AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iu
June 23, 2009 - July 02, 2009
ended up being quite close to my pitch servo (approx. 4" below). Should
I be concerned about the strobe unit emitting noise that would in turn
cause pulsations w/n the auto-pilot servo?
The strobe power supply was installed early on without the pitch servo
in mind. Build and learn...
I have routed no wiring yet.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | First choice alternator decision |
Gentleman,
This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system
designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
regulation, or
--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
alternator.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Power Supply Location |
At 08:58 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I am building an RV-7 and my Whelen strobe power supply (HDACF) has
>ended up being quite close to my pitch servo (approx. 4" below). Should
>I be concerned about the strobe unit emitting noise that would in turn
>cause pulsations w/n the auto-pilot servo?
No
>The strobe power supply was installed early on without the pitch servo
>in mind. Build and learn...
>
>I have routed no wiring yet.
There are no effects emanating from the strobe supply
that put the servo system at risk.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later |
At 08:58 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>My plan is to fly off several hours in the RV-7 using two Slick mags
>before transitioning over to a one mag and Plasma II plus system. With
>this in mind, what is the best way to spec-out and set-up the ignition
>switches? I am referencing Z-13/8 AEC as the basis for my design. The
>Z-13 diagram shows an s700-1-3 and a s700-2-10. Perhaps a s700-2-50
>would make more sense.
A pair of S700-1-3 switches will do fine for both the pair
of mags and for the final configuration.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
At 09:01 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>Gentleman,
>
>This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
>best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
>the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system
>designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
>
> --Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
>regulation, or
>
> --B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
>
>This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
>alternator.
>
>Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Both products have good field histories and perform
as advertised. Your choice.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later |
Thanks for the input!
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later
At 08:58 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>My plan is to fly off several hours in the RV-7 using two Slick mags
>before transitioning over to a one mag and Plasma II plus system. With
>this in mind, what is the best way to spec-out and set-up the ignition
>switches? I am referencing Z-13/8 AEC as the basis for my design. The
>Z-13 diagram shows an s700-1-3 and a s700-2-10. Perhaps a s700-2-50
>would make more sense.
A pair of S700-1-3 switches will do fine for both the pair
of mags and for the final configuration.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe Power Supply Location |
Thank you Bob!
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Power Supply Location
At 08:58 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I am building an RV-7 and my Whelen strobe power supply (HDACF) has
>ended up being quite close to my pitch servo (approx. 4" below).
Should
>I be concerned about the strobe unit emitting noise that would in turn
>cause pulsations w/n the auto-pilot servo?
No
>The strobe power supply was installed early on without the pitch servo
>in mind. Build and learn...
>
>I have routed no wiring yet.
There are no effects emanating from the strobe supply
that put the servo system at risk.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | First choice alternator decision |
Bob,
I noticed in some of your drawings that there are panel mount breakers
shown for the main alternator as well as the aux alternator. Is this
preferred as compared to fuses? Obviously the breaker grants you at
least an attempt to reset in flight...
I am paralleling Z-13 with my design. Thanks!
Wade Roe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
At 09:01 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>Gentleman,
>
>This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
>best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
>the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC
system
>designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
>
> --Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
>regulation, or
>
> --B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
>
>This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
>alternator.
>
>Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Both products have good field histories and perform
as advertised. Your choice.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | First choice alternator decision |
6/24/2009
Hello Wade, Will you have low voltage warning with the Plane Power
installation?
I would not be without a low voltage (battery not being charged) warning
capability.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==============================================
From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
Gentleman,
This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system
designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
regulation, or
--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
alternator.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | First choice alternator decision |
Thank you for the comments. The Plane Power unit has over voltage
protection but no low voltage warning features. My plan would be to
defer that task to the AEC9005-101 (low voltage monitor) that connects
to the main buss per diagram Z-13 AEC. If main buss voltage drops I
don't believe that there would be anything to blame other than the
primary alternator. In this event, you get the bright yellow LV warning
light on the panel and you're shutting down any unnecessary equipment to
see if that will temporarily remedy the issue. My next move would be to
bring up the aux alternator and e-buss...at least I think that would be
the proper protocol.
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
6/24/2009
Hello Wade, Will you have low voltage warning with the Plane Power
installation?
I would not be without a low voltage (battery not being charged) warning
capability.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==============================================
From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
Gentleman,
This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system
designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
regulation, or
--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
alternator.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
Hi all,
I am building an all-electric RV 8 with dual electronic ignition. I plan
to use two P680 batteries. As I was sorting out where to put them, I had
decided to strap them together and put them behind the firewall on the right.
A building buddy asked the question, are they okay to be strapped
together? Are there any failure modes where one might fail and take out the other
out at the same time?
I thought I would ask the same question to the list and/or Bob. I really
like the "change one out every annual" approach described in the
Aeroelectric book, which is why I am going with two identical batteries. The
new and
improved section on batteries does not describe explosion or melt-down as
a likely failure of RG batteries so I had thought that mounting them
together and in the inside of the plane would be okay.
In retrospect, I can see that I should have built in the mounting system
before I riveted on the front bottom skin. As is, I am still scratching my
head about where exactly to put them and how to property secure them to the
airframe. I am very open to suggestions.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 FWF
San Ramon, CA
**************Huge Savings on Popular Laptops only at Dell.com. Shop Now!
%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215910242%3B38350777%3Bf)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 01:14 PM 6/24/2009, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am building an all-electric RV 8 with dual electronic ignition. I
>plan to use two P680 batteries. As I was sorting out where to put
>them, I had decided to strap them together and put them behind the
>firewall on the right.
>
>A building buddy asked the question, are they okay to be strapped together?
Yes
> Are there any failure modes where one might fail and take out the
> other out at the same time?
No.
>
>I thought I would ask the same question to the list and/or Bob. I
>really like the "change one out every annual" approach described in
>the Aeroelectric book, which is why I am going with two identical
>batteries. The new and improved section on batteries does not
>describe explosion or melt-down as a likely failure of RG batteries
>so I had thought that mounting them together and in the inside of
>the plane would be okay.
>
>In retrospect, I can see that I should have built in the mounting
>system before I riveted on the front bottom skin. As is, I am still
>scratching my head about where exactly to put them and how to
>property secure them to the airframe. I am very open to suggestions.
Are you sure they want to go forward? A lot of
my RV-8 builders had to put them in the tail
for the purposes of satisfying CG limits.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bcollinsmn" <bob(at)rvbuildershotline.com> |
Hi there. I'm posting this on behalf of a reader of a newsletter I write. Any help
you can give this gentleman would be appreciated:
"Have fitted a Bosch externally regulated alternator which has terminals marked
F, E, and N. I was advised that when the alternator is giving the correct output
there should be 7V potertial at N which I have routed through a relay to
extinguish an LED. When the engine is ticking over at 1000 revs the LED is flickering
on and off but the battery shows 14 volts. Have I got the principle
wrong? what is the purpose of terminal N? "
-- Peter York
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV-7A - Running wires
http://rvbuildershotline.com
Day job: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=249966#249966
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob:
Could you expand further on your answer? Are there any failure modes or
circumstances that would cause an RG battery to fail and drag down the
entire system, including taking the alternator off-line?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
At 01:14 PM 6/24/2009, you wrote:
Hi all,
I am building an all-electric RV 8 with dual electronic ignition. I
plan to use two P680 batteries. As I was sorting out where to put them,
I had decided to strap them together and put them behind the firewall on
the right.
A building buddy asked the question, are they okay to be strapped
together?
Yes
Are there any failure modes where one might fail and take out the
other out at the same time?
No.
I thought I would ask the same question to the list and/or Bob. I
really like the "change one out every annual" approach described in the
Aeroelectric book, which is why I am going with two identical batteries.
The new and improved section on batteries does not describe explosion
or melt-down as a likely failure of RG batteries so I had thought that
mounting them together and in the inside of the plane would be okay.
In retrospect, I can see that I should have built in the mounting
system before I riveted on the front bottom skin. As is, I am still
scratching my head about where exactly to put them and how to property
secure them to the airframe. I am very open to suggestions.
Are you sure they want to go forward? A lot of
my RV-8 builders had to put them in the tail
for the purposes of satisfying CG limits.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
Wade,
I don't know which model of the PP alternator you have, but if you look at
the diagrams for the 60 Amp model
(_http://www.plane-power.com/images/99%20-%209900B.pdf_ (http://www.plane-power.com/images/99%20-%209900B.pdf) )
there is an option for an alternator out warning light. Would that suffice
for a low voltage warning? Actually, should the alternator fail, the
alternator out light should appear before the low voltage warning.
Stan Sutterfield
_www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net)
Inspected, Ready to fly
Thank you for the comments. The Plane Power unit has over voltage
protection but no low voltage warning features. My plan would be to
defer that task to the AEC9005-101 (low voltage monitor) that connects
to the main buss per diagram Z-13 AEC. If main buss voltage drops I
don't believe that there would be anything to blame other than the
primary alternator. In this event, you get the bright yellow LV warning
light on the panel and you're shutting down any unnecessary equipment to
see if that will temporarily remedy the issue. My next move would be to
bring up the aux alternator and e-buss...at least I think that would be
the proper protocol.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Michael,
I know other builders have mounted batteries side-by-side with no
problems. Also, they are mounted that way in my golf cart with no problems.
In my
opinion, if you can leave a small airspace between them (say 1/4 to 1/2
inch) then I would do that.
I mounted one P680 in the lower portion of the front baggage and one behind
the aft baggage. I put the aft one there for W&B and it turns out that
worked great because my 8A is within CG limits at all weights and
configurations even with a 3 blade prop and IO-390. Actually I put everything
as far
aft as I could.
Building a bracket for the front battery was challenging. You can see
what I did at _http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm_ (http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm)
and scroll down to 16 Dec 05 and at _http://www.rv-8a.net/2006.htm_
(http://www.rv-8a.net/2006.htm) - scroll down to 20 Mar 06 and more photos
scattered throughout _http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm_
(http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm) . I bought the steel jackets for the batteries and made those an
integral part of each bracket.
Regards,
Stan Sutterfield
Inspected, ready to fly
I am building an all-electric RV 8 with dual electronic ignition. I
plan
to use two P680 batteries. As I was sorting out where to put them, I had
decided to strap them together and put them behind the firewall on the
right.
A building buddy asked the question, are they okay to be strapped
together? Are there any failure modes where one might fail and take out
the other
out at the same time?
I thought I would ask the same question to the list and/or Bob. I really
like the "change one out every annual" approach described in the
Aeroelectric book, which is why I am going with two identical batteries.
The
new and
improved section on batteries does not describe explosion or melt-down as
a likely failure of RG batteries so I had thought that mounting them
together and in the inside of the plane would be okay.
In retrospect, I can see that I should have built in the mounting system
before I riveted on the front bottom skin. As is, I am still scratching
my
head about where exactly to put them and how to property secure them to
the
airframe. I am very open to suggestions.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 11:58 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>Could you expand further on your answer? Are there any failure
>modes or circumstances that would cause an RG battery to fail and
>drag down the entire system, including taking the alternator off-line?
Back in the bad ol' days the lead-acid battery
was prone to various forms of leaking, outgassing,
and cells that shorted when the residue of flaking
plates piled up too high.
RG battery failures are very benign . . . the device
simply stops storing and then giving back electrical
energy. They don't short like the flooded battery.
However, in defense of flooded cell devices: Had we
bothered to maintain them by swapping out an otherwise
working battery when its TESTED capacity dropped
below design goals for battery only operations,
the vast majority of unhappy experiences with this
venerable technology could have been prevented.
The short answer is that there are no failure modes
that cause a battery to take a system down assuming
that it is not abused. Most abuse situations arise
from other system failures such as extended over
voltage conditions:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Internal_Fire/Picture%20001.jpg
Given that you've embraced the new-battery-per-year
philosophy for battery maintenance and assuming you
plan to incorporate active notification of low voltage
and automatic mitigation of over-voltage conditions,
any concerns for battery failure are unwarranted.
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: | Magneto Switch Rating |
Bob, I am having difficulty finding the electrical specifications
required for toggle switches used as Mag switches.
There is both a withstanding voltage and a current carrying capability
that needs to be met, and I have a need to use miniature toggle switches
rated at 5A/120VAC/28VDC for this function.
Help appreciated.
Thanks, Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
At 11:58 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Bob:
Could you expand further on your answer? Are there any failure
modes or circumstances that would cause an RG battery to fail and drag
down the entire system, including taking the alternator off-line?
Back in the bad ol' days the lead-acid battery
was prone to various forms of leaking, outgassing,
and cells that shorted when the residue of flaking
plates piled up too high.
RG battery failures are very benign . . . the device
simply stops storing and then giving back electrical
energy. They don't short like the flooded battery.
However, in defense of flooded cell devices: Had we
bothered to maintain them by swapping out an otherwise
working battery when its TESTED capacity dropped
below design goals for battery only operations,
the vast majority of unhappy experiences with this
venerable technology could have been prevented.
The short answer is that there are no failure modes
that cause a battery to take a system down assuming
that it is not abused. Most abuse situations arise
from other system failures such as extended over
voltage conditions:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Internal_Fire/Picture%20001.jp
g
Given that you've embraced the new-battery-per-year
philosophy for battery maintenance and assuming you
plan to incorporate active notification of low voltage
and automatic mitigation of over-voltage conditions,
any concerns for battery failure are unwarranted.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
My vote is for Plane Power, for value and design.
The internally regulated model is simpler and has
EXTRA over voltage protection, that has satisfied
even the most knowledgeable expert. If you MUST
have external regulation, Plane Power has that
as well. I have talked to them many times and
Customer service is good. You can buy through
Vans Aircraft (also good customer service).
-
Plane Power now also makes a FAA/PMA voltage
regulator for $169, if you decide to go that way.-
Very nice, compact and no doubt lighter than the
V1200.
-
I have been recommending the Transpo V1200
"Voyager" for years which cost less than $100.
It is made for Ford heavy duty applications.
-
The main complaint of stock internally regulated
alternators in the past,-potential of Over Voltage.
External regulators can have OV as well but they
are easier to-add on EXTRA OV protection. The
Plane Power units eliminates this worry and have
added the same-EXTRA-OV protection that is
preferred by the-experts. So there is no need to
hang another BOX-on the fire wall and run more
wires to an external regulator. That can all be
internal with an-internal regulator making a
cleaner-installation.
-
B&C is more expensive and has no internal
regulator choice. Nothing wrong with B&C fine-
product, good customer care and external
regulation is fine. The voltage- regulator they
sell for $225 is over priced. You can do better
for less than 1/3rd the cost (Transpo V1200).
-
So which one? Can't lose but the tie breaker
is the Plane power.
-
Cheers George
-
-
-
-
>From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
>
>Gentleman,
>
>This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
>best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7.- I am interested in
>the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC system
>designs (particulary Z-13/8).- The options are as follows:
>
>--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
>regulation, or
>
>--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
>
>This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
>alternator.
>
>Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process =0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
Thanks for the insight Stan. It's my opinion that the alternator out
light would in fact suffice. I did not see this as an option on the
unit available from Vans. It's also my understanding that alternators,
especially those manufactured for aviation are very reliable. I'm not
sure what the average life span is. At this point I'm mostly concerned
about having the best, most reliable option.
As we speak, I am doing a load analysis to determine if I even need a 60
amp alternator. Maybe I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb. and
$200.
