wondering
> about ANL location. I was
> > puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the internally
> regulated alternator
> > isolation contactor. My thinking was that by having it close to the
> alternator it would blow if
> > anything (including the isolation contactor) ran amok downstream. What
> is the advantage of
> > having it at the main bus end ?
> > A The ANL limiter (fat fuse) is there to protect the alternator b-lead
> wire . . . the source of
> > energy that places this wire at risk is NOT the alternator but the
> battery. An alternator is
> > incapable of putting out enough current to open its own b-lead
> protection while the battery is
> > capable of fat-wire faults approaching 1000 amps. So, while selecting
> the SIZE of the protection
> > device is driven by alternator output capability, selecting LOCATION is
> associated with the risk
> > source . . the BATTERY.
> > On some occasions, we have fat wires that can source a fault from
> either end . . . in
> > which case, you might have a limiter at both ends of the same
> conductor. However, I've never
> > encountered a situation like this for small aircraft. Bob . . .
>
>
>The above is in the FAQ's for the list. I would like to clarify a bit
>further: If the battery is the current feeder in a frayed B-lead scenario,
>and the battery is in the tail (with the master contactor and eng power
>bus (FI auto)), then wouldn't the ANL current limiter be located back
>there as well? If so, between the battery and contactor, or between the
>contactor and main bus loads?
Actually, a frayed b-lead is likely to arc a bit
and "burn clear" like other battery connected fat
wires in airplanes. The ANL is risk mitigation for
shorted diodes . . . an exceedingly rare event
in modern alternators . . . ESPECIALLY those
supported by due diligence on the part of the
designers/rebuilders.
Small aircraft do not get circuit protection in
the battery feeders to the starter and distribution
busses. Only the alternator b-leads got the ANLs
(or similar) to deal with the internally shorted
alternator but that risk too has steadily diminished
over the years.
If you choose to include a limiter in the b-lead,
then about any place in the b-lead wire is okay
but best at the end away from the alternator.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
Just so everyone knows, this video that is "flying" around the
Internet like wildfire is a fake. It is a combination of a real
airplane and an RC controlled model. Great video editing, but not
what it appears to be.
Steve
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
> If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
It's really a very good video editing illusion, and a very good model
airplane builder and pilot ...
I could feature the guy who opens the canopy on the last frames!
Carlos
> -----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: quinta-feira, 6 de Novembro de 2008 15:14
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing
. . .
>
>
>
> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
> If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> 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: | Re: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
Amazing what they can do with giant scale RC these days but you'd think they
could make them a bit stronger. There's another video on You tube that shows
the exact same model of aircraft only it's the left wing that comes off that
one and they don't try to fake that it's a real aircraft.
Rick
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
> If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Terra Tri Nav C Wireing |
-----
Have a question on the wiring of a tri nav c. I have the manual but
one thing is not very clear.
I am using a terra txn 920 nav/com and a Navaid ap 1 autopilot. I guess
my question is,
What is done with green wire from Tri Nav C Plug #1 pin # 7 ?
The tri nav c manual states that it is grounded (Where?)
The Txn 920 manual diagram shows it connected to Pin #9 on plug
#1. Is Pin #9 a proper ground? When connected to a
navaid ap 1 autopilot.
Thanks Bill S.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
10/14/2008 2:02 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
Bob,
I have seen this around for a while. Do you think it is real or some
good
editing??
Roger
-----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD
landing .
. .
Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
It's a viral ad. A bit of both and them some other things too.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
> Bob,
>
> I have seen this around for a while. Do you think it is real or some good
> editing??
>
> Roger
>
> -----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing .
> . .
>
>
>
> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
> If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's a viral ad. A bit of both and them some other things too.
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> <BR><BR>> Bob, <BR>> <BR>> I have seen this around for a while. Do you think it is real or some good <BR>> editing?? <BR>> <BR>> Roger <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <BR>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. <BR>> Nuckolls, III <BR>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM <BR>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com <BR>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . <BR>> . . <BR>> <BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> <NUCKOLLS.BOB(at)COX.NET><BR>> <BR>> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls. <BR>> If this airplane ha
d been
rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing
. . .
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:23:00 +0000
Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="winmail.dat"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=
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . |
. .
It's a viral ad. A bit of both and them some other things too.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
> Bob,
>
> I have seen this around for a while. Do you think it is real or some good
> editing??
>
> Roger
>
> -----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing .
> . .
>
>
>
> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
> If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's a viral ad. A bit of both and them some other things too.
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> <BR><BR>> Bob, <BR>> <BR>> I have seen this around for a while. Do you think it is real or some good <BR>> editing?? <BR>> <BR>> Roger <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <BR>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. <BR>> Nuckolls, III <BR>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM <BR>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com <BR>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing . <BR>> . . <BR>> <BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> <NUCKOLLS.BOB(at)COX.NET><BR>> <BR>> Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls. <BR>> If this airplane ha
d been
rigged with cables . . .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing
. . .
