AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ik

January 18, 2009 - February 06, 2009



Subject: Re: How to test new circuits using battery and protect
circuit? At 01:10 PM 1/17/2009, you wrote: > >I have wired my wing lights and my heated pitot tube. I will soon >be installing the wiring in the fuselage. >My question is how do I power up and test circuits and/or systems >from my battery and still have short protection? Is there a device >or alternate power supply that I can use and be able to select some >circuit breaker value to protect the wires? Every "laboratory grade" power supply has an adjustable current limit feature that can be used to power up a system and dial-in whatever current limit you want. Alternatively, make your first test of the system by clipping a 10A fuse across the open battery contactor with everything in the system turned OFF. If the fuse doesn't pop, your fat wires are fine. From that point on, you DO have short circuit protection in the form of breakers/fuses installed for that purpose. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: ELT location
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Thank you very much, James. That's exactly the kind of answer I needed!! In a further comment, I am also waiting for decent prices on 406MHz ELT's, but AmeriKing has recently released the AK-451, with <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackages.php> and without <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackages.php> GPS (It=92s funny how they=92re already in Aircraft Spruce catalogue but not in AmeriKing website?!). Unfortunately, the international (INT) version (I need it for Europe) with GPS seems not yet available, therefore I=92ll have to wait a little bit longer. However, together with 121.5, 243 and 406 MHz frequencies and GPS position transmission, this unit seems to have voice transmission as well, so it looks that, beyond all other location recommendations (structural attachment, directional position, less potential destructive place, etc.), one should install it in an easy reachable position inside the cabin. Carlos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson > Sent: s=E1bado, 17 de Janeiro de 2009 22:41 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT location > > > Carlos, > I have a "9" with the slider canopy. I mounted my "required" ELT > on the frame just behind the pass. seat. I use a Ameri king (the redish > colored one) and using the fame as the main mount, I ran the antenna back > through it and mounted it to the top of the cover that encloses the > rudder cable in the baggage compartment. This lets me remove the whole > unit easily if I need to in the future. Some day there will be a > reasonable 406 mz unit and I will put it in the tail cone behind the > baggage compartment. There are lots of problems with antenna placement. > First, there is a very good chance I will flip over. This places the > antenna under the airframe. The rudder will protect the antenna to a > point. That may break it off. I placed the antenna inside as my pix > shows. Not the best but it will work. The very low power of the > transmitter leaves much to be desired but its there. I have a PLB that I > carry in my survival vest. If I can get out or at least put the PLB out > side of the airframe, it has a built in gps so they can find me fairly > quickly. I hope that gives you some ideas. > > Jim Nelson > N15JN > RV9-A > ____________________________________________________________ > Free information - Learn about Wheel Chair options. Click now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1lvVIEGFiAbDHEmzQDSCNQg > CEqYbyo3hXmSwmEWNo3D5JLj/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: D-sub connections
At 03:58 PM 1/17/2009, you wrote: >Bob, >Is there a comic book that explains how to make a d-sub crimp. >How to use the tool, etc. >I have looked over your site, no joy. Never considered adding one. The use of the tool is pretty easy to dope out by inspection. If you have the right tool, there are no variables of process or technique. This is about as artless an activity as you can find in the field of fabrication skills for building an airplane. If you study the pins . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Socket.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_20AWG_Pin.jpg You can mate a couple of them as if they were inside housings. In all cases, the smallest diameter on a pin is gripped by springy contacts within the socket. The open ends of a mated pair always look the same, may have an identifying set if color bands and usually have an inspection hole. Strip a piece of wire and insert the stripped end into the wire grip end of a pin or socket. Note whether the wire bottoms out in the pin before the insulation hits. If the gap between pin an insulation is more than say 0.050" (tiny) then you've stripped off too much wire. If the insulation touches, you've not stripped off enough. Get that one piece of the "art" figured out first. I like to hold a stripped wire up, perch a pin on the end and lower the tool over it. When fully seated in the tool, squeeze. When you've finished, the job looks something like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg The punches in the tool should compress the barrel right about mid-ships. Some of the lower cost tools place the crimp too far back toward the wire-grip opening. It CAN be pretty close but never so close that you loose the bell-mouth opening. You should be able to see strands in the inspection hole . . . this assures you that the strands extend all the way through the wire grip and that internally, there's another bell-mouth opening from which the strands protrude. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: <psiegel(at)fuse.net>
Subject: Re: Speaking of GPS
The Garmin Edge 705 https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=10885 is a very cool GPS unit intended for bicycle riders. It not only navigates, but it also data logs your entire track covered, heart rate, and some other nifty parameters for the entire trip! All this data can be downloaded and then displayed on a Google satellite map, and by clicking on points along the track, it will list the recorded data for that point along the track! I was driving home in my car after a long bike ride and forgot to turn off the Garmin. When I got home I downloaded the data and it included all the data not only from the ride but also from the drive home! I wonder, if I ever got a bogus speeding ticket ("Officer, there is no way I was going THAT fast...") if I could use my downloaded time/speed/location as evidence? I can't wait for warm weather to see if I can data log a flight in my Evo! Paul Siegel ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: ELT location
James, I tried last night but my message came through empty. The way your ELT is mounted, the 'G' switch is oriented to starboard instead of down. I think it would take a pretty unusual crash to activate it. Mounted that way, it is unlikely to pass inspection, too. You might want to rethink it. Van's recommends and supplies kits for mounting behind the baggage bulkhead to some pretty solid structure. That meets the ELT manufacturer's specs and the FAA's as well. I know a guy who mounted his to the baggage floor and zip tied the remote switch right too it. His passed the DAR's scrutiny, OK. Pax, Ed Holyoke James H Nelson wrote: > Carlos, > I have a "9" with the slider canopy. I mounted my "required" ELT > on the frame just behind the pass. seat. I use a Ameri king (the redish > colored one) and using the fame as the main mount, I ran the antenna back > through it and mounted it to the top of the cover that encloses the > rudder cable in the baggage compartment. This lets me remove the whole > unit easily if I need to in the future. Some day there will be a > reasonable 406 mz unit and I will put it in the tail cone behind the > baggage compartment. There are lots of problems with antenna placement. > First, there is a very good chance I will flip over. This places the > antenna under the airframe. The rudder will protect the antenna to a > point. That may break it off. I placed the antenna inside as my pix > shows. Not the best but it will work. The very low power of the > transmitter leaves much to be desired but its there. I have a PLB that I > carry in my survival vest. If I can get out or at least put the PLB out > side of the airframe, it has a built in gps so they can find me fairly > quickly. I hope that gives you some ideas. > > Jim Nelson > N15JN > RV9-A > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: GT-50 G-meter installation
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Hi, I'm installing a GT-50 G-meter in my airplane, my question is does anyone have one of these devices and have you switched it's power supply, or do you leave it on all the time? The airplane is aerobatic has only an SD-8 topping up a 17ah PC680 battery. The installation instructions suggest that the GT-50 is connected to straight to the battery to keep the clock counting, it is suggested that as the current draw is so low it will never flatten the battery. Today I measured the current draw which is about 6 mA, so the clock will draw about an amp hour per week (if my multi-meter is accurate). So, assuming the battery is charged to 80% when I close the hangar door, the clock will flatten the battery in 3 months. But how long will it take before the battery does not have sufficient charge to start the engine (O-360 Lycoming)? I expect that most flights will be 20 or 30 minutes so may only just replace what is use for starting, if I haven't flown for several weeks will I find that the battery just can't cope with losing an ah a week plus starting the engine? I don't expect the current drain when flying to be high, EIS-4000, Becker radio and Garmin transponder and GPS Pilot III GPS will draw perhaps 2A, but if I forget to switch off the electric fuel pump there could be only 2 or 3A available for battery charging. So should I switch the power to the GT-50 and accept that I will have to re-set the clock? If anyone has any real world experience I would be interested to hear from you. Regards, Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: GT-50 G-meter installation
Why not just hard-wire the connector for a battery maintainer? Bob has tested several and the Schumacker brand at Walmart was as good as any. John Morgensen Peter Pengilly wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm installing a GT-50 G-meter in my airplane, my question is does > anyone have one of these devices and have you switched it's power > supply, or do you leave it on all the time? > > > > The airplane is aerobatic has only an SD-8 topping up a 17ah PC680 > battery. The installation instructions suggest that the GT-50 is > connected to straight to the battery to keep the clock counting, it is > suggested that as the current draw is so low it will never flatten the > battery. Today I measured the current draw which is about 6 mA, so the > clock will draw about an amp hour per week (if my multi-meter is > accurate). So, assuming the battery is charged to 80% when I close the > hangar door, the clock will flatten the battery in 3 months. But how > long will it take before the battery does not have sufficient charge > to start the engine (O-360 Lycoming)? > > > > I expect that most flights will be 20 or 30 minutes so may only just > replace what is use for starting, if I haven't flown for several weeks > will I find that the battery just can't cope with losing an ah a week > plus starting the engine? I don't expect the current drain when flying > to be high, EIS-4000, Becker radio and Garmin transponder and GPS > Pilot III GPS will draw perhaps 2A, but if I forget to switch off the > electric fuel pump there could be only 2 or 3A available for battery > charging. So should I switch the power to the GT-50 and accept that I > will have to re-set the clock? > > > > If anyone has any real world experience I would be interested to hear > from you. > > > > Regards, Peter > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Compass problem
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: eddyfernan(at)aol.com
Hey guys, I'm flying an RV9A slider. All of a sudden the center support bar on the roll bar?is causing the compass which is near it, to read erratically (I've tried two different compasses). Since the holes are drilled in the skin I'd like to keep the compass in it's original location and not move it. This is after 2 years of not having a problem. Can the center bar suddenly become magnetized? What should I do to fix it? __________________ Eddy Fernandez RV9A standard whiskey compass ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: GT-50 G-meter installation
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Hi John, I'm unlikely to have power in the hangar. Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Morgensen Sent: 18 January 2009 21:45 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GT-50 G-meter installation Why not just hard-wire the connector for a battery maintainer? Bob has tested several and the Schumacker brand at Walmart was as good as any. John Morgensen Peter Pengilly wrote: Hi, I'm installing a GT-50 G-meter in my airplane, my question is does anyone have one of these devices and have you switched it's power supply, or do you leave it on all the time? The airplane is aerobatic has only an SD-8 topping up a 17ah PC680 battery. The installation instructions suggest that the GT-50 is connected to straight to the battery to keep the clock counting, it is suggested that as the current draw is so low it will never flatten the battery. Today I measured the current draw which is about 6 mA, so the clock will draw about an amp hour per week (if my multi-meter is accurate). So, assuming the battery is charged to 80% when I close the hangar door, the clock will flatten the battery in 3 months. But how long will it take before the battery does not have sufficient charge to start the engine (O-360 Lycoming)? I expect that most flights will be 20 or 30 minutes so may only just replace what is use for starting, if I haven't flown for several weeks will I find that the battery just can't cope with losing an ah a week plus starting the engine? I don't expect the current drain when flying to be high, EIS-4000, Becker radio and Garmin transponder and GPS Pilot III GPS will draw perhaps 2A, but if I forget to switch off the electric fuel pump there could be only 2 or 3A available for battery charging. So should I switch the power to the GT-50 and accept that I will have to re-set the clock? If anyone has any real world experience I would be interested to hear from you. Regards, Peter href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www. matro nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontri bution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Speaking of GPS . . .]
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Feedline Radiation in Composite Airplane
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: fiveonepw(at)aol.com
I'm trying to help a builder kill the dragon in the subject line- Specifics: Garmin SL-30/40 with RG-400 to dipole on vertical stab spar immediately in front of rudder, terminated with ring connectors/screws/nuts. Coax terminated at radio using the supplied 90 deg. Garmin/Apollo fitting and runs with other wiring through center floor tunnel to rear of plane, passing within about 12" from pitch servo. Dipole is two aluminum bars, 1/2"x1/16"x20" long for each element (I know this is a bit short- packaging issues. Optimum would be about 44" overall length, I believe) On com transmission, several systems are affected- Ray Allen trim LEDs dim, indicated EGT/CHT temps rise (EIS), and most excitingly, the autopilot (TruTrak) will occasionally re-direct the aircraft if engaged, usually in a pitch-up of variable amounts depending on frequency transmitting on. Usually worse at lower com freqs. My own research (Wikipedia has a pretty good article on dipole antennas(ae?) with several balun examples at end of article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna ) indicates the coax is radiating lots of nasties off the shield, which I assume is making the mischief. Material from the Aeroelectric site ( http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html ) describes a balun for nav- is this same approach suitable for com? We've tried several ferrite ring arrangements, clamped around coax at various locations, rings near the antenna end etc. Most effective has been using a "ring", actually a small block that has two parallel holes through it- the center conductor at the antenna end is passed through one hole and back through the other in a tight "U" turn then connected to the element. I suspect this is helping simply by reducing the overall power output as it warms to the touch after a few transmissions by absorbing some of the RF energy in the conductor? A complicating factor may be that the rudder is attached by a contiuous stainless steel hinge pin that parallels the antenna full-length a bit over one inch away from it, but even with this pin removed, ground testing does not seem to indicate much of a change in the symptoms. Perhaps separating the upper and lower half of this pin and connecting the coax to them as the antenna elements might be a neat experiment? Also read http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Morris_Com_Loop_Antenna.pdf and curious if anyone can comment. This would fit into the tailcone nicely, but place the antenna loop within about 12-14" of the magnetometer and pitch servo. Any advice/insight/suggestions appreciated! Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Feedline Radiation in Composite Airplane
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
At least one of the elements should be close to 24" so if you can extend the length of the lower one - it does not matter whether its laid over by 90 degrees or zig zag along the length to make room. as you have found ferrites on the actual conductor will not work well. You may need 2 or 3 ferrites over the coax cable at the dipole end to decouple the cable from being a radiator. Your best friend here will be a reflectometer or someone who has one and knows how to use it. Otherwise known as SWR meter or directional wattmeter like Bird model 43 or a simpler example for the amateur radio 2 meter band. The rudder hinge may also be a problem if it is longer than 24' and too close to the antenna. i would not try to use it as a radiator unless you know that the composite resins will not burn up from the heat. I do assume the composite is f/glass, not carbon? Its also possible for the instruments and servos to be getting interference directly from a properly connected antenna, if it is situated too close - on some certified aircraft I've worked with that can be as much as 10' away. Once the antenna VSWR has been confirmed in limits across the frequency range (certified antennas often incorporate a 12.5 ohm resistor inline to achieve this) you can go chasing affected servos and instruments to add ferrites to these, as a last resort. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225563#225563 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Serial Data to Garmin GTX-327 Transponder
From: "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Matt, If your goal is to get the 327 to turn go in and out of standby automatically, you can do this by using a pressure switch on your pitot/static system and connect that to the squat switch input of the 327. Others have done this and report it works great. You must configure the 327 to use the squat switch.. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225579#225579 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: RScott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Panda antics..........]
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2009
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Speaking of GPS . . .]Thank you
Yahoo! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: Martin & Chris <aerobiz(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: GT-50 G-meter
Hi Peter, I have fitted the GT-50 to both my aircraft ( one still under construction) but I find it a very reasonably priced and accurate instrument with a number of usefull functions. I wired it as per the instructions, which means running the 'always on' wire direct to the battery. Never had a problem with the Odyssey PC680 starting the RV-6, but then again, I try and fly at least once a week. If you are worried about battery drain, leave it disconnected till you need it or put a switch in-line. Just means that the clock function will be only accurate twice a day..... Martin in Oz ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Feedline Radiation in Composite Airplane
From: "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Had a similar problem with our Europa. Made a balun similar to the AeroElectric you mentioned. Also tuned the antenna using a Antenna Analyzer. Contact a local ham radio club to see if anyone has an Analyzer. The balun that Bob describes, I found most references say that the the balun stub needs to be an electrical quarter wave, so you have to shorten by the velocity factor of the coax. Balun will probably help a lot. I never could get ferrite beads to do much. I also shielded some items with aluminum foil that is grounded to the aircraft ground point and used shielded cable for wiring. Jim Butcher Europa XS N241BW Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225637#225637 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Static wicks
Date: Jan 19, 2009
I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static wicks=2C but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their actual function i s? I was always taught "they dissipate static electricity". Is static reall y that big of an issue=2C and if so=2C do wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal airplane=2C and so far have not given any though t to control surface bonding=2C or static wicks. Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: Static wicks
They can work to dissipate static if they are attached to a conducting surface. That way, they can bypass whatever is creating the static and insulating the object from a normal ground (like the plastic or rubber tires on a fork lift). But on many homebuilts, the plane is made of non conducting materials (wood and fabric or fiberglass and/or epoxy), and a static wick will only discharge the point that it is attached. A couple of inches away from that point, the charge remains as strong as ever. I had many a discussion with fork lift drivers at Pennwalt when they would attach a static wick to the plastic part of the frame on the truck (it was easier to drill a hole into), and then complain that they still got zapped when they stepped off the truck. For those that really thought they needed it, we would attach the wicks to the metal frame under the truck. But, that often didn't help either, because the wick was often dragging on a non conducting surface (epoxy sealed floors). Also, the line operators used vacuum cleaners to pick up the spilled foot powder...even though they used a so-called static proof hose (it had a grounded wire spiraling along the length of it) they would still get zapped when they put the hose down. The charge was decreased, because of the presence of the wire, but still built up on the hose between the wire coil wraps. In short, you need a continuous conductive path to discharge a static charge. From every area where the charge can build. Harley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesse Jenks wrote: > I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static > wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their > actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static > electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do > wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal airplane, > and so far have not given any thought to control surface bonding, or > static wicks. > Thanks. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Windows Live^(TM): Keep your life in sync. Check it out. > <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009> > > * > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Agelesswings certifies that no virus is in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: Wig Wag system
Date: Jan 19, 2009
These sound very interesting, but what is it suppoed to do???!! :-) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is believed to be clean. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: Bridge Rectifier Terminal Identification
Date: Jan 19, 2009
How do you figure out which terminals are which on one of these potted bridge rectifiers? There are 3 tabs oriented the same way and one at 90 deg to the others. my multimeter doesn't help either; I get 500 ohm between the 'ood' tab and two of the others when positively biased and infinite when negatively biased.. Help? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is believed to be clean. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Subject: Re: Static wicks
Good Morning Jesse, I have almost no experience in homebuilt aircraft, but I do have several thousand hours in aircraft that were equipped with static wicks and several thousand hours in aircraft with no static wicks applied. My suggestion would be to thoroughly bond all control surfaces, flaps included, but not bother with static wicks unless you note a problem. The static problem was greater in the days of low frequency radio. It was not at all uncommon to lose all communication capability when we were using the HF transmitters and receiving on low frequency. I have encountered precipitation static strong enough to knock out VHF communications for just a very few minutes, but that has never lasted more than four or five minutes. I have also experienced static discharges, but that has always been on aircraft that were equipped with static wicks. There is no doubt that I have flown in much heavier precipitation in static wick equipped airplanes than I have in airplanes that are not so equipped, but I have flown both in some rather severe situations. Wait and see if you have a problem. If you lose VHF navigation capability in a heavy thunderstorm, you may want to add static wicks or you may just decide to stay out of such conditions! In any case, I have never seen a GPS signal affected by any static build up. The only time I would suggest using static wicks is if your only means of navigation is a LORAN. Even then, you don't need it if you stay out of precipitation. Summary? Bonding YES, Static Wicks? NO 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 1/19/2009 8:52:32 A.M. Central Standard Time, jessejenks(at)hotmail.com writes: I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface bonding, or static wicks. Thanks. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Bridge Rectifier Terminal Identification
At 10:47 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >How do you figure out which terminals are which >on one of these potted bridge rectifiers? There >are 3 tabs oriented the same way and one at 90 >deg to the others=85 my multimeter doesn=92t help >either; I get 500 ohm between the =91ood=92 tab and >two of the others when positively biased and infinite when negatively biased.. > >Help? See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Subject: Re: Bridge Rectifier Terminal Identification
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
B&C shows this: http://www.bandc.biz/Diode_Installation.pdf On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 10:47 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: > > How do you figure out which terminals are which on one of these potted > bridge rectifiers? There are 3 tabs oriented the same way and one at 90 deg > to the others=85 my multimeter doesn't help either; I get 500 ohm betwee n the > 'ood' tab and two of the others when positively biased and infinite when > negatively biased.. > > Help? > > > See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig Wag system
From: "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
These flash the landing lights so that you can been more easily while in the air. This is built into the Vertical Power system, or you can buy and wire a separate "black box" to do this. More advanced ones (like Vertical Power) will warm up the lights for a short period of time before flashing, and/or turn off the pulsing automatically on the ground and turn it on automatically in the air. -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225705#225705 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Feedline Radiation in Composite Airplane
At 05:48 PM 1/18/2009, you wrote: > >I'm trying to help a builder kill the dragon in the subject line- > >Specifics: Garmin SL-30/40 with RG-400 to dipole on vertical stab >spar immediately in front of rudder, terminated with ring >connectors/screws/nuts. Coax terminated at radio using the supplied >90 deg. Garmin/Apollo fitting and runs with other wiring through >center floor tunnel to rear of plane, passing within about 12" from >pitch servo. Dipole is two aluminum bars, 1/2"x1/16"x20" long for >each element (I know this is a bit short- packaging issues. Optimum >would be about 44" overall length, I believe) > >On com transmission, several systems are affected- Ray Allen trim >LEDs dim, indicated EGT/CHT temps rise (EIS), and most excitingly, >the autopilot (TruTrak) will occasionally re-direct the aircraft if >engaged, usually in a pitch-up of variable amounts depending on >frequency transmitting on. Usually worse at lower com freqs. > >My own research (Wikipedia has a pretty good article on dipole >antennas(ae?) with several balun examples at end of article: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna ) indicates the coax is >radiating lots of nasties off the shield, which I assume is making >the mischief. > >Material from the Aeroelectric site ( >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html ) >describes a balun for nav- is this same approach suitable for com? > >We've tried several ferrite ring arrangements, clamped around coax >at various locations, rings near the antenna end etc. Most >effective has been using a "ring", actually a small block that has >two parallel holes through it- the center conductor at the antenna >end is passed through one hole and back through the other in a tight >"U" turn then connected to the element. I suspect this is helping >simply by reducing the overall power output as it warms to the touch >after a few transmissions by absorbing some of the RF energy in the conductor? > >A complicating factor may be that the rudder is attached by a >contiuous stainless steel hinge pin that parallels the antenna >full-length a bit over one inch away from it, but even with this pin >removed, ground testing does not seem to indicate much of a change >in the symptoms. >Perhaps separating the upper and lower half of this pin and >connecting the coax to them as the antenna elements might be a neat experiment? > >Also read >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Morris_Com_Loop_Antenna.pdf and >curious if anyone can comment. This would fit into the tailcone >nicely, but place the antenna loop within about 12-14" of the >magnetometer and pitch servo. > >Any advice/insight/suggestions appreciated! It's not likely that you're suffering from the effects of feedline radiation. Most avionics devices for the TC aircraft side of the house have deep roots in designs optimized for metal aircraft. A conductive airframe offers considerable isolation between potential victims inside the airplane from energies emitted by antennas outside the airplane. With the advent of composite aircraft, our brothers have found it prudent to qualify their products at much higher levels of radiated susceptibility. Virtually every instance in my experience for mitigating a radiated susceptibility symptom involved combinations of reduced radiation (move victim/antenna further apart) or improving on the victim's ability to stand off the more aggressive antagonist. Ferrite beads over a coax are almost useless for de-coupling the shield radiation of a poorly terminated coax. I witnessed a demonstration in the lab wherein a technician first terminated a 50 ohm coax with a 200 ohm load (4:1 swr). You could watch the swept frequency SWR display and witness a small change in presentation when you grabbed the coax with your hand. This happens only if there are components of the feedline energy flowing on the outside of the coax. He added a half dozen donuts to the feedline right at the end. There was no discernable benefit for having added the beads. He then put all beads he had on the coax . . . something over 20 pieces. You you see SOME benefit but it was still not zero. But in any case, the ratio of energy radiated from a poorly matched coax versus radiated from the physical antenna is huge. It's most likely that you're suffering from the effects of sitting inside sphere of strong radio frequence energy. Adding a balun would not hurt anything. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Antenna/BALUN_Analysis.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html Note that this balun does NOT use energy carried inside the coax as part of the reactie network. Thus you'll note that dimensions for the 1/4 wave balun element and the antenna element are the same length (open-air 1/4-wave). Shorten the 26" dimensions to 23" for the comm antenna. Then adjust ends of antenna elements for lowest swr in center of range of interest (125 mhz). Now, assuming this does not produce the hoped-for result, you'll need to look at individual victims for ways they can be made more tolerant of the environment in which they're expected to perform. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Wig Wag system
I wig wag them on the ground to try and get the attention of all the idiot drivers running around on the taxiways not looking out for airplanes. I definitely don't want to turn 'em off automatically on the ground. Pax, Ed Holyoke marcausman wrote: > > These flash the landing lights so that you can been more easily while in the air. This is built into the Vertical Power system, or you can buy and wire a separate "black box" to do this. > > More advanced ones (like Vertical Power) will warm up the lights for a short period of time before flashing, and/or turn off the pulsing automatically on the ground and turn it on automatically in the air. > > -------- > Marc Ausman > http://www.verticalpower.com > RV-7 IO-390 Flying > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225705#225705 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig Wag system