Wade Roe
SOUTHERN CARBIDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
7739 Unity Road M&D Industrial Park
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-248-6700
205-248-6372 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:46 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: First choice alternator decision
Wade,
I don't know which model of the PP alternator you have, but if you look
at the diagrams for the 60 Amp model
(http://www.plane-power.com/images/99%20-%209900B.pdf) there is an
option for an alternator out warning light. Would that suffice for a
low voltage warning? Actually, should the alternator fail, the
alternator out light should appear before the low voltage warning.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Inspected, Ready to fly
Thank you for the comments. The Plane Power unit has over voltage
protection but no low voltage warning features. My plan would be to
defer that task to the AEC9005-101 (low voltage monitor) that connects
to the main buss per diagram Z-13 AEC. If main buss voltage drops I
don't believe that there would be anything to blame other than the
primary alternator. In this event, you get the bright yellow LV warning
light on the panel and you're shutting down any unnecessary equipment to
see if that will temporarily remedy the issue. My next move would be to
bring up the aux alternator and e-buss...at least I think that would be
the proper protocol.
_____
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy
<http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006> recipes for
the grill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
Thanks George for the comments and insight. I'll investigate the V1200.
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: First choice alternator decision
My vote is for Plane Power, for value and design.
The internally regulated model is simpler and has
EXTRA over voltage protection, that has satisfied
even the most knowledgeable expert. If you MUST
have external regulation, Plane Power has that
as well. I have talked to them many times and
Customer service is good. You can buy through
Vans Aircraft (also good customer service).
Plane Power now also makes a FAA/PMA voltage
regulator for $169, if you decide to go that way.
Very nice, compact and no doubt lighter than the
V1200.
I have been recommending the Transpo V1200
"Voyager" for years which cost less than $100.
It is made for Ford heavy duty applications.
The main complaint of stock internally regulated
alternators in the past, potential of Over Voltage.
External regulators can have OV as well but they
are easier to add on EXTRA OV protection. The
Plane Power units eliminates this worry and have
added the same EXTRA OV protection that is
preferred by the experts. So there is no need to
hang another BOX on the fire wall and run more
wires to an external regulator. That can all be
internal with an internal regulator making a
cleaner installation.
B&C is more expensive and has no internal
regulator choice. Nothing wrong with B&C fine
product, good customer care and external
regulation is fine. The voltage regulator they
sell for $225 is over priced. You can do better
for less than 1/3rd the cost (Transpo V1200).
So which one? Can't lose but the tie breaker
is the Plane power.
Cheers George
>From: "Wade Roe" <
<http://us.mc431.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wroe1@dbtech.net>
wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: First choice alternator decision
>
>Gentleman,
>
>This topic was touched on earlier but I'm still not sure which route is
>best regarding the primary alternator for my RV-7. I am interested in
>the best quality unit that will also coincide nicely with the AEC
system
>designs (particulary Z-13/8). The options are as follows:
>
>--Plane Power 60A alternator with OV protection and internal
>regulation, or
>
>--B&C L-60 matched up with an LR3C-14.
>
>This will be an all electric IFR plane with one battery and SD-8 aux
>alternator.
>
>Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
Wade Roe
EAA 557
Aeronca 7AC flying
RV-7 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
| From: | James Quinn <jquinn3(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,One of the links below (http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm) shows the Tempo
marine or race car type battery switches being used in lieu of battery
contractors. This seems like a very good idea, i.e. less cost, less weight
and almost absolute reliability (assuming you don't loss the keys). Your
comments?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 13:02, wrote:
> Michael,
> I know other builders have mounted batteries side-by-side with no
> problems. Also, they are mounted that way in my golf cart with no
> problems. In my opinion, if you can leave a small airspace between them
> (say 1/4 to 1/2 inch) then I would do that.
> I mounted one P680 in the lower portion of the front baggage and one behind
> the aft baggage. I put the aft one there for W&B and it turns out that
> worked great because my 8A is within CG limits at all weights and
> configurations even with a 3 blade prop and IO-390. Actually I put
> everything as far aft as I could.
> Building a bracket for the front battery was challenging. You can see what
> I did at http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm and scroll down to 16 Dec 05 and at
> http://www.rv-8a.net/2006.htm - scroll down to 20 Mar 06 and more photos
> scattered throughout http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm. I bought the steel
> jackets for the batteries and made those an integral part of each bracket.
> Regards,
> Stan Sutterfield
> Inspected, ready to fly
>
>
> I am building an all-electric RV 8 with dual electronic ignition. I plan
> to use two P680 batteries. As I was sorting out where to put them, I had
> decided to strap them together and put them behind the firewall on the
> right.
>
> A building buddy asked the question, are they okay to be strapped
> together? Are there any failure modes where one might fail and take out
> the other
>
> out at the same time?
>
> I thought I would ask the same question to the list and/or Bob. I really
> like the "change one out every annual" approach described in the
> Aeroelectric book, which is why I am going with two identical batteries.
> The
> new and
> improved section on batteries does not describe explosion or melt-down as
> a likely failure of RG batteries so I had thought that mounting them
> together and in the inside of the plane would be okay.
>
> In retrospect, I can see that I should have built in the mounting system
> before I riveted on the front bottom skin. As is, I am still scratching
> my
> head about where exactly to put them and how to property secure them to
> the
> airframe. I am very open to suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes<http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006>for the grill.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator N-Terminal |
At 10:49 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi there. I'm posting this on behalf of a reader of a newsletter I
>write. Any help you can give this gentleman would be appreciated:
>
>"Have fitted a Bosch externally regulated alternator which has
>terminals marked F, E, and N. I was advised that when the
>alternator is giving the correct output there should be 7V
>potertial at N which I have routed through a relay to extinguish an
>LED. When the engine is ticking over at 1000 revs the LED is
>flickering on and off but the battery shows 14 volts. Have I got the
>principle wrong? what is the purpose of terminal N? "
To understand the answer to your question we need to
go back about 42 years to when the first alternators
(Ford derivatives) were being bolted to airplanes
for the first time. The regulators were stock
automotive, 2-relay, electro-mechanical devices
shown in this figure . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Legacy_EM_Regulator_(Ford).pdf
Terminal N is the center tap on a "Y-wound" stator.
Yes, it has an output nominally 1/2 that of the
B terminal. It was originally used to sense the fact
that the alternator was being turned by an engine and
was ready to produce power to the vehicle's systems.
A field control relay was powered from the N terminal
as shown in the attendant drawing. If the altenrator
control switch was open, field excitation through the
alternator fail light was zero. . . OR . . . if the
alternator was not turning, then N-terminal voltage
was zero.
If the alternator is turning and the control switch
is closed, then a small current (100 mA or so) places
a small excitation current on the alternator's field
terminal through the normally closed contacts of the
v-reg relay. This causes the stator windings to produce
voltage that is essentially unloaded (open circuit)
until high enough to begin to conduct the diodes and
deliver energy to the system. In this very lightly
loaded state, the N-terminal voltage rises and energizes
the field control relay.
When the field relay closes, full bus voltage is
available through a low impedance source and causes
the alternator to wake up and power the ship's
systems.
If the engine is stopped, or a belt breaks, N-terminal
volts goes to zero. Field control relay drops out
removing a short across the ALT WARN lamp causing it
to illuminate assuming that the control switch is
still closed.
This opens the high current loop for supplying
alternator field current thus stopping internal
generation of heat in the alternator and depleting
the battery with no-value-added load of field
current.
I don't recall that Cessna ever used the N-terminal
or field control relay for this purpose. We chose
to apply bus voltage directly to the regulator's
"S" terminal through the alternator control switch.
In later years, the OV control module was placed
in series with the field control relay as shown
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Cessna_OVModule.gif
Years later in the employ of Electro-Mech, I
was designer of some rather crude voltage level
sensors that watched the N-terminal voltage with
the idea that it was good place to detect an
alternator failure. We supplied these modules
to Cessna and Beech. After working this industry
for several years, I discovered that there were
failure modes that would cripple the alternator's
ability to power the system that COULD NOT BE
DETECTED by watching the N-terminal.
I recommended and developed a low-voltage
warning module that was adopted by Beech. I
don't recall if we ever sold any to Cessna.
The short answer to your question: I recommend
that you ignore the N-terminal of your alternator
and install some form of active notification of
low voltage set up to warn for any condition
where bus voltage drops below 13.0 volts. This
is one of several solutions to the low voltage
warning task.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob:
Thanks, that's good to hear. If I could take this one step further for
the RG batteries:
If there is a zero probability of battery failure (assuming it's not
abused and maintenance benefits aside), strictly from the battery's
contribution to system reliability, is there is any benefit gained from
a dual battery as compared to single battery installation?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
At 11:58 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Bob:
Could you expand further on your answer? Are there any failure
modes or circumstances that would cause an RG battery to fail and drag
down the entire system, including taking the alternator off-line?
Back in the bad ol' days the lead-acid battery
was prone to various forms of leaking, outgassing,
and cells that shorted when the residue of flaking
plates piled up too high.
RG battery failures are very benign . . . the device
simply stops storing and then giving back electrical
energy. They don't short like the flooded battery.
However, in defense of flooded cell devices: Had we
bothered to maintain them by swapping out an otherwise
working battery when its TESTED capacity dropped
below design goals for battery only operations,
the vast majority of unhappy experiences with this
venerable technology could have been prevented.
The short answer is that there are no failure modes
that cause a battery to take a system down assuming
that it is not abused. Most abuse situations arise
from other system failures such as extended over
voltage conditions:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Internal_Fire/Picture%20001.jp
g
Given that you've embraced the new-battery-per-year
philosophy for battery maintenance and assuming you
plan to incorporate active notification of low voltage
and automatic mitigation of over-voltage conditions,
any concerns for battery failure are unwarranted.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Re: Battery Proximity and mounting
From: James Quinn <jquinn3(at)gmail.com>
Bob,
One of the links below
(<http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm>http://www.rv-8a.net/2005.htm) shows
the Tempo marine or race car type battery switches being used in lieu
of battery contractors. This seems like a very good idea, i.e. less
cost, less weight and almost absolute reliability (assuming you don't
loss the keys). Your comments?
A number of airplanes (including type
certified) have used battery switches
in lieu of contactors. A TriPacer I used
to fly had manual battery switch AND a
high current, manually operated starter
switch. No contactors at all.
So there's nothing particularly unusual
about the idea. A decision to substitute
manual switches for contactors needs to meet
design goals for convenient accessibility
under all flight conditions: Both normal
and those which anticipate un-intended
arrivals with the earth. Recall that the
battery switch is designed make the
ship's wiring max-cold when off.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
I think if you read the response, he is not saying that there is a zero
probability of battery failure, just essentially a zero probability of a
failure that will also bring down the whole system.
I.e. the battery could fail so that it no longer can supply current, but
this failure would have no effect on the rest of the system if you still
had a second battery. Obviously, if you have only one battery and it
stops supplying current that you need then you have a problem.
Dick
Flagstone(at)cox.net wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Thanks, that's good to hear. If I could take this one step further
> for the RG batteries:
>
> If there is a zero probability of battery failure (assuming it's not
> abused and maintenance benefits aside), strictly from the battery's
> contribution to system reliability, is there is any benefit gained
> from a dual battery as compared to single battery installation?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
>
> At 11:58 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>> Bob:
>>
>> Could you expand further on your answer? Are there any failure
>> modes or circumstances that would cause an RG battery to fail and
>> drag down the entire system, including taking the alternator
>> off-line?
>
> Back in the bad ol' days the lead-acid battery
> was prone to various forms of leaking, outgassing,
> and cells that shorted when the residue of flaking
> plates piled up too high.
>
> RG battery failures are very benign . . . the device
> simply stops storing and then giving back electrical
> energy. They don't short like the flooded battery.
> However, in defense of flooded cell devices: Had we
> bothered to maintain them by swapping out an otherwise
> working battery when its TESTED capacity dropped
> below design goals for battery only operations,
> the vast majority of unhappy experiences with this
> venerable technology could have been prevented.
>
> The short answer is that there are no failure modes
> that cause a battery to take a system down assuming
> that it is not abused. Most abuse situations arise
> from other system failures such as extended over
> voltage conditions:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Internal_Fire/Picture%20001.jpg
>
>
> Given that you've embraced the new-battery-per-year
> philosophy for battery maintenance and assuming you
> plan to incorporate active notification of low voltage
> and automatic mitigation of over-voltage conditions,
> any concerns for battery failure are unwarranted.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: First choice alternator decision
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:22:13 -0500
Thanks for the insight Stan. It's my opinion that the alternator out
light would in fact suffice. I did not see this as an option on the
unit available from Vans. It's also my understanding that
alternators, especially those manufactured for aviation are very
reliable. I'm not sure what the average life span is. At this point
I'm mostly concerned about having the best, most reliable option.
Your electrical SYSTEM can offer satisfactory
'reliability' in spite of individual components
failure. This is the cornerstone of failure
tolerant design. It's far more useful to design
and fabricate with a foregone conclusion that
any part can and will at some time fail in flight.
Further, price of a component is not necessarily
directly related to expected service life. Based
on anecdotal observation, most failures of an
alternator installation are unrelated to the
physical alternator. The only mechanical wearing
parts of an alternator are bearings-and-
brushes-on-slip-rings. There are thermal service-life-
limiting stresses that influence diodes, integrated
circuits, bond-wire joints, etc. Generally speaking,
it's not difficult to fabricate a belt driven
alternator with a service life that equals that of
the engine. But poor choice of attach hardware,
wiring supports can be equally crippling of
alternator performance.
The purpose of this little dissertation is to suggest
that much of what's reported as an "alternator
problem" has nothing to do with the design or
fabricating processes in the alternator itself.
Given that absolute "quality" in terms of service
life cannot be absolutely predicted, I'll suggest
it's more useful to use what ever combination of
products is most attractive for price, weight,
ease of installation while mitigating reliability
worries with crafty failure tolerant design.
Understand that the "alternator out" light feature
of an internally regulated alternator is operated
from the same slab of silicon as the voltage
regulator. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A_Block_Diagram.pdf
This drawing is a somewhat dated (but I think exemplar)
architecture for an internally regulated alternator.
Note that the lamp circuit is driven from the
integrated circuit chip. The ability of this
lamp to annunciate ALL forms of alternator failure
is not known. Further, since the warning functions
share hardware and space with controlling functions,
it does not conform with design goals for most
aircraft systems that call for separation of
control and failure monitoring/annunciation.
Observance of those design goals calls for active
notification of low voltage that is independent
of the alternator and it's regulator. This concept
is common to many TC aircraft and is suggested by
illustration throughout the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 05:19 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Bob:
Thanks, that's good to hear. If I could take this one step further
for the RG batteries:
If there is a zero probability of battery failure (assuming it's not
abused and maintenance benefits aside), strictly from the battery's
contribution to system reliability, is there is any benefit gained
from a dual battery as compared to single battery installation?
The reasons for dual batteries are few and specific.
Z-14 calls for dual batteries because you have dual
systems. If you have one alternator and an electrically
dependent engine, then Z-19 suggests a means by which
an alternator failure can be responded to by having
engine and instruments supported by separate batteries
while operating in the endurance mode.
We've also discussed appliances not designed to live
in the real world of airplanes and require support
of a battery that is independent of the cranking
battery.
I neglected ask why you were considering two batteries.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob:
Are any of those reasons for Z-14 as a result of the design and performance
of the RG batteries by themselves, or are they the result of other potential
failures extraneous to the batteries? If any of the reasons are a result of
the batteries, what are they and what are the probabilities of them
happening?
Another group member stated that "the battery could fail so that it can no
longer supply current". He may be correct that I misunderstood your
previous answer. I would consider that within the scope of my previous
question, in that it seems to me that if a battery were to suddenly be
unable to supply current, it would be the result of some sort of internal
failure. If that in fact can happen, what are the circumstances that would
cause that, and what are the probabilities of it happening?
I intend to use to use two batteries for the maintenance benefits you
outline in your book and for the additional cranking power.
Right now I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of the RG battery's
reliability and performance limitations.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
>
>
>
> At 05:19 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Thanks, that's good to hear. If I could take this one step further for
> the RG batteries:
>
> If there is a zero probability of battery failure (assuming it's not
> abused and maintenance benefits aside), strictly from the battery's
> contribution to system reliability, is there is any benefit gained from a
> dual battery as compared to single battery installation?