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:23:00 +0000
Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="winmail.dat"
eJ8+IhYPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANgHCwAGAAoAMwAAAAQAMQEB
A5AGAGgQAAAtAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAALACsAAAAAAAMALgAA
AAAAAwA2AAAAAAAeAHAAAQAAAEcAAABBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdDogQW55dGhpbmcgeW91IHdh
bGsgYXdheSBmcm9tIGlzIGEgR09PRCBsYW5kaW5nIC4gLiAuAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAAByUAmHKBu
USyCaRdMcbMqQ/z7Ei4oAABB/SAAAgEdDAEAAAAiAAAAU01UUDpNUlNQVURBTkRDT01QQU5ZQFZF
UklaT04uTkVUAAAACwABDgAAAABAAAYOAErudidAyQECAQoOAQAAABgAAAAAAAAAs/WqJeWcDkaY
ga5g9kBSg8KAAAADABQOAAAAAAsAHw4BAAAAHgAoDgEAAABEAAAAMDAwMDAwMDIBbXJzcHVkYW5k
Y29tcGFueUB2ZXJpem9uLm5ldAFtcnNwdWRhbmRjb21wYW55X3Zlcml6b25fbWFpbAAeACkOAQAA
AEQAAAAwMDAwMDAwMgFtcnNwdWRhbmRjb21wYW55QHZlcml6b24ubmV0AW1yc3B1ZGFuZGNvbXBh
bnlfdmVyaXpvbl9tYWlsAAIBCRABAAAAkgsAAI4LAADiGgAATFpGdSkNtQADAAoAcmNwZzEyNRoy
DGBjAFABBHN0c+JoBXBiY2gO9QkAD4dmaA3gD5ZiaQFDC2BukQ4QMDMzEaZmZRIiPwH3AqQDYwIA
D4AKwHNlQnQC0XBycTIAACrJCqFubxTgIDAB0AHQwjYSMDA1MDQWsQHQ+RagNH0HbQKDDlAEVRSN
6jEVjDcWkTkWMxcCFuBPF2AIVQeyAoMzNhQeMhQzOBUkIAdtIENFPR0ENx1/FtAerx+1eXLlHQQ5
FB4xNgBQIe8Dc7pHCdFrAoMW4CPvNhjBeyU/A4JUCHAm1CUBJA03hyCRKJ8DgihIZWIJcPx3KSbU
GMEqrh6fLLYHEN8BoA3gLZUSUCdeOB1hL2/1A4JCB0B0DeAm1CHBJA4XMZEy/yzjVgiQdG5hdQeB
ZS2UNR1hGP0edjH3IAAcaCAGNSCROQ4htTp9/SNVNSPRGP0k5jp8JogWgP8+/yhGOnwp5iTyQk4r
lTp8/y0rKFJFXzofR3IwyjYiQk73MrU6fDRJNiHBQk82NEbNVzfLApEI5jsJbzBTP2X9DjA1VGpV
gVU/VklUVFZyf1TfWK9YbVfvVh9UbxLwMv44XjpfUV8PYBlUVGBCXq/fYn9iPWG/X+9jtDkOUGcE
n2hhYINoYAKCDxB5bAeQqmgJ4HQAAHEDIWwRgYcFEAFAA/BkY3RsCrHLa0Aw0HABAWF1NGAAYB5z
CrBroBSwbKJudW0lAgBhbGB0bwBgZGrmdQ8QBRBnaGyQBRAKActq0AoBaQGQcDADsgwBPxHnEqgI
0AnAa2BwM25wh3CJciQDMHNuZXgVAJ8HsAWwAMACcxWgY3MSIMsDMG4gZG+AaXYWEA8AORTgbWkQ
wHUQCfAgRGlsRCBQCsBhCcBsEGjcIEYCIXREDyAxAFAPIJ0DYHcLMG5wAYBzV2tgeHRoQhJQbnAK
sHUQbPcSIC8webRyeigQAHmWAYCVe5die5dyeZJjYgqw/yTQfYIVMH3jAmALgAmRfrQZaeBwZXmR
BPBlbGzva1F5YHkBfxFzdWAAIDRR/3gRLVB6sIF2CVCBlAyxgaNza9CBlGRngnaD8IN2aP2BhXYD
MGqfa69sv23Pbt/9b+oyIcASpovxcYyL9410/3NVeEB1jHPkNqABoGoAdEe+NXTqh8AI0Biwc1Fi
iAB/CYACIHTCadEU0IaweEAy44vwGzA3IEh/oYJgC4D7JsN0gzaRfw4gkp+Tq3eA/4AweKAJgJR7
dLAgkIXvhv//iA+JH4ovGKNwD3Efci9zM9+XBZeCjtOUUJevUAtiNqAvc5FSYxWgU1B2AlEge/ZV
lOAV4HcYYXRTDgAFMP+m4qfyDECoAYq1mneBoA7x/GEwpkWTsabSqtOT5nRT2HhtbACAptJ9CqGU
ka53k/IBQK0zaJFQOCch/QDAcoQAkVA+0a6yesCvFlck0DTwrpRisENnnZB0fwSQb8GbAXigmzCC
YQGAbvxiagBgCfB1EBAgCbEFcN8QIKawCfCAshXgeAtgAkDUb3kJ8FxzkHAPMAAg/wuQFeCcIYJg
nHAA4QIwAmB9AIBiD2C0EZxxgBACEHIbkjG3QW0PMJ3QZVxo7QWwerMCg/BotvMyoAFBfGd2uPm4
QZ5AC4ArgDB3DpG5kLp1Oa5wuLO4QHf7uWS8Q2q04QBwCzCzAX+S5Q5QdgiQd2t+4SHAvjK/BPAH
QBLxrdGwwIUCZZ3Q+7+VAhBvnEAV4KygnmCd0f8JM5OxA2DA0JPnAgAU8RWCfnezQQRQADADELFh
FiAx3DNmrRAU4JswZJpic4F/AUCy0cEwBJC4IMSzm/Rj/wlQxLKTqg8AsmOoYRWhAID5BZBsdnoQ
yLEOcHQAyLL/AZAAIMlCfuGzwQHByLEUsI8SAKhiAjBzoGEgLqel/8jVDlDJYrWhyc/K38vvySD/
ElCdEAWBza/Ov8/PySAhwN2dEGzNb9I/00YpzDxdoPfRH9YP0zViLRACkdc/yPP/HWDU39mv2r/b
z8kRIJDdIv/Jr96P35/XrS8w3S/iv+PP/+TfyREj0OG/51/ob+l1Cvn/c1GaH5svnD+dT55fqQEK
sf8UwZPJn5+gr6G/cuYIwQExhwuAeICTukJvYiwKhfkKhUkgFLB1YRTgdjF5YN0EACAKwAhgfvAg
t0H9AMwgdxDAagAuIK0AAAAfDDD5r8fhFKKTq0RvIO55CGD8spTgIIrQAcAEIK9TUAdA/m+T9iAF
sXMYMP0WEGfAwMTwCYB1MRIAAn/z/3+T9j8/BV+T9vss7lT/7x/wL/E/8k/zX/RvlBT5j/uUIxgg
ZxkgUoIR3wbPCY/XE28Uf5QjLRkyT7qDkFH+TTgwqlATIBkzxRN3cCQB7joEAKdwP0AtssAkAIAg
28cSMQAtC4Bp0C04QIWgPT9AQJBADyB3kDEAcy4xUrBtIFuQQMPxbzpHG58crx24XSBPNCFluT+g
bGYhsCJAJiBigSFUIEz+ME7NUGuYwXNuLPvwI9Aa1FOzwRtwVMJoKfBzZGF5I7Bz4O11YG0iscRA
NiOwi2B6MIog9qA6sEAgQU0a1L5UHsD9AB9eHXwkBXWykKvEwRtwQR9RRR+WTCAhuSphbnkBctMQ
ATJ3vzD1AbBhLIB5/XA1MQHy06DgR09PRCCLkXUg0wH//jAukTFBFy8U3xXvFv8v/z0ZEj4qf3bA
OCEaQiBwp7bgsWDE8GJ5G3AiIp8xI6QiIDzJcSNjLmIl+vBAUrB4LnOAdD79+yxTBFEr5A6gNsD8
UaWwz/1kDqBAYFQwLXQqAHVw/x6BNNHvAFKw7dAdsDkh+5b7IkD8xGl5wIuRdXC38Tux/3YxDzET
IMTwDAB5YD2wkJIP/PAuk/ssD2B0cDov9C93QzAuATE88h4SQyADfeAzcD92PVZ2XwB3M0lyUllx
MP/7LPslRqb64UGPRokZM0lv6Up/LSlGTSguhP5A06DXmODTAU/gYgHRbyJAttD/dsABcywC/kBL
r/2xK+QMoH9NYSOwuqB1YPzwAdHToHPmdZSRw+BjaZBRTy/9APZwf7B28W6AEE3yN0AsAv8PM0y2
RqNSr0anV79Ym1Yv/1ifGSAkwARQDWB20RrypFD4NzYtWY9JH18fX5VFb/H7WV8tPWKPY59kr2U2
/2H4Yfhdt6WBwBDI4CnhU9D7/ZB2wFlDgDrQK1L88CTA/fzhTXeRd2Bgh2dYTGMrsB3E8EfDADrj
JtBXRVNIT01Fd3BSRW0gR/ppeQEhWaZmviVn/OF5YF1soW4OIJBRNZNG/UJSd6WwIGH+MUMLgDfg
BABuS2qbcDJDPdJpYg6Qaf89kZTCO7GY4TuCw+D9UUOB/zXQ/ZA9ITlQDpBynfzhtKD9DHAnaaE0
0A8wUjEbIUAg//vwVDHt0JYSbZRuD2dUNZMpc6tXZejgUwHQZTrfef9nVDSCQskdiy89w3P1/30f
Z1QkwL1gAbABMv2CATH/OtATIB8BQ4D88FHhaMJ57/dq/YavXgFNtGEA8FQQmNCmZSOwNZNBZI+A