From: "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Pat, You can always turn off the feature so it will wig-wag all the time if that's what you want. :) Nice thing is it is configurable using menus (to match each builder's needs) rather than hard wired. -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225820#225820 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Subject: Thoughts on the least evil antenna placements
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Wondering if I could get opinions on the least evil antenna placements on my Europa XS Monowheel. Have a Bob Archer "E" style com #1antenna in vertical fin for Becker com. The question I have is about placement of my Vertex handheld (panel mounted)nav com antenna. It is an AAE that will be bent in half at 90 degrees so it should work equal as bad on nav as it does on com (AAE said it should work about 70% of proper orientation for each) I have a 121.5 / 246 ELT antenna mounted on floor aft of D panel in baggage bay and will have AAE transponder antenna mounted at least 20" away (aft) of AAE nav com antenna for Becker 250 watt mode C transponder. Now for opinion needed, A or B: A) Mount AAE nav com on starboard side which place it 22" away from ELT antenna (same frequency) but allow the RG400 antenna wire to go forward at 90 degrees for 22", then down at a 45 degree angle for 1 foot, then a 45 degree andforward for a long ways. Thus this routing puts antenna closer to ELT but has a friendlier wire exit. B) Place AAE nav com antenna 28" away from ELT which is 6" further away from ELT compared to A, but exiting wire run is not as friendly: The RG 400 antenna wire can exit at 90 degrees for 22", thengo down at a 45 degree angle for 1 foot, then needs to make a 90 degree angle horizontal for 29" (this will be parallel to the nav half of the antenna about 32" away), than make a 90 degree angle and go forward for a long ways. OK what is the least evil, A or B? Or any ideas welcome on a choice "C" Thanking you in advance Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steitle, Mark R" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Subject: Re: GPS Serial Data to Garmin GTX-327 Transponder
To get this to work on a GTX-327, does the switch need to be NO or NC? Wha t pressure range would work best? Do you have a suggested source and p/n? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Serial Data to Garmin GTX-327 Transponder
From: "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Check out this thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=268921&postcount=25 and this one http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=271630&postcount=26 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225923#225923 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 01/19/09
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Thanks guys. You both seem to be saying that bonding is important=2C and st atic wicks not so much. Just wondering why bonding? Jesse > From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks > > They can work to dissipate static if they are attached to a conducting > surface. That way=2C they can bypass whatever is creating the static and > insulating the object from a normal ground (like the plastic or rubber > tires on a fork lift). > > But on many homebuilts=2C the plane is made of non conducting materials > (wood and fabric or fiberglass and/or epoxy)=2C and a static wick will > only discharge the point that it is attached. A couple of inches away > from that point=2C the charge remains as strong as ever. > > I had many a discussion with fork lift drivers at Pennwalt when they > would attach a static wick to the plastic part of the frame on the truck > (it was easier to drill a hole into)=2C and then complain that they still > got zapped when they stepped off the truck. For those that really > thought they needed it=2C we would attach the wicks to the metal frame > under the truck. But=2C that often didn't help either=2C because the wick > was often dragging on a non conducting surface (epoxy sealed floors). > Also=2C the line operators used vacuum cleaners to pick up the spilled > foot powder...even though they used a so-called static proof hose (it > had a grounded wire spiraling along the length of it) they would still > get zapped when they put the hose down. The charge was decreased=2C > because of the presence of the wire=2C but still built up on the hose > between the wire coil wraps. > > In short=2C you need a continuous conductive path to discharge a static > charge. From every area where the charge can build. > > Harley > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Jesse Jenks wrote: > > I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static > > wicks=2C but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their > > actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static > > electricity". Is static really that big of an issue=2C and if so=2C do > > wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal airplane=2C > > and so far have not given any thought to control surface bonding=2C or > > static wicks. > > Thanks. > From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks > > Good Morning Jesse=2C > > I have almost no experience in homebuilt aircraft=2C but I do have severa l > thousand hours in aircraft that were equipped with static wicks and sever al > thousand hours in aircraft with no static wicks applied. > > My suggestion would be to thoroughly bond all control surfaces=2C flaps > included=2C but not bother with static wicks unless you note a problem. > > The static problem was greater in the days of low frequency radio. It was > not at all uncommon to lose all communication capability when we were usi ng the > > HF transmitters and receiving on low frequency. I have encountered > precipitation static strong enough to knock out VHF communications for j ust a > very few > minutes=2C but that has never lasted more than four or five minutes. > > I have also experienced static discharges=2C but that has always been on > aircraft that were equipped with static wicks. There is no doubt that I h ave flown > > in much heavier precipitation in static wick equipped airplanes than I h ave > in airplanes that are not so equipped=2C but I have flown both in some ra ther > severe situations. > > Wait and see if you have a problem. > > If you lose VHF navigation capability in a heavy thunderstorm=2C you may want > to add static wicks or you may just decide to stay out of such conditions ! > > In any case=2C I have never seen a GPS signal affected by any static buil d up. > > The only time I would suggest using static wicks is if your only means of > navigation is a LORAN. Even then=2C you don't need it if you stay out of > precipitation. > > Summary? Bonding YES=2C Static Wicks? NO > > Happy Skies > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > 628 West 86th Street > Downers Grove=2C IL 60516 > 630 985-8502 > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > > > In a message dated 1/19/2009 8:52:32 A.M. Central Standard Time=2C > jessejenks(at)hotmail.com writes: > > I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static wicks =2C but > not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their actual function is ? I > was always taught "they dissipate static electricity". Is static really that > big of an issue=2C and if so=2C do wicks actually make a difference? I'm building > > an all metal airplane=2C and so far have not given any thought to contro l > surface bonding=2C or static wicks. > Thanks. > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live=99: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 01/19/09
Good Afternoon Jesse, Bonding is easy, cheap, and light weight. It will probably do some good. In any precipitation at all, different potentials will be built up on isolated components. If all of those isolated components are joined by grounding or bonding straps, any precipitation static that is produced will be minimized and most of it will be shed off the sharp edges of the tail feathers or the ailerons. If you add the static wicks, they will shed the static even better, but the static wicks are heavy, expensive and the most effective ones are so dangerous to personnel that they are generally removed when the airplane is not flying. I don't know if bonding mitigates ten percent of the static or ninety percent of the static, but it is extremely cost effective. 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 1/21/2009 12:32:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, jessejenks(at)hotmail.com writes: Thanks guys. You both seem to be saying that bonding is important, and static wicks not so much. Just wondering why bonding? Jesse **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig Wag system
From: "Sully" <mr.sully(at)tx.rr.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Marc, Will the VP-200 wig wag HID lights? -------- Sully RV-7 In-work Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226113#226113 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig Wag system
From: "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Yes, HID lights need a warm-up period then you can begin wig-wag. The warm up and transition to wig-wag is all automatic. This feature is coming in the next software release, about mid-year 2009. Current customers or customer who purchase prior to the software upgrade can upgrade for free. -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226125#226125 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Static wicks
At 08:48 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static >wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their >actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static >electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do >wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal >airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface >bonding, or static wicks. >Thanks. When two dissimilar materials slide past each other rapidly, there is a tendency for electrons to be transferred from one material to the other . . . usually from the lesser conductor to the greater conductor. Shuffle your feet on the carpet and you can get a pretty good zap touching a doorknob. Slide out of your car on a cold dry day and it's not uncommon to find your body charged with a noteworthy packet of energy that wakes up your nervous system where the sparks jump from your bod. Airplanes flying in snow, ice particles or even rain can accumulate a surface charge of excess electrons. The faster airspeeds and higher particle density makes the build up stronger. If the quantity of excess charge is great enough AND there's some handy point or edges where the charges tend to collect, you can SEE the effects in the form of a luminous hazy discharge along the edge or at the point. On some models of King Airs we used to get reports of luminous glow around the window frames of glass fitted with internal de-icing heaters. While the airplane is shedding excess charge from trailing edges, antennas, window frames, propeller tips, etc the phenomenon creates a broadband radio noise that HAS been strong enough to disable ADF, LORAN, Omega nav, HF communications and in severe cases, gets the VHF comm and nav receivers too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire http://science.howstuffworks.com/st-elmo-fire1.htm The big problem we were having with discharges around the window frames is that it was etching the glass and in some cases, killing the de-ice heat sensors. VERY expensive. The radio noise comes from the disordered, high density discharge of an un-treated structure. The cure is to provide devices that have a propensity for dropping electrons off into the slip stream. These can be "wicks" . . . a thing that looks like a fine brush of copper cat-hairs . . . http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/staticdischrgr.php Or an array of tiny points like these: http://www.b737.org.uk/wingtips.htm http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nullfieldtip.php This effect is not limited to airplanes. It can be a significant noise problem on stationary radio installations when there is blowing snow, dust, rain or significant convective activity as far away as 20 miles. If you have a sensitive enough ammeter, you can probe and actually measure this current as cited in this article. http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/staticbusterarticlecomplete.pdf A number of years ago, Beech did some extensive testing on the discharge characteristics of various brands and styles of wicks in the lab. There was a huge difference in performance of products then offered. I think folks making these things now are much better at it. Doing a GOOD discharger is not a trivial task although many folks have attempted it. Check out some of the techniques suggested here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Static_Dissipation/ There have been a number of articles and postings to various forums about how to build your own. I've never seen an article that actually tested the handy work on the bench. Given what I witnessed at Beech many moons ago, I'm convinced that performance of DIY static wicks is a dart throw without quantified bench marks. The same process used to test wicks is use to test the airplanes probable discharge locations. The airplane is set up on plastic blocks. A long wand with a spherical end on it and a pico-ammeter in series is raised up to about 100,000 volts dc. You can run the wand along the trailing edges of possible concentration points and see the ammeter go up when the wand is closest to a location that would benefit from an effective discharge wick. Wicks are useful only on metal airplanes and then finding the optimum wick and placement is difficult. The occurrence of p-static is pretty rare for us guys who don't fly for a living. It won't hurt to have a half dozen wicks on your airplane but it may not be all that helpful. Wicks have nothing to do with lightning protection. Bonding the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning strike attaches to the control surface. Here's an short article I did on static-wicks for an EAA chapter newsletter some years back. http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-3-2005.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2009
From: Dale Ellis <rv8builder(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Static wicks
I flew DeHavilland Dash-8's for nearly 20 years and despite lots and lots of static dissipation & airframe bonding efforts through out (to include lots of static wicks) you could still see St. Elmo's Fire from the prop tips. It took moderate to heavy precipitation for the St. Elmo's Fire to be visible. And then only visible at night. It was neat to see from front end. The passengers seldom saw it because the cabin lights were too bright!! -----Original Message----- >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >Sent: Jan 22, 2009 12:53 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks > > >At 08:48 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >>I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static >>wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their >>actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static >>electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do >>wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal >>airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface >>bonding, or static wicks. >>Thanks. > > When two dissimilar materials slide past each other > rapidly, there is a tendency for electrons to be transferred > from one material to the other . . . usually from > the lesser conductor to the greater conductor. > > Shuffle your feet on the carpet and you can get a > pretty good zap touching a doorknob. Slide out of > your car on a cold dry day and it's not uncommon to > find your body charged with a noteworthy packet of > energy that wakes up your nervous system where the > sparks jump from your bod. > > Airplanes flying in snow, ice particles or even rain > can accumulate a surface charge of excess electrons. > The faster airspeeds and higher particle density > makes the build up stronger. > > If the quantity of excess charge is great enough > AND there's some handy point or edges where the > charges tend to collect, you can SEE the effects > in the form of a luminous hazy discharge along > the edge or at the point. > > On some models of King Airs we used to get reports > of luminous glow around the window frames of glass > fitted with internal de-icing heaters. While the > airplane is shedding excess charge from trailing > edges, antennas, window frames, propeller tips, etc > the phenomenon creates a broadband radio noise that > HAS been strong enough to disable ADF, LORAN, Omega > nav, HF communications and in severe cases, gets the > VHF comm and nav receivers too. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire > >http://science.howstuffworks.com/st-elmo-fire1.htm > > The big problem we were having with discharges > around the window frames is that it was etching > the glass and in some cases, killing the de-ice > heat sensors. VERY expensive. > > The radio noise comes from the disordered, high density > discharge of an un-treated structure. The cure is > to provide devices that have a propensity for dropping > electrons off into the slip stream. These can be > "wicks" . . . a thing that looks like a fine brush > of copper cat-hairs . . . > >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/staticdischrgr.php > > Or an array of tiny points like these: > >http://www.b737.org.uk/wingtips.htm > >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nullfieldtip.php > > This effect is not limited to airplanes. It can > be a significant noise problem on stationary radio > installations when there is blowing snow, dust, rain > or significant convective activity as far away as > 20 miles. > > If you have a sensitive enough ammeter, you can probe > and actually measure this current as cited in > this article. > >http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/staticbusterarticlecomplete.pdf > > A number of years ago, Beech did some extensive > testing on the discharge characteristics of various brands > and styles of wicks in the lab. There was a huge difference > in performance of products then offered. I think folks making > these things now are much better at it. > > Doing a GOOD discharger is not a trivial task although > many folks have attempted it. Check out some of the > techniques suggested here: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Static_Dissipation/ > > There have been a number of articles and postings to > various forums about how to build your own. I've never > seen an article that actually tested the handy work > on the bench. Given what I witnessed at Beech many moons > ago, I'm convinced that performance of DIY static > wicks is a dart throw without quantified bench marks. > > The same process used to test wicks is use to test the > airplanes probable discharge locations. The airplane is > set up on plastic blocks. A long wand with a spherical > end on it and a pico-ammeter in series is raised up to > about 100,000 volts dc. You can run the wand along the > trailing edges of possible concentration points and > see the ammeter go up when the wand is closest to > a location that would benefit from an effective > discharge wick. > > Wicks are useful only on metal airplanes and then > finding the optimum wick and placement is difficult. > The occurrence of p-static is pretty rare for us > guys who don't fly for a living. > > It won't hurt to have a half dozen wicks on your airplane > but it may not be all that helpful. Wicks have > nothing to do with lightning protection. Bonding > the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with > mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is > to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning > strike attaches to the control surface. > > Here's an short article I did on static-wicks for > an EAA chapter newsletter some years back. > >http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-3-2005.pdf > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Static wicks
Date: Jan 22, 2009
On Airbus jets with all the static wicks they have we still suffer from reduced VHF radio performance in hi P-static environments. On the Lancair airplanes many builders have installed wicks with limited to no improvement to radio performance during high P-static events. Many over time have then removed the wicks. Mike On Jan 22, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Dale Ellis wrote: > > > > I flew DeHavilland Dash-8's for nearly 20 years and despite lots and > lots of static dissipation & airframe bonding efforts through out > (to include lots of static wicks) you could still see St. Elmo's > Fire from the prop tips. It took moderate to heavy precipitation > for the St. Elmo's Fire to be visible. And then only visible at > night. It was neat to see from front end. The passengers seldom > saw it because the cabin lights were too bright!! > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >> Sent: Jan 22, 2009 12:53 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks >> >> > >> >> At 08:48 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >>> I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static >>> wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their >>> actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static >>> electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do >>> wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal >>> airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface >>> bonding, or static wicks. >>> Thanks. >> >> When two dissimilar materials slide past each other >> rapidly, there is a tendency for electrons to be transferred >> from one material to the other . . . usually from >> the lesser conductor to the greater conductor. >> >> Shuffle your feet on the carpet and you can get a >> pretty good zap touching a doorknob. Slide out of >> your car on a cold dry day and it's not uncommon to >> find your body charged with a noteworthy packet of >> energy that wakes up your nervous system where the >> sparks jump from your bod. >> >> Airplanes flying in snow, ice particles or even rain >> can accumulate a surface charge of excess electrons. >> The faster airspeeds and higher particle density >> makes the build up stronger. >> >> If the quantity of excess charge is great enough >> AND there's some handy point or edges where the >> charges tend to collect, you can SEE the effects >> in the form of a luminous hazy discharge along >> the edge or at the point. >> >> On some models of King Airs we used to get reports >> of luminous glow around the window frames of glass >> fitted with internal de-icing heaters. While the >> airplane is shedding excess charge from trailing >> edges, antennas, window frames, propeller tips, etc >> the phenomenon creates a broadband radio noise that >> HAS been strong enough to disable ADF, LORAN, Omega >> nav, HF communications and in severe cases, gets the >> VHF comm and nav receivers too. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire >> >> http://science.howstuffworks.com/st-elmo-fire1.htm >> >> The big problem we were having with discharges >> around the window frames is that it was etching >> the glass and in some cases, killing the de-ice >> heat sensors. VERY expensive. >> >> The radio noise comes from the disordered, high density >> discharge of an un-treated structure. The cure is >> to provide devices that have a propensity for dropping >> electrons off into the slip stream. These can be >> "wicks" . . . a thing that looks like a fine brush >> of copper cat-hairs . . . >> >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/staticdischrgr.php >> >> Or an array of tiny points like these: >> >> http://www.b737.org.uk/wingtips.htm >> >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nullfieldtip.php >> >> This effect is not limited to airplanes. It can >> be a significant noise problem on stationary radio >> installations when there is blowing snow, dust, rain >> or significant convective activity as far away as >> 20 miles. >> >> If you have a sensitive enough ammeter, you can probe >> and actually measure this current as cited in >> this article. >> >> http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/staticbusterarticlecomplete.pdf >> >> A number of years ago, Beech did some extensive >> testing on the discharge characteristics of various brands >> and styles of wicks in the lab. There was a huge difference >> in performance of products then offered. I think folks making >> these things now are much better at it. >> >> Doing a GOOD discharger is not a trivial task although >> many folks have attempted it. Check out some of the >> techniques suggested here: >> >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/ >> Static_Dissipation/ >> >> There have been a number of articles and postings to >> various forums about how to build your own. I've never >> seen an article that actually tested the handy work >> on the bench. Given what I witnessed at Beech many moons >> ago, I'm convinced that performance of DIY static >> wicks is a dart throw without quantified bench marks. >> >> The same process used to test wicks is use to test the >> airplanes probable discharge locations. The airplane is >> set up on plastic blocks. A long wand with a spherical >> end on it and a pico-ammeter in series is raised up to >> about 100,000 volts dc. You can run the wand along the >> trailing edges of possible concentration points and >> see the ammeter go up when the wand is closest to >> a location that would benefit from an effective >> discharge wick. >> >> Wicks are useful only on metal airplanes and then >> finding the optimum wick and placement is difficult. >> The occurrence of p-static is pretty rare for us >> guys who don't fly for a living. >> >> It won't hurt to have a half dozen wicks on your airplane >> but it may not be all that helpful. Wicks have >> nothing to do with lightning protection. Bonding >> the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with >> mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is >> to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning >> strike attaches to the control surface. >> >> Here's an short article I did on static-wicks for >> an EAA chapter newsletter some years back. >> >> http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-3-2005.pdf >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 01/21/09
Date: Jan 22, 2009
Bob=2C Thanks for the detailed reply. I guess I should have searched your website before asking that question. It's funny=2C I've been flying for a living for about 15 years and never knew the real reason for bonding. I only knew that if I missed a broken bonding strap on a preflight I would get busted by the man. I could never understand why things like landing gear doors are bonded. Makes sense now. Thanks. "Bonding the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning strike attaches to the control surface." _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail=AE goes where you go. On a PC=2C on the Web=2C on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid =TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2009
Subject: Re: Static wicks
From: Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
On a plastic airplane, if the composite parts are made with a specialized copper or aluminum mesh in the first layer of the mold, the parts of the airplane can be bonded together and static wicks added to give the same p-static bleed as an aluminum airplane (this the major part - without the wicks - of a program to provide lightning protection in composite aircraft). However there are weather conditions that will overwhelm the system even in an aluminum airplane, I had my HSI spinning and a loss of VHF reception (while retaining VHF transmission ability) over Lake Michigan at night in a Cessna 210 due to p-static apparently caused by almost invisible ice crystals in the air. I was IFR at the time and inadvertently stepping on center trying to restablish communcation much to their annoyance. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:44 AM, MICHAEL LARKIN wrote: > > > On Airbus jets with all the static wicks they have we still suffer from > reduced VHF radio performance in hi P-static environments. On the Lancair > airplanes many builders have installed wicks with limited to no improvement > to radio performance during high P-static events. Many over time have then > removed the wicks. > > Mike > > > On Jan 22, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Dale Ellis wrote: > >> rv8builder(at)earthlink.net> >> >> I flew DeHavilland Dash-8's for nearly 20 years and despite lots and lots >> of static dissipation & airframe bonding efforts through out (to include >> lots of static wicks) you could still see St. Elmo's Fire from the prop >> tips. It took moderate to heavy precipitation for the St. Elmo's Fire to be >> visible. And then only visible at night. It was neat to see from front >> end. The passengers seldom saw it because the cabin lights were too >> bright!! >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >>> Sent: Jan 22, 2009 12:53 AM >>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks >>> >>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >>> >>> At 08:48 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >>> >>>> I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static >>>> wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their >>>> actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static >>>> electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do >>>> wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal >>>> airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface >>>> bonding, or static wicks. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >>> When two dissimilar materials slide past each other >>> rapidly, there is a tendency for electrons to be transferred >>> from one material to the other . . . usually from >>> the lesser conductor to the greater conductor. >>> >>> Shuffle your feet on the carpet and you can get a >>> pretty good zap touching a doorknob. Slide out of >>> your car on a cold dry day and it's not uncommon to >>> find your body charged with a noteworthy packet of >>> energy that wakes up your nervous system where the >>> sparks jump from your bod. >>> >>> Airplanes flying in snow, ice particles or even rain >>> can accumulate a surface charge of excess electrons. >>> The faster airspeeds and higher particle density >>> makes the build up stronger. >>> >>> If the quantity of excess charge is great enough >>> AND there's some handy point or edges where the >>> charges tend to collect, you can SEE the effects >>> in the form of a luminous hazy discharge along >>> the edge or at the point. >>> >>> On some models of King Airs we used to get reports >>> of luminous glow around the window frames of glass >>> fitted with internal de-icing heaters. While the >>> airplane is shedding excess charge from trailing >>> edges, antennas, window frames, propeller tips, etc >>> the phenomenon creates a broadband radio noise that >>> HAS been strong enough to disable ADF, LORAN, Omega >>> nav, HF communications and in severe cases, gets the >>> VHF comm and nav receivers too. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire >>> >>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/st-elmo-fire1.htm >>> >>> The big problem we were having with discharges >>> around the window frames is that it was etching >>> the glass and in some cases, killing the de-ice >>> heat sensors. VERY expensive. >>> >>> The radio noise comes from the disordered, high density >>> discharge of an un-treated structure. The cure is >>> to provide devices that have a propensity for dropping >>> electrons off into the slip stream. These can be >>> "wicks" . . . a thing that looks like a fine brush >>> of copper cat-hairs . . . >>> >>> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/staticdischrgr.php >>> >>> Or an array of tiny points like these: >>> >>> http://www.b737.org.uk/wingtips.htm >>> >>> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nullfieldtip.php >>> >>> This effect is not limited to airplanes. It can >>> be a significant noise problem on stationary radio >>> installations when there is blowing snow, dust, rain >>> or significant convective activity as far away as >>> 20 miles. >>> >>> If you have a sensitive enough ammeter, you can probe >>> and actually measure this current as cited in >>> this article. >>> >>> http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/staticbusterarticlecomplete.pdf >>> >>> A number of years ago, Beech did some extensive >>> testing on the discharge characteristics of various brands >>> and styles of wicks in the lab. There was a huge difference >>> in performance of products then offered. I think folks making >>> these things now are much better at it. >>> >>> Doing a GOOD discharger is not a trivial task although >>> many folks have attempted it. Check out some of the >>> techniques suggested here: >>> >>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Static_Dissipation/ >>> >>> There have been a number of articles and postings to >>> various forums about how to build your own. I've never >>> seen an article that actually tested the handy work >>> on the bench. Given what I witnessed at Beech many moons >>> ago, I'm convinced that performance of DIY static >>> wicks is a dart throw without quantified bench marks. >>> >>> The same process used to test wicks is use to test the >>> airplanes probable discharge locations. The airplane is >>> set up on plastic blocks. A long wand with a spherical >>> end on it and a pico-ammeter in series is raised up to >>> about 100,000 volts dc. You can run the wand along the >>> trailing edges of possible concentration points and >>> see the ammeter go up when the wand is closest to >>> a location that would benefit from an effective >>> discharge wick. >>> >>> Wicks are useful only on metal airplanes and then >>> finding the optimum wick and placement is difficult. >>> The occurrence of p-static is pretty rare for us >>> guys who don't fly for a living. >>> >>> It won't hurt to have a half dozen wicks on your airplane >>> but it may not be all that helpful. Wicks have >>> nothing to do with lightning protection. Bonding >>> the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with >>> mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is >>> to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning >>> strike attaches to the control surface. >>> >>> Here's an short article I did on static-wicks for >>> an EAA chapter newsletter some years back. >>> >>> http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-3-2005.pdf >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer?