>
> The reasons for dual batteries are few and specific.
> Z-14 calls for dual batteries because you have dual
> systems. If you have one alternator and an electrically
> dependent engine, then Z-19 suggests a means by which
> an alternator failure can be responded to by having
> engine and instruments supported by separate batteries
> while operating in the endurance mode.
>
> We've also discussed appliances not designed to live
> in the real world of airplanes and require support
> of a battery that is independent of the cranking
> battery.
>
> I neglected ask why you were considering two batteries.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
First off, thank you all for the replies and the group think.
My main reason for two batteries is the dual electronic ignition. Claus
at Lightspeed strongly suggests a back-up battery if you are completely
electrically dependent. I have read the Aeroelectric book through several
times. I suppose that I may be in overkill mode, but I have a main and back-up
alternator (B&C 60 Amp and 20 amp). While I have not yet done the wiring
or really completed the drawings, I was thinking strongly of a Vertical
Power VP 100 around a system that is basically a Z12 with a second battery.
The VP will not really support a Z14 style architecture.
If I am going to have a second battery per the ignition system's
manufacturers recommendation, it seems reasonable to use identical batteries and
plan a yearly rotation. Is this complete overkill? Adding a cross feed
connector gives you the opportunity to have additional cranking power in case
of
starting difficulties.
Thoughts?
Michael Wynn
RV 8
San Ramon
In a message dated 6/25/2009 4:56:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 05:19 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Bob:
Thanks, that's good to hear. If I could take this one step further
for the RG batteries:
If there is a zero probability of battery failure (assuming it's not
abused and maintenance benefits aside), strictly from the battery's
contribution to system reliability, is there is any benefit gained
from a dual battery as compared to single battery installation?
The reasons for dual batteries are few and specific.
Z-14 calls for dual batteries because you have dual
systems. If you have one alternator and an electrically
dependent engine, then Z-19 suggests a means by which
an alternator failure can be responded to by having
engine and instruments supported by separate batteries
while operating in the endurance mode.
We've also discussed appliances not designed to live
in the real world of airplanes and require support
of a battery that is independent of the cranking
battery.
I neglected ask why you were considering two batteries.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
**************Shop Popular Dell Laptops now starting at $349!
bleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215910283%3B38350812%3Ba)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later |
Yup, but you'll need to turn one of the switches over when you want to
use it to switch the ei. The mag switch closes to turn the mag off, but
the ei switch will close to turn on. You want the "up" position to be on.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:58 AM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> My plan is to fly off several hours in the RV-7 using two Slick mags
>> before transitioning over to a one mag and Plasma II plus system. With
>> this in mind, what is the best way to spec-out and set-up the ignition
>> switches? I am referencing Z-13/8 AEC as the basis for my design. The
>> Z-13 diagram shows an s700-1-3 and a s700-2-10. Perhaps a s700-2-50
>> would make more sense.
>
> A pair of S700-1-3 switches will do fine for both the pair
> of mags and for the final configuration.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 07:59 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob:
>
>Are any of those reasons for Z-14 as a result of the design and
>performance of the RG batteries by themselves, or are they the
>result of other potential failures extraneous to the batteries? If
>any of the reasons are a result of the batteries, what are they and
>what are the probabilities of them happening?
Z-14 is the "mother of all electrical systems" intended
to address the design goals for probably less than 1%
of the OBAM aircraft fleet. This would be the Lancair
or Glasair with fully redundant IFR panels on both
pilot seats wherein the aircraft's missions often
include two rated pilots and a high percentage of
flight in IMC.
Batteries swapped out when their battery-only endurance
capabilities drop below 2+ hours are still cranking
and engine nicely . . . and a battery this capable is
exceedingly unlikely to go south on you en route to
aunt Martha's.
For my purposes and for the purposes of the majority
of the OBAM fleet, Z-13/8 with a battery maintenance
program offers SYSTEM reliability that is head and
shoulders above the majority of TC fleet up to and
including some twin turbine powered aircraft.
>Another group member stated that "the battery could fail so that it
>can no longer supply current". He may be correct that I
>misunderstood your previous answer. I would consider that within
>the scope of my previous question, in that it seems to me that if a
>battery were to suddenly be unable to supply current, it would be
>the result of some sort of internal failure. If that in fact can
>happen, what are the circumstances that would cause that, and what
>are the probabilities of it happening?
Can't put a number on "probability" and if I
could, it probably wouldn't be significant to
you. The point about battery technology and
service life is that hundreds of thousands of
airplanes have launched into IFR with a single generator
and single flooded battery with a high probability
of a now-sweat termination of the flight. The
demonstrated level of system reliability was such
that many pilots exploited the capability with
little concern for system failure. The majority
of accidents were (and still are) seeded by
poor judgement and/or conditions beyond
control of the pilot that were not related
to system reliability.
Now we can easily install two engine driven
power sources to charge a well maintained,
very user-friendly RG battery. A combination
that reduces risks of power starvation to
still lower numbers.
If you're willing to jump in a rented C182
and launch into the grey with equipment
certificated 30 years ago, then getting into
your RV fitted with Z-13/8 + RG battery has to
be more comfortable yet. Bottom line is that with
either airplane, your risk for experiencing
an unhappy day in the cockpit has more to
do with what's between your ears than with
what's under the cowl.
>I intend to use to use two batteries for the maintenance benefits
>you outline in your book and for the additional cranking power.
Dual batteries are indicated only for those special
conditions I cited earlier. If you don't have those
configurations . . . dual batteries are only a cost,
volume and weight burden on your project.
>Right now I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of the RG
>battery's reliability and performance limitations.
If all you want is more cranking power, install ONE
bigger battery. But cranking power of RG batteries
is so much better than their flooded counterparts
that we're installing systems like Z-13/8 with a small
fraction of the hardware weight in a 1975 Cessna
182. Unless you have operational features that
encourage dual batteries, please consider installing
a single 17 to 18 a.h. RG battery. You can always
up-size later. But consider leaving 16 pounds of
hardware on the ground until you KNOW you need it.
16 extra pounds of baggage or fuel is USEFUL . . . 16
unnecessary pounds of battery is . . . well . . .
you know.
I'm betting you'll never need it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 09:29 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
First off, thank you all for the replies and the group think.
My main reason for two batteries is the dual electronic
ignition. Claus at Lightspeed strongly suggests a back-up battery if
you are completely electrically dependent. I have read the
Aeroelectric book through several times. I suppose that I may be in
overkill mode, but I have a main and back-up alternator (B&C 60 Amp
and 20 amp). While I have not yet done the wiring or really
completed the drawings, I was thinking strongly of a Vertical Power
VP 100 around a system that is basically a Z12 with a second
battery. The VP will not really support a Z14 style architecture.
If I am going to have a second battery per the ignition system's
manufacturers recommendation, it seems reasonable to use identical
batteries and plan a yearly rotation. Is this complete
overkill? Adding a cross feed connector gives you the opportunity to
have additional cranking power in case of starting difficulties.
Don't know about "complete" overkill . . . but
it's in the 90th percentile.
Z-13/8 and one battery with EACH ignition enjoying
it's own fuse on the battery bus is a very
rational approach. Keep in mind that your
engine will run fine on ONE ignition. In fact,
If you find yourself running from the e-bus on
either Z-11 or Z-13/8, I'd shut off one of the
two ignition systems and use the power for something
more useful.
I'm working an accident case right now where the
owner/pilot got wrapped around the "reliability
axle" and designed a dual ignition power distribution
system guaranteed to fail both ignitions . . . and it did.
Save your money for an extra GPS or perhaps dual
wing-levelers. Z-13/8 will keep them all humming
at much less cost and weight in your airplane . . .
and easier to install too.
Better yet, the extra dollars buys stuff that
ADDS value to the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later |
At 11:58 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Yup, but you'll need to turn one of the switches over when you want
>to use it to switch the ei. The mag switch closes to turn the mag
>off, but the ei switch will close to turn on. You want the "up"
>position to be on.
No, the 1-3 switches are single pole, two position switches.
They function for either breaking power to an electronic
ignition -OR- grounding a magneto by simply moving a wire
to the opposite terminal.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
All,
I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough NTSB
report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the builder/pilot
was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob,
In the "Battery Proximity and mounting" thread speaking of Z-14 you say:
Z-14 is the "mother of all electrical systems" intended
to address the design goals for probably less than 1%
of the OBAM aircraft fleet. This would be the Lancair
or Glasair with fully redundant IFR panels on both
pilot seats wherein the aircraft's missions often
include two rated pilots and a high percentage of
flight in IMC.
...
Z-13/8 will keep them all humming
at much less cost and weight in your airplane . . .
and easier to install too.
In the "First choice alternator decision" thread you say:
The purpose of this little dissertation is to suggest
that much of what's reported as an "alternator
problem" has nothing to do with the design or
fabricating processes in the alternator itself.
I have decided on Z-14 to support my electrically dependant engine because
of your second statement! I'm not concerned with battery failure, I'm
concerned with my ability to assemble a set of components, few as they are,
that will not fail in any circumstance. The Z-14 design is more reliable
than Z-13/8 by a significant margin because all of us do not have your
capability to assemble the compenents. Two battery ground connections and
two battery plus connections are a great sleeping aid to me. I'm using
smaller batteries so the weight penalty is only a few pounds.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
In hindsight, I, too, should have given more consideration to the 40 A
unit. As I was building, my thought was that more power was better. While
that is basically true, during my building process, new technology low power
replacements for traditionally high power gadgets became available - such
as HIDs for incandescent landing lights, LEDs for position, taxi (landing?)
lights and interior lights, low power EFIS and engine monitors. As a
result, my power needs are dramatically less than what the alternator can
produce. I guess the PP 60A will just be loafing.
Stan Sutterfield
As we speak, I am doing a load analysis to determine if I even need a 60
amp alternator. Maybe I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb. and
$200.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First choice alternator decision |
Hmm..Yes the PP 60A would be hard pressed to find any real work to do..But
then its a very small lightweight unit so I don't see that it matters. Is t
here a 40A unit with the same reliability and shutdown features that is 2.5
lb less than the Plane power?
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:04 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: First choice alternator decision
In hindsight, I, too, should have given more consideration to the 40 A unit
. As I was building, my thought was that more power was better. While tha
t is basically true, during my building process, new technology low power r
eplacements for traditionally high power gadgets became available - such as
HIDs for incandescent landing lights, LEDs for position, taxi (landing?) l
ights and interior lights, low power EFIS and engine monitors. As a result
, my power needs are dramatically less than what the alternator can produce
. I guess the PP 60A will just be loafing.
Stan Sutterfield
As we speak, I am doing a load analysis to determine if I even need a 60
amp alternator. Maybe I can get away with a 40 amp and shed 2.5 lb. and
$200.
________________________________
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes<http://food.aol.com/gril
ling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006> for the grill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
I have decided on Z-14 to support my electrically dependant engine because
of your second statement! I'm not concerned with battery failure, I'm
concerned with my ability to assemble a set of components, few as they are,
that will not fail in any circumstance.
NASA cant even do this. Why do you burden
yourself with this goal?
The Z-14 design is more reliable
than Z-13/8 by a significant margin because all of us do not have your
capability to assemble the components. Two battery ground connections and
two battery plus connections are a great sleeping aid to me. I'm using
smaller batteries so the weight penalty is only a few pounds.
Z-14? In a KR2? Can we talk about this some
more?
"Reliability" is generally a measure of
component failure rates. Any component taken
by itself can be analyzed for the purpose
of predicting a failure rate usually expressed
in "failures per quantity of service hours".
For disciplines that require exceedingly high
reliability rates we call out tested and perhaps
even screened parts. These have demonstrated failure
rates even if those numbers are deduced only in
the lab.
System reliability is another matter entirely.
The poor pilot's definition of a reliable system
is that which "never causes one to break a sweat."
Systems that occasionally experience a component
failure can still be very reliable. This is true
when the operator doesn't find it necessary to do more
than have the failure repaired before the next
flight. This is what keeps FBO's in business.
None of has enough money to craft a system with
established reliability components. Any of us
can craft a sweat-free system from hardware store
components by application of simple design
goals.
System reliability is strongly affected by
assembly process which is in turn influenced
by worker skill and knowledge. You've expressed
some concerns for your own skill levels. May
I suggest that a minimalist failure-tolerant
system skillfully assembled is far better than
layers of redundancy assembled with poorly
conceived motives or lack of understanding.
If your concerns for understanding are properly
founded, I'll suggest that assembling Z-14 with
poor skills is NOT more reliable than Z-13/8
assembled with nominal skills.
If you were assembling this airplane on a
deserted island with corked bottles as your
only communications mode, your worries about
understanding would be justified. However,
you are a member of a society of fellow
travelers with a huge skill-set and world
wide verbal and visual communications network
with nearly instant functionality.
As a member of this List for the past 6 years
or so, your lack of confidence for getting it
all put together right the first time is
curious. I'd be pleased to know how we fell
short of addressing your need for input.
I'll encourage you to stand back, take a
deep breath and join us in a discussion of
your design goals and a plan for getting
them implemented with a minimum of cost
weight and complexity. It would be a shame
to burden a KR-2 with many pounds of hardware
that steals payload and hampers performance.
This is particularly true if the added burdens
are no more than a band-aid on your perceptions
of understanding. Understanding is what the
AeroElectric-List is all about.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switch Rating |
At 03:47 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, I am having difficulty finding the electrical specifications
>required for toggle switches used as Mag switches.
>
>There is both a withstanding voltage and a current carrying
>capability that needs to be met, and I have a need to use miniature
>toggle switches rated at 5A/120VAC/28VDC for this function.
>
>Help appreciated.
>
>Thanks, Vern
Hmmm . . . I've never seen a rating requirement for
mag switches. Can you give me a link or send me
a copy?
I've seen a host of switch styles used as magneto
switches where it was very unlikely that the installer
was cognizant of any recommendations/requirements. I
was thinking that this airplane . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/miniswitches.jpg
had miniature mag switches too but they don't show
in the picture.
I'm not aware of any successful application of miniature
toggles for magnetos. Some years ago I had an inquiry
about using a miniature rocker switch.
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=SW322-ND
I suggested that the builder hook the two sides of
a two-pole switch in series to effectively double the
gap for open contacts (mag operating). I think he did
this and I've not heard back.
I'll suggest the same thing for what ever switch
you plan to try. Go with double-pole switch an
use contacts in series to short the mag in the
OFF condition. I'm 99% sure that you'll find this
approach satisfactory.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>All,
>
>I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough
>NTSB report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the
>builder/pilot was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
>
><http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
I've had several private links to this posting.
Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
condition that rational thought processes and
understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
diminished by hazardous behaviors.
Let us strive to watch out for each other.
Don't be afraid to speak up when we perceive
that somebody's project is not going forward
with the best goals and processes we know how
to do.
Its far better to risk getting some builder
pissed off at you than to be thinking "I SHOULD
have told you so" while reading the NTSB report.
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> |
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
Absolutely..This was so sad and many of us on the Vans airforce forum kinda
saw it coming.
I get slammed almost daily for my choice to use electric fuel pumps with no
mechanical backup from folks who are not engineers and don't understand my
system.
You know what, I would rather recieve a thousand emails of uninformed disse
nt for the potential of seeing one nugget of information that is maybe a fl
aw in my system.
None of us are so well informed that we can't learn something.
The accident airplane had a an Eggenfelner subaru conversion installed I be
lieve.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report
At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
All,
I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough NTSB re
port about a complex engine/electrical installation that the builder/pilot
was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA
023&akey=1
I've had several private links to this posting.
Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
condition that rational thought processes and
understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
diminished by hazardous behaviors.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob:
A complete non answer. Lot of words...no relevance.