bj5G/4U7iq+Lv4zPZc9rKVzwJMD7bKE030Uecpiht2AeQGqK/lVoYXAyh/EdtHDVwBA88PumoPzw
TvwwD0BEQDxTNsD7HbC/AGWOaXAysJArwHDU/3QRC4AFEEFhUeAzcP0Ak6X9pyAvKfG/EA8wqCB0
MfsW+WdSQXIzcHlSJGAMcJghPiYA8adwTVAO0COwNy1aRCzxQpWDI7BD/CB00SOwRkFRmcpQuEAO
oP+34aagI7C9YTXQmBKfZHXx330Pfh9/L0QQlKc/kA+gXz+Kj6dfqG+Nv4XPj4JNQYBUUk9OSUNT
fHCERUIbIE9SVU2sYPlqilNhBGICMWxQPcKzwb/9ALXQARD8MB6BQTIgvjD/UEJ2EHyCkYN536FP
QxC3Qv+30H9ssU+mX7a/t8+pjwmeBH0AuxAAAB4AQhABAAAAOQAAADw1LjEuMC4xNC4yLjIwMDgx
MTA2MDkxMTIwLjAxNWI3MzkwQHBvcC5jZW50cmFsLmNveC5uZXQ+AAAAAAMAkhABAAAAAwDeP59O
AAADAAJZAAAWAAMACVkDAAAAAwBAZQAAAAALABOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAA
AAMAFYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAbgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA
UoUAAFahAQADACKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAEAAI4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA
AABGAAAAAGCFAAAACNboKQAAAB4AQIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABQAAADEw
LjAAAAAACwBBgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAABoUAAAAAAAALAEWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA
RgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMASIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAACwBdgAggBgAAAAAA
wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAgoUAAAEAAAACAfgPAQAAABAAAACz9aol5ZwORpiBrmD2QFKDAgH6DwEAAAAQ
AAAAs/WqJeWcDkaYga5g9kBSgwMA/g8FAAAAAwANNP03AgACARQ0AQAAABAAAABOSVRB+b+4AQCq
ADfZbgAAAgF/AAEAAAAxAAAAMDAwMDAwMDBCM0Y1QUEyNUU1OUMwRTQ2OTg4MUFFNjBGNjQwNTI4
MzY0MzIyQTAwAAAAAAMABhBw6XZLAwAHEIgGAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAA
Qk9CLElIQVZFU0VFTlRISVNBUk9VTkRGT1JBV0hJTEVET1lPVVRISU5LSVRJU1JFQUxPUlNPTUVH
T09ERURJVElORz8/Uk9HRVItLS0tLU9SSUdJTkFMTUVTU0FHRS0tLS0tRgAAAACVzg=
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_9858_1225996773_2--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: The best pilot ever?] |
Let's put an end to this thread quickly...by discussing it, we are doing
EXACTLY what Killathrill Clothing wants...known as "viral advertising"
Here's an email I sent to the Canard Aviator's group when this video was
being discussed there. It should answer all your questions (even some
you haven't asked yet).
BTW...apparently, this is a standard stunt that advanced RC pilots attempt.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>He could be the best pilot ever ............ or the luckiest.<<
Being a great movie CGI and special effects fan, and with a friend of my
son's in the business, (she's done the CGI work and lighting for a lot
of them - Spiderman 2, for example), that video of the plane's wing
coming off and the guy landing didn't quite look right to me. for
example, the wheel pants on the roll out look like they were touched up
(or not lighted as the plane is later), and the bounce on landing looked
more like an RC plane. And there was plenty of focus adjustments and
off screen shots to piece in a real aircraft.
So this prompted me to start doing a little research online, and found
that another person had beat me to it. From his findings and my
suspicions, it looks like that was just a video that was CREATED (and
the operative word is "created" by combining a real plane at the end,
with an RC, and CGI work to seamlessly connect them) to spread the word
about either Red Bull or, more likely, the KillaThrill clothing company.
An RC model builder and flyer, with the online forum name of
arithonkelis, did the research and reported as follows.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's fake, and here's why.
There's an "interview" with James Andersson, the pilot, here:
http://www.jamesandersson.com/interview.html
I watched the video a few more times after work and started getting a
little suspicious. I've seen real stunt planes with enough thrust to
'helicopter' themselves, and I've seen planes knife edge. I think it's
theoretically possible for a model plane to do this kind of landing if
you've got a good model plane and an incredibly skilled person behind
the remote...."
"So, I did more poking around. The James Andersson website claims he is
from Great Britain and Germany. However, if it's a real aircraft,
where's the aircraft registration number? It could be that it's just too
small to see, but watching carefully, I didn't see anything like that.
Then I got suspicious. Whois.net shows that the jamesandersson.com
domain is registered to "Sandra Thielecke" with a killathrill email
address (ct(at)killathrill.com).