Date: Jan 22, 2009
Getting ready to pull a twisted pair from panel to position lights in tips. I was measuring for how long to cut the wires and I had a couple of questions: Does the pair of wires feeding each nav light need to be twisted the entire length from panel to light or just some distance before and after as it passes the magnetometer? And since my leading edge landing/taxi lights (located several feet inboard) will be grounded locally can I shorten the length of the nav light ground wire and ground to the airframe at the same place? And then twist from there to the nav light? Thanks, Allen Fulmer >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On >>>Behalf Of Peter >>>Pengilly >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:35 PM >>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with >>>Magnetometer? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Allen, >>> >>>A few years ago I worked on an airplane that was the first >>>of type to have a >>>magnetic anomaly detector in the fuselage. The thing could cope with >>>constant magnetic fields - that is circuits that were always >>>on or off, but >>>not with variable ones. We learnt that shielded wires have >>>no effect on the >>>magnetic influence of current carrier, and that a simple >>>twisted pair is by >>>far better (I think the reason why was explained on the list >>>a week or two >>>ago). So don't bother with the shielded wire, just twist up >>>a pair of 22g >>>wires yourself - something like 5 to 10 twists per foot >>>should be adequate. >>> >>>Peter >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On >>>Behalf Of Allen >>>Fulmer >>>Sent: 06 January 2009 18:05 >>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with >>>Magnetometer? >>> >>> >>> >>>Thank you, Bob! >>> >>>That will be easy to do now as I am just pulling wires. >>> >>>Stein Air has a two conductor shielded cable: MIL-27500 >>>Tefzel AWG22 - 2 >>>Conductor Shielded Cable >>> >>>Would this be "the best" even if a little more expensive? >>>(LED Nav lights >>>only draw .3 amp or so per wing.) >>> >>>And if shielded is fine then ground one end of the shield at >>>forest of tabs >>>on firewall? >>> >>>Thanks again for all you do for us. >>> >>>Allen Fulmer >>> >>>>>>-----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, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM >>>>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>>>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with >>>>>>Magnetometer? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Nuckolls, III" >>>>>> >>>>>>At 07:49 AM 1/6/2009, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables >>>>>>thorough the same >>>>>>>conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation >>>>>>or landing light >>>>>>>wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the >>>magnetometer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and >>>>>>thus the aileron >>>>>>>steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will >>>>>>have to be >>>>>>>routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of >>>>>>wingtip. That >>>>>>>should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Magnetometer installation is a good example of >>>>>> a case where careful paralleling and perhaps >>>>>> twisting of outbound/return current paths as they >>>>>> pass by the magnetometer. I had a builder who >>>>>> reported a compass swing of several degrees when >>>>>> he turned on nav lights. Seems he grounded the lamp >>>>>> locally and had a single power lead running only >>>>>> a few inches from the remote compass sensor. >>>>>> >>>>>> He fixed the problem by running a twisted pair >>>>>> for power and ground past the compass sensor. >>>>>> Strobe and antenna wiring generally have no risk >>>>>> to magnetometer calibration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only those bundles/wires with significant unidirectional >>>>>> DC currents flowing in them have a potential for >>>>>> problems. Of course, DISTANCE is also a strong >>>>>> attenuator of magnetic effects. I forget the >>>>>> exact relationship but I'm thinking that effects >>>>>> of a wire at 1" are reduced by a factor of more >>>>>> than 100 at 10". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------) >>>>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) >>>>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) >>>>>> ( appearance of being right . . . ) >>>>>> ( ) >>>>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2009
Subject: Re: Static wicks
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
An aside: Bob Buck, author of "Weather Flying" flew many research missions during and after WWII with the specific purpose of understanding P-static and testing equipment designed to alleviate its effects on aircraft systems. His discussion of this in his autobiography ("North Star Over My Shoulder") is quite interesting. There is also anecdotal information that suggests that electrical bonding of control surfaces to the airframe can alleviate certain p-static effects. Apparently the charge that builds up on the body of the airframe doesn't always readily pass through the hinges and control mechanisms to control surfaces. A small charge builds up between the control surface and what it's mounted to, and then bleeds off in small discharges. Each discharge radiates a small amount of electrical noise which can apparently interfere with the function of some equipment. The story about this that I read was one about a shipboard tactical Navy aircraft which suffered poor nav system performance without the control surface bonding. Again, this is anecdotal.. Regards, Matt- > On a plastic airplane, if the composite parts are made with a specialized > copper or aluminum mesh in the first layer of the mold, the parts of the > airplane can be bonded together and static wicks added to give the same > p-static bleed as an aluminum airplane (this the major part - without the > wicks - of a program to provide lightning protection in composite > aircraft). > However there are weather conditions that will overwhelm the system even > in > an aluminum airplane, I had my HSI spinning and a loss of VHF reception > (while retaining VHF transmission ability) over Lake Michigan at night in > a > Cessna 210 due to p-static apparently caused by almost invisible ice > crystals in the air. I was IFR at the time and inadvertently stepping on > center trying to restablish communcation much to their annoyance. > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:44 AM, MICHAEL LARKIN wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Airbus jets with all the static wicks they have we still suffer from >> reduced VHF radio performance in hi P-static environments. On the >> Lancair >> airplanes many builders have installed wicks with limited to no >> improvement >> to radio performance during high P-static events. Many over time have >> then >> removed the wicks. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Dale Ellis wrote: >> >>> rv8builder(at)earthlink.net> >>> >>> I flew DeHavilland Dash-8's for nearly 20 years and despite lots and >>> lots >>> of static dissipation & airframe bonding efforts through out (to >>> include >>> lots of static wicks) you could still see St. Elmo's Fire from the prop >>> tips. It took moderate to heavy precipitation for the St. Elmo's Fire >>> to be >>> visible. And then only visible at night. It was neat to see from >>> front >>> end. The passengers seldom saw it because the cabin lights were too >>> bright!! >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >>>> Sent: Jan 22, 2009 12:53 AM >>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static wicks >>>> >>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> >>>> >>>> At 08:48 AM 1/19/2009, you wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have always wondered why (most) certified airplanes have static >>>>> wicks, but not homebuilts? This makes me want to know what their >>>>> actual function is? I was always taught "they dissipate static >>>>> electricity". Is static really that big of an issue, and if so, do >>>>> wicks actually make a difference? I'm building an all metal >>>>> airplane, and so far have not given any thought to control surface >>>>> bonding, or static wicks. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When two dissimilar materials slide past each other >>>> rapidly, there is a tendency for electrons to be transferred >>>> from one material to the other . . . usually from >>>> the lesser conductor to the greater conductor. >>>> >>>> Shuffle your feet on the carpet and you can get a >>>> pretty good zap touching a doorknob. Slide out of >>>> your car on a cold dry day and it's not uncommon to >>>> find your body charged with a noteworthy packet of >>>> energy that wakes up your nervous system where the >>>> sparks jump from your bod. >>>> >>>> Airplanes flying in snow, ice particles or even rain >>>> can accumulate a surface charge of excess electrons. >>>> The faster airspeeds and higher particle density >>>> makes the build up stronger. >>>> >>>> If the quantity of excess charge is great enough >>>> AND there's some handy point or edges where the >>>> charges tend to collect, you can SEE the effects >>>> in the form of a luminous hazy discharge along >>>> the edge or at the point. >>>> >>>> On some models of King Airs we used to get reports >>>> of luminous glow around the window frames of glass >>>> fitted with internal de-icing heaters. While the >>>> airplane is shedding excess charge from trailing >>>> edges, antennas, window frames, propeller tips, etc >>>> the phenomenon creates a broadband radio noise that >>>> HAS been strong enough to disable ADF, LORAN, Omega >>>> nav, HF communications and in severe cases, gets the >>>> VHF comm and nav receivers too. >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire >>>> >>>> http://science.howstuffworks.com/st-elmo-fire1.htm >>>> >>>> The big problem we were having with discharges >>>> around the window frames is that it was etching >>>> the glass and in some cases, killing the de-ice >>>> heat sensors. VERY expensive. >>>> >>>> The radio noise comes from the disordered, high density >>>> discharge of an un-treated structure. The cure is >>>> to provide devices that have a propensity for dropping >>>> electrons off into the slip stream. These can be >>>> "wicks" . . . a thing that looks like a fine brush >>>> of copper cat-hairs . . . >>>> >>>> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/staticdischrgr.php >>>> >>>> Or an array of tiny points like these: >>>> >>>> http://www.b737.org.uk/wingtips.htm >>>> >>>> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nullfieldtip.php >>>> >>>> This effect is not limited to airplanes. It can >>>> be a significant noise problem on stationary radio >>>> installations when there is blowing snow, dust, rain >>>> or significant convective activity as far away as >>>> 20 miles. >>>> >>>> If you have a sensitive enough ammeter, you can probe >>>> and actually measure this current as cited in >>>> this article. >>>> >>>> http://www.repeater-builder.com/pdf/staticbusterarticlecomplete.pdf >>>> >>>> A number of years ago, Beech did some extensive >>>> testing on the discharge characteristics of various brands >>>> and styles of wicks in the lab. There was a huge difference >>>> in performance of products then offered. I think folks making >>>> these things now are much better at it. >>>> >>>> Doing a GOOD discharger is not a trivial task although >>>> many folks have attempted it. Check out some of the >>>> techniques suggested here: >>>> >>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Static_Dissipation/ >>>> >>>> There have been a number of articles and postings to >>>> various forums about how to build your own. I've never >>>> seen an article that actually tested the handy work >>>> on the bench. Given what I witnessed at Beech many moons >>>> ago, I'm convinced that performance of DIY static >>>> wicks is a dart throw without quantified bench marks. >>>> >>>> The same process used to test wicks is use to test the >>>> airplanes probable discharge locations. The airplane is >>>> set up on plastic blocks. A long wand with a spherical >>>> end on it and a pico-ammeter in series is raised up to >>>> about 100,000 volts dc. You can run the wand along the >>>> trailing edges of possible concentration points and >>>> see the ammeter go up when the wand is closest to >>>> a location that would benefit from an effective >>>> discharge wick. >>>> >>>> Wicks are useful only on metal airplanes and then >>>> finding the optimum wick and placement is difficult. >>>> The occurrence of p-static is pretty rare for us >>>> guys who don't fly for a living. >>>> >>>> It won't hurt to have a half dozen wicks on your airplane >>>> but it may not be all that helpful. Wicks have >>>> nothing to do with lightning protection. Bonding >>>> the hinges on an airplane has nothing to do with >>>> mitigation of p-static effects. The idea here is >>>> to avoid welding the hinge rigid in case a lightning >>>> strike attaches to the control surface. >>>> >>>> Here's an short article I did on static-wicks for >>>> an EAA chapter newsletter some years back. >>>> >>>> http://www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-3-2005.pdf >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2009
Subject: ELT location
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Hi Ed, Shoot, I'll have to look at it. My last bird mounted it the same way (switches forward) but it was a different mfg. I assumed (bad me) that the orientation would be the same. I don't have a lot of reason to believe that this unit will be of any help. Its there for the DAR and regulations. That is why I bought a PLB with GPS. If I'm alive, I will remove it from my survival vest and turn it on. Even if I'm upside down, I will break the canopy and stick my arm outside and run it. As a note, I have a survival vest that I got from the U.S. Army during my 32 years with them flying helicopters. It has a good survival knife, pocket for a survival radio (my PLB) and lots of other neat stuff to keep you alive for a while. A good fishing vest with pockets all over will do the same thing. I should weigh it to see what it weighs as I think it is around 7# =/- a pound or two. Thanks again for the heads up. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Click for free info on college degrees. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1U6R6KubryOwbqqIvdia8uuNezTxsmslPHQHES9IEeUMJwV/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2009
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: ELT location
Howdy Jim, Yeah, the switches should be forward, but there is a side (the wide one) which is supposed to face down. You're right, it probably won't save your life no matter how you mount it, but you do have to get it signed off. ;-) Good luck with it. Pax, Ed James H Nelson wrote: > > Hi Ed, > Shoot, I'll have to look at it. My last bird mounted it the same > way (switches forward) but it was a different mfg. I assumed (bad me) > that the orientation would be the same. I don't have a lot of reason to > believe that this unit will be of any help. Its there for the DAR and > regulations. That is why I bought a PLB with GPS. If I'm alive, I will > remove it from my survival vest and turn it on. Even if I'm upside down, > I will break the canopy and stick my arm outside and run it. As a note, > I have a survival vest that I got from the U.S. Army during my 32 years > with them flying helicopters. It has a good survival knife, pocket for a > survival radio (my PLB) and lots of other neat stuff to keep you alive > for a while. A good fishing vest with pockets all over will do the same > thing. I should weigh it to see what it weighs as I think it is around 7# > =/- a pound or two. > Thanks again for the heads up. > > Jim > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for free info on college degrees. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1U6R6KubryOwbqqIvdia8uuNezTxsmslPHQHES9IEeUMJwV/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2009
Subject: ELT location
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Hi Ed, Signed off and flying !!!! Jim ____________________________________________________________ Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1wsgyplM6sWzTdAzPIKtAeZbj06hKJGMTU7MVQ2WL6FeifP/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2009
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: ELT location
Cool! Ed James H Nelson wrote: > > Hi Ed, > Signed off and flying !!!! > > > Jim > ____________________________________________________________ > Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1wsgyplM6sWzTdAzPIKtAeZbj06hKJGMTU7MVQ2WL6FeifP/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Static wicks
> Apparently the charge that builds up on the body of the airframe >doesn't always readily pass through the hinges and control mechanisms to >control surfaces. A small charge builds up between the control surface >and what it's mounted to, and then bleeds off in small discharges. Each >discharge radiates a small amount of electrical noise which can apparently >interfere with the function of some equipment. I've heard this on numerous occasions and listened/participated in a number of discussions about the physics of how this might happen. P-static currents are measured in micro-amps. The energies that might be released as electromagnetic radiation in hinge gaps is pretty small. The gap is measured in thousandths of an inch and the arc-over voltage for this is low assuming a perfectly spaced gap and high resistance. A hinge will never go open circuit . . . it's more appropriately described as a dynamic resistance on the order of hundreds of milliohms. Static wicks have HUGE resistors built in (many tens of megohms) for the purpose of killing the ability of the wick to resonate and to convert energy to heat (like the resistor wires on spark plugs). We could see how a hinge in motion might generate moderate CONDUCTED noise into an electrical system if say a landing light were grounded to a gear door and the hinge resistance was wobbly as the door moved. But the idea that dynamic resistance characteristics of hinges at p-static currents produces detectable noise in the RF spectrum was pretty far fetched. I'd like to read an explanation of the simple-ideas that support the notion of bonding hinges for the purpose of reducing deleterious effects of p-static. Now, there could be OTHER radio frequency issues that are addressed by bonding. I think I described a case where the unintended consequences of going from a voltage fed wire HF antenna to a current fed loop on the vertical fin turned the whole empennage of the airplane into a high energy RF test chamber. The unintended consequences of which showed how many pieces of 1980's technology would scream for mercy as the transmitter was keyed. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer?
At 04:46 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote: > >Getting ready to pull a twisted pair from panel to position lights in tips. >I was measuring for how long to cut the wires and I had a couple of >questions: > >Does the pair of wires feeding each nav light need to be twisted the entire >length from panel to light or just some distance before and after as it >passes the magnetometer? I don't have first-hand experience with chasing a magnetometer interference problem. I DID work a case where the B&C SD-20 was swinging a glareshield mounted compass several degrees. The problem became un-observable when the compass was moved vertically about 10" to a location on the windshield. This example speaks to the fact that magnetic interference coupling falls off very rapidly with increase of distance between antagonist and victim. As long as your potential emitters of undesirable magnetics are say 2 feet or further away from the magnetometer, it's unlikely that you'll see any problems. >And since my leading edge landing/taxi lights (located several feet inboard) >will be grounded locally can I shorten the length of the nav light ground >wire and ground to the airframe at the same place? And then twist from >there to the nav light? That ought to work. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2009
Subject: Re: Static wicks
Good Afternoon Lectric Bob, I have no doubt that what you have told us is good information and that it was derived from careful observation. Nevertheless, when Loran was all the rage, we found that adding bonding straps to every possible control surface or gear door made a huge difference in the reception of adequate Loran signals. Adding static wicks added a bit more, but the cost of installing and maintaining the static wicks was quite high and the bonding costs were next to nothing. It may not do much good, but I still vote for bonding and only going to static wicks as a last desperation "throw money at the problem" solution. This time I vote for the OWT! 'Course, you may not need anything at all! Happy Skies Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator 628 West 86th Street Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 In a message dated 1/23/2009 12:35:22 P.M. Central Standard Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Apparently the charge that builds up on the body of the airframe >doesn't always readily pass through the hinges and control mechanisms to >control surfaces. A small charge builds up between the control surface >and what it's mounted to, and then bleeds off in small discharges. Each >discharge radiates a small amount of electrical noise which can apparently >interfere with the function of some equipment. I've heard this on numerous occasions and listened/participated in a number of discussions about the physics of how this might happen. P-static currents are measured in micro-amps. The energies that might be released as electromagnetic radiation in hinge gaps is pretty small. The gap is measured in thousandths of an inch and the arc-over voltage for this is low assuming a perfectly spaced gap and high resistance. A hinge will never go open circuit . . . it's more appropriately described as a dynamic resistance on the order of hundreds of milliohms. Static wicks have HUGE resistors built in (many tens of megohms) for the purpose of killing the ability of the wick to resonate and to convert energy to heat (like the resistor wires on spark plugs). We could see how a hinge in motion might generate moderate CONDUCTED noise into an electrical system if say a landing light were grounded to a gear door and the hinge resistance was wobbly as the door moved. But the idea that dynamic resistance characteristics of hinges at p-static currents produces detectable noise in the RF spectrum was pretty far fetched. I'd like to read an explanation of the simple-ideas that support the notion of bonding hinges for the purpose of reducing deleterious effects of p-static. Now, there could be OTHER radio frequency issues that are addressed by bonding. I think I described a case where the unintended consequences of going from a voltage fed wire HF antenna to a current fed loop on the vertical fin turned the whole empennage of the airplane into a high energy RF test chamber. The unintended consequences of which showed how many pieces of 1980's technology would scream for mercy as the transmitter was keyed. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob du Plooy" <rduplooy(at)iafrica.com>
Subject: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii and SD-8
Date: Jan 25, 2009
Busy building an RV-8 with dual LS Plasma III (crank sensor) and would appreciate some input on Z 14 changes required for my set-up. Engine drives a B & C 60 Amp main Alt, and a SD-8 as back-up . I wish to install 2 x 17aH batteries as per Bob's drawings and I would like to know whether:- 1) the 2 shunts depicted on Z14 need to be changed to 50mv/60A and ..50mv/10A.?. 2) Klaus Savier recommends 2 x 5A "pull-able" C.B.s....Could I substitute these for fuses of 5A each? 3) Could these be placed as per Z14 , #1 on the Main Batt bus and on Aux Batt. the other? 4) Any other changes I should contemplate, as I would like the engine to start only from the grip of my Infinity stick. 5) I am also installing a GRT HX & EIS 4000..any caveats/advice on any additional systems/relays required on Z14 for these, or those below?? Many Thanks. Robert Bob Archer VOR antenna in wingtip. AeroSUN Lites ( Leading edge lights) Gretz heated Pitot Sport AoA Trutrak IIVSVG Whelen Nav/Strobes Christen Inverted Oil System( on Firewall) Smoking Airplanes smoke-3.5.Gall( either fwd or rear baggage) Sky Dynamics cold air and 4-into-1 exhaust MT 3 blade C/W Acro Prop Performanceengines O-360,balanced,flowed with 10:1. On second thoughts, maybe I need 3 batteries? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2009
Subject: Attaching D-sub shells
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self fusing tape, but there must be a better way. Thanks. Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lynn Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Attaching D-sub shells
Date: Jan 25, 2009
You should be able to find a double female-female adapter at your local computer parts store. From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:40 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attaching D-sub shells Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self fusing tape, but there must be a better way. Thanks. Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
Subject: Attaching D-sub shells
Date: Jan 25, 2009
If not at a computer store, Mc Master Carr has them. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn Riggs Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:29 PM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Attaching D-sub shells You should be able to find a double female-female adapter at your local computer parts store. From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:40 PM To: Aerolectric List Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attaching D-sub shells Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self fusing tape, but there must be a better way. Thanks. Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL www.samhoskins.blogspot.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matronics. comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Attaching D-sub shells
Date: Jan 25, 2009
This is a blowup of what it looks like: https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=8100067&MPN=C89E014 050&R=8100067&SEARCH=8100067&DESC=C89E014050 And this is a page from Allied catalog with lots of hardware choices: https://www.alliedelec.com/Catalog/pf.aspx?FN=198.pdf HTH, Allen Fulmer -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:40 PM To: Aerolectric List Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attaching D-sub shells Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self fusing tape, but there must be a better way. Thanks. Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2009
Subject: Re: Attaching D-sub shells
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
The mother lode of D-sub accessories! Thanks! Sam On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Allen Fulmer wrote: > This is a blowup of what it looks like: > > https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=8100067&MPN=C89E014050&R=8100067&SEARCH=8100067&DESC=C89E014050 > > > And this is a page from Allied catalog with lots of hardware choices: > https://www.alliedelec.com/Catalog/pf.aspx?FN=198.pdf > > HTH, > > Allen Fulmer > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins > *Sent:* Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:40 PM > *To:* Aerolectric List > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Attaching D-sub shells > > Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector > itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call > it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self > fusing tape, but there must be a better way. > > Thanks. > > Sam Hoskins > Murphysboro, IL > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com > > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c > * > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2009
Subject: Re: Attaching D-sub shells
From: Byron Janzen <thorps18(at)gmail.com>
They have shells for sale here: http://www.steinair.com/connectors.htm On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Sam Hoskins wrote: > Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The connector > itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is what you call > it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of joining the two with self > fusing tape, but there must be a better way. > > Thanks. > > Sam Hoskins > Murphysboro, IL > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com > > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2009
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Attaching D-sub shells
Sam, You could always just mate them up and secure them with a couple of tie wraps. When I assemble them, I leave out of the shell the little mating screws and then just put small cable ties right through the screw holes. Easy, cheap, light and easy to separate later. Pax, Ed Holyoke Sam Hoskins wrote: > Is there some way to connect D-sub connectors to each other? The > connector itself is fine, but I can't find the female (I guess that is > what you call it) version of the backshells. I was thinking of > joining the two with self fusing tape, but there must be a better way. > > Thanks. > > Sam Hoskins > Murphysboro, IL > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com> > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Strobe Lights
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jan 26, 2009
Apart from AveoEngineering & Aeroled is there any other wing flashers on the market. I only need strobes no navigation lights. Or are there any details on how to make my own. Thank you Ianrat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226830#226830 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii and
SD-8
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Rob, I am installing the same dual plasma III in my Lancair. I am however using Z-13/8 with one battery instead of two. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why two batteries are better than two alternators. LS does recommend a 4.5 amp battery behind a Schottky diode which I may consider paralleling with the main at some time. The diode is about $2.00 and the battery about $35. This is an easier/lower cost solution than fussing with all the extras on Z14. I also found the answer to the constant whining of pilots over fuse blocks and cb's - use both :) You can tell Klaus's lawyers you had them tied to cb's. If you use the below with the Bussman panel, you now have the best of both worlds. See... https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=6770385 Your shunt should be rated in conjunction with the alternator. No more, no less. Use the ANL to drop amperage if desired and size the wire in front and behind it accordingly. Think of the ANL as a step down transformer, not the shunt. You can install whatever battery/alt you choose. Z14 was designed as a purely redundant system rather than an economical fly to safety system like Z13/8. I'm not sure if they sell handi-capped switch for folks that can't reach the panel from their seat to start the engine, but there's no reason you couldn't do a relay for the starter switch and even a remote starter if you have FADEC. For me, I'd rather just lean over, push button - go. $20 and 15 minutes to install a starter button. If you're really lazy you could wire one of those remotes to open the hanger door, turn on the lights and start the coffee in the hangar before you get up the hill. All from the stick. You need to protect your avionics equipment per the manufacturer recommendation. I think GRT's are about 3 amps. Remember, you are protecting the wire in front of the device as well as the devices. If you are pushing 20A through a wire rated for 3A on your GRT, you've got something backwards. Remember, step it down before you deliver. Don't introduce parts and complexity with relay's unless you really need them. Half of the stuff in my panel is pulling less than 3 amps, even the strobe lights. Life is easy, keep it simple. You don't need 3 batteries to be safe. You do need to give lots of TLC to the one or two batteries you do have and change them regularly. Don't wait for problems to arise before deciding you should beef up your system to overcome poor maintenance on your part. Most importantly, have fun. Yours sounds like a great system. Let's race someday. I've got the Aerosport IO-375, Plasma III. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob du Plooy Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:13 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii and SD-8 Busy building an RV-8 with dual LS Plasma III (crank sensor) and would appreciate some input on Z 14 changes required for my set-up. Engine drives a B & C 60 Amp main Alt, and a SD-8 as back-up . I wish to install 2 x 17aH batteries as per Bob's drawings and I would like to know whether:- 1) the 2 shunts depicted on Z14 need to be changed to 50mv/60A and ..50mv/10A.?. 2) Klaus Savier recommends 2 x 5A "pull-able" C.B.s....Could I substitute these for fuses of 5A each? 3) Could these be placed as per Z14 , #1 on the Main Batt bus and on Aux Batt. the other? 4) Any other changes I should contemplate, as I would like the engine to start only from the grip of my Infinity stick. 5) I am also installing a GRT HX & EIS 4000..any caveats/advice on any additional systems/relays required on Z14 for these, or those below?? Many Thanks. Robert Bob Archer VOR antenna in wingtip. AeroSUN Lites ( Leading edge lights) Gretz heated Pitot Sport AoA Trutrak IIVSVG Whelen Nav/Strobes Christen Inverted Oil System( on Firewall) Smoking Airplanes smoke-3.5.Gall( either fwd or rear baggage) Sky Dynamics cold air and 4-into-1 exhaust MT 3 blade C/W Acro Prop Performanceengines O-360,balanced,flowed with 10:1. On second thoughts, maybe I need 3 batteries? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
and SD-8 At 02:12 PM 1/25/2009, you wrote: > >Busy building an RV-8 with dual LS Plasma III (crank sensor) and >would appreciate some input on Z 14 changes required for my set-up. > >Engine drives a B & C 60 Amp main Alt, and a SD-8 as back-up . Don't recommend Z-14 for this combination of altenrators. Suggest you consider Z-13/8 >I wish to install 2 x 17aH batteries as per Bob's drawings and I >would like to know whether:- >1) the 2 shunts depicted on Z14 need to be changed to 50mv/60A and >..50mv/10A.?. The shunts should match their respective alternator ratings. >2) Klaus Savier recommends 2 x 5A "pull-able" C.B.s....Could I >substitute these for fuses of 5A each? It's your airplane. 5A fuses on battery busses is a perfectly >3) Could these be placed as per Z14 , #1 on the Main Batt bus and on >Aux Batt. the other? It's my recommendation that accessories for electrically dependent engines be powered from a battery bus. >4) Any other changes I should contemplate, as I would like the >engine to start only from the grip of my Infinity stick. Are you planning on some means by which the starter button becomes disabled for flight? >5) I am also installing a GRT HX & EIS 4000..any caveats/advice on >any additional systems/relays required on Z14 for these, or those below?? Z-13/8 will offer overall system reliability that would exceed the contemporary single-engine airplane by at least an order of magnitude. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fat Wire Terminals
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
I was out soldering fat wire terminals in the hangar yesterday. There I was with Bob's directions performing the duty as described. I poked the little 14 ga points in to fill the gaps and started adding in the solder - beautiful job, it oozed out the other end with a completely uniform ring of solder around the back edge of the terminal. Ok, nothing to do but add the shrink wrap - oops, here comes another pilot - certain trouble. Hey buddy, you know that solder is really good stuff, but you should crimp the terminal "after" you solder it. What do you guys think? To me that would simply damage the solder job and add little value to the actual security of the wire. Glenn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > > Hey buddy, you know that solder is really good stuff, but you should > crimp the terminal after you solder it. > The point of crimping is to squash a bunch of pieces of copper into one airtight lump of copper. The point of soldering is to fill the voids of a bunch of pieces of copper with a lead/tin mixture. What would be the point of squashing after everything is already airtight? I think this is one where you smile, say "Really? I might try it that way next time.", and let the guy walk away. You might ask him about the purpose behind the separate processes; but, that might lead to an argument, which cuts into build time. Gotta protect your build time. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Christopher Kleman <ckleman(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