On page 17-11 (rev11) you state that "RG battery reliability and performance
supplemented with good preventative maintenance drives probability of gross
battery failure to zero"
You don't say "near zero", "close to zero", "approaching zero", or any such
thing. To claim anything has a zero probability of failure is a pretty bold
statement to make. Further, judging from the general tone of your writing
style, there's as much a chance of that statement being rhetoric as
anything else.
When I first read your book a couple years ago, I tried to get some
clarification from you on that statement. At first, when I asked directly,
you simply didn't address the question. I gave up on that approach. Since
then, whenever other group members have touched on the issue, I have
attempted, by asking questions in different ways, to get you to explain
further the meaning of your statement. In response to the inquiries (mine
and others) on this subject, you either:
1. Don't answer.
2. Provide theoretical fluffery
3. Answer questions that aren't asked
4. Introduce extraneous issues
5. Claim its beyond understanding
At first, I thought I was close to getting some answers this time, but as
before, the answers degraded into one or more of the above categories. I
really don't understand why you can't give a full and complete explanation
of what you mean by "gross battery failure" and "zero probability" in some
meaningful and understandable way. After all, its your statement, you
should be able to substantiate it. But, that's apparently not the case.
I've noticed that you seem to follow that pattern on a few other issues as
well. Anyway, I'm tired of trying to coax an explanation out of you so I
won't bring up it up again. I'll just assume the statement was the result
of your writing style and not to be taken literally. In any regard, I
don't need the information now, and when I do, I'll get it from other
sources.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Proximity and mounting
>
>
> At 07:59 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>Bob:
>>
>>Are any of those reasons for Z-14 as a result of the design and
>>performance of the RG batteries by themselves, or are they the result of
>>other potential failures extraneous to the batteries? If any of the
>>reasons are a result of the batteries, what are they and what are the
>>probabilities of them happening?
>
> Z-14 is the "mother of all electrical systems" intended
> to address the design goals for probably less than 1%
> of the OBAM aircraft fleet. This would be the Lancair
> or Glasair with fully redundant IFR panels on both
> pilot seats wherein the aircraft's missions often
> include two rated pilots and a high percentage of
> flight in IMC.
>
> Batteries swapped out when their battery-only endurance
> capabilities drop below 2+ hours are still cranking
> and engine nicely . . . and a battery this capable is
> exceedingly unlikely to go south on you en route to
> aunt Martha's.
>
> For my purposes and for the purposes of the majority
> of the OBAM fleet, Z-13/8 with a battery maintenance
> program offers SYSTEM reliability that is head and
> shoulders above the majority of TC fleet up to and
> including some twin turbine powered aircraft.
>
>>Another group member stated that "the battery could fail so that it can no
>>longer supply current". He may be correct that I misunderstood your
>>previous answer. I would consider that within the scope of my previous
>>question, in that it seems to me that if a battery were to suddenly be
>>unable to supply current, it would be the result of some sort of internal
>>failure. If that in fact can happen, what are the circumstances that
>>would cause that, and what are the probabilities of it happening?
>
> Can't put a number on "probability" and if I
> could, it probably wouldn't be significant to
> you. The point about battery technology and
> service life is that hundreds of thousands of
> airplanes have launched into IFR with a single generator
> and single flooded battery with a high probability
> of a now-sweat termination of the flight. The
> demonstrated level of system reliability was such
> that many pilots exploited the capability with
> little concern for system failure. The majority
> of accidents were (and still are) seeded by
> poor judgement and/or conditions beyond
> control of the pilot that were not related
> to system reliability.
>
> Now we can easily install two engine driven
> power sources to charge a well maintained,
> very user-friendly RG battery. A combination
> that reduces risks of power starvation to
> still lower numbers.
>
> If you're willing to jump in a rented C182
> and launch into the grey with equipment
> certificated 30 years ago, then getting into
> your RV fitted with Z-13/8 + RG battery has to
> be more comfortable yet. Bottom line is that with
> either airplane, your risk for experiencing
> an unhappy day in the cockpit has more to
> do with what's between your ears than with
> what's under the cowl.
>
>>I intend to use to use two batteries for the maintenance benefits you
>>outline in your book and for the additional cranking power.
>
> Dual batteries are indicated only for those special
> conditions I cited earlier. If you don't have those
> configurations . . . dual batteries are only a cost,
> volume and weight burden on your project.
>
>>Right now I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of the RG battery's
>>reliability and performance limitations.
>
> If all you want is more cranking power, install ONE
> bigger battery. But cranking power of RG batteries
> is so much better than their flooded counterparts
> that we're installing systems like Z-13/8 with a small
> fraction of the hardware weight in a 1975 Cessna
> 182. Unless you have operational features that
> encourage dual batteries, please consider installing
> a single 17 to 18 a.h. RG battery. You can always
> up-size later. But consider leaving 16 pounds of
> hardware on the ground until you KNOW you need it.
> 16 extra pounds of baggage or fuel is USEFUL . . . 16
> unnecessary pounds of battery is . . . well . . .
> you know.
>
> I'm betting you'll never need it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switch Rating |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
See: http://www.verticalpower.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250211#250211
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
Bob,
After reading your response to my wanting two batteries I again took a look
at my design. To be more accurate, I have a hybrid version with Z-14 as the
power distribution section (alternator, dynamo, and batteries) and Z-13
implimentation of the main and essential buses. The main bus is on the
battery bus supported by the 40A alternator and and the essential bus is
supported by your recomended Shack bridge rectifier fed from both battery
buses. There is also a backup essential bus power switch from the second
batery bus.
My reason for redundant power distribution is that there can be some
unforseen failure modes (vibration, fatigue, materiel defect, or assembly
error) that would percipitate sweat on my part with hours of fuel in the
tank no fuel being pumped to the engine or spark in the ignition.
There have been a couple of pilots responding to this thread indicating that
they have flown successfully for hundreds of hours on the primary system and
subsequently decided that the second battery is not needed. In hind sight I
could agree with them on Z13/20. For now I'll carry the extra insurance as
it doesn't add much weight or complexity and it gets the best parts of both
designs as it applies to my design goals.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 12:46 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob:
>
>A complete non answer. Lot of words...no relevance.
>
>On page 17-11 (rev11) you state that "RG battery reliability and
>performance supplemented with good preventative maintenance drives
>probability of gross battery failure to zero"
>
>You don't say "near zero", "close to zero", "approaching zero", or
>any such thing. To claim anything has a zero probability of failure
>is a pretty bold statement to make. Further, judging from the
>general tone of your writing style, there's as much a chance
>of that statement being rhetoric as anything else.
Gross battery failures are functions of two things.
Design or manufacturing defect -OR- abuse of the battery
that places stresses on it that are outside design limits.
Modern RG batteries are assembled on highly mechanized
processes and demonstrate thousands to millions of units
of field service history per year. Very few instances of
design or manufacturing defect go un-corrected. This
leaves abuse which cannot be predicted or quantified.
I'll go fix that statement to read "very close to zero".
>When I first read your book a couple years ago, I tried to get some
>clarification from you on that statement. At first, when I asked
>directly, you simply didn't address the question. I gave up on that
>approach. Since then, whenever other group members have touched on
>the issue, I have attempted, by asking questions in different ways,
>to get you to explain further the meaning of your statement. In
>response to the inquiries (mine and others) on this subject, you either:
> 1. Don't answer.
> 2. Provide theoretical fluffery
> 3. Answer questions that aren't asked
> 4. Introduce extraneous issues
> 5. Claim its beyond understanding
>
>At first, I thought I was close to getting some answers this time,
>but as before, the answers degraded into one or more of the above
>categories. I really don't understand why you can't give a full and
>complete explanation of what you mean by "gross battery failure" and
>"zero probability" in some meaningful and understandable way. After
>all, its your statement, you should be able to substantiate
>it. But, that's apparently not the case. I've noticed that you seem
>to follow that pattern on a few other issues as well. Anyway, I'm
>tired of trying to coax an explanation out of you so I won't bring
>up it up again. I'll just assume the statement was the result of
>your writing style and not to be taken literally. In any regard, I
>don't need the information now, and when I do, I'll get it from other sources.
You wrote:
"I intend to use to use two batteries for the maintenance benefits
you outline in your book and for the additional cranking power."
I recommended that you explore the need/value for "more
cranking power" with a follow-up that many, many airplanes
are flying with single 17 a.h. batteries and enjoy satisfactory
cranking performance. You also said:
"Right now I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of the RG
battery's reliability and performance limitations."
To the second statement it was my intention to suggest that
battery "reliability" given in terms of failures per flight
hour is not possible. Nobody has done the studies nor have
the candidate manufacturers implemented statistical process
controls intended to sustain advertised reliability numbers.
It was not my intent to be mysterious or condescending. I'm
only saying that credible "reliability" numbers don't exist.
But assuming they did. Let us hypothesize that a flooded
24 a.h. Rebatt has a 453 failures per million flight hours
and a 24 a.h. Odyssey was 305 failures per million flight
hours . . . how would you use that data? Suppose I said
that you have a 1 in 103 probability of ending a flight
due to a battery failure? Of what use is that number? And
how many mud-throwing fights can we start by debating how
that number was calculated?
First we need to define and separate "failure" from "end-of-
life." The vast majority of batteries in ALL vehicles are
replaced because they are at end-of-life as demonstrated
by a failure to crank the engine. Would you call that a
"failure" in aircraft system reliability parlance?
In aircraft parlance, a battery that fails to crank
an engine is probably months past end-of-life established
by battery-only endurance design goals.
Consider this same conversation going on about tires.
How could anyone make recommendations for reliability
of any particular tire without defining weight
of aircraft, pilot skills, runway surfaces, landing
speeds, etc. etc.
A crummy tire can last a long time under the right
circumstances . . . a top-of-the-line tire can
be abused and used up with some dispatch.
What do you wish I would have told you? Are you looking
for brand recommendations. Service recommendations?
Charging recommendations? ALL of the above can have a
profound effect on service life of ANY battery. I can
only suggest the universal recipe for success calls
for . . .
Monitoring the performance of any brand or style of
battery and replacing it when it falls below some
standard of performance THAT YOU ADOPT. Replacement
is based on failure to store and deliver energy
needed for YOUR battery only endurance mode.
This is what we do in biz-jets. None of those
batteries have published reliability numbers. In the
fleet, a few folks get 3-4 years of service.
A few folks get less than 2 years. Most fall
someplace in between. An exceedingly small number
of the total experience unanticipated gross failure.
How would you have me describe "reliability" of those
batteries?
For me to offer reliability opinions without also
stating design, operating and maintenance goals for
the battery would be without foundation.
I'm sorry about your disappointment but I hope it's
clear that your question cannot be simply answered.
If you discover "another source" that offers
satisfying answers, please share that information
with us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
| From: | "bcollinsmn" <bob(at)rvbuildershotline.com> |
I wrote about this yesterday on Letters From Flyover Country. Please keep in mind
also that this was the NTSB factual report. It is not the probable cause report,
although I think we can figure out what's coming.
As I was reading the report, I was reminded of two articles. One was the Kitplanes
article (folks who know me know which one I'm talking about), where the author
wrote that people should just get their plane in the air. Period. And the
other was a thread on VAF a couple of weeks ago basically goading those people
who are deviating from planes and taking forever, to just hurry up and get in
the air.
What we have here appears to be a concession of safety for the fastest way into
the air.
This is a good reminder that a slow builder, a careful builder, a builder whose
first goal is not to get in the air as soon as possible, is not someone to criticize
or ridicule, it's someone to emulate.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV-7A - Running wires
http://rvbuildershotline.com
Day job: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250234#250234
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough
>> NTSB report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the
>> builder/pilot was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
>> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1>
>
>
> I've had several private links to this posting.
> Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
> condition that rational thought processes and
> understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
> diminished by hazardous behaviors.
>
Let's not let simple ideas get lost in our sympathy for the pilot in
this accident. Most of this report is superfluous fluff with little
bearing on what could have caused the accident. In fact, there is no
statement of what caused the accident that could be blamed on the lack
of a rational thought processes on the part of the builder.
Most of the report was dedicated to pointing out how the high-end EFIS
was not calibrated. At no point was the lack of calibration cited as a
contributing factor to the accident. The man was flying day VFR. The
instrument was superfluous for the mission. The fact that the pilot was
not familiar with the instrument's operation was superfluous to the
report. The fact that the instrument was in the plane at all was
superfluous to the report. How could anything displayed on an
uncalibrated EFIS translate into a plane taking a 35 to 60 degree
nosedive during a day VFR flight?
Most of the remainder of the report was equally superfluous. The first
flight occurred on July 12. The accident occurred on November 2. The
fact that clecoes held the cowling on for the first flight was
superfluous to the accident report. It might have been germane if an
accident had occurred with the clecoes still in use, but that was not
the case.
The fact that the propeller was under manual control vs some sort of
electronics is superfluous. Are there not many examples of airplanes
flying just fine with manual control? And I hear that there are a few
flying with no pitch control at all. There is some information that the
pilot was having issues with coordinating the engine power with the
propeller pitch controls. But that does not translate to taking a 35 to
60 degree nose dive into terra firma. I can't even translate it to a
situation where the pilot would not be able to maintain altitude. It
might translate to an inability to maintain smooth level flight, but
there is a wide gulf between smooth level flight and a dirt bath.
The report pointed out that the rudder trim was attached with duct
tape. The key word is "attached". How did a *rudder* trim that was
*attached* contribute to a 60 degree nosedive? How does an *attached*
rudder trim even make it difficult to maintain altitude? An aileron
trim tab rod had been broken and poorly repaired. Was the weak
attachment cause of an accident, or more superfluous data?
The report makes hay of the pilots lack of high performance training.
He was flying the plane for nearly 4 months before the accident. I
would imagine that high performance training would cover issues like
severe P factors and overspeeding the airplane. Is "maintaining
altitude" taught exclusively in high performance trainging now? If not,
why is the lack of such training an issue? The report details the
pilots rush to get to Oshkosh, and the pilots willingness to falsify
records in order to meet legal requirements. How did any of that
contribute to an accident that occurred months later?
There were some wires not connected. So? Did any of them contribute to
the inability to maintain altitude? I have several wires in my project
that are slated for future upgrades. It's much easier to run them now
than when everything is closed up. They are not connected to anything.
If something really bad happens to me, those wires will have nothing to
do with it, but will "unconnected cables" be cited in the report anyway?
I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the superfluous
lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the accident. Cross
out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the rules. He was a
BAAAAD man." It'll be a much shorter report. The pilot of N289DT may
very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, but we can't know
that from reading this report. All I can tell is that the investigator
was much more concerned with pointing out how the pilot was not
following procedure than about what occurred.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 02:01 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>After reading your response to my wanting two batteries I again took a look
>at my design. To be more accurate, I have a hybrid version with Z-14 as the
>power distribution section (alternator, dynamo, and batteries) and Z-13
>implimentation of the main and essential buses. The main bus is on the
>battery bus supported by the 40A alternator and and the essential bus is
>supported by your recomended Shack bridge rectifier fed from both battery
>buses. There is also a backup essential bus power switch from the second
>batery bus.
Okay. The term "hybrid" raise questions. The Z-figures
are stand-alone, recipes for success that have passed
muster for some analysis of failure modes and matched
to missions. Mixing/matching between Z-figures should
be evaluated for new failure modes. Can you sketch your
power distribution and scan it for sharing with he group?
>My reason for redundant power distribution is that there can be some
>unforseen failure modes (vibration, fatigue, materiel defect, or assembly
>error) that would percipitate sweat on my part with hours of fuel in the
>tank no fuel being pumped to the engine or spark in the ignition.
My sense is that your failure analysis may have been
too broad with respect to kinds and numbers of
failures. Many of my readers have stacked multiple
failures onto a single flight cycle. This is so
rare that part 23 aircraft don't even consider
multiple failures for certification, part 25 airplanes
consider it and ask the builder to show better one in
ten to the minus 6 probability in a single system.