Then, further through that J. A. website, it claims he has placed 24th,
14th and 15th in Red Bull Air Races. Yet according to the Red Bull Air
Race website, there are only 12 racers, so 12th place is dead last -
it's impossible to place 14th, 15th or 24th. Disqualification, the most
common placement listed on the J. A. website, is also not shown as an
option.
Furthermore, a google search doesn't find him listed anywhere on the Red
Bull Air Race site. I also tried this for the other races and several of
the air shows listed on his site with no success.
The J.A. website also uses country code "GRB" when showing his listings
in Red Bull Air Races. However, on the Red Bull Air Race website, Great
Britain is represented as GBR, and Germany is represented as GER.
Another suspicious bit: Two copies of this video were posted on YouTube.
Both were posted by users with no other postings (MrMarodeur and
AirRacer89), 2 days apart. The users' favorite videos are almost identical.
The nail in the coffin, for me, came from the Red Bull Air Race
website's About The Race section: Currently there are three different
types of aircraft used in the Red Bull Air Race World Championship: the
Edge 540, the MXS and the Extra 300SR. James Andersson's website claims
he flies a Giles G-300. The Giles G-300 is single-seat, single engine
kit plane, but it was produced by AkroTech Aviation, Inc. They went out
of business in August 2000. They also have an empty weight of 431kg -
and the James Andersson website claims ... reduction in weight to a
basic weight of 650kg.
*sigh* So, in short, I think it's a complete fabrication, done with
either a computer or an RC plane, either for KillaThrill or Red Bull. I
was rather hoping it was real, 'cause that would have been one hell of a
flight...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing |
. . .
Carlos Trigo a crit :
>
> Its really a very good video editing illusion, and a very good model
> airplane builder and pilot ..
>
Search the Web for Bill Hempel...
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition problem - any suggestions? |
As a follow up, my friend could not get any sense out of Electroair so
replaced the EI with a mag. Same problem still evident! Probably why
Electroair comments made no sense ...
After further investigation it seems that one of the inlet valves is
leaking at high BMEPs, such that small reductions in throttle reduce the
cylinder pressure sufficiently to stop the leak. The blow back into the
inlet system was enough to cause a serious miss fire. Switching off one
mag was probably the equivalent of a "small reduction in throttle" so
the implication that the EI was at fault was a complete red herring!
This also explains why the miss fire was throttle setting dependent,
rather than rpm dependent.
Cylinder repairs now underway - I'll post again once this problem is
finally licked.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: 07 October 2008 00:22
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition problem - any
suggestions?
I wouldn't waste any time thinking about this until first replacing the
spark plugs (seriously) and then the wires but apparently that has been
done. I've also seen failing ignition coils do what you describe.
Electroair coils look like GM automotive coils which would mean they may
be cheap to replace??
A multi tooth pickup wheel will have a repeating irregular pulse pattern
AND the pulse voltage will vary accordingly. All teeth are not evenly
spaced or there is at least one tooth missing to establish timing. I
don't know how reliable the Electroair pickup has been but it would not
be my first suspect.
A scope will show an amazing amount of noise on both primary and
secondary sides of these coils. As long as it is a regular repeating
pattern, it is probably normal. Yes they are of similar voltage to what
fires the plugs. I'd only be suspicious if they are non repeating
spikes.
Ken
Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> Hi All, I'm posting this for a friend who is not a member and is
trying
> to diagnose an electronic ignition problem. Any thoughts would be
> gratefully received.
>
> I have an interesting problem with my electronic ignition that I'd
> appreciate further opinion on. My RV6 has an O-320 with a Slick
magneto
> on the left drive and Electroair EIS on the right drive. The EIS is a
> dual coil, lost spark system (each coil fires 2 opposing cylinders on
> both compression and exhaust stroke), and has been successfully
operated
> for 480 hours.
>
> The problem is that each time I go to take off the engine misfires
when
> full power is applied. I am getting 2150 rpm static, and as the plane
> accelerates at full power, after 10-15 seconds the engine starts to
> misfire. The misfires occur at roughly 1-2 seconds frequency and last
> for 200-700 milliseconds. There is never any backfiring.
>
> I've conducted one flight, and found that as soon as I eased the climb
> and reduced power, the problem went away. I was able to fly at 2,600
rpm
> with no problems, and could not re-create the misfire whilst airborne.
> Because there is no backfiring, I initially assumed a problem with
fuel
> supply. This has been eliminated, and I have been testing the ignition
> system whilst static on the ground.
>
> I connected an oscilloscope input to an ignition lead and the trace
gave
> large spikes at every 1/2 engine revolution as expected. However,
> intermediate lower amplitude spikes were also observed at 2/3 to 3/4
of
> the main spike period. This occurs throughout the full rev range,
> including clean running.
>
> I also tested the signal output from the magneto timing housing. It
was
> found to have irregular modulation and an irregular gap.
>
> I don't know what signal the processor unit can tolerate, but I think
> that the irregular signal from the timing sensor may be the issue.
> However, the manufacturer still suggests that the charge is arcing out
> through either the leads or plugs.
>
> Having replaced both the leads and plugs, and that there's no evidence
> or arcing through either the power or earth connections, I think it's
a
> fault with the unit.
>
> One significant point is that when I turn off the EIS, the engine runs
> perfectly on the single magneto. When the EIS is turned back on and
the
> misfire occurs, I would expect the magneto to continue firing as
normal.
> I think it probably is, but there's no fuel left to burn and the
> misfiring is caused by wrongly timed sparks from the EIS igniting fuel
> in the cylinders before the mixture is compressed and ignited by the
> magneto.
>
> Am I missing something? Any thoughts would be much appreciated
>
> Regards, James
> RV6 G-JSRV
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bradley Webb" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alt to starter connection |
Thank you. I suspected it to be as you said, but I wanted to make sure
before I blow up an otherwise working alternator.
The distance from the starter to alternator big leads is about 12 inches. It
will only save a few ounces, but I need all I can from up there, plus it
makes a slightly simpler installation. Simple is good.
Bradley
-----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alt to starter connection
>
>Sorry if this has been covered, but I can't find it anywhere.
>
>First, I'm using a NipponDenso IR alternator of 55amps, and a Bosch
>starter from the car the engine came from. I am not planning on using a
>separate starter contactor.
>
>On my install, it would be very convenient to run the power lead from the
>big starter post to the alternator B-lead post, then 4AWG back to the
battery.
That works. It's been done on lots of Lycoming
installations where the alternator and starter are
in close proximity.
How long is the wire from your alternator b-terminal
and the starter fat-wire terminal?