That's a good question, and I'd like to piggyback that with another question/possible solution. After looking into the pricing of the nav/strobe lights, I was wondering possible solutions for them pricey buggers, especially since I plan to have them enclosed in a plexiglass lens built into the wing tips. There seems to be two simple solutions, however I'm not sure how much of a stickler they might be on the inspection since it's "not an aviation approved part". Nav Lights: http://www.attwoodmarine.com/products/parts.asp?productid=1004&path=navlights&category=3>ype=1&group=3&subgroup=0&categoryname=Navigation+Lighting&typename=Sidelight&headername=Navigation+Lighting Strobe Lights: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220326016266&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&viewitem Now with the strobes you would of course need an enclosure of some sorts in your case.. The strobe itself could be screwed to the wing tip with it's 2 provided holes, and I'm sure an enclosure could be thought up or modified (perhaps by just buying the lens assembly for an aircraft strobe?). However, in the case of putting one in the wingtip under a plexiglass lens what are peoples suggestions? Does the glass lens have any sort of amplifying qualities? And what are people thoughts on the red/green sidelights? They almost look like they're made for aviation at least... Thanks -- Christopher Kleman Mustang-II #2397 Plans Building http://www.mustangaero.com/ ---- Ianrat wrote: ============ Apart from AveoEngineering & Aeroled is there any other wing flashers on the market. I only need strobes no navigation lights. Or are there any details on how to make my own. Thank you Ianrat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226830#226830 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
and SD-8 At 08:20 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote: > >Rob, > >I am installing the same dual plasma III in my Lancair. I am however >using Z-13/8 with one battery instead of two. I have yet to hear a good >argument as to why two batteries are better than two alternators. LS >does recommend a 4.5 amp battery behind a Schottky diode which I may >consider paralleling with the main at some time. The diode is about >$2.00 and the battery about $35. This is an easier/lower cost solution >than fussing with all the extras on Z14. > >I also found the answer to the constant whining of pilots over fuse >blocks and cb's - use both :) You can tell Klaus's lawyers you had them >tied to cb's. If you use the below with the Bussman panel, you now have >the best of both worlds. > >See... > >https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=6770385 These are pretty cheesy breakers. They're also more massive than the fuses they replace which degrades longevity of the gas-tight grip on the connection tabs. I do not recommend their use. >Your shunt should be rated in conjunction with the alternator. No more, >no less. Use the ANL to drop amperage if desired and size the wire in >front and behind it accordingly. Think of the ANL as a step down >transformer, not the shunt. ??? The ANL is an exceedingly robust fuse . . . so robust that they call them "current limiters". What's NOT readily apparent in their marked ratings is just how robust they are. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf Note that a 35A rated ANL will carry 80A continuously at room temperature. A 60A rated device will sniff at about 160A continuous. Note further that a fault current of 250A opens both devices in 250 mS or less. The fault for which we use current limiters is the HARD fault that will load a BATTERY to hundreds if not 1000+ amps. To depend on the ANL for any other fault condition is to ignore the design goals that controlled its design. >You can install whatever battery/alt you choose. Z14 was designed as a >purely redundant system rather than an economical fly to safety system >like Z13/8. Correct. I suspect that less than 1% of OBAM aircraft flying can justify Z-14. Sadly, I suspect that way too many builders have installed Z-14 style systems with some notion that it adds to safety. This simply isn't so. Unless you spend a SIGNIFICANT percentage of your flight time pushing into the corners of pilot, aircraft and weather combinations . . . Z-14 only adds unjustifiable weight, cost, complexity and higher maintenance $time$ to an airplane that simply doesn't need it. >I'm not sure if they sell handi-capped switch for folks that can't reach >the panel from their seat to start the engine, but there's no reason you >couldn't do a relay for the starter switch and even a remote starter if >you have FADEC. For me, I'd rather just lean over, push button - go. $20 >and 15 minutes to install a starter button. If you're really lazy you >could wire one of those remotes to open the hanger door, turn on the >lights and start the coffee in the hangar before you get up the hill. >All from the stick. Agreed. Starting the engine is a few seconds per flight cycle, even fewer seconds per flight hour. "Convenience" added at the expense of increased parts count only improves on the probability of having to fix some crapped-out convenience component without adding to the utility/ enjoyment of flying the airplane. >You need to protect your avionics equipment per the manufacturer >recommendation. I think GRT's are about 3 amps. Remember, you are >protecting the wire in front of the device as well as the devices. If >you are pushing 20A through a wire rated for 3A on your GRT, you've got >something backwards. Remember, step it down before you deliver. Don't >introduce parts and complexity with relay's unless you really need them. >Half of the stuff in my panel is pulling less than 3 amps, even the >strobe lights. Agreed. When we're considering the design goals for a TC system, the first rule is MEET ALL PERFORMANCE GOALS consistent with MINIMIZED WEIGHT, VOLUME, and PARTS COUNT. The latter three criteria generally go hand-in-hand with MINIMIZED COST OF OWNERSHIP. >Life is easy, keep it simple. You don't need 3 batteries to be safe. You >do need to give lots of TLC to the one or two batteries you do have and >change them regularly. Don't wait for problems to arise before deciding >you should beef up your system to overcome poor maintenance on your >part. Exactly! EVERY flight plagued with a tense if not unhappy outcome happens for some combination of three reasons: (1) Lack of understanding that gives rise to (2) poor selection/attainment of design goals and/or (3) failure to maintain performance consistent with those goals. If you don't understand what you're doing and why you're doing it, then "adding more goodies for the purpose of adding safety" is at best a tax on cost of ownership; at worst a sad disappointment. The simplest, lightest, easiest to understand flight system with well considered Plan-A/Plan-B and maintenance will never be root cause of a bad termination of flight. Very few TC aircraft are blessed with such attention to detail for reasons that are clear. As both designer, builder, owner and operator of your OBAM aircraft, you're offered an opportunity that exceedingly few of our Spam-Can flying brothers will enjoy. But if it were easy, everybody would be doing it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
At 10:38 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote: >I was out soldering fat wire terminals in the >hangar yesterday. There I was with Bobs >directions performing the duty as described. I >poked the little 14 ga points in to fill the >gaps and started adding in the solder >beautiful job, it oozed out the other end with a >completely uniform ring of solder around the >back edge of the terminal. Ok, nothing to do but >add the shrink wrap oops, here comes another >pilot certain trouble. Hey buddy, you know >that solder is really good stuff, but you should >crimp the terminal after you solder it. > > >What do you guys think? To me that would simply >damage the solder job and add little value to the actual security of the wire. Skilled soldering or well designed crimps are interchangeable in terms of reliability. They differ only in skill sets, tools and materials to do the job. Doing both only goes against the design goals both and runs a risk of degrading what WAS a perfectly good joint. Rather than going to the List to take a vote, why not show the visitor the article and then as him to make the author's day and show him where he screwed up? An too common response to contrary opinions in our culture is to throw it out to "all the folks" with some notion that a majority of common belief is the path to golden information. It's far better than these things be first argued by individuals with an understanding of the simple-ideas that support the technology or process being discussed. It's almost never useful to debate such things by participants at large in open forums. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
At 11:29 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote: > >I think this is one where you smile, say "Really? I might try it >that way next time.", and let the guy walk away. You might ask him >about the purpose behind the separate processes; but, that might >lead to an argument, which cuts into build time. Gotta protect your build time. Right on! Better yet, sic'em onto me. It's MY job to field these issues so you guys can make better use of your $time$ doing a good job. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2009
Subject: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
and SD-8 He he..I had to chuckle reading this..i have a completely electrically dependant (electric Fuel pumps, EI's, electronic instruments) RV7a that I fly in IMC with some regularity. With the little SD8 alt waiting to go a flick of a switch should I ever need it..And yes it was tested with a fuel pump, transponder and a 430W running and by gosh that little SD8 keeps the batt volts up just over 12v as long as I don't use the PTT. (The AI has its own internal battery) So the other day I'm playing safety pilot to a guy in a 172 and we go into hard IMC..I have never felt more nervous in my life as I remember the 1930's Ford alternator and that dreadful Vacuum pump thingy upfront..For once I was actually glad of the mechanical fuel pump even though my IO360 doesn't have one. Keep it simple and try to remember what your supposed to do when the alternator lets its smoke out....Easier said than done with today's high reliability electrics. Frank If you don't understand what you're doing and why you're doing it, then "adding more goodies for the purpose of adding safety" is at best a tax on cost of ownership; at worst a sad disappointment. The simplest, lightest, easiest to understand flight system with well considered Plan-A/Plan-B and maintenance will never be root cause of a bad termination of flight. Very few TC aircraft are blessed with such attention to detail for reasons that are clear. As both designer, builder, owner and operator of your OBAM aircraft, you're offered an opportunity that exceedingly few of our Spam-Can flying brothers will enjoy. But if it were easy, everybody would be doing it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
At 10:34 AM 1/26/2009 Monday, you wrote: > >At 10:38 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote: >>I was out soldering fat wire terminals in the hangar yesterday. There I was with Bob=92s directions performing the duty as described. I poked the little 14 ga points in to fill the gaps and started adding in the solder =AD beautiful job, it oozed out the other end with a completely uniform ring of solder around the back edge of the terminal. Ok, nothing to do but add the shrink wrap =AD oops, here comes another pilot =AD certain trouble. Hey buddy, you know that solder is really good stuff, but you should crimp the terminal =93after=94 you solder it. >> >> >>What do you guys think? To me that would simply damage the solder job and add little value to the actual security of the wire. > > Skilled soldering or well designed crimps are > interchangeable in terms of reliability. They > differ only in skill sets, tools and materials > to do the job. Doing both only goes against the > design goals both and runs a risk of degrading > what WAS a perfectly good joint. It would seem that crimping *after* soldering is a sure way to ruin a good termination. However, adding a small dab of well wetted solder to the *lug* end of the terminal after crimping seems like a good belt-n-suspenders approach to me. What do you think of this technique, Bob? Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880/N998RV (res) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
At 01:20 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote: >At 10:34 AM 1/26/2009 Monday, you wrote: > >It would seem that crimping *after* soldering is a sure way to ruin >a good termination. However, adding a small dab of well wetted >solder to the *lug* end of the terminal after crimping seems like a >good belt-n-suspenders approach to me. What do you think of this >technique, Bob? What you've shown us certainly doesn't hurt as long as you don't get solder on the washer- surface of the terminal and make it "un-flat". But I cannot offer that it adds anything useful. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
Matt Dralle wrote: > > It would seem that crimping *after* soldering is a sure way to ruin a good termination. However, adding a small dab of well wetted solder to the *lug* end of the terminal after crimping seems like a good belt-n-suspenders approach to me. What do you think of this technique, Bob? > Matt, I don't want to scare you, but you do know that the weavers of certain south-western native american tribes would purposely make a mistake in the weave. The belief was that if you did something perfect, it would be an indication that you were ready to join the gods. You might want to be careful there. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights to
dimmer Can anyone offer some advice on how to connect the leads for my 8 or 9 Honeywell rockers to a single periheliondesign dimmer? The switches all have Fast-on terminals which I can easily connect to. But I'm a bit stumped on the best way to have 8 or 9 separate leads connected together and finally connected to a dimmer. I've been through most/all of Bob's stuff but just can't find the right approach. Thanks Bill "wiring away" Watson RV10 Durham NC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights
to dimmer Bill Mauledriver Watson wrote: > > > Can anyone offer some advice on how to connect the leads for my 8 or 9 > Honeywell rockers to a single periheliondesign dimmer? > > The switches all have Fast-on terminals which I can easily connect > to. But I'm a bit stumped on the best way to have 8 or 9 separate > leads connected together and finally connected to a dimmer. > > I've been through most/all of Bob's stuff but just can't find the > right approach. > > Thanks > Bill "wiring away" Watson > RV10 > Durham NC The simplest way is to run all the leads to a convenient location (toward the dimmer would make sense) and add one more wire to the bundle. Use a large splice crimp to join them all, then run the 'extra' wire to the dimmer. You can modify this idea slightly by doing it in 2 or 3 stages with just a few wires in each splice, then sum the 'extras' with one more to the dimmer. Bob details a similar technique to get power into multiple pins of a d-sub connector when more current is needed than one pin can carry. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Subject: Attaching D-Sub Connectors
Date: Jan 26, 2009
Hi, These are like the D-Sub connectors I used, which have a threaded portion that the screw of the mating connector threads into, holding them tightly together: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=4115M- ND The threaded barrel is .250" long and is on the mating side of the connector. You need a threaded barrel on either the male or the female half of the connector, but not both. Best, Dennis Lancair Legacy, 250 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights
to dimmer At 03:31 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote: > > >Can anyone offer some advice on how to connect the leads for my 8 or >9 Honeywell rockers to a single periheliondesign dimmer? > >The switches all have Fast-on terminals which I can easily connect to. >But I'm a bit stumped on the best way to have 8 or 9 separate leads >connected together and finally connected to a dimmer. > >I've been through most/all of Bob's stuff but just can't find the >right approach. Here's one of several solutions for bringing multiple lighting leads and their ground into an orderly joining: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/minibus.jpg http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Minibus1.jpg http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Minibus2.jpg Alternatively, it's perfectly valid to lap multiple strands of wires and fixture them for soldering with a single strand of fine copper. Make the solder joint and then cover with heat shrink. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html Finally, if the wires are small (22AWG or smaller) you can consider sticking multiple strands of wire into each end of a butt-splice. Note that a blue spice will easily accommodate three 20AWG wires, I suspect you can get 5-6 in each end. This allows you to bring 10-12 wires together in a common, well connected junction. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/3x20Blue.jpg http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/PIDG-Splices.jpg Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2009
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
So, while on the subject, I also read Bob's article on soldering those terminals. I ordered a bunch of terminals from B & C and also bought their hammer-crimper. Wasn't sure whether I wanted to crimp or solder. The terminals came and had so much space in them that I wasn't sure I could fill in with a reasonable amount of additional copper wire. There was probably 1/8 th inch extra besides the #4 wire. I spoke with Bill at B&C. Heck of a nice guy. He double checked and thought the terminals were correct. I ended up using their crimper instead of soldering. Got a very tight crimp that I could not pull apart. I am not sure if it is air tight and was scratching my head about adding solder. Overkill, right? Regards, Michael Wynn RV 8 FWF San Ramon, CA In a message dated 1/26/2009 10:39:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:29 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote: > >I think this is one where you smile, say "Really? I might try it >that way next time.", and let the guy walk away. You might ask him >about the purpose behind the separate processes; but, that might >lead to an argument, which cuts into build time. Gotta protect your build time. Right on! Better yet, sic'em onto me. It's MY job to field these issues so you guys can make better use of your $time$ doing a good job. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Headset jack wire runs
Date: Jan 26, 2009
Would three conductor shielded strobe wire work well for headset jack wire runs? Dave Leikam RV-10 #40496 N89DA (Reserved) Muskego, WI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Cann" <tonycann(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
Date: Jan 27, 2009
>Time: >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii > and SD-8 > > > At 02:12 PM 1/25/2009, you wrote: > > > >Busy building an RV-8 with dual LS Plasma III (crank sensor) and > >would appreciate some input on Z 14 changes required for my set-up. > > > Don't recommend Z-14 for this combination of alternators. > Suggest you consider Z-13/8> > Would you recommend Z-14 with an L-40 and an SD-20? I don't understand the downside of Z-14: - If you replace the single big battery with two smaller ones, the weight increase shouldn't be much. Cranking power combined should be similar. - Does the SD-20 produce power at idle speeds (on the ground or in descent), or would the two busses need to be tied until airborne? - the weight of the extra battery cables seems to be the major weight increase - switchology doesn't seem that complicated: - turn both alternators (and buses) on prior to start - tie the buses together prior to start and let the lower set alternator carry the load - turn off the bus ties when airborne and run independent buses - for an airborne restart, one would have to remember to close the bus tie switch Thanks Tony Cann HR-II ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Tony, I have a dual Light Speed system and I used the Z-14 very close to the way it was written. The changes I made: I followed Light Speed's recommendation of using a dedicated CB wired directly from the battery. And due to the 5 screen EFIS system with multiple gyros and air data computers I also incorporated a dual avionics bus with it own transfers and cross ties. What changes are you looking to make. Mike On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Tony Cann wrote: > >Time: > >From: > "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >Subject: > Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii > > and SD-8 > > > > > > At 02:12 PM 1/25/2009, you wrote: > > > > > >Busy building an RV-8 with dual LS Plasma III (crank sensor) > and > > >would appreciate some input on Z 14 changes required for my > set-up. > > > > > > Don't recommend Z-14 for this combination of alternators. > > Suggest you consider Z-13/8> > > > Would you recommend Z-14 with an L-40 and an SD-20? > > I don=92t understand the downside of Z-14: > - If you replace the single big battery with two smaller ones, > the weight increase shouldn=92t be much. Cranking power combined > should be similar. > - Does the SD-20 produce power at idle speeds (on the ground or in > descent), > or would the two busses need to be tied until airborne? > - the weight of the extra battery cables seems to be the major > weight increase > - switchology doesn=92t seem that complicated: > - turn both alternators (and buses) on prior to start > - tie the buses together prior to start and let the lower set > alternator > carry the load > - turn off the bus ties when airborne and run independent buses > - for an airborne restart, one would have to remember to close > the bus tie switch > > Thanks > Tony Cann > HR-II > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals
At 08:02 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote: >So, while on the subject, > >I also read Bob's article on soldering those terminals. I ordered a >bunch of terminals from B & C and also bought their >hammer-crimper. Wasn't sure whether I wanted to crimp or >solder. The terminals came and had so much space in them that I >wasn't sure I could fill in with a reasonable amount of additional >copper wire. There was probably 1/8 th inch extra besides the #4 wire. If the wire isn't pretty snug on the temrinal before you "stuff it" with copper wedges, it's not the terminal for that wire . . . > I spoke with Bill at B&C. Heck of a nice guy. He double checked > and thought the terminals were correct. I ended up using their > crimper instead of soldering. Got a very tight crimp that I could > not pull apart. I am not sure if it is air tight and was > scratching my head about adding solder. Overkill, right? If you cannot verify the integrity of the crimp, then adding solder is not a bad idea. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Headset jack wire runs
At 11:06 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote: >Would three conductor shielded strobe wire work well for headset >jack wire runs? It would be fine electrically . . . but it's probably too fat to fit into d-sub pins. You might have to trim out a few strands of wire before pins are installed. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Hi, I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input. In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my Whelens and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The Aveo's work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens. Dick Maddux Kitfox 4-1200 Rotax 912UL Pensacola,Fl **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Dick, I to have switched out my Whelen strobe system for the Aveo. I on the other hand really like the system vs. the standard strobe setup. First I would say the important issue is visibility in flight not on the ground. Our tests (not formal) show that a new Whelen strobe is a bit more visible then the Aveo. We also found that the Aveo is more visible then the Aeroflash system. Most importantly we noted that on three airplanes that had Whelen systems that were two years or more in age the Aveo was the same or more visible. The pros to the Aveo system: in most installations a 3 plus pound weight savings was achieved, a savings of 170 watts +/- 20 depending on which brand of strobe you installed( that's 14-amps on a 12v system), the Aveo does not put out high voltage and therefore is less problematic with RF noise, the Aveo light life has a 20,000 hours life and is virtually maintenance free, the Aveo unit takes up much less space, and most importantly, if you find the right dealer the price is half or more depending on which brand of strobe you purchased. Just my take, Mike Larkin On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:39 AM, Catz631(at)aol.com wrote: > Hi, > I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input. > In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp > load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my Whelens > and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The Aveo's > work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens. > Dick Maddux > Kitfox > 4-1200 > Rotax 912UL > > Pensacola,Fl > > From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up- > to-date with the latest news. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Subject: Strobe Lights
Its my take that strobes do very little in tems of making an aircraft visib le..In fact I'm wondering why I fitted strobes to my second airplane when I was convinced of this fact from my first airplane. Now what does make an incredible difference is wig wagging the landing ligh ts..There is just something about that left-right pulsation that really sta nds out..At least from the front.:) Frank Completely electrically dependant IFR RV7a..Including fuel pumps ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MICHAEL LARKIN Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:40 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Lights Dick, I to have switched out my Whelen strobe system for the Aveo. I on the othe r hand really like the system vs. the standard strobe setup. First I would say the important issue is visibility in flight not on the ground. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Coax passing electric fuel pumps
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Bob, One possible route for multiple coax cables from belly mounted COM and XPDR antennas would require them to pass within a couple inches of and parallel to the electric fuel pumps. Airplane is all electric so one or both pumps would be running. Would that likely create an antagonist for the radios and/or transponder? Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 Wiring/Plumbing Eggenfellner Subaru E6T on firewall N808AF reserved Alexander City, AL 256-329-2001 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Coax passing electric fuel pumps
At 11:38 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote: > >Bob, > >One possible route for multiple coax cables from belly mounted COM and XPDR >antennas would require them to pass within a couple inches of and parallel >to the electric fuel pumps. Airplane is all electric so one or both pumps >would be running. > >Would that likely create an antagonist for the radios and/or transponder? No, the respective spectrums of interest for both pumps as potential antagonists and the radios as potential victims are very widely separated. Further, the really magic thing about a properly terminated transmission line (coaxial cable) is that isolation between the outside environment and itty bitty signals within is huge. Not to worry. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
At 08:39 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote: >Hi, > I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input. > In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp > load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my > Whelens and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The > Aveo's work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens. I wouldn't loose much sleep over it. Strobes as an aid to collision avoidance is problematic. For EVERY close encounter with another airplane I was aware of, by the time I saw the airplane the event was nearly over. Had I KNOWN that an airplane was approaching from a certain quadrant and was watching for it . . . the strobes might have helped me pick up the machine. However,(1) conditions were so hazy at the time that even if I had seen the airplane, I'm not sure I could have studied it long enough to decide whether it was at the same altitude or holding position on the windshield - i.e. collision course or (2) didn't see the airplane until right overhead or even passed my location and moving away. In the later cases, the airplane's approach was out of line of sight. The notion that "lives will be saved" by having n-times stronger strobe lights is a figment of a bureaucrat's imagination and fondest wishes. In the cases where the other airplane is looking right at you, a strobe of about ANY light output will be of some assistance. Without a doubt, wig-wagged landing lights are several orders of magnitude more attention getting but of course ONLY in the cone of visibility forward of your aircraft. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III
>I don't understand the downside of Z-14: Let's study the upside first. What is the mission profile for your airplane? Under what conditions of failure (study the effects for failure of each and every component) would you find the specifics of Z-14 useful in crafting a Plan-B? Z-14 was crafted for a Lancair IVP builder who planned to use the airplane for business travel. I.e., be at important locations at appropriate times. He was an accomplished pilot with a lot of IFR (Pacific N.W. where there's LOTS of IMC that does not involve either ice or convective conditions). It was my advice and his intent that both sides of the panel be capable of comfortably completing anticipated flight scenarios. This means that 1/2 of the ship's IFR goodies were powered from the main bus, 1/2 from the aux bus. This airplane also has a large engine but there was value in having small as practical batteries. Hence, the cross-feed feature for cranking the engine. Now, this system is not cheap, it's not light, it's not simple in comparison to other options like Z-11 through Z-13. It adds to cost of acquisition, fabrication, maintenance and loss of performance for payloads. > - If you replace the single big battery with two smaller ones, > the weight increase shouldn't be much. Cranking power combined > should be similar. Yes. > - Does the SD-20 produce power at idle speeds (on the ground or > in descent), Not much at idle, less than rated in descent. The SD-8 is even worse. > > or would the two busses need to be tied until airborne? Depends on aux bus loads . . . have you done a load analysis for the proposed system? > - the weight of the extra battery cables seems to be the major > weight increase You've used "shouldn't be much" and "major" to describe some discussions on weight. It would be useful to speak to exact numbers and them compare them to your design goals. It's pointless for us to discuss anything in terms of weight savings without first having your personal design goals in mind. > - switchology doesn't seem that complicated: Again, non quantified. > - turn both alternators (and buses) on prior to start > - tie the buses together prior to start and let the lower set > alternator > carry the load > > - turn off the bus ties when airborne and run independent buses > > - for an airborne restart, one would have to remember to close > the bus tie switch The only airplanes I'm aware of that need a starter for airborne restart are the canard pushers. Every airplane I've flown will not cease wind-milling during fuel starvation or ignition failure events. The idea of crafting mission requirements is key here. I'm reminded of what must be millions of "automobile emergency kits" sold in stores that contain band-aids, antiseptic, tourniquet, scissors, burn ointment and snake-bite kit. Oh yeah, a couple of flares perhaps a warning reflector is a good thing to have too. Had one of those in the first car I ever owned (1941 Pontiac 6-cyl Coupe). It was still in the car when I junked it after being rear-ended. 50 years and about a 600K+ miles later, I've never since missed NOT having one in my car. So the real answers to your questions should begin with a study of value and need that is exchanged for cost of ownership and loss of payload. Bottom line is that you're going to wire the airplane any way you wish . . . not the way I or anyone else wishes. So OUR task is to encourage you to do the failure mode effects analysis on your proposed system in situations that describe how your airplane will be used. Every part/feature LEFT OFF can only be improvements in cost of ownership and increased performance. Keep in mind that the incidence of electrical system failure precipitating a bad day in the cockpit (or arrival with the ground) is exceedingly rare. Unless you plan to spend a lot of time boring holes in clouds, then your most reliable back up system looks like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf Now, assuming you have a similar suite of goodies in your flight bag, start with Z-11 and consider how your airplane is to be used. What are the effects for loss of ANY single component (includes complex accessories like radios, instruments, etc). If loss of any single component raises concerns for breaking a sweat, then what needs to be added to your electrical system to offer a Plan-b mitigation of that failure? Finally, assuming that you do not plan to have a vacuum pump, then consider a $400/4-pound penalty for plugging the vacuum pump pad with an SD-8. How does 8A of unlimited power affect your Plan-b for any failures identified earlier? If I were building an airplane today, Z-13/8 would be the architecture of choice. Since MY planned use of instruments is to poke through cloud layers and to navigate the Ohio summer haze, I wouldn't need more than the traditional full and partial panel compliments of goodies. Further, I would have a GPS aided wing-leveler that does not depend on any other accessory for data. I respectfully suggest that a Z-13/8 architecture and totally independent GPS aided wing leveler is a protection against sweaty terminations of flight that exceeds capability of the vast majority of S.E. aircraft. I'll further suggest that an upgrade to Z-14 should be driven by an unusual set of mission requirements. Finally, if you DO find a failure condition that begs for such an upgrade, please make us all aware of it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights
to dimmer
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Bob: Looking at your mini-bus creation using d-sub, can you give me an idea how many amps can I put thru those d-sub pins ( I guess is a better question is what are each of the pins rated for)??...obviously, I looking at using18-22 awg wire..probably no higher than 5 amps, but maybe as high as 7.5 amps if possible. thanks Henry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:54 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights to dimmer > > At 03:31 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote: > > > > > >Can anyone offer some advice on how to connect the leads for my 8 or > >9 Honeywell rockers to a single periheliondesign dimmer? > > > >The switches all have Fast-on terminals which I can easily connect to. > >But I'm a bit stumped on the best way to have 8 or 9 separate leads > >connected together and finally connected to a dimmer. > > > >I've been through most/all of Bob's stuff but just can't find the > >right approach. > > Here's one of several solutions for bringing multiple > lighting leads and their ground into an orderly joining: > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/minibus.jpg > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Minibus1.jpg > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Minibus2.jpg > > Alternatively, it's perfectly valid to lap multiple strands > of wires and fixture them for soldering with a single strand > of fine copper. Make the solder joint and then cover with > heat shrink. > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html > > Finally, if the wires are small (22AWG or smaller) you can > consider sticking multiple strands of wire into each end of > a butt-splice. Note that a blue spice will easily accommodate > three 20AWG wires, I suspect you can get 5-6 in each end. > This allows you to bring 10-12 wires together in a common, > well connected junction. > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/3x20Blue.jpg > > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/PIDG-Splices.jpg > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Subject: Are there any mini D sub 2 wire connectors?