But the neat thing is that completely independent
systems need not be nearly so failure resistant because
their failures do not "stack". You only need to show
a 1 x 10^-6 probability for failure in any single
flight cycle. MUCH easier.
>There have been a couple of pilots responding to this thread indicating that
>they have flown successfully for hundreds of hours on the primary system and
>subsequently decided that the second battery is not needed. In hind sight I
>could agree with them on Z13/20. For now I'll carry the extra insurance as
>it doesn't add much weight or complexity and it gets the best parts of both
>designs as it applies to my design goals.
Have you done a load analysis on minimum
energy requirements for sustained flight? Exactly
how many watt-seconds of energy per flight hour are
needed to run your engine? What engine are you
using? Let's look at your hybridization and
ponder the effects.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
At 03:16 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
Let's not let simple ideas get lost in our sympathy for the pilot in
this accident. Most of this report is superfluous fluff with little
bearing on what could have caused the accident. In fact, there is no
statement of what caused the accident that could be blamed on the
lack of a rational thought processes on the part of the builder.
Most of the report was dedicated to pointing out how the high-end
EFIS was not calibrated. At no point was the lack of calibration
cited as a contributing factor to the accident. The man was flying
day VFR. The instrument was superfluous for the mission. The fact
that the pilot was not familiar with the instrument's operation was
superfluous to the report. The fact that the instrument was in the
plane at all was superfluous to the report. How could anything
displayed on an uncalibrated EFIS translate into a plane taking a 35
to 60 degree nosedive during a day VFR flight?
To be sure, the first documents generated by
any well crafted investigation are "factual reports".
I've done many and was soundly admonished by
my boss for inserting anything that smacked of
analysis, supposition or opinion. In fact, we
always dictated field notes, had them typed,
and then judiciously edited them to offer only
factual information. The tapes were then
destroyed after the field investigator compared
his tapes with the finished document.
Most of the remainder of the report was equally superfluous . . .
I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the
superfluous lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the
accident. Cross out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the
rules. He was a BAAAAD man." It'll be a much shorter report. The
pilot of N289DT may very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin
Award, but we can't know that from reading this report. All I can
tell is that the investigator was much more concerned with pointing
out how the pilot was not following procedure than about what occurred.
Points well taken. Everything that is factual
should be in there and evaluated for significance
by others who are detached from the natural emotions
that arise from investigation. Digging through
bent aluminum and archiving of written records
is a task that should never be mixed with attempts
to assign significance and deduce cause/effect.
The NTSB Blue Ribbon Report will be produced
later and screened for significance by less-invested
minds. The report suggests some risky attitudes
on the part of the builder but the exact cause
of engine failure is pure physics. We can only
grieve for his attitudes but learning can happen
only if we understand the physics.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switch Rating |
At 01:26 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>See: http://www.verticalpower.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37
Marc,
Thanks for sharing this. I'd not looked at the scope
trace on a mag p-lead in many years. I thought the voltage
was more on the order of 300v but that might be
across the points of the distributor rotor in my
283 Chevy! Too long ago . . .
Your data confirms that my suggestion to Vern offers
a robust solution to his design goal.
Busted 100 degrees down there yet?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
As another poster pointed out, this report is "Factual", not "Probably
Cause". I imagine that the investigator made an effort to find out as
much as he could about the airplane and pilot and this report is the
culmination of this search. I believe that's a reasonably common method
for investigating crashes.
Another way to interpret the report is that it is documenting the fact
that there were many things that could have caused the pilot to get
distracted from the cardinal "Aviate, Navigate, then Communicate." If I
were investigating an airplane crash I would be interested in listing all
discrepancies from "normal" practice as any such deviations could cause
the crash. This report does not find or imply blame for the crash.
Matt-
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough
>>> NTSB report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the
>>> builder/pilot was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
>>> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1>
>>
>>
>> I've had several private links to this posting.
>> Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
>> condition that rational thought processes and
>> understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
>> diminished by hazardous behaviors.
>>
> Let's not let simple ideas get lost in our sympathy for the pilot in
> this accident. Most of this report is superfluous fluff with little
> bearing on what could have caused the accident. In fact, there is no
> statement of what caused the accident that could be blamed on the lack
> of a rational thought processes on the part of the builder.
>
> Most of the report was dedicated to pointing out how the high-end EFIS
> was not calibrated. At no point was the lack of calibration cited as a
> contributing factor to the accident. The man was flying day VFR. The
> instrument was superfluous for the mission. The fact that the pilot was
> not familiar with the instrument's operation was superfluous to the
> report. The fact that the instrument was in the plane at all was
> superfluous to the report. How could anything displayed on an
> uncalibrated EFIS translate into a plane taking a 35 to 60 degree
> nosedive during a day VFR flight?
>
> Most of the remainder of the report was equally superfluous. The first
> flight occurred on July 12. The accident occurred on November 2. The
> fact that clecoes held the cowling on for the first flight was
> superfluous to the accident report. It might have been germane if an
> accident had occurred with the clecoes still in use, but that was not
> the case.
>
> The fact that the propeller was under manual control vs some sort of
> electronics is superfluous. Are there not many examples of airplanes
> flying just fine with manual control? And I hear that there are a few
> flying with no pitch control at all. There is some information that the
> pilot was having issues with coordinating the engine power with the
> propeller pitch controls. But that does not translate to taking a 35 to
> 60 degree nose dive into terra firma. I can't even translate it to a
> situation where the pilot would not be able to maintain altitude. It
> might translate to an inability to maintain smooth level flight, but
> there is a wide gulf between smooth level flight and a dirt bath.
>
> The report pointed out that the rudder trim was attached with duct
> tape. The key word is "attached". How did a *rudder* trim that was
> *attached* contribute to a 60 degree nosedive? How does an *attached*
> rudder trim even make it difficult to maintain altitude? An aileron
> trim tab rod had been broken and poorly repaired. Was the weak
> attachment cause of an accident, or more superfluous data?
>
> The report makes hay of the pilots lack of high performance training.
> He was flying the plane for nearly 4 months before the accident. I
> would imagine that high performance training would cover issues like
> severe P factors and overspeeding the airplane. Is "maintaining
> altitude" taught exclusively in high performance trainging now? If not,
> why is the lack of such training an issue? The report details the
> pilots rush to get to Oshkosh, and the pilots willingness to falsify
> records in order to meet legal requirements. How did any of that
> contribute to an accident that occurred months later?
>
> There were some wires not connected. So? Did any of them contribute to
> the inability to maintain altitude? I have several wires in my project
> that are slated for future upgrades. It's much easier to run them now
> than when everything is closed up. They are not connected to anything.
> If something really bad happens to me, those wires will have nothing to
> do with it, but will "unconnected cables" be cited in the report anyway?
>
> I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the superfluous
> lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the accident. Cross
> out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the rules. He was a
> BAAAAD man." It'll be a much shorter report. The pilot of N289DT may
> very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, but we can't know
> that from reading this report. All I can tell is that the investigator
> was much more concerned with pointing out how the pilot was not
> following procedure than about what occurred.
>
> --
>
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
Wow, it's as if you and I read two different accounts of this unfortunate
accident. I came away with the distinct impression that the builder/pilot
was both careless and impatient, and utterly indifferent to the FAA
regulations governing pilots and amateur built airplanes.
Here we have a novice pilot (221.4 hours logged) flying a complex, high
performance aircraft without logging the required training. I'll agree with
you that it is possible that the pilot had sufficient experience by the time
of the crash that he should have been able to find an instructor that would
provide the necessary logbook endorsement to fly the airplane, but the fact
remains there was no such endorsement, so no flights up to and including the
accident flight were legal.
There were many indications in the NTSB report of violations and just plain
bad judgment. Let's look at them in the same order that they are mentioned
in the report.
The blade retention nuts were also found tightened approximately 1/4 inch
tighter than the index marks scribed on the hub. This however, did not
appear to affect the pitch rotation friction.
A minor error but indicative (when taken with many other similar factors) of
careless assembly and an urge to get the airplane finished on a tight
schedule.
Examination of the propeller controller revealed that it was not the
propeller controller that was manufactured by the propeller manufacturer.
Another minor discrepancy that is also indicative of that urge to get
flying. Sure, he could just fly as if it was a fixed pitch prop and avoid
the workload associated with manually adjusting pitch, but the report seems
to suggest that was not the case.
It gets worse.
.examination of the flight control system revealed that, the outboard ends
of the ailerons had been filled with foam and then fiberglass had been used
to seal in the foam. A trim tab for the rudder was discovered to be attached
with duct tape. The lock nuts which were used on the rod ends for the pitch
control system could be spun by hand and were not tightened against the rod
ends, and were found on the threaded portion of the rods approximately 1/4
inch away from what would be their normal seated positions. The right trim
tab rod on the elevator was connected to its rod end by two threads and was
shorter than the trim tab rod for the left trim tab. It displayed evidence
that the end of the trim tab rod at one time had broken off, and then had
been re-inserted into the rod end, as the rest of the threaded portion was
not present.
I can't see how to interpret that paragraph other than the builder had what
I would charitably call "a relaxed attitude" toward quality workmanship.
This isn't sloppy upholstery or paint here, this is flight safety related.
Multiple wires showed no evidence of having being connected prior to impact.
Examination of the cableing (sic) connected to the electrical system's
contactor relays, revealed that a cable was not secured to its corresponding
terminal on the contact
or relay.
More of that "relaxed attitude."
Examination of the pilot's logbook revealed no evidence of the training
required by the FAA for operation of an airplane with an engine of more than
200 horsepower.
The accident flight was in violation of the FARs and so were all previous
flights.
Examination of the airplane's maintenance logbook revealed that on July 10,
2007, the FAA issued a special airworthiness certificate allowing operation
of the airplane.
Seven days later, on July 17, 2007, the pilot certified in the maintenance
logbook that the prescribed 40 hours of test flying required by the FAA had
been completed however, no record of separate entries for each of the test
flights was discovered. The pilot also certified on that date that the
airplane was controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and
maneuvers, and that it had no hazardous characteristics or design flaws and
that it was safe for operation. The pilot additionally certified that he had
demonstrated by flight test, the operating data for the airplane and the
weight and balance data.
Anyone who believes that the 40 hour test program was actually completed in
seven days probably also has seen Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, and
believes in both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Pardon my skepticism,
but I don't think he did it, and I also think he admitted as much when he
was quoted (later in the report) saying "That's not what the logbooks say"
at OSH when one other builder stated to the pilot that "There's no way you
could have completed your fly off yet." Later in the NTSB report it says
that "On July 13, 2007 the pilot emailed an RV builders group that he . had
39 hours and 20 minutes left to fly off." making it even less believable
that the remaining time was actually flown in 4 more days.
Not only did he not fly the test flights but he faked the weight and balance
at least once (either in the log or in reporting to the FAA).
Review of the FAA airworthiness records also revealed that the weight and
balance data supplied to the FAA differed from the weight and balance
information in the airplane's maintenance logbook. These differences
included differing centers of gravity and a difference in empty weight.
And to support my contention that he was rushing things a bit the report
says.
According to friends and other builders, the pilot was impatient with the
time it was taking to do everything, and he was pushing to get the airplane
assembled and flying in time for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
convention at Wittman Regional Airport, (OSH) Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This
resulted in the pilot doing such things as requesting the instrument panel
builder to send the panel "as quickly as possible," and traveling to the
engine builder's facility to pick up the engine instead of waiting for
shipment.
There's nothing wrong with using "will call" instead of waiting for a
shipment but this is not the only instance of being in too much of a hurry
to get the project finished.
On July 14, 2007, the pilot and the engine builder departed 4G1 for X50.
The last time I checked Florida was not "within an area around 4G1, and I
doubt that the engine builder was a required crew member, further indicative
of the pilot's disregard for the FARs. With only four days since the
issuance of the special airworthiness certificate (call that 96 hours on the
clock) is it virtually impossible that the flight was legal.
Had the Phase 1 tests been completed as required the pilot should not have
needed this exchange.
On November 1, 2007, the day before the accident, the pilot once again
emailed his friend asking:
"What speeds do you carry on base and final when at max load? I am taking
the family on our first trip and I am being paranoid but this is the first
time I have taken more than 1 passenger. So just doing due diligence."
Due diligence, indeed! have not seen any indication in the NTSB report of
any due diligence.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS Tri-Gear
A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 06:50 AM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough
>> NTSB report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the
>> builder/pilot was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
>>
>>
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&a
key=1
>>
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&
akey=1>
>
>
> I've had several private links to this posting.
> Very sad. It's an unfortunate fact of the human
> condition that rational thought processes and
> understanding of simple-ideas can be so terribly
> diminished by hazardous behaviors.
>
Let's not let simple ideas get lost in our sympathy for the pilot in
this accident. Most of this report is superfluous fluff with little
bearing on what could have caused the accident. In fact, there is no
statement of what caused the accident that could be blamed on the lack
of a rational thought processes on the part of the builder.
Most of the report was dedicated to pointing out how the high-end EFIS
was not calibrated. At no point was the lack of calibration cited as a
contributing factor to the accident. The man was flying day VFR. The
instrument was superfluous for the mission. The fact that the pilot was
not familiar with the instrument's operation was superfluous to the
report. The fact that the instrument was in the plane at all was
superfluous to the report. How could anything displayed on an
uncalibrated EFIS translate into a plane taking a 35 to 60 degree
nosedive during a day VFR flight?
Most of the remainder of the report was equally superfluous. The first
flight occurred on July 12. The accident occurred on November 2. The
fact that clecoes held the cowling on for the first flight was
superfluous to the accident report. It might have been germane if an
accident had occurred with the clecoes still in use, but that was not
the case.
The fact that the propeller was under manual control vs some sort of
electronics is superfluous. Are there not many examples of airplanes
flying just fine with manual control? And I hear that there are a few
flying with no pitch control at all. There is some information that the
pilot was having issues with coordinating the engine power with the
propeller pitch controls. But that does not translate to taking a 35 to
60 degree nose dive into terra firma. I can't even translate it to a
situation where the pilot would not be able to maintain altitude. It
might translate to an inability to maintain smooth level flight, but
there is a wide gulf between smooth level flight and a dirt bath.
The report pointed out that the rudder trim was attached with duct
tape. The key word is "attached". How did a *rudder* trim that was
*attached* contribute to a 60 degree nosedive? How does an *attached*
rudder trim even make it difficult to maintain altitude? An aileron
trim tab rod had been broken and poorly repaired. Was the weak
attachment cause of an accident, or more superfluous data?
The report makes hay of the pilots lack of high performance training.
He was flying the plane for nearly 4 months before the accident. I
would imagine that high performance training would cover issues like
severe P factors and overspeeding the airplane. Is "maintaining
altitude" taught exclusively in high performance trainging now? If not,
why is the lack of such training an issue? The report details the
pilots rush to get to Oshkosh, and the pilots willingness to falsify
records in order to meet legal requirements. How did any of that
contribute to an accident that occurred months later?
There were some wires not connected. So? Did any of them contribute to
the inability to maintain altitude? I have several wires in my project
that are slated for future upgrades. It's much easier to run them now
than when everything is closed up. They are not connected to anything.
If something really bad happens to me, those wires will have nothing to
do with it, but will "unconnected cables" be cited in the report anyway?
I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the superfluous
lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the accident. Cross
out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the rules. He was a
BAAAAD man." It'll be a much shorter report. The pilot of N289DT may
very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, but we can't know
that from reading this report. All I can tell is that the investigator
was much more concerned with pointing out how the pilot was not
following procedure than about what occurred.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
As I build my RV, I also tend to want to have the rod end bearing jam nuts
torqued down. Oh, and if a threaded rod breaks, I'll probably replace it
rather than just stick it in with the broken part absent.
The problem with many of us who knew Dan is that he was a good guy. A really
nice guy.