>Is it harmful to run the starter voltage through the alternator this way
>when cranking the engine?
No, what you've proposed is electrically no different
than other architectures published. In most installations
the b-lead is generally connected to the bus all the time.
You're only re-arranging the mechanics of the same
connections.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bradley Webb" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
I feel comfortable with the alternator disconnect solenoid in series with
the "control" wire on my IR alternator. If I should feel the need to throw
the Master DC switch to the BATT position, my alternator will simply become
a spinning weight up front.
I'm installing the OVM-14 on the 5 amp CB on the panel, so the only thing
yet missing from my panel is the 2x4 coming at me during the over/under
voltage event. I'm still considering options for which way I want to go, and
the B&C BC207-1 is looking right for the job.
Bradley
Understand. Yes that is a typo. For externally regulated
machines, it's easy to tame a runaway system by breaking
the field power lead. To do the same thing on an internally
regulated hardware, you have to modify it (like Plane-Power)
to get access to the field power path . . . or do some form
of external disconnect of the b-terminal as suggested in
Z-24 and the document I published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
I mentioned a trip to visit Motorcar Parts of America
alternator and starter fabrication facilities last
month. What I learned one that trip re-enforces my
understanding for achieving design goals on an ON/OFF,
any time, any conditions control of an internally regulated
alternator.
Z-24 is just fine for alternators designed and tested
to survive their own load dumps . . . like the MPA
products. Unfortunately, some alternators are not blessed
with such diligence on the part of their designers.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bradley Webb" <bmwebb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
Ahhh, I see. I took your stance to be that the ANL fuse is a much required
item in our OBAM systems. I now take you to mean them to be fine to add, but
not wholly necessary to safety. Correct?
So having no circuit protection in both/either the alternator and/or starter
circuit in a competently-designed system is ok? Hard to swallow, but that's
why I'm asking.
I have an ANL fuse and holder, but in the interest of fewer connections
(hence less to go wrong), I may forego it.
Bradley
-----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANL current limiter location on rear battery
installations
>
>
> > > That interested me since in another context I had been wondering
> about ANL location. I was
> > puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the internally
> regulated alternator
> > isolation contactor. My thinking was that by having it close to the
> alternator it would blow if
> > anything (including the isolation contactor) ran amok downstream. What
> is the advantage of
> > having it at the main bus end ?
> > A The ANL limiter (fat fuse) is there to protect the alternator b-lead
> wire . . . the source of
> > energy that places this wire at risk is NOT the alternator but the
> battery. An alternator is
> > incapable of putting out enough current to open its own b-lead
> protection while the battery is
> > capable of fat-wire faults approaching 1000 amps. So, while selecting
> the SIZE of the protection
> > device is driven by alternator output capability, selecting LOCATION is
> associated with the risk
> > source . . the BATTERY.
> > On some occasions, we have fat wires that can source a fault from
> either end . . . in
> > which case, you might have a limiter at both ends of the same
> conductor. However, I've never
> > encountered a situation like this for small aircraft. Bob . . .
>
>
>The above is in the FAQ's for the list. I would like to clarify a bit
>further: If the battery is the current feeder in a frayed B-lead scenario,
>and the battery is in the tail (with the master contactor and eng power
>bus (FI auto)), then wouldn't the ANL current limiter be located back
>there as well? If so, between the battery and contactor, or between the
>contactor and main bus loads?
Actually, a frayed b-lead is likely to arc a bit
and "burn clear" like other battery connected fat
wires in airplanes. The ANL is risk mitigation for
shorted diodes . . . an exceedingly rare event
in modern alternators . . . ESPECIALLY those
supported by due diligence on the part of the
designers/rebuilders.
Small aircraft do not get circuit protection in
the battery feeders to the starter and distribution
busses. Only the alternator b-leads got the ANLs
(or similar) to deal with the internally shorted
alternator but that risk too has steadily diminished
over the years.
If you choose to include a limiter in the b-lead,
then about any place in the b-lead wire is okay
but best at the end away from the alternator.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics
Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided
for my your Contributions during this time of the year.
Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email
Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alt to starter connection |
>
>Thank you. I suspected it to be as you said, but I wanted to make sure
>before I blow up an otherwise working alternator.
>
>The distance from the starter to alternator big leads is about 12 inches. It
>will only save a few ounces, but I need all I can from up there, plus it
>makes a slightly simpler installation. Simple is good.
It is not be necessary to "worry about blowing up
and otherwise good working alternator." Like aviation
with a combination of SAE, RTCA, MIL-Specs, FARs, ISO,
etc. etc the automotive industry is no less motivated to craft
a product that shrugs off anything a system and most
things that an installer throws at it.
Aside from lack of cooling and flimsy installation with
respect to vibration, there's nothing the OBAM aircraft
installer should concern themselves with . . . especially
nuances in wiring. These are NOT hand-painted china cups
that will crumble in the hands of the uninitiated user.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was privileged to
get a huge data dump and first-hand look at an
alternator refurbishment operation. That trip rebutted
many of the popularly endorsed ideas about how
alternators work and how they should be treated
to protect the owner's return on investment. I'm
working on an article that will share all I have
learned. In the mean time, know that the shiny
electro-whizzy you pulled out of the box from
Smiley Jack's Purty Good Car Parts store is not
the fragile device looking for a pampering.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
>
>Ahhh, I see. I took your stance to be that the ANL fuse is a much required
>item in our OBAM systems. I now take you to mean them to be fine to add, but
>not wholly necessary to safety. Correct?
It's not an easy thing to decide. Everything we do
in terms of refining a design go to the problems
of lowering failure rates (lowered risk and cost
of ownership), reducing cost to manufacture
(cost of ownership) and raising performance.
>So having no circuit protection in both/either the alternator and/or starter
>circuit in a competently-designed system is ok? Hard to swallow, but that's
>why I'm asking.
This is an excellent example of the value of studying
the history of our craft and gleaning understanding of
how ideas and products evolved from the time Wallace,
Piper, Beech and others bolted their first batteries and
generators onto a production aircraft.
The question to be asked and answered is "protection from
what?" Obviously, shorted or overloaded wires represent some
hazard to overall functionality of the system. The idea
of protection is to limit risk by limiting loss of function
to the faulted pathway thus preventing the fault from
propagating to other parts of the system.
>I have an ANL fuse and holder, but in the interest of fewer connections
>(hence less to go wrong), I may forego it.