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Are there any mini2 wire holders for D sub machined pins? Easy connect and easy disconnect, perhaps like a Sermos or Anderson power pole style connector that can be assembled (modular like would be a good thing) and allow some sort of strain relief, like a tube inserted in tail of holderso the tube is supported by the connector and will then relieve stress from wire? Needed is small size, reasonably water resistant and ability to mount one side semi permanent. Amp draw will be under 2 amps on a 12 volt system for removable and retractable Landing LEDs and Taxi LEDs. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Date: Jan 27, 2009
Raymond, There's no technical reason to prevent you setting up strobes to alternate or flash in some time sequence. If you are working with a commercial strobe system, some provide the ability to set the strobes to flash simultaneously or in sequence. I'm not at the airport with my head in the opening that goes back behind the baggage bay where my Whelen strobe power-pack is located so this is from memory. But, I think that the Whelen's can be set to flash alternately by the way you plug in the lines to the external strobe unit's sockets. I just went to my on-line build diary and found a pic of the strobe power-pack. If you go to the link in the signature block then click on the album for "Year #3, Q1 2004" and when it comes up, go to page 2. There, about 1/3 of the way down, is a pic of the power pack. You can see that there is output for up to three strobes. Output 1 alternates with outputs 2 & 3 which are in synch. First #1 flashes, then #2 & #3 flash together. So, by powering one wing from #1 and the other wing from #2 or #3, you can get alternating flashes on your two wing units. I guess you could be really cool and power a strobe on top of the fin with #1 and the wings with #2 & #3 for a 1 - 2 flash. I hope this helps. Check six, Bob Borger Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL (99.999% done) Essentially complete. Running Tests & Final Inspections. 3705 Lynchburg Dr. Corinth, TX 76208 Home: 940-497-2123 Cel: 817-992-1117 On Jan 27, 2009, at 18:23, raymondj wrote: > > > > Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have > the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag > pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an > end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics > arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me, > that's what I'm here for. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "Hope for the best, > but prepare for the worst." > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net > > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:50 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Lights ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Ron Quillin <recent" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch lights
to dimmer At 18:12 1/27/2009, you wrote: >Looking at your mini-bus creation using d-sub, can you give me an idea how >many amps can I put thru those d-sub pins ( I guess is a better question is >what are each of the pins rated for)??...obviously, I looking at using18-22 >awg wire..probably no higher than 5 amps, but maybe as high as 7.5 amps if >possible. > >thanks > >Henry Not Bob here, but perhaps I can add some info. The size 20 contacts in standard density connectors are generally rated from 6 to 7.5 A per contact. However total "connector" currents are, or can be, much less. The full contact rating is obtained with a single contact with AWG-18 wire. Awg-24 derated to 71% and AWG-28 derates to 48%. Then you should derate the connector for total current load. For 100% loading, the 18 wire is derated to 30%, and 24 and 28 to 20% and 15% respectively. So that 6A contact could quickly become a 1A contact. This info from an AMPLIMITE HD-20 PCB mounted connector. The document # is 108-40025 and can be found on the Tyco website. If you are not dealing with much current, it's not much of a worry, but if a connector is loaded with a bunch of power lines, things carry much less that you may at first expect. Also, if you're going into the FL's, altitude derating may be another concern. Chapter 11 of 43.13 has some info for that. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
At 06:23 PM 1/27/2009, you wrote: > >Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have >the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag >pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an >end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics >arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me, >that's what I'm here for. > >Raymond Julian >Kettle River, MN Assuming that your strobes feature an external trigger mode, what you've proposed can be done . . . and I might add that it seems practical. You would need to understand how the strobes talk to each other for the purpose of making them flash together. Then you need a "black box" that generates alternating strobe pulses to achieve the "wig wag" appearance. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2009
From: Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Joining many wires to one - rocker switch
lights to dimmer i am on the couch watching tv and playing with.......my laptop ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Quillin <recent" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:55:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Joining many wires to one - rocker =C2- =C2- switch lights to dimmer At 18:12 1/27/2009, you wrote: Looking at your mini-bus creation using d-sub, can you give me an idea how many amps can I put thru those d-sub pins (=C2- I guess is a better quest ion is what are each of the pins rated for)??...obviously, I looking at using18-22 awg wire..probably no higher than 5 amps, but maybe as high as 7.5 amps if possible. thanks Henry Not Bob here, but perhaps I can add some info. The size 20 contacts in standard density connectors are generally rated fro m 6 to 7.5 A per contact.=C2- However total "connector" currents are, or can be, much less.=C2- The full contact rating is obtained with a single contact with AWG-18 wire.=C2- Awg-24 derated to 71% and AWG-28 derates to 48%.=C2- Then you should derate the connector for total current load.=C2 - For 100% loading, the 18 wire is derated to 30%, and 24 and 28 to 20% a nd 15% respectively.=C2- So that 6A contact could quickly become a 1A con tact.=C2- This info from an AMPLIMITE HD-20 PCB mounted connector.=C2- The document # is 108-40025 and can be found on the Tyco website. If you are not dealing with much current, it's not much of a worry, but if a connector is loaded with a bunch of power lines, things carry much less t hat you may at first expect.=C2- Also, if you're going into the FL's, alt itude derating may be another concern.=C2- Chapter 11 of 43.13 has some i nfo for that. ============ == ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Catz631(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Mike , I totally agree with you in regard to the Aveo strobes. They are very light,compact,no power pack,and very low amp draw which I needed for my Rotax. Max continuous is supposed to be around 14 amps so I am trying to keep the strobe draw low as I have other equipment (all low draw). I just wish the Aveos were a little brighter. I ask the guys on the ground if they see them and they pretty much say no. I am going to keep them though. I am looking into the new Kentzleman (sp) landing,taxi, recognition light. It is supposed to be 2 1/2 times brighter than a 55 watt halogen headlight and draws less than 1 1/2 amps ! Put a flasher on it (auto store) and you would look like Southwest with their flashing landing lights! The thing is only 3" x 1" It too uses high power LED's. Anybody have one? It's an expensive item (about $230 @ Spruce) I installed a Monroy 300 in the panel of my Kitfox for traffic alert. Now that little jewel works great and in this high traffic area it is handy to have! We have a large number of T-34C's and helo traffic from the Navy. Dick Maddux Kitfox 4-1200 Rotax 912UL Pensacola,Fl **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Date: Jan 28, 2009
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
My strobe power pack (from strobesnmore.com) has numerous flashing patterns: which ones (by plug location) flash in unison or alternatively, as well as single, double or quad flashes. Dennis Glaeser RV7A >Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have >the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag >pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an >end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics >arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me, >that's what I'm here for. > >Raymond Julian >Kettle River, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Raymond, Both the Aveo and Whelen system offer alternate synced strobe flashing. Mike On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:23 PM, raymondj wrote: > > > > Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I am considering trying to have > the wingtip strobes fire in sequence something like a wigwag > pattern. Maybe I'm lacking some piece of info that would put an > end to my speculation. I am a novice in the aviation electronics > arena. If there are things which prevent this please educate me, > that's what I'm here for. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "Hope for the best, > but prepare for the worst." > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: e-bus question
Date: Jan 28, 2009
I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights, strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why? Thanks, Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
From: "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2009
I have a single AeroSun mounted as a nose light on my trike. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aeroSunXtreme.php Very bright, built in wig-wag, low amp draw. Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227342#227342 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: e-bus question
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter wrote: > I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA > analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support > everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights, > strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the > endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable > termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the > panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be > supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why? > One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary. The main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads with one switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches, at most, then building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce loads with one switch probably isn't worth doing. If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most you'd be switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on approach with landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes south... you probably won't want or need to switch them off immediately, especially if they're LED's.) If you have low draw LED position lights, you might just keep them ON too if conditions warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so small that there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of the other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom, etc.) might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other hand, it may be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you may add additional gear in the future, or for future resale to a buyer who may want to add more gear, etc. My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't really need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of weight it might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger battery instead. Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: e-bus question
At 01:12 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote: >On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter ><kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop> wrote: > >I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, >UMA analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will >easily support everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the >position lights, strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that >the intent of the endurance bus is to power the items necessary for >the comfortable termination of the flight. Is there a downside to >putting most of the panel, minus the external lighting, on the >e-bus, as long as it can be supported? If so, what would be kept on >the main bus, and why? > > >One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary. >The main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads >with one switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches, >at most, then building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce >loads with one switch probably isn't worth doing. > >If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most >you'd be switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on >approach with landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes >south... you probably won't want or need to switch them off >immediately, especially if they're LED's.) If you have low draw LED >position lights, you might just keep them ON too if conditions >warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so small that >there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of the >other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom, >etc.) might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other >hand, it may be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you >may add additional gear in the future, or for future resale to a >buyer who may want to add more gear, etc. > >My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't >really need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of >weight it might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger >battery instead. The "E" stands for "endurance." The goal is not necessarily to accomplish "rapid" load reduction. If one waited to finish a cup of coffee before switching to the endurance mode, the likely outcome of the flight would probably not be altered. I'll refer the reader to chapter 17 of the 'Connection were simple-ideas behind the e-bus are discussed in detail. In a nutshell, the e-bus . . . (1) provides TWO pathways to ALL equipment useful for en-route phase of flight . . . one of which does not depend on a functioning battery contactor. (2) a gathering place for en-route mode electrics operating BATTERY only in a configuration most likely to offer battery-only endurance equal to or greater than fuel endurance. (3) isolation of the battery contactor load in the en-route phase of flight . . . 0.8A of battery contator draw would run two to four solid state radios in the receive mode! (4) adding the SD-8 raises en-route loads to 8.0A without taxing the battery. This allows one to reserve 100% of battery capacity for approach to landing. Obviously, if you can reduce main-bus + contactor loads to some value less than 8 amps, then one might decide that the separate e-bus was not necessary. However, the dual pathway for power described in (1) would be given up . . . meaning that loss of a battery contactor walls off the battery as a source of energy and runs the risk of loosing a main alternator if you "stall" it with something like a landing light inrush load. Now, if you've included the self-excitation mode for the SD-8, you can probably fiddle with the switches and get things back up and running. The problem is that NOT configuring an e-bus as shown tosses out a simple manipulation of switches after loss main alternator. A simple procedure that eliminates in flight troubleshooting and switch-flipping and offers a predicable outcome of flight under plan-b. The E-bus is not a nifty, stand-alone feature of the OBAM aircraft electrical system. It is but one component of a SYSTEM that has evolved over the past 15 years and represents one of several recipes for success in meeting design goals. If your goals are to design, own and operate your airplane as if it were a C-150 with an SD-8 added, that's fine too. I'll suggest that the well considered decision requires an understanding of the respective design goals. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I'd guess that the strobe visibility problem is due to the relatively short "on" time compared to the "off" time. Does anyone know if this is true? The rest of this message assumes it is.. :) I also suspect that strobes aren't terribly efficient at turning watts to lumens in terms of total power consumed... Doing a little research seems to support that: http://www.birket.com/strobes/Library/Photometry%20of%20Strobes.htm Strobes may seem efficient because they provide very bright light for not too many continuous watts, but since they're "on" time is so short, they aren't very good. It's interesting that the FAA approves of the change from the old rotating or flashing incandescent light to strobes. I suspect a study of relative conspicuity might find that strobes (as installed) are in many ways inferior to the old style of lights. At best, I find that strobes make me aware of the presence of another airplane (or cell phone tower), but it often takes me a moment of searching around to actually figure out where the flash was coming from. I also think strobes often distract me from identifying what the object they're mounted to actually is. I don't know if this is a common experience... I have found (and I think there are studies that show) that lighting systems designed to attract attention should never be completely dark while the system is operating. This is true for traffic signals. A single flashing light is much harder to see than two flashing lights wig-wagging, even if they are spaced relatively close to each other. In normal vision, our eyes are constantly moving, using our fovea (the hi-res portion of the retina) to paint a picture in our visual cortex (part of our mind) of our surroundings. It's hard to see strobes because the "on" time is so short that while the eye may become aware of the strobe's flash because of the image showing up away from the fovea, the short "on" time makes it difficult for the eye/head to get the fovea on target very soon. I believe it's true that good alert lighting employs our vision system's motion sensing capability (away from the fovea), but such a system is easier to see also because there's essentially no "off" time. Where I'm going with is that when I go shopping for anti-collision lighting, I won't be looking at strobes. Instead I'll want some system that might look to the eye more like the old incandescent lights, except brighter, cooler running, and more reliable. LED's are the obvious source of illumination, especially today with their remarkable efficiency. I like the wig-wags on the front of the airplane - even incandescent, but wonder if there's anything in the FAR's about additional lighting that might be used. I know that they have a very specific description of the required output of the navigation lights, and I'm not proposing to replace those.. I'd like to add flashing wingtip and tail lights, mounted where strobes often are, but setup to run such that while one light is off, another one is always on. Viewed from ahead of the wingtip, the wigwagging lights are visible, plus the flashing light on the near wingtip. From aft of the wingtip, the wingtip light is still visible, plus the tail light. In no case does the airplane present a view of just one light flashing on and off. I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early 182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I installed LED anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo) are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but using quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest performance way of operating them. Back to work. Regards, Matt- > > > At 08:39 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote: >>Hi, >> I am new to this list as I decided to expand my information input. >> In regards to The Aveo strobes,I have them on my Kitfox. The amp >> load is very low and that is why I bought them. I removed my >> Whelens and sold the set on EBAY. Now I wish I had them back. The >> Aveo's work well but they are no where near as bright as the Whelens. > > I wouldn't loose much sleep over it. Strobes as an > aid to collision avoidance is problematic. For EVERY > close encounter with another airplane I was aware of, > by the time I saw the airplane the event was nearly over. > Had I KNOWN that an airplane was approaching from a certain > quadrant and was watching for it . . . the strobes might have > helped me pick up the machine. However,(1) conditions > were so hazy at the time that even if I had seen the > airplane, I'm not sure I could have studied it long > enough to decide whether it was at the same altitude > or holding position on the windshield - i.e. collision > course or (2) didn't see the airplane until right overhead > or even passed my location and moving away. In the > later cases, the airplane's approach was out of line of > sight. > > The notion that "lives will be saved" by having > n-times stronger strobe lights is a figment of > a bureaucrat's imagination and fondest wishes. > In the cases where the other airplane is looking > right at you, a strobe of about ANY light output > will be of some assistance. Without a doubt, wig-wagged > landing lights are several orders of magnitude more > attention getting but of course ONLY in the cone of > visibility forward of your aircraft. > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: D-Sub contact ratings.
>Looking at your mini-bus creation using d-sub, can you give me an idea how >many amps can I put thru those d-sub pins ( I guess is a better question is >what are each of the pins rated for)??...obviously, I looking at using18-22 >awg wire..probably no higher than 5 amps, but maybe as high as 7.5 amps if >possible. Any single pin is limited to no larger than 20AWG wire and 7.5A at 25C ambient. I've run as much as 25A on any single set of wires by paralleling pins and leaving at least 12" of 22AWG wire in series with each pin to add "ballasting" resistance . . . to force sharing of the load across an array of paralleled pins. So if you wanted to run say 10A on an 18AWG wire through the d-sub, splice into two to three 22AWG pigtails and then drop the pigtails into the pins. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/Paralleled_D-Sub_Pins.jpg I did a solid state power distribution controller . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_Power_Dist.jpg for a super-sonic target http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/GQM_1st_Ops_Flight.jpg that used this paralleling technique. It was tested to the full suite of environmental conditions unique to this target. In this case, one connector was an ECB board version so the whole 12" length of ballasting wire was on one side. For a 25-pin connector I'd recommend de-rating current loading by 50% or say 3.7 amps per pin. You probably won't have many situations where you need to run 18 or 16 awg wires through the connector so 2 or at the most 3 paralleled pins should cover you nicely on these circuits. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: e-bus question
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)CRUZCOM.COM>
My mistake, Bob. I forgot about the main contactor. Ron On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 01:12 PM 1/28/2009, you wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Tom Barter > wrote: > > I am building a fairly simple VFR panel (comm., transponder, D-10A, UMA > analog gauges) using Z13/8. The SD-8 aux. alternator will easily support > everything on the panel (about 5.5 amps), except the position lights, > strobes, and wig wag landing lights. I know that the intent of the > endurance bus is to power the items necessary for the comfortable > termination of the flight. Is there a downside to putting most of the > panel, minus the external lighting, on the e-bus, as long as it can be > supported? If so, what would be kept on the main bus, and why? > > > One perspective is that at some point, an E-bus becomes unnecessary. The > main purpose of an E-bus is to allow you to rapidly reduce loads with one > switch. If you can rapidly reduce loads with two switches, at most, then > building an E-bus just to be able to rapidly reduce loads with one switch > probably isn't worth doing. > > If the above list is really all you're going to have, then at most you'd be > switching off position and strobe lights. (If you're on approach with > landing lights ON when the alternator/regulator goes south... you probably > won't want or need to switch them off immediately, especially if they're > LED's.) If you have low draw LED position lights, you might just keep them > ON too if conditions warrant. At worst, LED position lights' draw is so > small that there's no big rush to turn them off manually. At least some of > the other things you might want to have (small panel GPS, intercom, etc.) > might stay ON in a low voltage scenario as well. On the other hand, it may > be worthwhile to include an E-bus now if you think you may add additional > gear in the future, or for future resale to a buyer who may want to add more > gear, etc. > > My hunch is that in a VFR Avid equipped as you describe, you don't really > need a separate E-bus. You could put the extra pound or so of weight it > might take to include an E-bus into a little bit bigger battery instead. > > > The "E" stands for "endurance." The goal is not necessarily > to accomplish "rapid" load reduction. If one waited to finish > a cup of coffee before switching to the endurance mode, the > likely outcome of the flight would probably not be altered. > > I'll refer the reader to chapter 17 of the 'Connection > were simple-ideas behind the e-bus are discussed in > detail. In a nutshell, the e-bus . . . > > (1) provides TWO pathways to ALL equipment useful for > en-route phase of flight . . . one of which does > not depend on a functioning battery contactor. > > (2) a gathering place for en-route mode electrics > operating BATTERY only in a configuration most likely > to offer battery-only endurance equal to or greater > than fuel endurance. > > (3) isolation of the battery contactor load in the > en-route phase of flight . . . 0.8A of battery > contator draw would run two to four solid state > radios in the receive mode! > > (4) adding the SD-8 raises en-route loads to 8.0A > without taxing the battery. This allows one to > reserve 100% of battery capacity for approach to landing. > > Obviously, if you can reduce main-bus + contactor > loads to some value less than 8 amps, then one > might decide that the separate e-bus was not necessary. > However, the dual pathway for power described in > (1) would be given up . . . meaning that loss of > a battery contactor walls off the battery as a source of > energy and runs the risk of loosing a main alternator > if you "stall" it with something like a landing light > inrush load. Now, if you've included the self-excitation > mode for the SD-8, you can probably fiddle with the > switches and get things back up and running. > > The problem is that NOT configuring an e-bus as > shown tosses out a simple manipulation of switches > after loss main alternator. A simple procedure > that eliminates in flight troubleshooting and > switch-flipping and offers a predicable outcome > of flight under plan-b. > > The E-bus is not a nifty, stand-alone feature of > the OBAM aircraft electrical system. It is but > one component of a SYSTEM that has evolved over > the past 15 years and represents one of several > recipes for success in meeting design goals. > > If your goals are to design, own and operate > your airplane as if it were a C-150 with an SD-8 > added, that's fine too. I'll suggest that the > well considered decision requires an understanding > of the respective design goals. > > Bob . . . > > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Good Evening Matt, I totally agree with your analysis of the strobe light conspicuity. I think a white rotating beacon would probably be better than a red one I do NOT care for strobes for just the reasons you note! Another comment if I may?. I have not checked the regulations, but my memory thinks that the approval to use flashing running lights has been rescinded. As I am sure you are aware, airliners and many corporate aircraft of the late forties and early fifties were equipped with an alternating system whereby the running lights were not flashing, but they did alternate between on and off. If my memory serves me correctly, the on portion was fairly long and the off portion was relatively short. I think a sailor may have called it an occulting light. There were also white lights mounted on top and bottom of the airplane. When the running lights were off, the white lights were on and vice versa. That system was dropped when rotating beacons came into use. Many light planes adopted a flasher that just flashed the position lights without having any white light on while the running lights were off. My recollection is that the FARs now require steady running lights. Since the primary use of running lights is so we may discern the direction of flight, I think they should always be steady lights. Whadda Ya Think? 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 1/28/2009 3:57:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, mprather(at)spro.net writes: I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early 182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I installed LED anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo) are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but using quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest performance way of operating them. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed. BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Evening Matt, > > I totally agree with your analysis of the strobe light conspicuity. > > I think a white rotating beacon would probably be better than a red one > > I do NOT care for strobes for just the reasons you note! > > Another comment if I may?. > > I have not checked the regulations, but my memory thinks that the > approval to use flashing running lights has been rescinded. > > As I am sure you are aware, airliners and many corporate aircraft of the > late forties and early fifties were equipped with an alternating system > whereby the running lights were not flashing, but they did alternate > between on and off. If my memory serves me correctly, the on portion was > fairly long and the off portion was relatively short. I think a sailor > may have called it an occulting light. There were also white lights > mounted on top and bottom of the airplane. When the running lights were > off, the white lights were on and vice versa. > > That system was dropped when rotating beacons came into use. > > Many light planes adopted a flasher that just flashed the position > lights without having any white light on while the running lights were > off. My recollection is that the FARs now require steady running lights. > > Since the primary use of running lights is so we may discern the > direction of flight, I think they should always be steady lights. > > Whadda Ya Think? > > 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 1/28/2009 3:57:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, > mprather(at)spro.net writes: > > I also know that the nav lights are allowed to flash (or were - my early > 182's lights do that). I'd likely disable that feature if I > installed LED > anti-collision lights. I see that some aircraft light companies (Aveo) > are appearing to mimic the strobe behavior using LED technology, but > using > quite short "on" time. I propose that this might not be the highest > performance way of operating them. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 28, 2009
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Good Evening Kelly, You made me look in the FARs! If I am correct and the change required that the lights be operated continuously, there would be no need to change or modify the AD. All it says in Part 91.209 is that we must have lighted position lights and a lighted anti-collision light. The anti-collision light may be switched off if the PIC feels it is best to do so. My recollection is that there was a communication of some sort telling us to not use the flashing nav lights anymore, but I do NOT recall what form that notice took. I also believe that there was language in the CARs that did allow the flashing lights. I do not recall which CAR it was, but it was certainly in part 20, 43, or 60. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not believe so. 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 1/28/2009 9:42:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, kellym(at)aviating.com writes: I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2009
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
And I was hoping your memory was better than mine. :-) Unfortunately, I didn't get involved with aviation until the early 70s, so have no info prior to that. Of course that was prior to having any night flying requirement for a private license, prior to tailwheel and HP endorsements being required, back when your airline FO might only have a commercial multi ticket, without instrument, ATP or type rating. Those were the days. Do remember a number of on airport FSS that I visited that were closed as soon as AWOS came along. Haven't seen a machine yet that can figure cloud cover and visibility as well as a trained human with appropriate instruments. BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Evening Kelly, > > You made me look in the FARs! > > If I am correct and the change required that the lights be operated > continuously, there would be no need to change or modify the AD. > > All it says in Part 91.209 is that we must have lighted position > lights and a lighted anti-collision light. The anti-collision light > may be switched off if the PIC feels it is best to do so. > > My recollection is that there was a communication of some sort telling > us to not use the flashing nav lights anymore, but I do NOT recall > what form that notice took. I also believe that there was language in > the CARs that did allow the flashing lights. I do not recall which CAR > it was, but it was certainly in part 20, 43, or 60. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not believe so. > > 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 1/28/2009 9:42:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, > kellym(at)aviating.com writes: > > I don't know Bob. I had a Cessna 170B for years that came with a nav > light flasher, which had an AD on it. Compliance was to either remove > the flasher, or install a two position switch to allow full on or > flashing. Don't believe the AD ever changed. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Strobe Lights
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Hi All- Many good points on lights and threat detection. I'd like to add that, like many on this list, I've had a lot of opportunity to look for traffic at night. The number of times I've seen strobes and the distance at which I've seen I've seen strobes is many times that of seeing a red beacon. How many times have we looked at a night sky and seen an airliner's strobes and never seen the beacon? Also, as Matt observed, motion is a key element of visual perception, especially with faint light. I suspect "change in the light' is the real issue, and is why wig wags are so attractive to the eye. Strobes, obviously, have that characteristic. They certainly can have the shortcomings that were pointed out, namely low duty cycle, no inherent direction vector, and potential confusion with ground based strobes. To address all those issues, Whelen makes strobes called "Comet Flash" that will fire 4 times, IIRC, in very rapid succession. This quadruples the duty cycle and creates a visual 'trail' for the eye. These factors identify the lights as being airborne, and are both attention getting and impart a direction vector to the light. These strobes can be configured to fire in opposition, as with a wig-wag system, which I believe further doubles the duty cycle of the strobes. At the time I was shopping for external lighting, the Whelens were by far and away the brightest strobes on the market, as well as the most expensive. As much as I like to get the best bang for my limited bucks, I consider hairy-chested anti-collision strobe lights a high priority. It's a long and unique story, but my pucker factor would have been a whole lot lower one hazy afternoon had the other plane had strobes on... The particular Whelen's I bought have strobe, white, and red or green lights all in one wing tip unit. This way, I have 2 white tail lights and no tail mounted lights at all. None of the cost, installation, maint, or drag associated with the beacon and discrete tail lights. The only down side I can think of is that when viewed from behind, someone might mistake my little, slow aircraft for a large aircraft that is five or six times farther away and moving faster. As an aside, Beech used to supply at least their airliners with white anti-collision beacons. They were certainly more effective / obnoxious than red beacons while on the ground, but I really don't know if they were any more effective aloft. Also, there were several TC'd aircraft in my deep dark past that had strobes in lieu of a beacon. Mostly Grumman, but there may have been a Cessna or piper in there as well. YMMV, FWIW, etc. glen matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: NASCAR 2007 Crash- Reset Circuit Breaker
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Bob, The FAA's conclusion of the causes of the NASCAR crash in 2007 was published in the Orlando Sentinel today: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-planecrash2909jan2 9,0,4517645.story It is a great example that supports of your rationale for fuses vs circuit breakers. Regards, Richard Dudley -6A (with fuses) sold ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hey Bob, Why no FL or ANL on the main and bat bus feeds?