I certainly would want to look again at the DAR who signed off and I feel
bad for the friends mentioned in the report who clearly tried to tell him a
few things and I'm guessing they're kicking themselves for not being a
little more direct.
One tragedy WAS averted here. I believe Dan had planned to put his family in
this plane later that day and fly to Boston.
Let's be careful as we discuss this not to get too insulting toward Dan
while learning from his death. It's a very difficult close-to-home story for
those of us in the RV community.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Proximity and mounting |
Lectric Bob asked:
Have you done a load analysis on minimum
energy requirements for sustained flight? Exactly
how many watt-seconds of energy per flight hour are
needed to run your engine?
Don't have watt-seconds/flight-hour but there is a spread sheet with amps
required in various flight modes. Here's a link to my electrical system
design documentation.
http://kr.flyboybob.com/web_pages/kr2/electrical%20and%20instrument/electric
al.htm
At the bottom of the page there are links to the wiring diagrams.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Giffen Marr" <gamarr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | 12 vs. 24 volt system |
I am in the process of buying an engine. I am told by TCM, that the FADEC is
only available in 24V and they are not supporting a 12V system. I have
designed my aircraft for 12V, however other than some lights and my
Hydraulic pump motor and pressurization outflow valve, everything else will
work on 12/32V. Is there an easy way to convert the 24V to 12V for the
hydraulic pump and outflow valve? The heavy user is the Hydraulic motor,
calling for a 12V/50A fused supply. Any thoughts on doing a 24-12V high amp
conversion would be appreciated.
Giff Marr
LIV-P 75%
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Splicing into D-sub wires. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switch Rating |
Bob, Marc, thanks for the info.
Odd that in all the years, I've never seen a rating until Marc's reference.
Seems to be lost in the folklore.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Magneto Switch Rating
>
>
> At 01:26 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>See: http://www.verticalpower.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37
>
> Marc,
>
> Thanks for sharing this. I'd not looked at the scope
> trace on a mag p-lead in many years. I thought the voltage
> was more on the order of 300v but that might be
> across the points of the distributor rotor in my
> 283 Chevy! Too long ago . . .
>
> Your data confirms that my suggestion to Vern offers
> a robust solution to his design goal.
>
> Busted 100 degrees down there yet?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switch Rating |
At 09:28 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob, Marc, thanks for the info.
>
>Odd that in all the years, I've never seen a rating until Marc's
>reference. Seems to be lost in the folklore.
It probably has to do with the fact that about
any switch you pick up at the hardware store is
adequate to the task. The voltages are not much
higher than peak AC waveform on 120 vac and the
current is very nominal.
Not a big deal electrically. The J-3 I used to fly
had those little ball-end handles common to the
front panel of grandpa's radio and grandma's
electric fan.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12 vs. 24 volt system |
At 06:41 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I am in the process of buying an engine. I am told by TCM, that the FADEC is
>only available in 24V and they are not supporting a 12V system. I have
>designed my aircraft for 12V, however other than some lights and my
>Hydraulic pump motor and pressurization outflow valve, everything else will
>work on 12/32V. Is there an easy way to convert the 24V to 12V for the
>hydraulic pump and outflow valve? The heavy user is the Hydraulic motor,
>calling for a 12V/50A fused supply. Any thoughts on doing a 24-12V high amp
>conversion would be appreciated.
Dual voltage band-aids are seldom very elegant.
Suggest you go fully 24v. The pump motor is easy
to swap out. How much current does the outflow
valve use. If on the order of 1A or less, a simple
series down-regulator is not too ugly.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
Agreed, very troubling for the RV-10 community that suffered this and 2
weather related fatals in the same year. I don't see any facts in the
report relating to the electronic ignition for the Subaru engine, and
its power source, but it certainly makes one wonder if the crash was
initiated by loss of electrons to fire plugs and produce power, followed
by power off attempt at landing that unfortunately was not successful.
The mention of numerous unterminated wires does lead to head scratching.
KM
RV 10 #40866
Bob Collins wrote:
> As I build my RV, I also tend to want to have the rod end bearing jam
> nuts torqued down. Oh, and if a threaded rod breaks, I'll probably
> replace it rather than just stick it in with the broken part absent.
>
> The problem with many of us who knew Dan is that he was a good guy. A
> really nice guy.
>
> I certainly would want to look again at the DAR who signed off and I
> feel bad for the friends mentioned in the report who clearly tried to
> tell him a few things and I'm guessing they're kicking themselves for
> not being a little more direct.
>
> One tragedy WAS averted here. I believe Dan had planned to put his
> family in this plane later that day and fly to Boston.
>
> Let's be careful as we discuss this not to get too insulting toward Dan
> while learning from his death. It's a very difficult close-to-home story
> for those of us in the RV community.
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | COAXIAL CABLES recommendations |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Any recommendations for which coax can be used to wire the radio and the transponder
????
RG 400 - Standard cable for radio installations. Double shielded stranded
conductor, MIL-DTL-17 spec. Approved for certified aircraft.
PN 11-09202 $2.75 ($3.55AUD)
RG 142 - Low loss coax cable for GPS, TPX, and DME installations. Double shielded
solid conductor, MIL-C-17 spec. Approved for certified aircraft.
PN 11-00043 $2.95 ($3.80AUD)
RG 58A/U - Standard cable for experimental avionics installations. Single shielded
stranded conductor, jacket type PVC. For experimental aircraft only.
PN 11-03920 $0.46 ($0.59AUD)
RG 58C/U - Standard cable for experimental avionics installations. Single shielded
stranded conductor, jacket type Non-PVC. For experimental aircraft only.
PN 11-04258 $0.46 ($0.59AUD) Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250288#250288
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual mags now...one Plasma II plus later |
I get it. I was thinking of the 1-2 swiches.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:58 PM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yup, but you'll need to turn one of the switches over when you want
>> to use it to switch the ei. The mag switch closes to turn the mag
>> off, but the ei switch will close to turn on. You want the "up"
>> position to be on.
>
> No, the 1-3 switches are single pole, two position switches.
> They function for either breaking power to an electronic
> ignition -OR- grounding a magneto by simply moving a wire
> to the opposite terminal.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COAXIAL CABLES recommendations |
I used RG58A/U for my radios and VOR. Same stuff that is on my 65 Cherokee
that has been working for 40 years.
I used the RG 400 for the GPS antenna.
The reason for the 58 was cost savings. If you check ebay you can find RG
400 for $1.00 per foot. At that price, I would have used it for everything.
Floyd Wilkes
Zodiac 601XL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:51 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: COAXIAL CABLES recommendations
>
>
> Any recommendations for which coax can be used to wire the radio and the
> transponder ????
> RG 400 - Standard cable for radio installations. Double shielded stranded
> conductor, MIL-DTL-17 spec. Approved for certified aircraft.
> PN 11-09202 $2.75 ($3.55AUD)
>
>
> RG 142 - Low loss coax cable for GPS, TPX, and DME installations. Double
> shielded solid conductor, MIL-C-17 spec. Approved for certified aircraft.
> PN 11-00043 $2.95 ($3.80AUD)
>
>
> RG 58A/U - Standard cable for experimental avionics installations. Single
> shielded stranded conductor, jacket type ?" PVC. For experimental
> aircraft only.
> PN 11-03920 $0.46 ($0.59AUD)
>
>
> RG 58C/U - Standard cable for experimental avionics installations. Single
> shielded stranded conductor, jacket type ?" Non-PVC. For experimental
> aircraft only.
> PN 11-04258 $0.46 ($0.59AUD) Thanks
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250288#250288
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
Well I am just spitballing here but If I had to put forth a theory it would be
that the propellor and power problem are what finally did him in. If he had to
manually adjust the propellor pitch every time he changed power I think he could
have easily either gotten distracted by it and stopped flying the airplane
or messed up the settings and lost thrust even though the engine was running.
Just my 2 cents. I would have found that plane very hard to fly in that condition.
Can't trust the instruments so look outside, reduce power then change prop
pitch, shut off alarm, look outside again, oops to low add power reset prop
pitch, shut off alarm, etc. I think it would have been easy for him to get distracted
or mess up the power or prop setting.
Bottom line is if it ain't working right fix it before you fly.
---- Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Agreed, very troubling for the RV-10 community that suffered this and 2
> weather related fatals in the same year. I don't see any facts in the
> report relating to the electronic ignition for the Subaru engine, and
> its power source, but it certainly makes one wonder if the crash was
> initiated by loss of electrons to fire plugs and produce power, followed
> by power off attempt at landing that unfortunately was not successful.
> The mention of numerous unterminated wires does lead to head scratching.
> KM
> RV 10 #40866
>
> Bob Collins wrote:
> > As I build my RV, I also tend to want to have the rod end bearing jam
> > nuts torqued down. Oh, and if a threaded rod breaks, I'll probably
> > replace it rather than just stick it in with the broken part absent.
> >
> > The problem with many of us who knew Dan is that he was a good guy. A
> > really nice guy.
> >
> > I certainly would want to look again at the DAR who signed off and I
> > feel bad for the friends mentioned in the report who clearly tried to
> > tell him a few things and I'm guessing they're kicking themselves for
> > not being a little more direct.
> >
> > One tragedy WAS averted here. I believe Dan had planned to put his
> > family in this plane later that day and fly to Boston.
> >
> > Let's be careful as we discuss this not to get too insulting toward Dan
> > while learning from his death. It's a very difficult close-to-home story
> > for those of us in the RV community.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
I believe Ernest is correct.
The report does indicate a pattern of behavior that may have contributed
to the accident.
Stan Sutterfield
I suggest reading the report again...but cross out all the superfluous
lines that obviously have nothing at all to do with the accident. Cross
out the parts that point out "He didn't follow the rules. He was a
BAAAAD man." It'll be a much shorter report. The pilot of N289DT may
very well be a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, but we can't know
that from reading this report. All I can tell is that the investigator
was much more concerned with pointing out how the pilot was not
following procedure than about what occurred.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Hi all,
This has been a very enlightening thread for me. I am persuaded that a
single battery, dual alternator is probably quite sufficient for my mission
envelope and will save me a good #20 over using the second battery.
This is not the forum to argue the battery position in an RV 8. There are
several long discussions on the VAF forum. The up side of the rear
position is the weight and balance advantage, as RV 8's tend to be nose heavy.
The down side is an additional six to eight foot run of #2 welding cable,
its associated weight, resistance and potential for chaffing. I will have to
give that a little more thought.
Thank you all for your insights and off-line diagrams.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 FWF
San Ramon, CA
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
eExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 08:18 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
>Looks like we have another a**hole that refuses to include his
>name. Could he be ashamed of it?
>I got a nasty note from him off the forum for my comments on the forum.
>Wonder what up with him?
Gently my friend. This is after all a classroom
with a broad spectrum of attendee needs and
skill sets. The value of what we do here is
not increased by prejudicial words. Let
us strive to be teachers with a goal of
working to everyone's satisfaction.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
At 07:51 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
Well I am just spitballing here but If I had to put forth a theory it
would be that the propellor and power problem are what finally did
him in. If he had to manually adjust the propellor pitch every time
he changed power I think he could have easily either gotten
distracted by it and stopped flying the airplane or messed up the
settings and lost thrust even though the engine was running. Just my
2 cents. I would have found that plane very hard to fly in that
condition. Can't trust the instruments so look outside, reduce power
then change prop pitch, shut off alarm, look outside again, oops to
low add power reset prop pitch, shut off alarm, etc. I think it would
have been easy for him to get distracted or mess up the power or prop setting.
Bottom line is if it ain't working right fix it before you fly.
There have been numerous electrically driven prop
pitch adjustment mechanisms that were not automatic.
The earliest I recall was on a 50's vintage Bonanza.
These are treated for all practical purposes as a
fixed pitch prop that can be changed in flight. Keep
in mind that the engine will keep the craft airborne
at ANY prop pitch setting. The value in being able to
adjust it is obvious for optimizing climb vs. cruise
performance . . . but departures from optimum settings
do not automatically present hazards beyond that
of distracting a pilot that doesn't understand how
it works.
If we indulge in useful speculation I'll suggest
that items in the factual report are particularly
significant. Namely the probability that wires
that SHOULD have been managing power around the
recently moved batteries were not properly
terminated. Given that the engine was electrically
dependent, the idea that wires were coming loose
at the battery is not pleasant to contemplate.
Once the engine is dead, the pilot is faced with
a whole new task that exceedingly few are well
trained to achieve . . . walk away from the
impending arrival with the earth. Pilot's attitudes
and other errors not withstanding, the manner in
which the last few seconds of this story unfolded
tells the tale.
I'm told that the terrain was relatively flat
farm land and that major damage to the airframe
occurred when it contacted a raised roadbed
at right angles. All these things suggest a
host of poor actions on the part of a neophyte
pilot who was tasked with making good decisions
under the worst of circumstances.
As dark-n-stormy night stories go, this one is
rich with factual data. At the same time, it's
particularly sad because the root cause that
started this unhappy chain of events probably
did not involve an error of design or failure
of a component. It seems likely that attention
to ordinary details of good craftsmanship and
pilotage set the stage for this play. It's
no different than finding the engine suddenly
silent because one neglected to take on
predictable and necessary fuel before flight.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COAXIAL CABLES recommendations |
At 06:20 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>I used RG58A/U for my radios and VOR. Same stuff that is on my 65
>Cherokee that has been working for 40 years.
>
>I used the RG 400 for the GPS antenna.
>
>The reason for the 58 was cost savings. If you check ebay you can
>find RG 400 for $1.00 per foot. At that price, I would have used it
>for everything.
>
>Floyd Wilkes
>Zodiac 601XL
Good thought. RG58 is pvc and polyethylene
for insulation . . . the best we knew how
to do in WWII. RG-400 and cousins are modern,
high temperature materials and double shielded
to boot. The best we know how to do in 2009.
It's a plugs, points and coil versus electronic
ignition kind of decision. Both will function
as advertised.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 09:49 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>This has been a very enlightening thread for me. I am persuaded
>that a single battery, dual alternator is probably quite sufficient
>for my mission envelope and will save me a good #20 over using the
>second battery.
>
>This is not the forum to argue the battery position in an RV
>8. There are several long discussions on the VAF forum. The up
>side of the rear position is the weight and balance advantage, as RV
>8's tend to be nose heavy. The down side is an additional six to
>eight foot run of #2 welding cable, its associated weight,
>resistance and potential for chaffing. I will have to give that a
>little more thought.
>
>Thank you all for your insights and off-line diagrams.
Batteries have been the classical mitigator
of wight and balance issues since day-one.
Of all major weight contributors, the batteries
have always been the easiest to relocate.
I'll suggest that concerns for wire weight
and installation requirements take a very
distant back seat to the airplane's handling
qualities. Batteries have been carried
around in the tail of airplanes in tens of
thousands of airplanes. When I started at
Cessna, I think all of our batteries were in
the tail. Doing a good job of installing
the wire is a trivial task.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
>
>> There have been numerous electrically driven prop
> pitch adjustment mechanisms that were not automatic.
> The earliest I recall was on a 50's vintage Bonanza.
> These are treated for all practical purposes as a
> fixed pitch prop that can be changed in flight. Keep
> in mind that the engine will keep the craft airborne
> at ANY prop pitch setting. The value in being able to
> adjust it is obvious for optimizing climb vs. cruise
> performance . . . but departures from optimum settings
> do not automatically present hazards beyond that
> of distracting a pilot that doesn't understand how
> it works.
>
> If we indulge in useful speculation I'll suggest
> that items in the factual report are particularly
> significant. Namely the probability that wires
> that SHOULD have been managing power around the
> recently moved batteries were not properly
> terminated. Given that the engine was electrically
> dependent, the idea that wires were coming loose
> at the battery is not pleasant to contemplate.
>
Another good possibility Bob. If as the story says, he crimped the battery terminals
with a pair of pliers the connections could very well have come loose. My
point was that he had a constant speed prop apparently and was trying to adjust
it with each change in power setting which, along with everything else, could
have overloaded him especially if he was having intermitent electrical problems
from a loose battery wire.