Given the very short transition between your alternator
b-lead terminal and the starter terminal, it's EASY to
make sure that wire is never faulted to ground. So the
risk to be mitigated is taking a system down due to shorted
diodes in the alternator. Let us assume you subscribe to the
idea of keeping a robust battery on board. Probability is
that shorted diodes will produce fault currents within
the alternator that will fuse internal stator wires
which are on the same order of robustness as the ANL
limiters. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
These guys take a LOT of current to open them . . . the
kind of current that you can expect from a battery that
is maintained for the purposes of running your e-bus for
duration of fuel aboard. So leaving the ANL out of this
lead raises no specter of risk.
Now, run that battery until it doesn't crank the engine
any more and it's conceivable that a shorted set of
diodes could put a load on the system that the battery
cannot support and everything comes down. Having an
ANL in the b-lead probably wouldn't have made any difference.
The point is that if you procure, craft, and operate
a system from the perspective of meeting design goals
and understanding how that's accomplished, your risks
go WAY down compared to the vast majority of our
flying brothers who only pull levers and twist knobs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>I feel comfortable with the alternator disconnect solenoid in series with
>the "control" wire on my IR alternator. If I should feel the need to throw
>the Master DC switch to the BATT position, my alternator will simply become
>a spinning weight up front.
>
>I'm installing the OVM-14 on the 5 amp CB on the panel, so the only thing
>yet missing from my panel is the 2x4 coming at me during the over/under
>voltage event. I'm still considering options for which way I want to go, and
>the B&C BC207-1 is looking right for the job.
I designed the BC207 to fill a niche on ultralights. If you
have OV protection, you do not need OV warning. That light
will be on and off so fast that you won't notice it. This
leaves only LV warning. I used to offer a LV warning product
but discontinued it in favor of a quantum jump upgrade.
Details are available at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
. . . if you're willing to spend some time with a soldering
iron and herd a few parts, you can craft his device yourself.
Alternatively, we're working on a new stable of products
from the 'Connection that will include this guy . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
It has three functions which may be used in any combination
and would provide your LV warning. Additionally, the second
LV warning channel could be used to monitor any present
or future AUX Battery installation to remind you to bring it
on line after engine start when that battery is used to
support products not designed to live in the real world
of airplanes.
It will be in the same ball park for price as the BC207.
I'm looking into practicality of having it also control
the b-lead disconnect contactor in a Z-24 like installation.
Jury is still out on that.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | invitation to Slobovia Outernational Pumpkin Drop 2008 |
If anyone on the aeroelectric list is near central Mississippi, you're
invited to come on down to Slobovia Outernational (MS71), 10 miles north
of Jackson MS, to eat some BBQ & participate in our 2nd annual Pumpkin
Drop tomorrow, Nov 8, 2008. Give me a call at 601-879-9596 if you need
directions.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | What's better? re: thermocouple switching... |
Bob and the group,
I've read and understood the book and list info on switching
thermocouples (i.e. importance of iso-thermally balanced couples etc.)
and haven't found the answer as to which is better between the following
choices related to type "K" to copper transition connections going
into/out-of the "switch box" (which is via a single "DB" style connector).
A) terminate "K" wires with "K" type pins (Expensive, but I already have
them. They are stamped, not machined, pins. ), terminate copper wires
with standard machined gold pins -> resulting balanced couples between
"K" wire types and gold at pin/socket interface. (how important is
contact pressure to a repeatable "couple" connection?)
B) terminate "K" wires with standard gold pins, terminate copper with
mating pins -> resulting balanced couples between "K" wire types and
gold at a machined pin crimp connection (my favorite at my current level
of ignorance... but I don't know the mechanical stability of "K" type
wire in this type of crimp - at least the "K" type wire IS stranded
here, and I also don't know the voltage/temp relationship between "K"
wire types and gold)
C) terminate "K" wires with copper pig-tails via single crimp over both
wires (i.e. put both wires into one side of a butt splice and crimp)
terminate copper pigtails with machined gold pins, terminate switch
copper with mating gold pins. -> resulting matched couples are gas-tight
crimps between "K" wires and copper. (seemingly best for bi-metal
interface but worse for ensuring iso-thermal connections and logistics)
D) some other option I haven't thought of?
Anyone know the voltage/temp relationship between the two "K" wire types
and gold?
I except that each of the above is likely to work "good enough" but hey,
if I have to choose anyway, I might as well pick a method I can argue is
the best of the options.
Thanks in advance,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need 1,2 & 3 amp fuses |
>
>What size wire requires a fuse less than 5A? Or is this for another
>application?
>
>
>Matt-
>
> >
> > Does anyone know of a place to purchase 1,2 & 3 amp fuses on the street?
> > I've tried a number of auto stores, Walmart etc, but cannot find
> > anything below 5 amp.
5A is certainly adequate for protection of 22AWG wire
which is the smallest practical feeder that should
be tied to a bus.
Having said that, it's useful to drop to still lower
protection levels to extend protection to the interior
of an appliance. This goes beyond the simple idea
of protecting the airframe. The smaller sizes are
not in common distribution. I used to stock 1, 2 and
3A sizes. B&C still does at:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?27X358218#S889-1
You won't find them in auto parts stores but lots
of folks offer them on the 'net. Do a Google on
"ATC-1". "ATC-2" etc.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | What's better? re: thermocouple switching... |
Steve & Bob,
I have been led to believe that the connector pin material does not matter
if the temperature of both sided (male and female) are the same. I am not
sure of this, and maybe Bob has an answer.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Stearns
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: What's better? re: thermocouple switching...
Bob and the group,
I've read and understood the book and list info on switching
thermocouples (i.e. importance of iso-thermally balanced couples etc.)
and haven't found the answer as to which is better between the following
choices related to type "K" to copper transition connections going
into/out-of the "switch box" (which is via a single "DB" style connector).
A) terminate "K" wires with "K" type pins (Expensive, but I already have
them. They are stamped, not machined, pins. ), terminate copper wires
with standard machined gold pins -> resulting balanced couples between
"K" wire types and gold at pin/socket interface. (how important is
contact pressure to a repeatable "couple" connection?)
B) terminate "K" wires with standard gold pins, terminate copper with
mating pins -> resulting balanced couples between "K" wire types and
gold at a machined pin crimp connection (my favorite at my current level
of ignorance... but I don't know the mechanical stability of "K" type
wire in this type of crimp - at least the "K" type wire IS stranded
here, and I also don't know the voltage/temp relationship between "K"
wire types and gold)
C) terminate "K" wires with copper pig-tails via single crimp over both
wires (i.e. put both wires into one side of a butt splice and crimp)
terminate copper pigtails with machined gold pins, terminate switch
copper with mating gold pins. -> resulting matched couples are gas-tight
crimps between "K" wires and copper. (seemingly best for bi-metal
interface but worse for ensuring iso-thermal connections and logistics)
D) some other option I haven't thought of?