From: "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Bob, Why no over current protection on the battery and main bus feeds? Unfused wires with a huge current source make me nervous even if they are fairly short. What would be the wrong in using a ANL on the main bus and either an ANL or a fuseable link on the battery bus? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227502#227502 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Strobe Lights
Matt Prather wrote: > Where I'm going with is that when I go shopping for anti-collision > lighting, I won't be looking at strobes. Instead I'll want some system > that might look to the eye more like the old incandescent lights, except > brighter, cooler running, and more reliable. LED's are the obvious source > of illumination, especially today with their remarkable efficiency. > > Matt, you make a good case, but I think the better option is to go with both. The strobe is to draw the eye of the other pilot to your general direction. The wig-wag is to get him (or her) to hone in on your exact position. I don't always necessarily need to know exactly where something is at. "A tower is to the right, hang a little to the left" is usually more precision than necessary, and I wouldn't use 'precision guidance' around phrases like "Traffic at 2 o'clock". The strobe is just a heads up that there is something in that general direction, and I think a quick flash does that better than a steady burning light. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: NASCAR 2007 Crash - reset circuit breaker
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Bob, The NTSB conclusions, published today, include the re-setting of a circuit breaker of an already suspicious circuit as likely contributor. This is a clear reinforcement of the philosophy for use of fuses (to be replaced only on the ground) instead of circuit breakers. Regards, Richard Dudley -6A (all fuses), sold ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Switches and Relays
From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Is there a general rule of thumb regarding max current load through a switch before it is prudent to add a relay to handle switching higher current loads (similar to S704-1 12v/20A)? Maybe this is spelled out in an AEC doc, but if so I couldn't find it. A couple of components which might require relay switch protection come to mind including: pitot heat, landing lights, standard nav lights, and maybe fuel pump... each appear to draw 5A or more in steady state. The AN5812 heated pitot might be a strong relay usage contender as it has a hefty initial current spike followed by a sizable current draw (see AEC article "Gauging Pitot Heater Performance" 15 Feb 2005). 1N5400 (3A/50v) diodes are commonly used on Z-diagram contactors across the low current coil side to suppress current spikes. Similar best practice would seem to follow for S704-1 type relays too? The 1N5400 diode seems like it would be good candidate. Are mil-spec components advised or is the local Radio Shack sufficient? I'm all for sweating through the load analysis and thinking things out in advance so as to not end up with arc welded switches later. Thanks, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227517#227517 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: NASCAR 2007 Crash- Reset Circuit Breaker
At 10:03 AM 1/29/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >The FAA's conclusion of the causes of the NASCAR crash in 2007 was >published in the Orlando Sentinel today: ><http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-planecrash2909jan29,0,4517645.story>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-planecrash2909jan29,0,4517645.story > >It is a great example that supports of your rationale for fuses vs >circuit breakers. > >Regards, > >Richard Dudley Hmmmmm . . . it's not clear from this story that the outcome would have been any different had the airplane been fitted with fuses. Both fuses and breakers are crafted with the hard-fault in mind. I.e. a pretty solid short or overload that causes a current several times greater than the protection rating. We've had some discussions on the List concerning what I call soft faults. I've had several occasions to study the difference and have delivered a number of explanatory presentations to folks in my industry. The "hard" fault is generally over in tens of milliseconds but 10 seconds max. And while the current flow is high, the total ENERGY dissipated in highly stressed components is relatively low compared with . . . Soft faults are those events that DO NOT stress the over current protection very hard. Examples of this condition made big news in SwissAir 111 accident a few years back were it was decided that prolonged arcing at or below the breaker trip calibration set un-qualified insulation on fire. Here are some excerpts from a presentation I gave on the topic where some folks were agonizing over the existence of a 10AWG feeder downstream of an 8AWG feeder protected by a 50A breaker. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Hard_vs_Soft_Faults.pdf This airplane was built in 1977. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC07MA162&rpt=p I'm sure the Cessna west-side guys were using the same wire as us east-side guys . . . Mil-W-16867 type BN (nylon over pvc). . . Tefzel didn't get a good grip in local aircraft fabrication for several more years. What's more, this insulation was 30+ years old at the time of the accident. It seems the pilot might have thought a previous day's smoke event was limited to the radar or associated wiring when the first problem abated after a breaker was pulled. The airplane was so totally destroyed by fire that we can only guess as to root cause and successive events. But it's not a far reaching hypothesis to suggest that the first event may have damaged other wires in a bundle placing them at risk for continued failures beyond those associated with the radar system. When we see an accident where an electrically induced fire is suspected, it's almost a 100% bet that the failure was a soft fault that dumped a lot of energy without exceeding the ratings of the fuses or breakers. Given the nature of modern insulations I'll suggest likelihood of this type event repeating in your OBAM aircraft is exceedingly small. Tefzel is about as close to an ideal insulating material as we've ever seen. From eye witness descriptions if this incident we can assume that the problem was less electrical and more a function of flammable materials continuing to burn. The accident stories noted that their last transmission was interrupted mid sentence. I can only guess that they were already in a lot of trouble with an electrical system that was still energized. When you smell smoke, the best advice is to shut down the electrical system in its entirety and continue with hand-helds as needed to a no-sweat landing. If you really NEED stuff on the e-bus, wait until you know the smoke event is over before bringing the e-bus back on through the alternate feed. Turn of any un-needed, e-bus powered accessories before powering it back up. Be ready to kill it if smoke resumes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Switches and Relays
At 11:33 AM 1/29/2009, you wrote: > >Is there a general rule of thumb regarding max current load through >a switch before it is prudent to add a relay to handle switching >higher current loads (similar to S704-1 12v/20A)? Maybe this is >spelled out in an AEC doc, but if so I couldn't find it. What particular situation drives this consideration? Aside from pitot heaters, toe heaters, and klieg lights for landing and taxi, you're unlikely to overload the plain vanilla switches offered by most suppliers. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf >A couple of components which might require relay switch protection >come to mind including: pitot heat, landing lights, standard nav >lights, and maybe fuel pump... each appear to draw 5A or more in steady state. > >The AN5812 heated pitot might be a strong relay usage contender as >it has a hefty initial current spike followed by a sizable current >draw (see AEC article "Gauging Pitot Heater Performance" 15 Feb 2005). Yes, this is an excellent application for a relay . . . especially a solid state relay. >1N5400 (3A/50v) diodes are commonly used on Z-diagram contactors >across the low current coil side to suppress current spikes. Similar >best practice would seem to follow for S704-1 type relays too? Yeah, except that the lead wires on a 5400 series device are pretty hefty and may be difficult to install as shown in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg >The 1N5400 diode seems like it would be good candidate. Are mil-spec >components advised or is the local Radio Shack sufficient? The lowly silicon diode rectifier is the oldest semiconductor device in the marketplace. It's so easy to make a really good diode that nobody even bothers to offer parts screened to military specs. Finally the electrical stresses on spike catcher diodes is measured in MILLIJOULES . . . a sneeze in a thunderstorm. Anything from this list of parts offered by RadioShack and many others can be considered to your tasks. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/RS_Diodes.jpg >I'm all for sweating through the load analysis and thinking things >out in advance so as to not end up with arc welded switches later. I've never seen an arc welded switch that's been "overloaded". Switches fail open after they burn for a host of reasons not the least of which is mechanical inadequacies at riveted joints. What are the current ratings for systems you're considering? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switches and Relays
From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Bob, Thanks for the reply. The biggest current users on my panel are AN5812 pitot heat (~8A steady state after the initial inrush spike is done), landing lights (~4A each), Whelen strobes (~7A total), NAV lights (~6A total) and boost fuel pump (~5A). My take away from reading the AEC Switch article is that there's no need to protect panel switches except those used to operate the high current starter and battery contactors. The entire topic really boils down to this paragraph: "The heaviest currents handled by panel switches are landing/ taxi lights (which have their own special inrush values -see "lamp" ratings in table above), and pitot heat. For most 14-volt airplanes this is about 8 amps. Everything else drops rapidly from there. I can also tell you that switching an 8-amp landing light with a 4-amp "lamp" rated switch is not an automatic formula for welding. The 200% "overload" will indeed reduce the life of the switch. However, let us suppose the switch was originally rated for 10,000 cycles (a low estimate) and the reduction was to 10% of rated life(also very low) . . . How long will it take you to put 1000 cycles on your landing light switch? " Does anyone have the definitions of an "Electrical Code Rating" as referenced in the Microswitch Catalog table? The table would probably make better sense then. There's a reference to switch cycle life above, but switches aren't typically sold with that information easily obtained up front. Maybe someone has a link to a good website as that info could be useful. I must be missing something. People must be buying S704-1 relays as B&C sells them and you reference them in several docs... but what are they using them for if there's really no utility in it? Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227591#227591 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Switches and Relays
Date: Jan 29, 2009
I've looked at this in some detail. Since I've had multiple switch failures (long Carling switch thread), I have looked at relays for switching heavy loads. In my new A/C (Harmon Rocket), this thinking has led me to a bank of relays controlled by grounded switches. I need a bunch of relays for the trim systems and other stick-grip switches anyway, so I went all the way with all of my electrical loads switched with relays. While not strictly necessary, it allowed me to place the relays and breakers off-panel where the heavy gauge wiring runs were shorter. This saves many dozens of feet of heavy wiring running back and forth to the panel. Most of the switches on the panel are grounded to activate the corresponding relay. This allows me to use a single 22 AWG wiring for each relay control. I can also use lighter weight toggle switches on the panel, which also happen to be cheaper. The lighter weight switches and shorter heavy gauge wiring runs should roughly balance out the relay weights. Another benefit of this approach is that rotary switches can be used instead of toggles. For example, I plan one rotary switch for my main lights: OFF-WIGWAG-PULSE-LDG-TAXI-BOTH. This takes one position on my panel and is configured to drive my two lamp relays as necessary (left and right wingtip lamps). Also, I plan on connectorizing the panel... it's a lot simpler with fewer light gauge wires. So an architecture based on relays has other benfits other than protecting switches. These benefits must be weighed against the complexity and potential failure modes of relays compared to switches. Sometimes, you just want to experiment! Vern Little ----- Original Message ----- From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:33 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches and Relays > > > Is there a general rule of thumb regarding max current load through a > switch before it is prudent to add a relay to handle switching higher > current loads (similar to S704-1 12v/20A)? Maybe this is spelled out in an > AEC doc, but if so I couldn't find it. > > A couple of components which might require relay switch protection come to > mind including: pitot heat, landing lights, standard nav lights, and maybe > fuel pump... each appear to draw 5A or more in steady state. > > The AN5812 heated pitot might be a strong relay usage contender as it has > a hefty initial current spike followed by a sizable current draw (see AEC > article "Gauging Pitot Heater Performance" 15 Feb 2005). > > 1N5400 (3A/50v) diodes are commonly used on Z-diagram contactors across > the low current coil side to suppress current spikes. Similar best > practice would seem to follow for S704-1 type relays too? > > The 1N5400 diode seems like it would be good candidate. Are mil-spec > components advised or is the local Radio Shack sufficient? > > I'm all for sweating through the load analysis and thinking things out in > advance so as to not end up with arc welded switches later. > > Thanks, > Jay > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227517#227517 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Switches and Relays
Date: Jan 29, 2009
Bob, Speaking of switch failures, I think you had mentioned that you would test the practicality and function of adding JB weld to switch rivets to see if it would prevent them from loosening without a downside. Any progress there? Bevan RV7A wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Switches and Relays
Date: Jan 30, 2009
Vern, About 4 years and 500 hundred hours ago, I wired a velocity for a friend as per Bob's Z drawings. I too was hesitant about running large wires up the door post to the overhead switch gang. I made a box with post terminals in the box and a gang of 13 relays on top. This was mounted on the forward bulkhead close to the battery. Have not had to replace a relay yet. However he does keep a couple of spares in the plane. Peter Laurence RV9A N60PL I've looked at this in some detail. Since I've had multiple switch failures (long Carling switch thread), I have looked at relays for switching heavy loads. In my new A/C (Harmon Rocket), this thinking has led me to a bank of relays controlled by grounded switches. I need a bunch of relays for the trim systems and other stick-grip switches anyway, so I went all the way with all of my electrical loads switched with relays. While not strictly necessary, it allowed me to place the relays and breakers off-panel where the heavy gauge wiring runs were shorter. This saves many dozens of feet of heavy wiring running back and forth to the panel. Most of the switches on the panel are grounded to activate the corresponding relay. This allows me to use a single 22 AWG wiring for each relay control. I can also use lighter weight toggle switches on the panel, which also happen to be cheaper. The lighter weight switches and shorter heavy gauge wiring runs should roughly balance out the relay weights. Another benefit of this approach is that rotary switches can be used instead of toggles. For example, I plan one rotary switch for my main lights: OFF-WIGWAG-PULSE-LDG-TAXI-BOTH. This takes one position on my panel and is configured to drive my two lamp relays as necessary (left and right wingtip lamps). Also, I plan on connectorizing the panel... it's a lot simpler with fewer light gauge wires. So an architecture based on relays has other benfits other than protecting switches. These benefits must be weighed against the complexity and potential failure modes of relays compared to switches. Sometimes, you just want to experiment! Vern Little ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Switches and Relays
At 10:13 PM 1/29/2009, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Speaking of switch failures, > >I think you had mentioned that you would test the practicality and function >of adding JB weld to switch rivets to see if it would prevent them from >loosening without a downside. Any progress there? Some. I have looked at every riveted Carling switch in the shop (about 25 pcs) and found none with observably loose joints. I did do some tests to determine that the contact material (which includes the formed rivet head) is solderable - as are the brass fast-on tabs. The conditions are favorable soldering the rivets to the tabs and then covering the joint with a dab of JB Weld. This still begs the question as to return on investment for this effort. We've identified no changes to process or design that would account for a rash of failures in these switches. The design has been essentially unchanged for decades and what must be many millions of devices. I'll suggest it's pretty clear that the failures were not a function of failure to observe ratings. It's clear that the strongest potential for failure happens under the formed head of the rivet. If it's too loose, corrosion can begin and failure is a sure thing given sufficient time. The soldering process is not a quick-n-easy thing. I was able to get good flow to the two materials but it was a bit fussy. Couldn't be sure that I wasn't degrading the joint quality at the base of the saddle inside the switch while I was making them "better" on the outside. If you've got switches that are not yet installed, it wouldn't hurt to beef them up with some JB Weld. Use the slow setting stuff so you've got plenty of time to work carefully. You can also mix up a larger quantity of the slow stuff and do a batch of switches. Emacs! Take care to avoid contaminating the tabs. I'm not confident that soldering the contact to the tabs is an "improvement". The epoxy beef-up can't hurt anything and it may be helpful. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Switches and Relays
Date: Jan 30, 2009
Thanks for the reference Peter. I too plan to have a spare relay or too handy (or I could swap out a non-critical one such as Pitot Heat or Nav Lights) for emergencies. I have relays with interlocking sockets that connect together. This should make for a stable mounting system. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:10 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Switches and Relays > > > > Vern, > > About 4 years and 500 hundred hours ago, I wired a velocity for a friend > as > per Bob's Z drawings. I too was hesitant about running large wires up the > door post to the overhead switch gang. > > I made a box with post terminals in the box and a gang of 13 relays on > top. This was mounted on the forward bulkhead close to the battery. > > Have not had to replace a relay yet. However he does keep a couple of > spares > in the plane. > > > Peter Laurence > RV9A N60PL > > > I've looked at this in some detail. Since I've had multiple switch > failures > > (long Carling switch thread), I have looked at relays for switching heavy > loads. > > In my new A/C (Harmon Rocket), this thinking has led me to a bank of > relays > controlled by grounded switches. I need a bunch of relays for the trim > systems and other stick-grip switches anyway, so I went all the way with > all > > of my electrical loads switched with relays. While not strictly > necessary, > it allowed me to place the relays and breakers off-panel where the heavy > gauge wiring runs were shorter. This saves many dozens of feet of heavy > wiring running back and forth to the panel. > > Most of the switches on the panel are grounded to activate the > corresponding > > relay. This allows me to use a single 22 AWG wiring for each relay > control. > > I can also use lighter weight toggle switches on the panel, which also > happen to be cheaper. The lighter weight switches and shorter heavy gauge > wiring runs should roughly balance out the relay weights. > > Another benefit of this approach is that rotary switches can be used > instead > > of toggles. For example, I plan one rotary switch for my main lights: > OFF-WIGWAG-PULSE-LDG-TAXI-BOTH. This takes one position on my panel and > is > configured to drive my two lamp relays as necessary (left and right > wingtip > lamps). Also, I plan on connectorizing the panel... it's a lot simpler > with > > fewer light gauge wires. > > So an architecture based on relays has other benfits other than protecting > switches. These benefits must be weighed against the complexity and > potential failure modes of relays compared to switches. Sometimes, you > just > > want to experiment! > > Vern Little > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PC Headset compatibility
Date: Jan 31, 2009
From: "Lumkes, John H." <lumkes(at)msoe.edu>
Hello, I have a Plantronics Audio 480 headset with a boom mic and noise isolating ear buds and am wondering what it would take (besides the physical connectors) to use it while flying. It seems that computer soundcards do have a bias voltage of 5V for the mic while aircraft are in the range of 8-16V. Will this mic work as is, does it need an adapter, or is it basically hopeless? The earphones differ in impedance but will at least work for a quick test, and I can build an impedance adapter using a simple part from Radio shack. Any thoughts? John Zenith 601HD (forever in process) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii and
SD-8
From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2009
Food for thought for those with dual LSE ignitions (like me). I was talking with Klaus about his CB recommendation vs fuses and he said that the ignitions (at least the Plasma IIIs that I have) have an internal crowbar circuit to protect the ignition from an overvoltage event. Reason for the CB recommendation was so that in the unlikely case of an OV event the pilot could pull the alternator CBs, reset the ignition CBs and continue flight. This was the first time I'd ever heard this and it scared me A LOT because I've got mine wired through my battery buss fuse blocks (Z-14). While I've never had a problem and haven't heard of anybody else having a problem, I plan to redo the ignition power wiring and switch to CBs. Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227907#227907 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Bob Nuckolls's Z-14 with dual Lightspeed iii
and SD-8
Date: Feb 01, 2009
Bob, I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset and provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. Mike Larkin On Jan 31, 2009, at 2:28 PM, bcondrey wrote: > > > > Food for thought for those with dual LSE ignitions (like me). I was > talking with Klaus about his CB recommendation vs fuses and he said > that the ignitions (at least the Plasma IIIs that I have) have an > internal crowbar circuit to protect the ignition from an overvoltage > event. Reason for the CB recommendation was so that in the unlikely > case of an OV event the pilot could pull the alternator CBs, reset > the ignition CBs and continue flight. > > This was the first time I'd ever heard this and it scared me A LOT > because I've got mine wired through my battery buss fuse blocks > (Z-14). While I've never had a problem and haven't heard of anybody > else having a problem, I plan to redo the ignition power wiring and > switch to CBs. > > Bob > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227907#227907 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC Headset compatibility
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Feb 01, 2009
Aircraft mic lines are equivalent to a carbon granule mic characteristic. That is with around 8V supply the audio output level will be 500 mV P-P into a 600 ohm load. The PC mic is likely an electret capacitance mic which on its own is very low voltage output. You can salvage the required amplifier and impedance buffer from an aircraft headset that uses the electret mic. Another issue is domestic electret mics and amplifiers are not suitable for high noise environment and may overload in aircraft. Cheap "aviation" headsets imported without known branding are very good at this. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228054#228054 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Mechanical battery switch-ATTN BN III
Date: Feb 01, 2009
Bob, I may have sent a message to your private address, and it's not monitored. However you sent me the subject diagram and I've begun to fabricate a form of it. I couldn't find any useful acetal version of Delrin nearby so opted for a slab of Phenolic which is several layers deep. Also I can't find any brass 5/16-24 stock so am going with 5/16 toilet stock which is coarser but hopefully usable. I hope this is satisfactory from a practical point of view - I note the toilet kits are now yellow-coated steel as a partial scam. If it works I'll fire off a message describing it. At present my Main battery switch is a racing-car cut-off switch, so this will constitute a second battery switch thus saving me about 2+ amperes forever. Cheers, Ferg VE3LVO(at)rac.ca ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 03:28 PM 1/31/2009, you wrote: > > >Food for thought for those with dual LSE ignitions (like me). I was >talking with Klaus about his CB recommendation vs fuses and he said >that the ignitions (at least the Plasma IIIs that I have) have an >internal crowbar circuit to protect the ignition from an overvoltage >event. Reason for the CB recommendation was so that in the unlikely >case of an OV event the pilot could pull the alternator CBs, reset >the ignition CBs and continue flight. That is unfortunate. Is this feature mentioned in the installation literature? Under the right conditions of alternator size, battery condition and system loads, an OV event could trip BOTH ignition systems leaving you with a cold engine. The whole idea behind the 20V, 1-Second surge test under DO-160 was to open an OV shutdown opportunity as big as a barn door. Any product designed with rudimentary attention to DO-160 in mind will not even have to grunt hard during an OV detection and shutdown. Response to OV conditions are best handled by devices crafted to slay the dragon in his cave as opposed to chasing him down in the wild. >This was the first time I'd ever heard this and it scared me A LOT >because I've got mine wired through my battery buss fuse blocks >(Z-14). While I've never had a problem and haven't heard of anybody >else having a problem, I plan to redo the ignition power wiring and >switch to CBs. It would scare me too. It's unfortunate that a feature of this accessory drives the installer's system architecture. Bottom line is you gotta do what you gotta do . . . even if it sucks for air. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2009
Subject: Odyssey terminal covers
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Thx. to those who replied for ideas on how to cover battery terminals on a Odyssey PC545. I decided to make 1 BIDcovers: http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album266&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php Pictures 30 to 37. Simple, light, perfect fit, easy on and off. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 180 keyway washers
From: "JohnInReno" <john(at)morgensen.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2009
Does anyone have a source for keyway washers that are 180 degrees out from the standard? The standard washers have the key and the tab together but I am looking for ones with the tab opposite the key. Thanks, John Morgensen -------- RV-9A - Fuselage Grumman AA1B-150 (RV-Trainer) Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228120#228120 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanical battery switch-ATTN BN III
Fergus Kyle wrote: > Bob, > > I may have sent a message to your private address, and it's > not monitored. However you sent me the subject diagram and I've begun to > fabricate a form of it. I couldn't find any useful acetal version of Delrin > nearby so opted for a slab of Phenolic which is several layers deep. Also I > can't find any brass 5/16-24 stock so am going with 5/16 toilet stock which > is coarser but hopefully usable. > The use of the delrin is for isolation, for the most part. There is also going to be some mechanical gymnastics involved in isolating the cable. Is all that really necessary? We tend to get caught up on the idea that the positive lead of the battery has to have the switch; however, for isolation purposes it is just as valid to interrupt the negative lead. Isolation in the reference design could be simplified to two vinyl shoulder washers for one of the 5/16 brass all-thread leads (the one attached to the battery). Everything else could be safely grounded to a metal airplane. In fact, it could safely BE the ground in an all metal airplane, and only have one piece of all-thread and one plunger, cutting the smaller area connections in half . I don't have the time to do a CAD drawing, but I now think I will be using a design composed of a piece of hat section aluminum about 1"x1"x1" with 3/8" flanges, riveted to a steel gusset (I'm building a steel tube frame aircraft). The allthread mounts in a hole in the top of the hat, the plunger through a threaded hole in the gusset. The slider is just a brass plug that grounds the allthread to everything else, until it is pulled. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanical battery switch-ATTN BN III
Fergus Kyle wrote: > Bob, > > I may have sent a message to your private address, and it's > not monitored. However you sent me the subject diagram and I've begun to > fabricate a form of it. I couldn't find any useful acetal version of Delrin > nearby so opted for a slab of Phenolic which is several layers deep. Also I > can't find any brass 5/16-24 stock so am going with 5/16 toilet stock which > is coarser but hopefully usable. > As a followup to my last post, I left out one point. The plunger could be replaced with a short piece of stainless flat spring shaped like a bow, riveted at the entrance and exit of the hat to leave a hump in the middle. A slight depression filed into the center of the brass bar that the spring settled into would provide for positive retention. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2009
Bob, Direction to use CBs is in the installation literature, however no specific or caution against fuses is not. This came up during a conversation when I mentioned driving the ignitions off the battery buss fuse blocks. Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228169#228169 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: 180 keyway washers
JohnInReno wrote: > > Does anyone have a source for keyway washers that are 180 degrees out from the standard? The standard washers have the key and the tab together but I am looking for ones with the tab opposite the key. > > Thanks, > John Morgensen > > -------- > RV-9A - Fuselage > Grumman AA1B-150 (RV-Trainer) Flying > > Oops! I am inquiring about the 700 series of toggle switches. john ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
This whole thing gives me the willies, but I'm in the same boat and not jumping off. I'm gonna buy 2 CB's and hog tie them to the battery. Oddly enough they will be wired through a switch on the panel which is another point of failure. Perhaps I'll braze the fast tabs on so they don't fly off over a bump. We could also fly around with a spare battery at our feet and two alligator clips drooping down from the panel. In an emergency, just hook them up. I guess it's just a matter of what one is comfortable with. Different strokes for different paranoia's. On a similar note, in the recent KitPlanes mag there is an article about Precision's "near" FADEC system which requires the whole system is wired to a separate battery. In this they are taking the next step to completely isolate dependency on the primary battery components. Perhaps that is a good first step. Just add a battery in series and wire the 2 CB's to it. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:45 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8 At 03:28 PM 1/31/2009, you wrote: > > >Food for thought for those with dual LSE ignitions (like me). I was >talking with Klaus about his CB recommendation vs fuses and he said >that the ignitions (at least the Plasma IIIs that I have) have an >internal crowbar circuit to protect the ignition from an overvoltage >event. Reason for the CB recommendation was so that in the unlikely >case of an OV event the pilot could pull the alternator CBs, reset >the ignition CBs and continue flight. That is unfortunate. Is this feature mentioned in the installation literature? Under the right conditions of alternator size, battery condition and system loads, an OV event could trip BOTH ignition systems leaving you with a cold engine. The whole idea behind the 20V, 1-Second surge test under DO-160 was to open an OV shutdown opportunity as big as a barn door. Any product designed with rudimentary attention to DO-160 in mind will not even have to grunt hard during an OV detection and shutdown. Response to OV conditions are best handled by devices crafted to slay the dragon in his cave as opposed to chasing him down in the wild. >This was the first time I'd ever heard this and it scared me A LOT >because I've got mine wired through my battery buss fuse blocks >(Z-14). While I've never had a problem and haven't heard of anybody >else having a problem, I plan to redo the ignition power wiring and >switch to CBs. It would scare me too. It's unfortunate that a feature of this accessory drives the installer's system architecture. Bottom line is you gotta do what you gotta do . . . even if it sucks for air. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: 180 keyway washers
Hi John, Why not notch the panel to fit the washer? Both notches will be covered when the switch is installed. Bob W. John Morgensen wrote: > > JohnInReno wrote: > > > > Does anyone have a source for keyway washers that are 180 degrees out from the standard? The standard washers have the key and the tab together but I am looking for ones with the tab opposite the key. > > > > Thanks, > > John Morgensen > > > > -------- > > RV-9A - Fuselage > > Grumman AA1B-150 (RV-Trainer) Flying > > > > > Oops! I am inquiring about the 700 series of toggle switches. > john > > > > -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com 3.8 Hours Total Time and holding Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 09:52 AM 2/2/2009, you wrote: > > > >Direction to use CBs is in the installation literature, however no >specific or caution against fuses is not. This came up during a >conversation when I mentioned driving the ignitions off the battery >buss fuse blocks. No, I was asking about the built in crowbar ov protection. To include such a feature without specific explanation of its value, installation and operation would not be viewed with benevolence among the designers I work with. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
> This whole thing gives me the willies, but I'm in the same boat and not >jumping off. I'm gonna buy 2 CB's and hog tie them to the battery. Oddly >enough they will be wired through a switch on the panel which is another >point of failure. Perhaps I'll braze the fast tabs on so they don't fly >off over a bump. We could also fly around with a spare battery at our >feet and two alligator clips drooping down from the panel. In an >emergency, just hook them up. I guess it's just a matter of what one is >comfortable with. Different strokes for different paranoia's. > > > On a similar note, in the recent KitPlanes mag there is an article >about Precision's "near" FADEC system which requires the whole system is >wired to a separate battery. In this they are taking the next step to >completely isolate dependency on the primary battery components. > >Perhaps that is a good first step. Just add a battery in series and wire >the 2 CB's to it. "Perhaps it's a good first step" is not a well directed thought process. While motivations of most builders is to shrug off the debilitating effects of self-serving regulation, the history of TC aviation is rich with examples of successful repeatable experiments. Ever watch an episode of "House"? There is a thought process demonstrated in every episode where the characters participate in a "diagnosis differential." In aviation we all it a failure modes effects analysis (FMEA). This experiment is repeated in the operation of ANY successful sifting of simple-ideas looking for the optimized combination that meets design goals. If OBAM aviation suffers from any debilitating if not dangerous faults, it's the lack of diagnosis differential discussions amongst successful practitioners of the craft. The Lists, newsgroups and forums are replete with discussion noteworthy for their emotional dithering and stirring the pot of "idea-stew" which almost never moves toward a cleanly distilled solution. It's your airplanes guys . . . and your choice of installed hardware. If it were my airplane and it came with any built in OV protection that places the airplane at risk, I would conduct the following study: (1) What duration and magnitude of over voltage can the "protected" appliance withstand by design? Does it even come close to the spirit and intent of DO-160 power input recommendations? (2) Can the supplier offer me product with the OV protection disabled if I accept the system integrator's responsibility for assuring that the product will not be stressed beyond those limits quantified in Mil-Std-704 and DO-160? Pending assuring answers to those questions, I would be strongly disposed to seek an alternative product that meets my design goals. Of course, I could craft special power sources for the products that insure they're never presented with an over voltage. How's that for a parts-count boondoggle? Put in more parts to offset the undesirable effects of parts that don't need to be there. In addition to being surplus to the well crafted system, inclusion of extra parts WITHOUT NOTIFYING the customer/installer of their existence and function is inconsistent with conduct I expect from an honorable supplier. This isn't rocket science. It's not about customer loyalty. It's not about performance at any risk. There are well proven processes by which we can minimize risk while meeting design goals and keeping costs bearable. Operations outside those processes is at best fearful and frustrating and at worst hazardous. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanical battery switch-ATTN BN III
At 03:53 PM 2/1/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > I may have sent a message to > your private address, and its not monitored. > However you sent me the subject diagram and > Ive begun to fabricate a form of it. I > couldnt find any useful acetal version of > Delrin nearby so opted for a slab of Phenolic > which is several layers deep. Also I cant find > any brass 5/16-24 stock so am going with 5/16 > toilet stock which is coarser but hopefully usable. > I hope this is satisfactory > from a practical point of view I note the > toilet kits are now yellow-coated steel as a > partial scam. If it works Ill fire off a > message describing it. At present my Main > battery switch is a racing-car cut-off switch, > so this will constitute a second battery switch > thus saving me about 2+ amperes forever. >Cheers, Ferg Ferg, if you're ordering spring-loaded ball plungers from McMaster, they also stock 5/16-24 brass rod stock. They also stock Delrin but I have some scraps of 1 x 1 inch Delrin I can send you. The plated steel parts are NOT suited to this task. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Date: Feb 03, 2009