I have to agree with poor craftsmanship and a seeming passion for working around
problems instead of fixing them seems the culprit. A strong lesson we should
all take to heart. Another lesson here is that if you have a friend, acquaintance
or fellow pilot with a problem help them to get it fixed and don't let them
think it is okay to fly with these kinds of issues. The days of duct tape
and bailing wire fixes are long gone.
Rodney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Mitchell" <rmitch1(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | NTSB RV10 Accident Report |
This is forwarded from the Lancair mailing list without comment, except that
there are a couple hundred lessons in here.
Bob Mitchell
L-320
For a number of reasons I track some of the RV websites and data. You may
want to read the accident report from Dan Lloyd's accident last November,
because it has so many lessons for all of us. He had an RV10 with an early
turbocharged Eggenfellner Subaru H-6 engine. This really was a bad case of
"Get -to-Oshkosh-itis", and some of the mistakes made are pretty scary. I
am listing it because I suspect that we could all learn from it. By all
accounts, Dan was regarded as a a pretty sound person, which makes it even
more applicable to our community. You can read the report at
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&
akey=1> &ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Unterminated wires (was: Complex aircraft NTSB report) |
Whether unterminated wires were problematic would be
dependent on the circumstances. On a new plane, I wouldn't be
surprised to find wires with unstripped ends, tied off to the side
awaiting some as-yet un-purchased option.
Now if the loose ends (literally) were stripped and showed
signs of having been previously connected to something - that
could be worrisome.
My $0.25
($.02 adjusted for 40 years of government theft through "inflation")
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 13
Mesa, AZ
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Agreed, very troubling for the RV-10 community that suffered this and
> 2 weather related fatals in the same year. I don't see any facts in
> the report relating to the electronic ignition for the Subaru engine,
> and its power source, but it certainly makes one wonder if the crash
> was initiated by loss of electrons to fire plugs and produce power,
> followed by power off attempt at landing that unfortunately was not
> successful. The mention of numerous unterminated wires does lead to
> head scratching.
> KM
> RV 10 #40866
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
>I have to agree with poor craftsmanship and a seeming passion for
>working around problems instead of fixing them seems the culprit. A
>strong lesson we should all take to heart. Another lesson here is
>that if you have a friend, acquaintance or fellow pilot with a
>problem help them to get it fixed and don't let them think it is
>okay to fly with these kinds of issues. The days of duct tape and
>bailing wire fixes are long gone.
>
>Rodney
Well put sir. I'll suggest that the mission is core
to the purposes of all the Lists. They can be the
repository and offeror of proven recipes for success
as well as a filter for combining simple-ideas
into new recipes.
This isn't just a brother's keeper issue. When
somebody makes a spectacular and newsworthy exit in
any (but particularly an OBAM) aircraft, public and
regulatory perceptions will paint us all with the same
brush dipped into the words of ignorant and ratings-
motivated vendors of the morning rags and disseminators
of the evening news.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unterminated wires |
At 05:36 PM 6/27/2009, you wrote:
Whether unterminated wires were problematic would be
dependent on the circumstances. On a new plane, I wouldn't be
surprised to find wires with unstripped ends, tied off to the side
awaiting some as-yet un-purchased option.
Now if the loose ends (literally) were stripped and showed
signs of having been previously connected to something - that
could be worrisome.
The report speaks specifically to several
wires not mated to terminals on the contactor.
That the battery and contactor had been recently
moved but without benefit of crimp tools. "Channel
Locks" were used to install terminals.
A hardware store torch and solder could have
provided secure if temporary connections.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
I finally read the NTSB report. As usual, these accidents are years in the
making. Not sure what lesson(s) apply to us here..idiots with more money
than brains are everywhere, including the highest levels of Wall Street and
banking ;).
This quote by the owner/pilot is classic: ". just doing due diligence." We
sure are good at self-deception.
Ralph
RV-9A QB SA
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:51 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report
All,
I found this link on the rotary engine news group. It's a thorough NTSB
report about a complex engine/electrical installation that the builder/pilot
was unwilling and unprepared to finish correctly.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821
<http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 071120X01821&ntsbno=NYC08FA023&
akey=1> &ntsbno=NYC08FA023&akey=1
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
To All:
I recently made statements in a post under this subject that was
critical of Bob's responsiveness to an issue. The statements were based
on my recollections of posts over the past two years. Bob was kind
enought to continue the discussion with me off-group. In preparation
for that discussion, I reveiwed my posts on the issue and could not find
support for the statements I made. I would like to retract those
statements and make an appology to Bob and the group for making them.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing of 2 or 3 conductor shielded cable |
I am relocating the comm and mic jacks in my Lancair to a position
behind the pilot/co-pilot seatback and so the comm and mic cables need
to be lengthened. Any suggestions here for what would be the best
method for splicing additional length to these cables and also
maintaining the integrity of the shields?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
>
> Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire
> into the
> wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
> was trying to accomplish.
>
> I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
> into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
> have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Murphysboro, IL
>
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
Hi Sam,
There's a comic book somewhere on the aeroelectric site showing how to
feed power *in* to multiple pins on a subD connector. You can just
reverse the technique to feed multiple outs. Bring one lead out of the
subD for a few inches. At that point, use an in-line (butt) splice with
your subD lead in one end and your 2 destination leads in the other.
Of course, this assumes that you have researched the signal quality
implications of splitting the signals.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
Sam,
Is this what you were looking for?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Splicing at D-subs.
I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
<http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
6/28/2009
The NTSB Report NYC08FA023 contains the following statement:
"14 CFR Part 21.93 requires that any major changes that are made to an
airplane require inspection by the FAA prior to further flight."
This statement does not apply to the amateur built experimental airplane
being reported upon in this accident report. Instead it applies to aircraft
with changes in type design.
Actions required when changes are made to an amateur built experimental
aircraft are described in the Operating Limitations for that specific
aircraft.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
No - I saw that one and it's for shields. I was looking for something
similar for single conductor wire.
It's no big deal. I was just looking for one of Bob's elegant soultions.
Thanks.
Sam
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Is this what you were looking for?
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
>
> Bill B
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:11 AM
> *To:* AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Splicing at D-subs.
>
> I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
>
> Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
> wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
> was trying to accomplish.
>
> I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
> into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
> have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Murphysboro, IL
>
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Complex aircraft NTSB report |
At 09:07 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
6/28/2009
The NTSB Report NYC08FA023 contains the following statement:
"14 CFR Part 21.93 requires that any major changes that are made to an
airplane require inspection by the FAA prior to further flight."
This statement does not apply to the amateur built experimental
airplane being reported upon in this accident report. Instead it
applies to aircraft with changes in type design.
Actions required when changes are made to an amateur built
experimental aircraft are described in the Operating Limitations for
that specific aircraft.
Thanks for responding to this Bob. It rang
some alarm bells when I first read it but
had not yet taken time to research it.
I would offer to add the following: Just
because some legacy or regulatory mandate
"does not apply" to the OBAM aircraft endeavor
does not automatically tag it useless or
unworthy of consideration.
I have many moons of experience working inside
the rubber padded room that is bounded by lots
of rules . . . some of which were crafted and
later administered by folks who didn't understand
the discipline in which we work.
At the same time, MOST of the rules stand
on foundations crafted of simple-ideas of
physics, logic and/or historical experience.
In the case of 21.93, when one takes hammer
and saw to the airplane, it doesn't hurt and
may be very helpful to seek the advice of
any who can offer mentorship.
Clearly, the subject of this unhappy thread
did not avail himself of the volumes of
data and guidance freely offered from hundred
of sources. It was his choice, decision and
risk. Fortunately, the other seats were
un occupied when the risks tagged him on the
shoulder.
If the community of OBAM aircraft builders
can claim any common fraternal goal, it
should go much deeper than the sharing goggles,
helmet and white scarf experiences of flying.
It includes the task of RISK REDUCTION. Our
machines are beautiful, exciting, and offer
a potential for great utility. But they
are exceedingly unforgiving of those
who do not embrace a necessity of
responsible conduct supported by skill
and understanding.
Fly comfortably my friends . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
Sam;
Same process works. Just bring an inch or so of the wire from the pin out of
the connector, splice on your two leads, heat shrink the assembly, just as
shown in this "comic book" for shields and carry on. The second wire instead
of looping back into the connector as shown here, simply goes to your second
device. Either the solder technique or the solder sleeve method are neat and
compact.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splicing at D-subs.
No - I saw that one and it's for shields. I was looking for something
similar for single conductor wire.
It's no big deal. I was just looking for one of Bob's elegant soultions.
Thanks.
Sam
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Bill Bradburry
wrote:
Sam,
Is this what you were looking for?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Splicing at D-subs.
I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire into the
wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly what I
was trying to accomplish.
I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to tap
into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you already
have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
<http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Splicing at D-subs. |
Sam,
While I was looking I also found the one that Charlie is talking about here.
You just use 6" pigtails and crimp them together as Charlie describes.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splicing at D-subs.
-->
Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I didn't hear back on this one, so here it is again:
>
> Bob - do you have a comic book about splicing a second 20 AWG wire
> into the
> wire(s) heading into a D-sub connector? I looked through the articles
> at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html, but didn't find exactly
> what I was trying to accomplish.
>
> I have a 37 pin connector which is plugged into a device. I want to
> tap into 5 of those wires to connect to another gizmo, and figured you
> already have a razzle-dazzle way to accomplish it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> Murphysboro, IL
>
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
Hi Sam,
There's a comic book somewhere on the aeroelectric site showing how to feed
power *in* to multiple pins on a subD connector. You can just reverse the
technique to feed multiple outs. Bring one lead out of the subD for a few
inches. At that point, use an in-line (butt) splice with your subD lead in
one end and your 2 destination leads in the other.
Of course, this assumes that you have researched the signal quality
implications of splitting the signals.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
At 09:03 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>No - I saw that one and it's for shields. I was looking for
>something similar for single conductor wire.
>
>It's no big deal. I was just looking for one of Bob's elegant soultions.
Sorry for the long delay in responding . . . I
wish there were an "elegant" solution. Obviously
the D-Sub pin is limited to the insertion of but
a single 20AWG wire. The task is to tap
into a few conductors in a manner that does not
result in the wire bundle taking on that
"rabbit satisfied snake" appearance.
The lowest volume approach I can deduce is
to bare a short segment (1/4 to 3/8 inch)
of strands on wire to be tapped a couple
of inches from the end . . .
Emacs!
Wrap the branch strands around the open gap, solder
and heat shrink. Then install the d-sub pin.
Emacs!
You probably want to have the spice occur outside
the back-shell of the connector. Stagger their
positions so that they don't "bulk up" a lump
in one place on the harness.
Are you committed to 20AWG wire throughout?
22AWG does this hat-dance a little better.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
There's a comic book somewhere on the aeroelectric site showing how
to feed power *in* to multiple pins on a subD connector. You can just
reverse the technique to feed multiple outs. Bring one lead out of
the subD for a few inches. At that point, use an in-line (butt)
splice with your subD lead in one end and your 2 destination leads in
the other.
Of course, this assumes that you have researched the signal quality
implications of splitting the signals.
Charlie
---------------------
I think you're referring to the suggestion for
paralleling pins in a d-sub to achieve higher current
ratings for conductors in the connector. This technique
was used on a super-sonic target project I worked on
some years ago and is illustrated here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Paralleled_DSub_Pins.pdf
Sam is looking for a way to add a "wye-intersection"
into one of the connectors for carrying the same
current of to another location in the system. I've
illustrated a suggestion to this task in another
posting.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Complex aircraft NTSB report |
I'm building an RV. I leave my hangar door open (I don't understand why
people don't want visitors, really.) When expert builders stop by -- as they
often do -- I encourage them to look at the project and holler if they see
something that doesn't look right or could be improved (although I do joke
that my hangar rules or "no looking closer than from 1 foot!"(g)).
I've been building since 2001 and, yes, I'm a slow builder, but when I was
growing up, my family called me the "Scotch tape kid," because I took the
shortest route to fix any problem -- tape. If the airplane project has
taught me anything at all, "take your time, do it right, and kick the people
who make fun of how long it's taking out of the hangar" are the most
important.
I fear we're preaching to the choir here, however. People who read
AeroElectric Connection or hang out here on the list, already have a
preference for quality and good workmanship.
Bob Collins
St. Paul, MN.
Letters From Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex aircraft NTSB report
-->
At 09:07 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
6/28/2009
The NTSB Report NYC08FA023 contains the following statement:
"14 CFR Part 21.93 requires that any major changes that are made to an
airplane require inspection by the FAA prior to further flight."
This statement does not apply to the amateur built experimental airplane
being reported upon in this accident report. Instead it applies to aircraft
with changes in type design.
Actions required when changes are made to an amateur built experimental
aircraft are described in the Operating Limitations for that specific
aircraft.
Thanks for responding to this Bob. It rang
some alarm bells when I first read it but
had not yet taken time to research it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
At 02:03 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>To All:
>
>I recently made statements in a post under this subject that was
>critical of Bob's responsiveness to an issue. The statements were
>based on my recollections of posts over the past two years. Bob was
>kind enought to continue the discussion with me off-group. In
>preparation for that discussion, I reveiwed my posts on the issue
>and could not find support for the statements I made. I would like
>to retract those statements and make an appology to Bob and the
>group for making them.
>
>Mark
Thank you sir. No problem . . . and let's not
dwell on it. We are all friends here.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
As an additional data point, Garmin has a D-sub crimp and poke
contact P/N 336-00023-00 for standard density connectors that
accommodated an 18AWG wire.
Ron Q.
At 08:25 6/28/2009, you wrote:
> Sorry for the long delay in responding . . . I
> wish there were an "elegant" solution. Obviously
> the D-Sub pin is limited to the insertion of but
> a single 20AWG wire. The task is to tap
> into a few conductors in a manner that does not
> result in the wire bundle taking on that
> "rabbit satisfied snake" appearance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing of 2 or 3 conductor shielded cable |
At 08:19 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am relocating the comm and mic jacks in my Lancair to a position
>behind the pilot/co-pilot seatback and so the comm and mic cables need
>to be lengthened. Any suggestions here for what would be the best
>method for splicing additional length to these cables and also
>maintaining the integrity of the shields?
Strip back 3 inches or so of outer insulation
on cables to be spliced. Pull conductors out
of the shield as shown in , , ,
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
Lap splice the individual strands as shown
here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Actually, you don't even need to "bulk up" the
joint by wrapping the strands, you can simply
lay them parallel and solder as shown on page
84 of . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/NASA/NASA-STD-8739p4c4.pdf
Once the individual strands are joined and
insulated, overlap the braid pigtails a half
inch or so and lap solder them too. No
individual insulation is called for on this
final joint.
Put a piece of heat-shrink over the finished
splice.
Shielding of these wires has a vanishingly small
benefit for noise mitigation on these wires.
Don't worry about loss of shielding integrity
at the joint.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
At 10:56 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>As an additional data point, Garmin has a D-sub crimp and poke
>contact P/N 336-00023-00 for standard density connectors that
>accommodated an 18AWG wire.
I've heard of those but never had an opportunity
to use them. I'm sure there are other "nifty"
solutions out there. I'll try to get my hands on
some and look 'em over. I think I've heard of similar
products from yesteryear.
A larger diameter crimp/solder cup adapter would
be quite elegant. Unfortunately, these devices
seldom find their way into the Digikey or Radio Shack
catalogs at attractive prices. Shade tree technicians
are oft obliged to resort to processes adapted from
the materials at hand. An as one can see from a study
of the NASA handbook cited earlier, even the
Big Guys have adopted some techniques we Poor
Guys can duplicate.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
While searching the reference documents archives I'm
reminded of this collection of NASA documents found on
the 'net. I've compiled a library of useful publications
and posted them to my website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/NASA/
I'll invite any with an interest in the processes
cited to add these documents to their library. In
particular, check out the 1963 NASA wiring handbook
that one of your fellow readers forwarded to me
some months ago. This book was published two years
after I got out of high school! It's an interesting
adventure back in time but still rich in solid,
simple-ideas.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splicing at D-subs. |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks all - got it!. Now, off to the airport...