Anyone know the voltage/temp relationship between the two "K" wire types
and gold?
I except that each of the above is likely to work "good enough" but hey,
if I have to choose anyway, I might as well pick a method I can argue is
the best of the options.
Thanks in advance,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple switching... |
>
>Bob and the group,
>
>I've read and understood the book and list info on switching thermocouples
>(i.e. importance of iso-thermally balanced couples etc.) and haven't found
>the answer as to which is better between the following choices related to
>type "K" to copper transition connections going into/out-of the "switch
>box" (which is via a single "DB" style connector).
>
>A) terminate "K" wires with "K" type pins (Expensive, but I already have
>them. They are stamped, not machined, pins. ), terminate copper wires
>with standard machined gold pins -> resulting balanced couples between "K"
>wire types and gold at pin/socket interface. (how important is contact
>pressure to a repeatable "couple" connection?)
>B) terminate "K" wires with standard gold pins, terminate copper with
>mating pins -> resulting balanced couples between "K" wire types and gold
>at a machined pin crimp connection (my favorite at my current level of
>ignorance... but I don't know the mechanical stability of "K" type wire in
>this type of crimp - at least the "K" type wire IS stranded here, and I
>also don't know the voltage/temp relationship between "K" wire types and gold)
>C) terminate "K" wires with copper pig-tails via single crimp over both
>wires (i.e. put both wires into one side of a butt splice and crimp)
>terminate copper pigtails with machined gold pins, terminate switch copper
>with mating gold pins. -> resulting matched couples are gas-tight crimps
>between "K" wires and copper. (seemingly best for bi-metal interface but
>worse for ensuring iso-thermal connections and logistics)
>D) some other option I haven't thought of?
>
>Anyone know the voltage/temp relationship between the two "K" wire types
>and gold?
Doesn't matter if you faithfully observe the doctrine
of parasitic couple error mitigation by thermally local
pairing. For example, you can carry a thermocouple
through a d-sub connector with minimal error because the
parasitic thermocouples of wire-to-pin crimps in each
path cancel each other's effects. The pin-to-pin junctions
cancel because they are equal voltages (close thermal
proximity) and opposite polarity with respect to each
other. You can take your wires though an all copper switch
box as long as there are NO DIFFERENCES in the number,
style and temperatures amongst the parasitic joints
inserted in both sides of a thermocouple pair.
The finish and base material of the various couples
need to be minimized but for the way we use thermocouples
in airplanes, errors introduced by an array of
paired-opposing parasitic couples are negligible.
>I except that each of the above is likely to work "good enough" but hey,
>if I have to choose anyway, I might as well pick a method I can argue is
>the best of the options.
Do what you need to do to meet design goals for
function . . . disconnects, switches, etc and keep
the errors equal in magnitude and opposite in polarity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anything you walk away from is a GOOD landing |
. . .
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>Something to be said for torque-tube aileron controls.
>>If this airplane had been rigged with cables . . .
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv_w3IrRYq0
>
> They got you Bob - it is an RC model in a "faked" video... :-)
Which is why it's always good to have lots of eyes
looking at it. After the initial surprise and amazement,
a careful sifting of the simple-ideas can launch
a line of questions that ultimately expose underlying
simple-ideas.
I used to do forensic animations for a living. We
called the "Videmations - real time demonstrations
of facts in evidence." Obviously, one can animate
anything the imagination can conjure. When producing
an animation for the purpose of adding understanding,
it's important that everything shown has foundation
in physics and good data.
I crafted model motion systems to position vehicles
in accordance with data on frame-by-frame vehicle
positions provided to me by the analyst expert. The
analyst first testifies as to how the data was
generated. We would then offer a real-time illustration
of the expert's analysis. The video assists an expert
in guiding the viewers perceptions of his/her testimony
true-time.
The simple-ideas behind our efforts were subject to
discovery by all interested parties. Close inspection
of this video folks here on the List have demonstrated
the forensic weaknesses in its production. Good work
folks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Need 1,2 & 3 amp fuses |
>Bill
>
>
>I am not an EE, as a matter of fact I m a Civil Eng, but it seems to me
>that although fuses are designed to protect the wire, the current (which
>determines the fuse Amp) that runs through the wire depends on the device
>it serves.
>
>For example, when installing the GPSx96 in the panel the instructions call
>for a 1A fuse or CB, and the AOA Cpu from Proprietary (now AFS) calls for
>4A, and Flightcom 403 intercom call for AWG 20 or 22 wire and 1A breaker/fuse.
>
>
>Am I missing something?
It's a matter of perspective. Folks who sell you an
electro-whizzy would appreciate it if you did not
power their 100 milliampere device with a 14AWG
wire and 15A breaker. The flight safety guys wouldn't
care, their job is to see that faults on the feeder
don't unnecessarily increase risk to the airframe.
But if the electro-whizzy shorts a 15-cent capacitor
and burns a trace on a board, the repairs may be
costly if not impossible. As a practical matter, you
(as system integrator, owner and operator) can choose
to run 14AWG wire for very low voltage drop and protect
with a 1A fuse for ECB protection without insulting
the bureaucrat or warranty service manager's sensibilities.
In the final analysis, you're the one who does the
implementation and is required to shoulder consequences.
This is one feature of Greg Richter's one-size-fits-all
philosophy of populating the power distribution with
one value of protection and routing power all over the
airplane on one size of wire. While it relieves the
installer of having to make any decisions it
keeps the thoughtful builder from tailoring system
components to satisfy a variety of design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need 1,2 & 3 amp fuses |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not an EE, as a matter of fact I m a Civil Eng, but it seems to
>> me that although fuses are designed to protect the wire, the current
>> (which determines the fuse Amp) that runs through the wire depends on
>> the device it serves.
>>
>> For example, when installing the GPSx96 in the panel the instructions
>> call for a 1A fuse or CB, and the AOA Cpu from Proprietary (now AFS)
>> calls for 4A, and Flightcom 403 intercom call for AWG 20 or 22 wire
>> and 1A breaker/fuse.
>>
>>
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> It's a matter of perspective. Folks who sell you an
> electro-whizzy would appreciate it if you did not
> power their 100 milliampere device with a 14AWG
> wire and 15A breaker. The flight safety guys wouldn't
> care, their job is to see that faults on the feeder
> don't unnecessarily increase risk to the airframe.