I dont think I am fully understanding this discussion. Bob, perhaps you could provide a simple summary of the issue and concerns here for the l ess enlightened? There are a lot of folks out here with single or dual lightspeed ignitions. Under what circumstances are they at risk? Any suggested course of action? A lot of concern seems to have been expres sed without much direct input from the manufacturer. erich ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
Thanks Bob for uncovering this. I had the same basic plan as you, using a fuse off each of the two main batteries running up each side of the fusel age to the two LSEIII's. I think knowing this now I will use a slightly larger fuse off the batter y, say 15amp with the appropriate wire of course, and then use breaker swit ches for the LSE's. My batteries are in the back and I certainly don't wan t two separate, unprotected wires running up the length of the fuselage. I f it's an OV and not enough to blow the 15amp fuses then I can reset the LS E's using the switch breakers. If it's something else that blows the 15amp , probably won't make a difference at that point as it's either a fried com ponent or a shorted wire. Does this sound like a workable solution to ever yone? Michael ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I suspect such series protection will always blow the fuse and not the breaker - if they both have the same rating. The time constant for blowing most standard breakers is much slower than for fuses. You might be able to upsize the wiring and fuse and get something to work - by operating the fuse at a much smaller percentage of it's fault current rating than the breaker. You could also pick a device with a slower blow time than a normal ATC fuse. An MDL maybe? The behavior of the system might also depend on how "good" the short is that is presented by the LSE's internal crow bar. The peak current wouldn't likely be anywhere close to that of connecting copper straight across the battery terminals. The impedance of the crowbar comes into play. One question I can't remember being asked/answered is what voltage the LSE's crowbar is designed to trip at. I suspect it might be quite high as I think the systems are allowed to be run from a 24(28)V bus - the manual lists proper operation up to 35V. When using an LSE on an airplane with a 12(14)V buss, the alternator's OV crowbar might be depended on to trip sooner than the LSE crowbar. Regards, Matt- > Thanks Bob for uncovering this. I had the same basic plan as you, using > a fuse off each of the two main batteries running up each side of the > fuselage to the two LSEIII's. > > I think knowing this now I will use a slightly larger fuse off the > battery, say 15amp with the appropriate wire of course, and then use > breaker switches for the LSE's. My batteries are in the back and I > certainly don't want two separate, unprotected wires running up the > length of the fuselage. If it's an OV and not enough to blow the 15amp > fuses then I can reset the LSE's using the switch breakers. If it's > something else that blows the 15amp, probably won't make a difference at > that point as it's either a fried component or a shorted wire. Does > this sound like a workable solution to everyone? > > Michael > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
Like I said, slightly larger fuse. :) Normal operation lists an LSEIII at 7.5AMP requirement with a 10Amp fuse. My reasoning is that doubling the initial fuse would allow the breaker to go first under normal circumstances. I do agree that a slo-blo type fuse would probably decrease the likeliness of the fuse blowing first. I would just assume deal with this back at the batteries but it's not practical to have the CB's back there with no easy way to reset when I'm flying alone troubleshooting an overly quiet engine. I could feed one LSE from the main bus and the second directly from a battery which would probably cover most circumstances. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Prather Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:50 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8 I suspect such series protection will always blow the fuse and not the breaker - if they both have the same rating. The time constant for blowing most standard breakers is much slower than for fuses. You might be able to upsize the wiring and fuse and get something to work - by operating the fuse at a much smaller percentage of it's fault current rating than the breaker. You could also pick a device with a slower blow time than a normal ATC fuse. An MDL maybe? The behavior of the system might also depend on how "good" the short is that is presented by the LSE's internal crow bar. The peak current wouldn't likely be anywhere close to that of connecting copper straight across the battery terminals. The impedance of the crowbar comes into play. One question I can't remember being asked/answered is what voltage the LSE's crowbar is designed to trip at. I suspect it might be quite high as I think the systems are allowed to be run from a 24(28)V bus - the manual lists proper operation up to 35V. When using an LSE on an airplane with a 12(14)V buss, the alternator's OV crowbar might be depended on to trip sooner than the LSE crowbar. Regards, Matt- > Thanks Bob for uncovering this. I had the same basic plan as you, using > a fuse off each of the two main batteries running up each side of the > fuselage to the two LSEIII's. > > I think knowing this now I will use a slightly larger fuse off the > battery, say 15amp with the appropriate wire of course, and then use > breaker switches for the LSE's. My batteries are in the back and I > certainly don't want two separate, unprotected wires running up the > length of the fuselage. If it's an OV and not enough to blow the 15amp > fuses then I can reset the LSE's using the switch breakers. If it's > something else that blows the 15amp, probably won't make a difference at > that point as it's either a fried component or a shorted wire. Does > this sound like a workable solution to everyone? > > Michael > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
Absolutely..Then ditch the mechanical fuel pump and put the electric pumps in the wingrrots. You now have a vapour lock proof fuel system that will run on just about anything, including ethanol. Slightly off topic but you'd be amazed at how many builders balk at two electric fuel pumps, but two EI's is perfectly acceptable. Frank RV7a..IFR All electric, fuel pumps included. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen) Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8 --> Like I said, slightly larger fuse. :) Normal operation lists an LSEIII at 7.5AMP requirement with a 10Amp fuse. My reasoning is that doubling the initial fuse would allow the breaker to go first under normal circumstances. I do agree that a slo-blo type fuse would probably decrease the likeliness of the fuse blowing first. I would just assume deal with this back at the batteries but it's not practical to have the CB's back there with no easy way to reset when I'm flying alone troubleshooting an overly quiet engine. I could feed one LSE from the main bus and the second directly from a battery which would probably cover most circumstances. Michael ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 11:26 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >I dont think I am fully understanding this discussion. Bob, perhaps >you could provide a simple summary of the issue and concerns here >for the less enlightened? There are a lot of folks out here with >single or dual lightspeed ignitions. Under what circumstances are they at risk? The roots of this discussion go back a lot of years and is not limited to any particular manufacturer's design goals. Let me see if I can give you a distilled down synopsis that moves toward focus on the specifics of Lightspeed ignition systems. History: Conventional wisdom for design and fabrication of electrical systems suggests we provide ship's accessories with power constrained within the boundaries cited numerous documents but they're all about the same. For our purposes, let's talk about Mil-Std-704. For details, use the search engine on my website and look for hits on "mil-std-704". A similar search term on the Matronics archives search engine will yield another discussion and data-set. In particular, you can get your own copy of this document at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/Mil-Std-704f.pdf On the accessory side, there's an equally large library of documents that speak to design goals for accessories. The TC aircraft industry is fond of RTCA DO-160. I can't post a copy of this document as the folks at RTCA are pretty protective of their work product. Again, use the search engine on my website and the Matronics archives to look up "DO-160". You can access an outline of the spirit and intent of DO-160 at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/DO-160.pdf Irrespective of any words you read where the writer brushes off the simple-ideas offered in these documents, they have a long and rich history of successful product design, development and operation in both military and civilian certified aviation. I've made a good living by bench-marking my work- product and that of my associates against the design goals suggested therein. I've been guilty of plenty of screw-ups in 40+ years that have cost my employer some dollars and some customers some inconvenience. But mistakes of attention or understanding were never attributable to inadequacies of 160/704 used in concert to craft robust and reliable systems. This is why I've offered up these two documents as THE STARTING PLACE for every new design. OBAM aviation is blessed with the opportunity to develop and exploit a constellation of new ideas and products that promise to reduce weight, cost, complexity with increases in performance and safety. Best yet, these ideas can come into the marketplace unburdened by the regulatory, policy and procedural albatrosses that are dragging once great companies down into the tar-pits of economic and intellectual paralysis. Since my first visit to OSH in '86, I've been aware of dozens of exciting and useful ideas that should be explored and perhaps exploited in OBAM aviation. While listening to some starry-eyed entrepreneur's excited explanation of an idea, I was acutely aware of a lack of foundation in system integration basics. From that very first year, I've offered my services to any and all takers to help them craft input, output and power connections that will improve upon seamless integration with the rest of the airplane's accessories. To date, perhaps a half dozen folks have seen fit to take advantage of this offer. Only one required enough of my attention to justify billing them. I made this same offer to Klaus (and his competition!) on several occasions. I reminded them all that I'm aware of the intellectual property secrets of dozens of clients who do not perceive risks for having used my services. Nonetheless, for whatever reasons, very few folks have availed themselves of my offer. Current Events: Now comes a new revelation to the community that a popular product is fitted with crowbar ov protection. This raises a question as to perceived value for adding such a feature internal to a system accessory. NORMALLY . . . one designs an accessory assuming that the prospective customer/ system integrator is aware of and complies with the spirit and intent of 160/704. Further, given that engine operations depend on the function of at least one of two installed systems, what are the design goals that prevent BOTH systems from responding to the same OV event and shutting themselves down? Why would a designer believe that adding this feature adds value/safety to their product? Could it be a lack of faith in the customer/integrator's ability to comply with 160/704? This is a legitimate concern. My seminars are sprinkled liberally with folks who's professional skills have not trained them to think about these ideas. We can only guess at the thoughts and motivation for the case before us. The questions to be explored: (1) If the crowbar OV protection were left out, what is the product's ability to stand off Mil-Std-704 compliant transients. (2) If so, would it not be BETTER to tell the customer that their airplane's power generation system should be crafted to stay at or below those limits? If you buy a radio from King, Garmin, etc., this goes without asking or answering. (3) If not so, what if anything should be considered to make the product more robust? This is usually very easy. Power conditioning compliance taxes only a tiny portion of the total design and qualification time for clean-piece-of-paper designs. (4) Finally, if the product under discussion is not accompanied with detailed explanations of all features that influence in-flight operations, why not? The customer/system-integrator is severely limited in crafting a best-we-know-how-to-do system if there are hidden or inadequately described features that affect performance. Even worse, overlooked or hidden features could become root cause in a hazardous scenario. This is why we do FMEA studies in groups with a goal of leaving no failure mode unconsidered. Path Forward: I will suggest that customers of the Lightspeed systems invite Klaus to join the AeroElectric- List for the purpose of sharing and sifting the constellation of simple-ideas from which we can craft the optimum solution. > Any suggested course of action? A lot of concern seems to have > been expressed without much direct input from the manufacturer. Exactly. I'll make the List members aware that not all of my past contacts with Klaus have been without tension. This is why I'll suggest that any participation by yours truly be carried out in this open forum. Klaus may choose not to participate here. It's important that he believe this is not a Star-Chamber being set up to abuse him. But if there's any forum that offers the highest probability of achieving understanding and crafting a successful solution . . . it's right here. As a first contribution to the solution I will assert that crafting a 704-compliant power source is NOT difficult. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 03:41 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >Sausen)" > > Like I said, slightly larger fuse. :) Normal operation lists an > LSEIII at 7.5AMP requirement with a 10Amp fuse. My reasoning is > that doubling the initial fuse would allow the breaker to go first > under normal circumstances. I do agree that a slo-blo type fuse > would probably decrease the likeliness of the fuse blowing first. The fuse would need to be a LOT bigger. Crow-baring a 5A breaker would open a 20-30A up-stream fuse. This is because the I(square)*R time constant for opening a breaker is MUCH larger than for fuses of the same size. You can easily do this experiment for your self. Go out to your car's battery and hook an in-line fuse holder in series with a 5A breaker. Put about 5 feet of 20AWG wire in the loop too to limit max current. Connect this combination across your car battery and see how large the fuse has to be to stay closed while the breaker trips. This is why we have fusible links upstream of crowbar ov protection breakers in all the Z-figures. > I would just assume deal with this back at the batteries but it's > not practical to have the CB's back there with no easy way to reset > when I'm flying alone troubleshooting an overly quiet engine. I > could feed one LSE from the main bus and the second directly from a > battery which would probably cover most circumstances. The big band-aid is to install a separate high current relay to the battery through a LARGE in line fuse . . . probably 30A. Run 14AWG wire from the relay up to the panel mounted 5A breaker. Continue on with what-ever wire is called out to continue on to the ignition system. Now you need switches to control right and left ignition system relays at the battery. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Battery_Feed_for_Ignition.pdf This approach could be blessed in a TC aircraft as providing circuit protection commensurate with wire sizes AND making the system max-cold when the switches are OFF. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
Hmm, not a big fan of replacing one failure mode with another. I see a relay as being a bit of a step back and probably more likely to fail than to see an OV event. Maybe something as simple as using a 15amp breaker instead of a fuse would be less complex and eliminate the problem of a fuse blowing faster than a breaker, albeit more expensive. Michael -----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, February 03, 2009 5:16 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8 At 03:41 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >Sausen)" > > Like I said, slightly larger fuse. :) Normal operation lists an > LSEIII at 7.5AMP requirement with a 10Amp fuse. My reasoning is > that doubling the initial fuse would allow the breaker to go first > under normal circumstances. I do agree that a slo-blo type fuse > would probably decrease the likeliness of the fuse blowing first. The fuse would need to be a LOT bigger. Crow-baring a 5A breaker would open a 20-30A up-stream fuse. This is because the I(square)*R time constant for opening a breaker is MUCH larger than for fuses of the same size. You can easily do this experiment for your self. Go out to your car's battery and hook an in-line fuse holder in series with a 5A breaker. Put about 5 feet of 20AWG wire in the loop too to limit max current. Connect this combination across your car battery and see how large the fuse has to be to stay closed while the breaker trips. This is why we have fusible links upstream of crowbar ov protection breakers in all the Z-figures. > I would just assume deal with this back at the batteries but it's > not practical to have the CB's back there with no easy way to reset > when I'm flying alone troubleshooting an overly quiet engine. I > could feed one LSE from the main bus and the second directly from a > battery which would probably cover most circumstances. The big band-aid is to install a separate high current relay to the battery through a LARGE in line fuse . . . probably 30A. Run 14AWG wire from the relay up to the panel mounted 5A breaker. Continue on with what-ever wire is called out to continue on to the ignition system. Now you need switches to control right and left ignition system relays at the battery. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Battery_Feed_for_Ignition.pdf This approach could be blessed in a TC aircraft as providing circuit protection commensurate with wire sizes AND making the system max-cold when the switches are OFF. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2009
I actually don't have an issue with this behavior (crowbar design) as long as it's a published design feature. Lacking that, there's nothing providing any clues to somebody installing these units that use of a CB vs a fuse should be considered mandatory. Text from the LSE Plasma III install instructions section 2.6: When connecting the power supply, route the positive lead to a 5A pull-able circuit breaker and then to the battery plus terminal, bypassing any electrical buss or master solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector Diagram. At this point not having specifics about voltage level, duration, etc. that causes a crowbar event within the ignition is really just academic curiosity to me. Real point is that there is apparently a crowbar circuit internal to the units that is meant to trip a CB if overvoltage is detected (maybe also overtemp?) and using an inaccessible fuse instead of a CB is just flat unacceptable (to me). I haven't grounded the plane simply because I've got redundancy with a 12 volt Z-14 implementation with B&C alternators and regulators. Not sure if the regulators are faster than the Plasma III, but since the Plasma III will accept 28 volt power I suspect the 12 volt regulator would trip an offending alternator offline before the Plasma III crowbarred. Even if something went really wrong with an alternator/regulator and an ignition popped the fuse, I've still got a second, isolated system. I will however be reconfiguring the ignition power supply wiring in the next couple of months. I hope nobody interprets me being sour on LSE, I actually love the ignitions! Klaus can be a little difficult to deal with and I can also accept that. My purpose was simply to inform of a failure mode. Given that there are a lot of LSE ignitions in the field and a lot of those are being powered through, this can't be that big of a problem - except for the poor soul that has an overvoltage condition which then causes the big fan up front to stop. Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228385#228385 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2009
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
I seem to remember that a CB was used, so you could easily disconnect the power from the always hot bus, for example, when performing maintenance. I once had a conversation with Klaus about some problems I was having durin g installation and told him I took power off a bus. He was adamant that I follow the installation instructions and take power directly off the battery. It ultimately turned that my problem was caused by too much clearance between the Hall sensor and the rotating magnets. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM, bcondrey wrote : > bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> > > I actually don't have an issue with this behavior (crowbar design) as lon g > as it's a published design feature. Lacking that, there's nothing provid ing > any clues to somebody installing these units that use of a CB vs a fuse > should be considered mandatory. > > Text from the LSE Plasma III install instructions section 2.6: > - When connecting the power supply, route the positive lead to a 5A > pull-able circuit breaker and then to the battery plus terminal, bypassin g > any electrical buss or master solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector > Diagram. > > At this point not having specifics about voltage level, duration, etc. th at > causes a crowbar event within the ignition is really just academic curios ity > to me. Real point is that there is apparently a crowbar circuit internal to > the units that is meant to trip a CB if overvoltage is detected (maybe al so > overtemp?) and using an inaccessible fuse instead of a CB is just flat > unacceptable (to me). I haven't grounded the plane simply because I've g ot > redundancy with a 12 volt Z-14 implementation with B&C alternators and > regulators. Not sure if the regulators are faster than the Plasma III, b ut > since the Plasma III will accept 28 volt power I suspect the 12 volt > regulator would trip an offending alternator offline before the Plasma II I > crowbarred. Even if something went really wrong with an > alternator/regulator and an ignition popped the fuse, I've still got a > second, isolated system. I will however be reconfiguring the ignition po wer > supply wiring in the next couple of mont! > hs. > > I hope nobody interprets me being sour on LSE, I actually love the > ignitions! Klaus can be a little difficult to deal with and I can also > accept that. My purpose was simply to inform of a failure mode. Given t hat > there are a lot of LSE ignitions in the field and a lot of those are bein g > powered through, this can't be that big of a problem - except for the poo r > soul that has an overvoltage condition which then causes the big fan up > front to stop. > > Bob > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228385#228385 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 06:49 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >Sausen)" > > Hmm, not a big fan of replacing one failure mode with another. I > see a relay as being a bit of a step back and probably more likely > to fail than to see an OV event. Maybe something as simple as > using a 15amp breaker instead of a fuse would be less complex and > eliminate the problem of a fuse blowing faster than a breaker, > albeit more expensive. > >Michael The relay is only to observe the TC world convention for making wiring max-cold with the switches off. Given that the breaker requirement forces you to have a "bus" at the panel, then the feeder to that bus must be considerably "stiffer" than the energies required to trip the breaker. Without the relay the wire between battery and breaker is not crash-worthy by certified standards. If you wish to adopt other standards . . . You are exceedingly unlikely to experience a relay failure concurrent with any other failure on a single tank of fuel. Further, failure of one relay is backed up by the second system. I.e., risks of double ignition failure versus risk of an ov condition is much lower. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob du Plooy" <rduplooy(at)iafrica.com>
Subject: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8..needing 2 x batteries
and C/B's...?(Was Bob Nuckolls' Z-14 with Dual...)
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Hoo-boy.... Thanks Bob and others for recommending Z13/8....happy to continue with your dwgs and single battery..... till I read about the Lightspeed manual stating at paragraph ..2.7.. Electrical System Requirements All Plasma CDI systems can be used with 12 or 24 volt electrical systems. Input voltages above 35 volts or reversed polarity will cause system damage. For this reason it is mandatory that all aircraft using Plasma CD Ignitions are equipped with over-voltage protection in their alternator charging system(s). Over-voltage is a requirement for certified aircraft. Power connection must be directly to the battery terminals to avoid voltage spikes and electrical noise. Aluminum should never be used as an electrical conductor for the Plasma CDI. Use only the supplied aircraft quality stranded wire. Electrical Operating Instructions Dual Systems only: If you have installed an aux battery per the LSE supplied drawing, monitor your voltmeter and do not switch to the aux battery until the supply voltage of the main battery is below 6.5 Volts or the engine is not running smoothly. After switching to the aux battery, your voltmeter will read the voltage remaining in your aux battery. Do not switch your main alternator breaker in flight to avoid potentially damaging voltage spikes. This does not apply to the alternator field breaker. And further at para.2.8A.... A. Power Supply - =B7 When connecting the power supply, route the positive lead to a pull-able breaker, 4-cyl systems use 5A ...., and then directly to the battery plus terminal, bypassing any electrical buss or master solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector Diagram & the Electrical Requirements section 2.7. See here..... http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/CdiManual_PlasmaII_II+_III.h tm And then for Dual Plasma CDI, Klaus further recommends..... For Dual PLASMA CDI Installations, an auxiliary battery and dual ignition indicator lights are recommended. Please click here for an aux battery wiring diagram. See Figure 4 for the dual ignition indicator lights diagram: click here. See here for the AUX Batt Diagram..........http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram. htm How do I incorporate these- the 2 x "pullable" C/bs and 2 x batteries - within Z13/8...? Thanks, Robert ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
At 07:24 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: > > >I actually don't have an issue with this behavior (crowbar design) >as long as it's a published design feature. Lacking that, there's >nothing providing any clues to somebody installing these units that >use of a CB vs a fuse should be considered mandatory. How about the fact that an OV condition can cause BOTH ignition systems to become inoperative in a manner that requires pilot action to notice, interpret, diagnose and react to get them back up and running? >At this point not having specifics about voltage level, duration, >etc. that causes a crowbar event within the ignition is really just >academic curiosity to me. Real point is that there is apparently a >crowbar circuit internal to the units that is meant to trip a CB if >overvoltage is detected (maybe also overtemp?) and using an >inaccessible fuse instead of a CB is just flat unacceptable (to me). . . . as it should be. > I haven't grounded the plane simply because I've got redundancy > with a 12 volt Z-14 implementation with B&C alternators and > regulators. Not sure if the regulators are faster than the Plasma > III, but since the Plasma III will accept 28 volt power I suspect > the 12 volt regulator would trip an offending alternator offline > before the Plasma III crowbarred. Excellent question. > Even if something went really wrong with an alternator/regulator > and an ignition popped the fuse, I've still got a second, isolated > system. I will however be reconfiguring the ignition power supply > wiring in the next couple of months. > >I hope nobody interprets me being sour on LSE, I actually love the >ignitions! Klaus can be a little difficult to deal with and I can >also accept that. My purpose was simply to inform of a failure >mode. Given that there are a lot of LSE ignitions in the field and >a lot of those are being powered through, this can't be that big of >a problem - except for the poor soul that has an overvoltage >condition which then causes the big fan up front to stop. The performance of the product to function under normal conditions is not germane to this discussion. There are questions that the prudent system integrator needs to ask. They go to understanding why nearly a century of lessons learned and repeatable experiments in aviation history have at least gone unexplored or at worst simply cast aside. Any time I've blazed a new trail in the TC world, I was obliged to explain the combination of simple-ideas to everyone who asked and particular those who had authority over me. Finally, there was the gauntlet of qualification and certification to run unscathed. Sometimes you do it several times on the same new trail. Crowbar OV protection being but one example. Only had to do it a couple of times in the certified world. The OBAM aviation world made me do it a half dozen times! I am mystified as to the reasoning that supports this particular combination of simple-ideas. I have never seen a product offered into aviation or any other venue that shuts itself off for the purpose of surviving what is supposed to be a predictable and non-threatening event BY DESIGN AND QUALIFICATION. Worse yet, recovery requires pilot notice, interpretation, and action. This would not be tolerated in the TC aircraft world for what I believe are obvious reasons. Suppose your EFIS had such a feature? How about a fuel pump? A nav radio? This idea is much larger than arm-wrestling with one supplier about one product. It's a core component of how we think about the electrical systems and accessories in our airplanes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trying to obtain card edge connector for KX165 Nav/com
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Hi everyone, I was having some noise and tx/rx problems with my nav/com last fall. I suspect the problem is with the plane's wiring or antenna. I'ld like to power up the unit off the plane to see how it works all by itself. I know I must have an antenna connected and I have the pinouts for the Com card edge connector. I still have several questions - 1) Can someone give me a Digikey part number for the connector, or a m'fr part number? 2) Would it be Ok to power up the unit without any connections to the Nav and Glideslope sections? --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228443#228443 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
At 10:50 PM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >Hoo-boy.... >Thanks Bob and others for recommending >Z13/8....happy to continue with your dwgs and >single battery..... till I read about the >Lightspeed manual stating at paragraph ..2.7.. > >Electrical System Requirements > >All Plasma CDI systems can be used with 12 or 24 >volt electrical systems. Input voltages above >35 volts or reversed polarity will cause system dammage. Aha! A number. Okay, until we're offered different values, we can work with the idea that DO-160 upper operating voltage limits for 28v systems apply here . . . Emacs! >For this reason it is mandatory that all >aircraft using Plasma CD Ignitions are equipped >with over-voltage protection in their alternator >charging system(s). Over-voltage is a requirement for certified aircraft. . . . yes. > Power connection must be directly to the > battery terminals to avoid voltage spikes and electrical noise. ??? The "noise" and "spike" levels at the battery terminals are essentially consistent with those throughout the airplane's electrical bus structure. In fact, I'm revising the 'Connection's chapter on batteries to confess my own deprogramming from membership in the cult of "Batteries are Ultimate Defenders from Electrical Evils". It's an easy notion to buy into and yours truly did it for decades. After all, here's an electro-chemical energy system with a huge capability as both storage and delivery of Joules (watt-seconds). OBVIOUSLY . . . this big wad of lead and acid must offer a great deal of inertia . . . a sort of electrical flywheel that resists all perturbations of bus voltage. I will refer the readers to the same simple ideas we've always understood about batteries when it came to selecting the LV warning setpoint. We KNOW that batteries cannot deliver significant amounts of energy at voltages GREATER than the chemistry's physics. I.e. 12.5 volts and below. We also KNOW that to effectively recharge a battery, i.e. stuff significant amounts of energy back into it, the bus voltage must be on the order of 13.5 and higher. It follows then that a bus voltage of 13.0 or higher means that system loads are being supported by a functioning alternator. Ergo, this is a good place to set the LV annunciation system. Well duh . . . what about this no battery's land of 12.5 to 13.5 volts? Exactly what does the battery do for us in terms of resisting "wiggles" of voltage within these bounds? Answer: Nothing. I was most chagrined to make this connection so late in my career. I had been parroting the mantra of battery performance as a starter of engines, a repository of alternator out energy AND being the "best filter of noise on the bus". The battery's benefits with respect to noise is not insignificant when the alternator is running . . . this is because the bus is being supported at or above the threshold for the battery to be a significant LOAD on perturbations . . . especially on positive excursions. But look at this trace: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Safari_Bus_Noise_1.gif This was taken from my GMC van and shows noises on the bus on the order of 1.5 volts peak-to-peak. This was measured AT the battery. A similar trace was delivered by a measurement at the cigar lighter plug. Aluminum should never be used as an electrical conductor for the Plasma CDI. When and how would aluminum wire EVER be considered? I'm mystified as to why it's even mentioned. Use only the supplied aircraft quality stranded wire. >Electrical Operating Instructions > > Dual Systems only: If you have installed an > aux battery per the LSE supplied drawing, > monitor your voltmeter and do not switch to the > aux battery until the supply voltage of the > main battery is below 6.5 Volts or the engine > is not running smoothly. After switching to > the aux battery, your voltmeter will read the > voltage remaining in your aux battery. When a lead acid battery falls below 11.0 volts, it is 95+ percent used up and falling fast. "Monitoring" is an activity that adds to pilot workload for dealing with alternator-out operations. NOT good design. When the alternator quits, the prudent design calls for a simple activity that requires no further attention as systems manager or diagnostician until after the airplane is on the ground. >Do not switch your main alternator breaker in >flight to avoid potentially damaging voltage >spikes. This does not apply to the alternator field breaker. > This has been discussed at length here on the List. The simple ideas and their effects are well understood. Many airplanes don't even have b-lead breakers having been replaced by current limiters on the firewall. All the Z-figures speak to this > >And further at para.2.8A.... > >A. Power Supply - > >=B7 When connecting the power supply, >route the positive lead to a pull-able breaker, >4-cyl systems use 5A ...., and then directly to >the battery plus terminal, bypassing any >electrical buss or master solenoid. Refer to >the Input Connector Diagram & the Electrical Requirements section 2.7. This blazes a "new trail" in the woods. There are no accessories offered to TC aviation where such practice would be considered. > > >See here..... >http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/CdiManual_PlasmaII_II+_III.htm > > >And then for Dual Plasma CDI, Klaus further recommends..... > > >For Dual PLASMA CDI Installations, an auxiliary >battery and dual ignition indicator lights >are recommended. ><http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm>Please >click here for an aux battery wiring diagram. >See Figure 4 for the dual ignition indicator >lights diagram: ><http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/DualIndicator.htm>click here. > > >See here for the AUX Batt >Diagram..........http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.ht m These words go to the notion that prudent designs do the failure modes effects analysis to insure that no single failure of a failure-probable component puts the airplane at risk. Exactly how that is accomplished is normally left up to the system integrator. Acceptable FMEA has been a consistent design goal for each of the Z-figures. I can deduce no reason that a Lightspeed or any other ignition system should not run happily from a battery bus fuse. > > >How do I incorporate these- the 2 x "pullable" >C/bs and 2 x batteries - within Z13/8...? Put second battery in place by . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z35A.pdf and feed each ignition from one battery using . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Battery_Feed_for_Ignition.pdf Now, understand that I offer the suggestions in deference to Lightspeed requirements. Please understand that I find significant shortcomings in Lightspeed requirements with respect to parts count, reliability, and failure mode effects analysis. Summary: If the ov trip on these systems is equal to or greater than 32.2 volts, then installation in a 14v system with switches and fuses should be no big deal. This ASSUMES that the crowbar ov protection system has no parasitic trip modes. We've encountered this phenomenon a couple of times and instituted design changes to mitigate the problems as they were discovered. At the same time, it begs the question as to value of including fail-inactive OV protection internal to the product. Given what we know right now, I'll suggest that: (1) The feature adds no demonstrable value. The setpoint is probably WAY above any level the product would encounter in a well crafted 14v system. (2) It inserts new risks for unacceptable malfunction (single event kills the engine). (3) Benefits for connection directly to the battery are not demonstrable with a study of simple-ideas. The practice is contrary to design goals and practice for hundreds of thousands of airplanes for nearly a century. (4) The feature prevents learned and experienced system integrators from incorporating the product into new designs. Designes that embrace a rich history of lessons learned and accepted practice, i.e. powering the product from fuse-protected battery busses. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for KX165