>
> But if the electro-whizzy shorts a 15-cent capacitor
> and burns a trace on a board, the repairs may be
> costly if not impossible. As a practical matter, you
> (as system integrator, owner and operator) can choose
> to run 14AWG wire for very low voltage drop and protect
> with a 1A fuse for ECB protection without insulting
> the bureaucrat or warranty service manager's sensibilities.
> In the final analysis, you're the one who does the
> implementation and is required to shoulder consequences.
>
> This is one feature of Greg Richter's one-size-fits-all
> philosophy of populating the power distribution with
> one value of protection and routing power all over the
> airplane on one size of wire. While it relieves the
> installer of having to make any decisions it
> keeps the thoughtful builder from tailoring system
> components to satisfy a variety of design goals.
>
> Bob . . .
It seems worth mentioning that in the situations mentioned & others like
them, the manufacturer is saving himself the expense of building
protection into his device and shifting responsibility for protection to
the installer. Now, if something burns, he can blame *you* instead of
accepting responsibility for his design.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator capacity |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Hi all,
What should I consider when I calculate the capacity of an alternator? I've read
Bob's posts about never seeing a situation that couldn't be served by a 40A
unit. But if I just add the requirements of each item, I get closer to 60A.
Should I consider things like landing/taxi lights (I have 4 bulbs @ 6.5A each),
or count them as zero (since they will only be used for a few minutes before,
during, and after landing)? What else am I missing?
Thanks.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=213014#213014
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator capacity |
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>What should I consider when I calculate the capacity of an
>alternator? I've read Bob's posts about never seeing a situation that
>couldn't be served by a 40A unit. But if I just add the requirements of
>each item, I get closer to 60A. Should I consider things like
>landing/taxi lights (I have 4 bulbs @ 6.5A each), or count them as zero
>(since they will only be used for a few minutes before, during, and after
>landing)? What else am I missing?
If you used landing and taxi lights intermittently
and for short periods of time, they do not become
high-energy loads that beg for continuous support
by the alternator. Do you use all four lights on
at any one time?
On my website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/
you will find a number of exemplar spread
sheets where members have conducted their
own detailed load analysis. You can take
one of these and consider it for how changes
to match your airplane would give you a clearer
picture of your operational energy requirements.
There is also a blank form at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf
I use this format as the index page to my
wire-book products where the load analysis
becomes a list of all electrical sub-systems
in the airplane, indexes the page were wiring
for that sub-system can be found in the wire-book,
and discusses energy requirements for each
sub-system depending on how and when it is
used in the operation of the airplane. An
exemplar work-in-progress can be seen here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/N820JPWB.pdf
Depending on how and in what combinations you
operate appliances in your aircraft, you may well
find that a 40A alternator has the necessary
overhead to run all needed equipment while holding
10A or so in reserve for the purpose of recharging
a battery.
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: Need 1,2 & 3 amp fuses |
It seems worth mentioning that in the situations mentioned & others like
them, the manufacturer is saving himself the expense of building protection
into his device and shifting responsibility for protection to the
installer. Now, if something burns, he can blame *you* instead of accepting
responsibility for his design.
That's a pretty broad brush my friend. Where is it
written that the installer should not have to consider
design limitations for an appliance's integration
into the system? Is it not a good idea to put say
40A of protection on a 20A landing gear pump with
the notion that a stalled motor will pop the breaker
as opposed to burning wires in the motor? Should I
decide to hang hang the 20A motor on a feeder
protected at 100 amps, is it reasonable to demand
or expect the motor supplier to include optimized
protection inside the motor?
While it is not the duty of the system integrator
to discover and make adjustments for limitations
imposed by a product's design, it IS A DUTY
of designers to make those limitations known
before the customer buys the product.
Example. See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
I've called out 2A fuses that will open before
traces internal to my product will burn. The risks
for raising those to 5A are not great . . . but should
I get one back for repairs and have to deal with
a burned trace, am I ethically bound to "eat" those
costs of repair because my design does not incorporate
protection suited to 5A feeders (or Richter's 10A
feeders)?
That way, there are no surprises in what should be
an honorable free-market exchange of value. The
buyer has the option of deciding whether or not
he will go to the effort to supply a 2A fuse
before he buys my product. I've designed many
products where there were fusible components
within that prevented component failures
from escalating repair costs. In this case it
was attractive to use 2A protection OUTSIDE as
opposed to INSIDE the box. I'll suggest there is
no dishonor in expecting a customer to comply
with installation recommendations as long as I make
him aware of it before he hands me money and I
hand him hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Still "fighting" with Audio Ground |
One has to be very careful with Audio grounds, to avoid unwanted "noise",
and I'm still "fighting" with this.
I am finishing my Intercom wiring and I have what I think to be my last
question about this subject:
I have to connect 3 shielded wires (Radio Receive Audio, Radio Transmit
Audio and Nav Audio) from the SL-30 Comm/Nav Radio to the Intercom, and I
wonder if I should connect the shields to audio ground on both ends (Radio
and Intercom) or only one side (which one?)?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Still "fighting" with Audio Ground |
>One has to be very careful with Audio grounds, to avoid unwanted noise ,
>and I m still fighting with this.
>
>I am finishing my Intercom wiring and I have what I think to be my last
>question about this subject:
>
>
>I have to connect 3 shielded wires (Radio Receive Audio, Radio Transmit
>Audio and Nav Audio) from the SL-30 Comm/Nav Radio to the Intercom, and I
>wonder if I should connect the shields to audio ground on both ends (Radio
>and Intercom) or only one side (which one?)?
What do the installation instructions show?
See page 13 of . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf
Here I show a combination of shielded wires where
some instances use the shield for both noise
mitigation -AND- part of a signal pathway . . .
i.e. shields connected at both ends. In others
the are not used to serve any purpose other than
noise mitigation.
Make sure that your installation instructions
do not show specific connections to both ends.
If not, ground once to either end. It doesn't
matter which on a small installation like the
panel of an S.E. aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wire deals on ebay . . . |
This guy has a couple 1000 foot spools of 22AWG
wire for a good price.
http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/deagle1969
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: Need 1,2 & 3 amp fuses |
Carlos Trigo wrote:
> Bill
>
>
>
> I am not an EE, as a matter of fact I'm a Civil Eng, but it seems to me that
> although fuses are designed to protect the wire, the current (which
> determines the fuse Amp) that runs through the wire depends on the device it
> serves.
>
> For example, when installing the GPSx96 in the panel the instructions call
> for a 1A fuse or CB, and the AOA Cpu from Proprietary (now AFS) calls for
> 4A, and Flightcom 403 intercom call for AWG 20 or 22 wire and 1A
> breaker/fuse.
>
>
October 23, 2008 - November 09, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-if