Nav/com At 09:51 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: > >Hi everyone, >I was having some noise and tx/rx problems with my nav/com last >fall. I suspect the problem is with the plane's wiring or antenna. >I'ld like to power up the unit off the plane to see how it works all >by itself. I know I must have an antenna connected and I have the >pinouts for the Com card edge connector. I still have several questions - > >1) Can someone give me a Digikey part number for the connector, or a >m'fr part number? > >2) Would it be Ok to power up the unit without any connections to >the Nav and Glideslope sections? >--Jose There are dozens of 'card edge' connectors that will fit your radio for the purpose of crafting a bench test harness. There is but one connector brand and style that directly replaces the original harness connector . . . and a number of styles have been used on various radios over the years. Without having access to the manufacturer's parts list, identifying a second source for a suitable connector is not possible. Can you post a photo of the original connector? It would also be useful to see a photo of the back of the radio. Finally, confirm the wire-to-wire spacing of conductors on the card edge. It is possible that the connector you're looking for comes from AMP or Molex. Browse the data at: http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/ and http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/AMP_Tyco/Amp_Card-Edge_Connectors.pdf to see if you can spot the connector you have in hand. Once you've got a suitable catalog number, then we can probably help you find one or a suitable substitute. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-14 with dual Lightspeed III and SD-8
From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Existing dual LSE systems may not have any way to alert the pilot of problems without the addition of the warning indicators. Note this info posted at http://www.lsecorp.com/News/News.htm. start quote --- All dual systems should have this warning feature. New Ignition Indicator Lights for Dual Plasma CDI Installations. This simple application of 2 LED warning lights will alert the pilot when one of the systems is disabled either by the power switch, a failed breaker, or in the event of an internal problem. Since the engine runs extremely well on one PLASMA CDI alone, a failure in the power supply, for example, might go unnoticed. These ignition indicator lights give the pilot immediate notice that the engine is running on only one ignition system. end quote --- It would be tempting fate to install dual LSE without two isolated power sources and adequate circuit protection. It's also apparent that proper mounting / cooling are just as important as providing power. This information is adequately described in the LSE install manual although admittedly the crowbar circuit wasn't disclosed except via a side conversation. It's prudent to follow the intent of the manufacturer's installation instructions or risk the consequences and end up as a feature story on the evening news. Regards, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228464#228464 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> And further at para.2.8A.... >> >> A. Power Supply - >> >> When connecting the power supply, route the positive lead >> to a pull-able breaker, 4-cyl systems use 5A ...., and then directly >> to the battery plus terminal, bypassing any electrical buss or master >> solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector Diagram & the Electrical >> Requirements section 2.7. > > This blazes a "new trail" in the woods. There are > no accessories offered to TC aviation where such > practice would be considered. > Considering that this replaces a mag, does it really? The mag is connected directly without going through any bus or master solenoid. It's just that the mag packages everything in one neat container. I could be wrong. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
11:47 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Christley > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> >>>And further at para.2.8A.... >>> >>>A. Power Supply - >>> >>> When connecting the power supply, >>>route the positive lead to a pull-able >>>breaker, 4-cyl systems use 5A ...., and then >>>directly to the battery plus terminal, >>>bypassing any electrical buss or master >>>solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector >>>Diagram & the Electrical Requirements section 2.7. >> >> This blazes a "new trail" in the woods. There are >> no accessories offered to TC aviation where such >> practice would be considered. > >Considering that this replaces a mag, does it >really? The mag is connected directly without >going through any bus or master solenoid. >It's just that the mag packages everything in one neat container. > >I could be wrong. Don't understand. The mag is not directly connected to nor does it depend on battery power. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
At 11:34 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >If I choose the routed suggested by your diagram >to run both ign boxes, would you duplicate the >fuse & 14 AWG from the batt buss or simply run >the 14 AWG to a bus bar such that I could hook up both 5 amp cbs? If you create an ignition bus that services contemporary conventions for minimizing the energy exposure of battery-feed wires during crash events, then you need a disconnect at the battery. A design goal for inoculating the aircraft's accessories from single-points of failure becoming hazardous. This suggests that dual ignition systems are either powered from multiple busses that have low probability of common failure or a single bus with a VERY low probability of failure. We've cited design and maintenance goals for making sure that a battery bus connected to a well maintained RG battery is the single bus with a very low probability of failure. This gave the writer comfort in suggesting that separate fuses for two ignition systems fed from an always hot bus supported was a good design when that bus was supported by (1) well maintained RG battery (2) main alternator (3) aux alternator and (4) protected with very fast fuses that addressed our goals for crash safety. >It appears that this is only adding hardware >from the already existing entry point of the >buss and further extending it to cbs. The only >valid argument I see is the ability to reset a >cb in crisis mode (after a big OV event has >blown both fuses) and continue down the road >albeit with just about everything else riding on the buss blown as well. That's the real sticking point. If we're doing due diligence and honoring our past teachers, there's no reason for the ignition system to even have such a feature. No mater how honorable the motivation for including it, it created FEMA issues that would get the thing booted from a TC aircraft. > >Thanks so much for your input on this topic. Im >sorry you are not getting paid for this prime >time activity. Hopefully there is a way we can donate to your cause. I wouldn't do it if it were not useful to me personally . . . so don't be concerned for any overt lack of compensation . . . > Recently I read a thread from some FAA lawyers > who were talking about mechanical standards and > regulation. One said that the FAA regulations > for mechanical compliance (not design) are > designed to be debated. He was referring to the > often vague terms in which the regulations are > written. They should be left open enough for > debate, but not too wide open as to allow broad > deviation from normal practices (depends whos calling what normal). Gee do they think? Do you suppose this is why folks in the airframe services business will shop around for the most compliant ACO to get their STC or 337 on an airplane? Like our tax codes, the FARS are a study in debate prompted by a lack of teaching to simple-ideas. The same phenomenon is infecting industry and government with an MBA/Harvard-Law mentality that curiosity, creativity and wisdom of experience by honorable individuals can be replaced with "The Plan". > >IMO this type of debate should strive to improve >the quality/design of the products offered in >such a way that the improvements are both >advantageous in technological design and add a >factor of safety for the end user. For my $$ >pure technology advancement that adds little or >takes away from the integrity of well known systems is a bad investment. Absolutely. > >So, debate is good and I hope Klaus and others >accept the forward thinking on which their products are offered. Sure. I recall with great fondness the circumstances of my last really rewarding job. I cannot recall a single instance of walking with trepidation into a come-to-jesus meeting in Beech's Targets Division. We had many meetings were some portion of a program was in trouble. As the problem was discussed and ideas circulated around the table, new avenues of attack would emerge. Folks freely volunteered to help out. You always walked out of those meetings with a feeling of accomplishment and renewal. This is how I imagine the meetings in Kelly Johnson's "Skunk Works" worked. This is a tribute to a handful of individuals at the ship's wheel. You can bet the bank on the idea that progress was bench marked by the successful integration of simple-ideas to satisfaction of design goals by a group of honorable individuals. That's my vision of what should happen here on the List. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com>
Subject: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
Date: Feb 04, 2009
I'm using the Z-13/8 Power Distribution diagram in a Glastar with dual Dynons. The FlightDek D180 is connected to the Main Bus and the EFIS D100 is connected to the Endurance Bus. Each unit monitors it's bus voltage. In normal operations I fly with the MASTER switch and AUX ALT switch ON and the ALTERNATE FEED switch OFF. I have experience no problems with this configuration. I recently implemented an checklist procedure to test the power distribution circuit and alternators on startup before taxi. After starting the engine and checking that the MASTER and AUX ALT switches are ON, I check that the voltage on the EFIS is .6 V less than the FlightDek. I then switch the ALTERNATE FEED ON and check that the EFIS voltage is the same as the FlightDek (over 14 V). I then switch OFF the MASTER and check that the FlightDEK voltage is 0 V and the EFIS voltage remains above 13.5 V. I then turn the MASTER back ON and the ALTERNARE FEED OFF and I'm ready to taxi. This procedure appears to be working fine and I have experienced no problems in flight. When I reviewed the flight log from the FlightDEK however I discovered that I was inducing a significant negative (MASTER OFF) and then possitive (MASTER ON) current (over 200 amps.) for a short period of time in the main alternator when I'm performing this test procedure. Will this damage the alternator? Thanks Norm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > 11:47 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>> >>>> And further at para.2.8A.... >>>> >>>> A. Power Supply - >>>> >>>> When connecting the power supply, route the positive lead >>>> to a pull-able breaker, 4-cyl systems use 5A ...., and then >>>> directly to the battery plus terminal, bypassing any electrical >>>> buss or master solenoid. Refer to the Input Connector Diagram & >>>> the Electrical Requirements section 2.7. >>> >>> This blazes a "new trail" in the woods. There are >>> no accessories offered to TC aviation where such >>> practice would be considered. >> >> Considering that this replaces a mag, does it really? The mag is >> connected directly without going through any bus or master solenoid. >> It's just that the mag packages everything in one neat container. >> >> I could be wrong. > > Don't understand. The mag is not directly connected > to nor does it depend on battery power. No, but abstracting out a bit. The mag is a integrated generator/spark-maker. The Plasma is just a spark-maker. We don't have total control of the mag. In fact, we're limited to grounding the sparks that it makes. I'm not seeing much difference in that and connecting the Plasma directly to the battery. In fact, connecting it directly to the battery could be seen as sticking closer to the previously blazed trail. If you view the Plasma as a part of the engine that MUST work for the fan to keep turning, tying it directly to the battery is making it more like a magneto, which keeps generating as long as the engine is turning. By using electronic ignition or injection, haven't we already moved far enough off of the previously blazed trail that certain electronic devices can't really be considered "accessories" anymore? I can fly till the fuels all gone without a working radio or map light, but I'll immediately become a glider if the ignition goes tits up (I added a gravity fed fuel drip line, so I'll be able to maintain straight and level if the fuel pumps and injectors get tired.) Powering the ignition is now as important as keeping fuel in the tank. Everything isn't in a neat package like it is with a mag, but I would think that it is important to provide as clean a path as possible between an electron source and the spark plug. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Plasma III and Z-13/8
>> >> Don't understand. The mag is not directly connected >> to nor does it depend on battery power. >No, but abstracting out a bit. The mag is a integrated >generator/spark-maker. The Plasma is just a spark-maker. > >We don't have total control of the mag. In fact, we're limited to >grounding the sparks that it makes. I'm not seeing much difference >in that and connecting the Plasma directly to the battery. In fact, >connecting it directly to the battery could be seen as sticking >closer to the previously blazed trail. If you view the Plasma as a >part of the engine that MUST work for the fan to keep turning, tying >it directly to the battery is making it more like a magneto, which >keeps generating as long as the engine is turning. Hmmmm . . . Still not grasping your idea. The Lightspeed instructions allude to an idea that direct connection to the battery is a hedge against "noise and spikes". When the busses are connected to the battery by means of very fat wires, this idea is flawed in terms of the physics. >By using electronic ignition or injection, haven't we already moved >far enough off of the previously blazed trail that certain >electronic devices can't really be considered "accessories" anymore? The the crowds I run around with, an "accessory" or "appliance" is a purchased device with performance, reliability and quality features that are the responsibility of an outside supplier. Criticality of the device is deduced by reliability and failure modes studies. The outcome of those studies drive the system integrator's duties to craft a Plan-B and the supplier's duties not to allow the certified reliability numbers to degrade in production. >I can fly till the fuels all gone without a working radio or map >light, but I'll immediately become a glider if the ignition goes >tits up (I added a gravity fed fuel drip line, so I'll be able to >maintain straight and level if the fuel pumps and injectors get >tired.) Powering the ignition is now as important as keeping fuel >in the tank. Everything isn't in a neat package like it is with a >mag, but I would think that it is important to provide as clean a >path as possible between an electron source and the spark plug. Absolutely. But the Lightspeed recommendation for connection directly to the battery is no more "reliable" as a power source than powering through a protected feeder off the battery bus. Failure rates on wires with properly assembled terminals is exceedingly low. He didn't make this recommendation to improve on probability of power being available, it was to improve on quality of power . . . which is (1)in error and (2) disregards the 160/704 dissertations that explain exactly what an accessory/appliance should be designed to EXPECT in terms of power quality. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Old transponder interface details
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Hi All I'm building a converter from the serial protocol used by Garmin to the old Gilham encoding used by the older transponders. I'm lacking detail on the voltages used to send a transponder the encoded altitude. I'm using a old Narco AT 150 TSO... The binary values for each pin is pretty much done, so I'm looking for the electrical details now. Can anyone help me out? Thanks Etienne ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
At 01:41 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >I'm using the Z-13/8 Power Distribution diagram in a Glastar with dual Dynons. >The FlightDek D180 is connected to the Main Bus and the EFIS D100 is >connected to the Endurance Bus. Each unit monitors it's bus voltage. >In normal operations I fly with the MASTER switch and AUX ALT switch >ON and the ALTERNATE FEED switch OFF. I have experience no problems >with this configuration. > >I recently implemented an checklist procedure to test the power >distribution circuit and alternators on startup before taxi. After >starting the engine and checking that the MASTER and AUX ALT >switches are ON, I check that the voltage on the EFIS is .6 V less >than the FlightDek. There is no value but also no harm in running both alternators at the same time. The Aux alternator produces no useful output at engine rpms typical operations during your pre-flight checklist. >I then switch the ALTERNATE FEED ON and check that the EFIS voltage >is the same as the FlightDek (over 14 V). This is a valid check of normal feedpath diode (shows it is not shorted). > I then switch OFF the MASTER and check that the FlightDEK voltage > is 0 V and the EFIS voltage remains above 13.5 V. Confirms good diode but depending on e-bus loads and engine rpm during this test, you may have trouble supporting the e-bus above 13.5v > I then turn the MASTER back ON and the ALTERNATE FEED OFF and I'm > ready to taxi. This procedure appears to be working fine and I have > experienced no problems in flight. The Aux Alternator was never intended to be used in normal flight. Under certain day vfr loads, you could have a main alternator failure and not know it if total loads are within capability of the SD8 to hold the bus up. Recommend that the SD-8 not be ON for normal operations. > >When I reviewed the flight log from the FlightDEK however I >discovered that I was inducing a significant negative (MASTER OFF) >and then possitive (MASTER ON) current (over 200 amps.) for a short >period of time in the main alternator when I'm performing this test >procedure. Will this damage the alternator? What is a "short period of time"? I'm skeptical of this value because your alternator is not capable of sourcing 200A nor is it capable of being a 200A load. This may well be a flaw in the signal conditioning for your data acquisition system. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Bob, Thanks for your reply. I'll take your recommendation and not turn on the SD-8 alternator in normal operations. My initial thinking for turning on the SD-8 alternator in normal operations was to maintain power on the main and endurance buses and continue my flight, if the SD-8 could maintain the load, without knowing that the main alternator had failed. My startup checklist was developed to discover the problem on the ground before the next flight. When I'm making the power distribution tests in the startup checklist, the only loads on the alternator is the battery, battery bus, and the endurance bus EFIS. The SD-8 has no problem sustaining the 13.5 V at 1000rpm. The Dynon log is set up to samples data every 10 seconds, so the short period of time is less than 20 seconds. I agree that the amperage values may be a signal conditioning problem, but I still believe that main alternator is seeing a substantial transient during this test. Can this damage the alternator? Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:38 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution > At 01:41 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >I'm using the Z-13/8 Power Distribution diagram in a Glastar with dual Dynons. >The FlightDek D180 is connected to the Main Bus and the EFIS D100 is >connected to the Endurance Bus. Each unit monitors it's bus voltage. >In normal operations I fly with the MASTER switch and AUX ALT switch >ON and the ALTERNATE FEED switch OFF. I have experience no problems >with this configuration. > >I recently implemented an checklist procedure to test the power >distribution circuit and alternators on startup before taxi. After >starting the engine and checking that the MASTER and AUX ALT >switches are ON, I check that the voltage on the EFIS is .6 V less >than the FlightDek. There is no value but also no harm in running both alternators at the same time. The Aux alternator produces no useful output at engine rpms typical operations during your pre-flight checklist. >I then switch the ALTERNATE FEED ON and check that the EFIS voltage >is the same as the FlightDek (over 14 V). This is a valid check of normal feedpath diode (shows it is not shorted). > I then switch OFF the MASTER and check that the FlightDEK voltage > is 0 V and the EFIS voltage remains above 13.5 V. Confirms good diode but depending on e-bus loads and engine rpm during this test, you may have trouble supporting the e-bus above 13.5v > I then turn the MASTER back ON and the ALTERNATE FEED OFF and I'm > ready to taxi. This procedure appears to be working fine and I have > experienced no problems in flight. The Aux Alternator was never intended to be used in normal flight. Under certain day vfr loads, you could have a main alternator failure and not know it if total loads are within capability of the SD8 to hold the bus up. Recommend that the SD-8 not be ON for normal operations. > >When I reviewed the flight log from the FlightDEK however I >discovered that I was inducing a significant negative (MASTER OFF) >and then possitive (MASTER ON) current (over 200 amps.) for a short >period of time in the main alternator when I'm performing this test >procedure. Will this damage the alternator? What is a "short period of time"? I'm skeptical of this value because your alternator is not capable of sourcing 200A nor is it capable of being a 200A load. This may well be a flaw in the signal conditioning for your data acquisition system. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List .com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for KX165
Nav/com
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Feb 04, 2009
The connector is an 18 position, double row, with .156" spacing. I'll try to attach a picture below. Looks more like an AMP part than Molex, but for testing purposes I suppose it does not matter. Since I don't want to spend money on special crimpers and insertion/extraction tools, I suppose I would benefit from a type I can solder on to. If you know off hand of a suitable part number, I'll give it a try. Would it be OK to power up the KX165 without connecting anything to the Nav section? --Jose Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228581#228581 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/kx165connector_384.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for KX165
Nav/com
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Correction - the Com section connector (P401) that I need is a 15 position connector. (The 18 position connector is for the Nav section, presumably.) --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228586#228586 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for
KX165 Nav/com At 08:20 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: > >The connector is an 18 position, double row, with .156" spacing. >I'll try to attach a picture below. Looks more like an AMP part than >Molex, but for testing purposes I suppose it does not matter. Since >I don't want to spend money on special crimpers and >insertion/extraction tools, I suppose I would benefit from a type I >can solder on to. If you know off hand of a suitable part number, >I'll give it a try. > >Would it be OK to power up the KX165 without connecting anything to >the Nav section? > >--Jose Take a look at the wire entry side of the connector at the ends and compare with page 2 of http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/SD4338.pdf see if they're not marked as "MOLEX" on one end and "4338" on the other. If this is the Molex part, you're looking for a 09-50-6155 (no mounting ears) or a 09-50-5155 (with mounting ears). The mating pins are what ever you can find in stock of the parts described here: http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/Molex_4338_Pins.pdf Found some stock at: http://www.dfsales.com/mark/displayresults2.asp?PARTNUMBER-50-6155 http://www.dfsales.com/mark/displayresults2.asp?PARTNUMBER-50-5155 http://www.dfsales.com/mark/displayresults2.asp?PARTNUMBER=08-03-0304 You can put these on with the low cost b-crimp tool from B&C at http://bandc.biz Look for their BCT-1. If you're artful with a needle nose and soldering iron, you can put the pins on without a tool. However, this tool works with the mate-n-locks, a variety of Molex products, and the sheet metal d-sub pins. It wouldn't hurt to have one in your toolbox. This tool will put the pins on too . . . http://tinyurl.com/da7fym Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
At 05:26 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > > >The Dynon log is set up to samples data every 10 seconds, so the >short period of time is less than 20 seconds. I agree that the >amperage values may be a signal conditioning problem, but I still >believe that main alternator is seeing a substantial transient >during this test. Can this damage the alternator? No, it wont. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
At 05:26 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >The Dynon log is set up to samples data every 10 seconds, so the >short period of time is less than 20 seconds. I agree that the >amperage values may be a signal conditioning problem, but I still >believe that main alternator is seeing a >substantial transient during this test. Can this damage the alternator? Which alternator/regulator combination are you running? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution
Date: Feb 04, 2009
Bob, I HAVE THE B & C L-60 ALTERNATOR WITH THE LR-3 CONTROLLER. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:16 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Checllist Procedure for Z-13/8 Power Distribution > At 05:26 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >The Dynon log is set up to samples data every 10 seconds, so the >short period of time is less than 20 seconds. I agree that the >amperage values may be a signal conditioning problem, but I still >believe that main alternator is seeing a >substantial transient during this test. Can this damage the alternator? Which alternator/regulator combination are you running? Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List .com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
Subject: Are LEDs bright enough?
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
FYI. Here is a video examining the suitability of various landing lights. I saw it on today's AvWeb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlr1t4WRvvU&eurl=http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1309-full.html&feature=player_embedded Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 Checklist
At 10:34 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >I HAVE THE B & C L-60 ALTERNATOR WITH THE LR-3 CONTROLLER. Very good. This alternator operates in a manner consistent with those installed in TC aircraft since day-one. It may be turned OFF and ON at any time under any conditions without concern for damage to the alternator or any other part of the system. Aside from continuous loads with inadequate cooling, there are no conditions under which operations or manipulation by the pilot puts an alternator at risk. Finally, there is no way that an alternator can produce more than a few percent more current than its nameplate rating . . . even as a transient event. The number you're seeing from your data acquisition system is bogus. There's a huge data set of pronouncements about alternator behavior and capability circulating in the wild that is fraught with inaccuracy and lack of understanding. That particular combination has a rich history of failure free, performance as advertised. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Toggle Actuated Circuit Breakers
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
With respect to life cycles how do the switch type circuit breakers hold up? I am looking at the Potter & Brumfield variety. Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Are LEDs bright enough?
From: John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2009
Thanks for the informative re-direct to the Utube video. Made me wonder th e impact of a flat reflector surface with the LEDs vs.a more parabolic like the incandescents and HIDs? Durability and cost vs. throw distance. John Cox From: Sam Hoskins Sent: Thu 2/5/2009 5:20 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Are LEDs bright enough? FYI. Here is a video examining the suitability of various landing lights. I saw it on today's AvWeb. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlr1t4WRvvU&eurl=http://www.avweb.com/el etter/archives/avflash/1309-full.html&feature=player_embedded Sam http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Common Wire Diameters
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Can any of you point me to a reference describing Tefzel MIL-W-22759/16 wire diameter sizes for those typically used in aircraft? I am specifically interested in #4, #6, #10 & 12. Thanks, Glenn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 Checklist
Date: Feb 05, 2009
Bob, Thanks, You have been very helpful. I feel very comfortable flying my airplane with your Z-13/8 All Electric Airplane on a Budget with P Mags. power distribution design. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/8 Checklist > At 10:34 PM 2/4/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >I HAVE THE B & C L-60 ALTERNATOR WITH THE LR-3 CONTROLLER. Very good. This alternator operates in a manner consistent with those installed in TC aircraft since day-one. It may be turned OFF and ON at any time under any conditions without concern for damage to the alternator or any other part of the system. Aside from continuous loads with inadequate cooling, there are no conditions under which operations or manipulation by the pilot puts an alternator at risk. Finally, there is no way that an alternator can produce more than a few percent more current than its nameplate rating . . . even as a transient event. The number you're seeing from your data acquisition system is bogus. There's a huge data set of pronouncements about alternator behavior and capability circulating in the wild that is fraught with inaccuracy and lack of understanding. That particular combination has a rich history of failure free, performance as advertised. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List .com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: "Ron Quillin <recent:" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Common Wire Diameters
At 07:06 2/5/2009, you wrote: > >Can any of you point me to a reference describing Tefzel MIL-W-22759/16 >wire diameter sizes for those typically used in aircraft? I am >specifically interested in #4, #6, #10 & 12. > > >Thanks, >Glenn PDF of the official spec, if somewhat dated, when it was MIL and still freely available and not commercial for $$$. But be aware these are specified maximum diameters and stock from differing manufacturers varies. Likely you can visit the manufacturers individual site and get their specs. Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: Common Wire Diameters
Hi Glenn, Try
http://www.jaguarind.com/products/ptfe/16.html They have a nice table. Bob W. wrote: > > Can any of you point me to a reference describing Tefzel MIL-W-22759/16 > wire diameter sizes for those typically used in aircraft? I am > specifically interested in #4, #6, #10 & 12. > > > Thanks, > Glenn > > > > > -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com 3.8 Hours Total Time and holding Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
Subject: Re: Toggle Actuated Circuit Breakers
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
"> With respect to life cycles how do the switch type circuit breakers hold > up? I am looking at the Potter & Brumfield variety." I can tell you from experience, if you try and loosen the screw on one without supporting themetal tab it will not last one cycle! I am not sure if it is exact switch, but Beechcraft is going through some noise to have toggle breakers all replaced on I think it is Barons due to a failure. Not sure if it was an open or closed failure. (There is enough stuff going on in switch/breaker I could see there is a remote chance it could fail miserably and weld itself closed or make a high resistanceconnection and make plenty of heat) That said local AIs and A+Ps all told me reliability is good, they don't think any worst thanpull able breakers, or switches that do fail from time to time. B+C is not an advocate of using them to supply power to field, said they can sometimes (more often than they feel acceptable) make a higher resistance connection than is needed for stable running alternator. Found this tid bit out after I installed one for my SD20S, but will keep that information handy if I develop a problem. Not from experience but from dissecting one and studying, probably would not be a bad idea to replace any very important toggle/breakers at perhaps major timeor 15 years?? Grease will go away and the plastic arm to reset looks to me it could be a failure point. I think if it is closed will probably be pretty reliable, as far as from a mechanical standpoint goes. Resetting imposes a lot more mechanical stresses than opening. See: http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album258&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php Break a breaker. I am using perhaps a dozen or so on our Europa project, primarily from a space savings point of view. I didn't weigh difference between a Klixon pull able breaker and a switch, but expect the later is probably lighter (a bank or 9 is pretty heavy). I forget exacts, but if a P+B toggle/breaker is good for 9 or 12K cycles, supposedly a Klixon pull able breaker used as a switch (that it is not precisely designed for) is good for 3 or 4K cycles. If I am off on the number of cycles, it is not by much but it is what was told me. You can look at a engineering sheet if you are really interested, failure from lack of use and mechanical related age induced stresses are much more likely though. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Common Wire Diameters
At 09:06 AM 2/5/2009, you wrote: > >Can any of you point me to a reference describing Tefzel MIL-W-22759/16 >wire diameter sizes for those typically used in aircraft? I am >specifically interested in #4, #6, #10 & 12. Diameters can vary depending on the slash number for the variants. You can access the full spectrum of data on 22759 and other wires in the catalog on my website at . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Wire/Standard_Wire_and_Cable/Std_Wire_Cable.pdf /16 data is on document page 80 (pdf page 87). Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for KX165
Nav/com
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Date: Feb 05, 2009
Bob, you're wonderful, mission accomplished. Based on your info and document links, I was able to verify that it is a Molex part number 09-50-6155. It took me 5 minutes of looking to verify the possibility of numbers on the ends of the connector. Then I had to get my young daughter with perfect vision to be able to read the numbers, which turned out to be the actual part number instead of the 4338 number. First time I ever had to do that! Your vendor links are incredibly helpful, also. Thanks. PS- Is it Ok to power up the nav/com without terminating the G/S and Nav antenna connections? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228728#228728 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Trying to obtain card edge connector for
KX165 Nav/com > >PS- Is it Ok to power up the nav/com without terminating the G/S and >Nav antenna connections? Without benefit of having schematics to look at, I cannot be 100.0% sure but it's pretty likely that no harm will occur. After all, connectors DO come loose in service and I would hope that the fine minds under Ed King's legacy would have thought of that and accounted for it. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Subject: How to chose an EFIS
Date: Feb 05, 2009
I have written an article about factors you might consider when buying an EFIS that has been published in the UK homebuilder magazine, Light Aviation. It might be of interest to some of you here. http://www.glosterairparts.co.uk/EFIS8pt1.htm Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2009
From: Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com>
Subject: Screw Terminals on B&C breakers...
Bob and the group, While rewiring my not-yet-flown-by-me Longeze I've been attempting to follow the interconnect philosophy (for power wiring) of: Fast-ons preferred for appropriate (lower) current connections, Studs w/ ring terminals (with either a self-locking nut or a 2nd (aka jam-nut) nut) for higher current, Screw-terminals, which aren't really lockable, to be avoided. But I haven't been completely successful yet. What is recommended for: -The screw-terminal B&C breaker used for the alternator field winding? Blue locktite? Or use another breaker? Or don't worry about it? Of my list, this one bothers me the most as the screws are small enough that it's not clear to me I can tighten them enough to get an appropriately gas-tight connection without stripping them. Not to mention the (imagined?) possibility of inadvertently loosening them by poking around behind the panel and moving the wire (and associated ring terminal) they are attempting to clamp. - The B+ connection on my alternator (ND external regulator type from a Toyota) which uses a metric nut and doesn't have room on the stud for a jam nut (I haven't looked for a high-temp self locking metric nut but that's probably the answer if I can find one), - The brass screw terminals for the amp-meter leads at the shunt (from B&C) (blue locktite?) On a related note, can anyone point me to the appropriate torque standards for brass nuts onto brass studs (as on the B&C shunt and the B&C grounding blocks...) And, lastly, is there any (presumably metallurgical) reason it's a bad idea to use a non-brass nut (or jam-nut) on a brass stud? Thanks in advance, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2009
Subject: Best way to connect SS screw to aluminium
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
I have a Bob Archer SA-006 antenna (BIG "E"). It is made out of 2024-T4 .016". The shield of the cable is supposed to be connected to the aluminium "E" with a 4-40 stainless steel truss head screw. The only contact to the aluminium is the undersidehead of the screw. There ispheonelic on the other side. The antenna will be permanent bonded on the inside of the rudder with access only through major surgery, thus I want to try and make this connection a good as it can be. It happens antenna came assembled and the head is right over some painted markings. Should I just scotch bright and reassemble? Perhaps put a #4 phosphor bronze star washer under head? Or?? Thx. Ron Parigoris This is not my install but you can see the #4 connection I am talking about, it is the backside of the top one: http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?full=1&set_albumName=album272&id=Archer_Troy_1&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Common Wire Diameters
Date: Feb 06, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Excellent, Thanks to all.... -----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, February 05, 2009 11:05 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Common Wire Diameters At 09:06 AM 2/5/2009, you wrote: > >Can any of you point me to a reference describing Tefzel MIL-W-22759/16 >wire diameter sizes for those typically used in aircraft? I am >specifically interested in #4, #6, #10 & 12. Diameters can vary depending on the slash number for the variants. You can access the full spectrum of data on 22759 and other wires in the catalog on my website at . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Wire/Standard_Wire_and_Cable/Std_Wire_ Cable.pdf /16 data is on document page 80 (pdf page 87).


January 18, 2009 - February 06, 2009

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ik