Sam
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:03 AM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>
> No - I saw that one and it's for shields. I was looking for something
> similar for single conductor wire.
>
> It's no big deal. I was just looking for one of Bob's elegant soultions.
>
>
> Sorry for the long delay in responding . . . I
> wish there were an "elegant" solution. Obviously
> the D-Sub pin is limited to the insertion of but
> a single 20AWG wire. The task is to tap
> into a few conductors in a manner that does not
> result in the wire bundle taking on that
> "rabbit satisfied snake" appearance.
>
> The lowest volume approach I can deduce is
> to bare a short segment (1/4 to 3/8 inch)
> of strands on wire to be tapped a couple
> of inches from the end . . .
>
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Wrap the branch strands around the open gap, solder
> and heat shrink. Then install the d-sub pin.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> You probably want to have the spice occur outside
> the back-shell of the connector. Stagger their
> positions so that they don't "bulk up" a lump
> in one place on the harness.
>
> Are you committed to 20AWG wire throughout?
> 22AWG does this hat-dance a little better.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better
understand electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The invaluable
information I obtained on this forum was implemented into my RV-8A and my
airplane flew for the first time today. The electrical system performed as
expected and will continue to do so far into the future.
Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere - or, at
least, not without great difficulty.
Thanks!
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A N884P - Flying
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Proximity and mounting |
Ha - I thought I was being gentle.
My apology.
Actually, I got an off forum email from him (his name is Mark) and we
apologized to one another.
Stan
>Looks like we have another a**hole that refuses to include his
>name. Could he be ashamed of it?
>I got a nasty note from him off the forum for my comments on the forum.
>Wonder what up with him?
Gently my friend. This is after all a classroom
with a broad spectrum of attendee needs and
skill sets. The value of what we do here is
not increased by prejudicial words. Let
us strive to be teachers with a goal of
working to everyone's satisfaction.
Bob . . .
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Congratulations
Franz
On 28/06/09 10:07 AM, "Speedy11(at)aol.com" wrote:
> My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better understand
> electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The invaluable
> information I obtained on this forum was implemented into my RV-8A and my
> airplane flew for the first time today. The electrical system performed as
> expected and will continue to do so far into the future.
> Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere - or, at
> least, not without great difficulty.
> Thanks!
> Stan Sutterfield
> RV-8A N884P - Flying
>
>
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes
> <http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006> for the grill.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
The current editions I teach from...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87391.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87392.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87393.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87394.htm
Ron Q.
At 09:44 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
>
>While searching the reference documents archives I'm
>reminded of this collection of NASA documents found on
>the 'net. I've compiled a library of useful publications
>and posted them to my website at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/NASA/
>
>
>I'll invite any with an interest in the processes
>cited to add these documents to their library. In
>particular, check out the 1963 NASA wiring handbook
>that one of your fellow readers forwarded to me
>some months ago. This book was published two years
>after I got out of high school! It's an interesting
>adventure back in time but still rich in solid,
>simple-ideas.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
Congrats Stan! Now comes the fun part! Be careful during Phase 1.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com <http://www.flightinnovations.com/>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:08 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: First Flight
My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better
understand electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The
invaluable information I obtained on this forum was implemented into my
RV-8A and my airplane flew for the first time today. The electrical system
performed as expected and will continue to do so far into the future.
Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere - or, at
least, not without great difficulty.
Thanks!
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A N884P - Flying
_____
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy
<http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006> recipes for the
grill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | TCW product update: SmartStart |
Fellow RV builders,
Just a quick update regarding our SmartStart product. We have
added a new option for use with our SmartStart anti-theft and safety
starting module. We now are offering SmartStart with an optional
airspeed switch that allows for in-flight restarting without having to
re-arm the system. The airspeed switch (ASW-2) is available as an
add-on for those who have already installed a SmartStart module. We
are also making the system available as package which includes the
SmartStart module, wiring harness and an airspeed switch.
All the details are available on our web site: www.tcwtech.com The
product instruction sheet has been updated and is avialable for
downloading from our web site.
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:48 PM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>The current editions I teach from...
>
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87391.htm
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87392.htm
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87393.htm
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87394.htm
>
>Ron Q.
Thanks! I'll update my library as well as the website
posting.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
At 12:07 PM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
>My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better
>understand electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The
>invaluable information I obtained on this forum was implemented into
>my RV-8A and my airplane flew for the first time today. The
>electrical system performed as expected and will continue to do so
>far into the future.
>Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere -
>or, at least, not without great difficulty.
>Thanks!
>Stan Sutterfield
>RV-8A N884P - Flying
Outstanding! Post some pictures!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Alternator Control |
I have followed posts to the list regarding internally regulated alternators
and it appears to me that all are not the same regarding regulator functions
and connections.
I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0 Subaru Auto conversion.
The electrical system architecture will basically be Z-19.
The Egg is supplied with an internally regulated alternator and their
installation manual shows the following:
ALTERNATOR CONNECTIONS - 4
1. B+ Lead Out - Large connection to Starter & Main Battery Contactor.
2. Fault - Goes to ground in case of alternator failure. For use of
"idiot light". I suppose this could be used as a low voltage warning but I
would opt for an active and separate warning system that could also control
my aux battery contactor.
3. Sense - This is a short jumper to the B+ output terminal; I assume for
voltage info to the internal regulator. (I also assume that sense and
enable connections could be jumpered together and fed from the panel
alternator master switch through the 5A CB controlled by the OV module.)
4. Enable - Clip From manual below:
"5A Alternator Enable. To enable your alternator to produce charging
current, this wire must be connected to a power source. This power source
can be switched by the Master Switch or a subservient "Alternator" switch.
People have come to know this function as an "alternator field", however
that is a term that has lingered on from years ago. It is actually just an
enable signal going to a solid-state voltage regulator inside the
alternator. It knows only ON or OFF, not specific voltages in between.
If you wish to have the ability to manually turn on and off the alternator,
a switch should be provided. However, beware that turning an alternator on
and off under heavy load can dramatically shorten the life of the alternator
and cause substantial spikes and surges. If used, this switch should be
left in the ON position, except when the alternator actually needs to be
taken offline for some reason. For simplicity, this wire can simply be
switched by the Master Switch or the Ignition Switch."
End clip from manual.
I would take this to indicate that the alternator can be shut down using
this enable circuit, by switching off the 12V+ that goes to it. And
therefore the Z-24 (&/or Z-24A) circuitry including the Alternator OV
Disconnect Contactor would not have to be used.
However, I believe that I have read on this list that these enable circuits
will cause the alternator to power up when power is applied, but won't
necessarily shut the alternator down when power is removed.
Now I am confused. Is it possible/likely that the internally regulated
alternator that Egg supplies will operate off and on through this "Enable"
terminal; and all that one would need for OV protection (the manual does not
say that the internal alternator regulator contains any circuitry for OV
protection) is to add an OV module and 5A resettable CB in this circuit?
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brooke Wolf <bwolf1(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Gongrats Stan! Which is more fun, T-38 or RV-8A? In my mind's
eye.....a tough choice! Congratulations again!
Brooke
On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
> My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better
> understand electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The
> invaluable information I obtained on this forum was implemented into
> my RV-8A and my airplane flew for the first time today. The
> electrical system performed as expected and will continue to do so
> far into the future.
> Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere -
> or, at least, not without great difficulty.
> Thanks!
> Stan Sutterfield
> RV-8A N884P - Flying
>
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Control |
At 03:28 PM 6/28/2009, you wrote:
I have followed posts to the list regarding
internally regulated alternators and it appears
to me that all are not the same regarding regulator functions and connections.
I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0
Subaru Auto conversion. The electrical system
architecture will basically be Z-19.
The Egg is supplied with an internally regulated
alternator and their installation manual shows the following:
ALTERNATOR CONNECTIONS - 4
1. B+ Lead Out Large connection to Starter & Main Battery Contactor.
Yes . . .
2. Fault Goes to ground in case of
alternator failure. For use of idiot light. I
suppose this could be used as a low voltage
warning but I would opt for an active and
separate warning system that could also control my aux battery contactor.
This was discussed earlier this week. The built-in
alternator failure light does not comport with
legacy design goals for separate and independent
monitoring and warning of low voltage.
The AEC9005 is discontinued but Eric Jones has
a clone. We'll have a new replacement in the form
of the AEC9011 later this year. Either approach
will satisfy the legacy design goals for low voltage
monitor and control.
3. Sense This is a short jumper to the B+
output terminal; I assume for voltage info to the
internal regulator. (I also assume that sense
and enable connections could be jumpered together
and fed from the panel alternator master switch
through the 5A CB controlled by the OV module.)
Don't know. Does the alternator have a brand and
part number on it?
4. Enable Clip From manual below:
5A Alternator Enable. To enable your alternator
to produce charging current, this wire must be
connected to a power source. This power source
can be switched by the Master Switch or a
subservient Alternator switch. People have come
to know this function as an alternator field,
however that is a term that has lingered on from
years ago. It is actually just an enable signal
going to a solid-state voltage regulator inside
the alternator. It knows only ON or OFF, not specific voltages in between.
This is characteristic of ALL internally regulated
alternators. I.e. there are no stock provisions
for absolute control over the field supply source.
This is why both B&C and Plane Power opt for their
own modifications of stock alternators to provide
this functionality.
If you wish to have the ability to manually turn
on and off the alternator, a switch should be
provided. However, beware that turning an
alternator on and off under heavy load can
dramatically shorten the life of the alternator
and cause substantial spikes and surges. If
used, this switch should be left in the ON
position, except when the alternator actually
needs to be taken off line for some reason. For
simplicity, this wire can simply be switched by
the Master Switch or the Ignition Switch.
Almost . . . Under the legacy design goals for
alternator control, turning the field supply line
on and off while a battery is on line offers no
particular risk to the alternator or the ship's
electro-whizzies.
Further, it's a design goal of any quality supplier
of alternators that their product be able to withstand
b-lead disconnects (load dumps) under hot, full load, high
rpm conditions. So adding Z-24 style OV protection
to the internally regulated alternator presents
no operational hazard for two reasons . . .
(1) there is no normal operating condition where
turning an alternator OFF under heavy load using
Z-24 is called for . . . but a quality alternator
would not be at risk anyhow.
(2) Z-24 style protection can be depended upon
to do it's intended job should the admittedly
rare OV event occur.
I would take this to indicate that the alternator
can be shut down using this enable circuit, by
switching off the 12V+ that goes to it. And
therefore the Z-24 (&/or Z-24A) circuitry
including the Alternator OV Disconnect Contactor would not have to be used.
Assuming the electronics of the internal
regulator is functioning as designed, then
external control by means of the little wire
at the back is possible and predictable. But
if the electronics fails (which is the definition
of an OV event) then all bets are off.
Legacy design goals call for separate and
independent control over the alternator during
an OV event . . . this is what drove the
design philosophy for Z-24.
Alternatively, you can modify your alternator
to adopt the control philosophy adopted by
Plane Power.
However, I believe that I have read on this list
that these enable circuits will cause the
alternator to power up when power is applied, but
wont necessarily shut the alternator down when power is removed.
As far as anyone KNOWS, the control lead will always
exert any time, ON/OFF control . . . as long as the
internal electronics are intact. Further, exercising
this control at any time under any conditions is
not a risky thing to do as long as the battery
is on line. This design goal is satisfied when you utilize
the progressive transfer DC PWR MASTER switch
architecture described in the Z-figures.
Now I am confused. Is it possible/likely that
the internally regulated alternator that Egg
supplies will operate off and on through this
Enable terminal; and all that one would need
for OV protection (the manual does not say that
the internal alternator regulator contains any
circuitry for OV protection) is to add an OV
module and 5A resettable CB in this circuit?
If it were my airplane, I would add OV protection
in the form of either Plane Power style modification
or Z-24 interim to be replaced by the Z-24 final solution
at a later time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Congratulations, Stan!
All the work come to fruition.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 FWF
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 6/28/2009 10:14:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Speedy11(at)aol.com writes:
My Appreciation to Bob and others on this list who helped me better
understand electricity and its application to aircraft systems. The invaluable
information I obtained on this forum was implemented into my RV-8A and my
airplane flew for the first time today. The electrical system performed as
expected and will continue to do so far into the future.
Most of the info I got on this forum was not available elsewhere - or, at
least, not without great difficulty.
Thanks!
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A N884P - Flying
____________________________________
Make your summer sizzle with _fast and easy recipes_
(http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006) for the grill.
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
eExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Hello All,
I hooked up my first headset yesterday. I have multiple audio sources mixed using
an AMX-2A mixer from Vx Aviation feeding into a Flightcom 403 intercom. My
496 GPS told me when I turned off the power, my Traffic Watch that it was online
and my EFIS told me voltage was low. My SL30 radio transmitted too, strength
5 and no noise! What a thrill the radio worked out of the box and all that spaghetti
was actually functional!
One caveat. I could hear the inner workings of my AFS 3500 EFIS. Can anyone help
me with identifying the usual suspects that may assist me in tracking down and
eliminating the source of the noise?
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Galway, Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | =?us-ascii?Q?Electric_dependent_Engine_-_Pucker_Factor=3F? |
I have been following the posts on this list for a year or so and 'Lectric
Bob's writings for maybe 10 years. This has led to my understanding of
failure tolerant design, so that if any part fails (as any part can and
will) you go to plan"B" with out needing to raise a sweat. Not considered
as possible failures in this case are such things as prop bolts, wing
struts, connecting rods and the like.
I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0 Subaru Auto conversion.
The electrical system architecture will basically be Z-19.
There are electrical system designs that are very failure tolerant even for
electrically dependent engines. And there are more and more of these
electrically dependent engines being used all the time. But usually you
have 2 fuel pumps, 2 electrical paths to the fuel injection/electronic
ignition, etc.
The Egg has 1 ECU (Engine Control Unit) computer. Without it functioning
the fan out front does not rotate. It is a computer whose heart is a
microprocessor.
Is a microprocessor in the same league as a prop bolt for reliability?
This is a single point of failure regardless of how many electrical feed
paths are designed to feed it. What is the reliability of a microprocessor;
does it approach a zero failure rate similar to a prop bolt or an RG
battery?
What is the answer for this? Simply accept it and increase the pucker
factor?
Also, I think that I have seen Bob mention that he might be publishing a
Z-19 modification, specific to the Egg requirements and also some potential
pre-flight checklist recommendations for Z-19 and perhaps other designs,
Has this been done and I have missed it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Head Set Jacks Location |
6/29/2009
Hello Angier, You wrote: "..... behind the pilot/co-pilot seatback ......"
Congratulations. After decades of flying many different types of aircraft
with many different locations for the head set jacks I came to the
conclusion that locating the jacks behind the pilot and copilot seats was
the best solution. I built my airplane that way and it has worked great.
When the pilot's jacks are behind the copilot's seat and the copilot's jacks
are behind the pilot's seat it makes it possible to both see and manipulate
the plugs while seated and strapped into your seat. I have used this benefit
many times.
Also the plugs are not banging into your knees while plugged into the
instrument panel and the wires are not dangling across your lap.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=====================================
From: "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Splicing of 2 or 3 conductor shielded cable
I am relocating the comm and mic jacks in my Lancair to a position
behind the pilot/co-pilot seatback and so the comm and mic cables need
to be lengthened. Any suggestions here for what would be the best
method for splicing additional length to these cables and also
maintaining the integrity of the shields?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
Hi Gordon,
Been flying with my all-electric rotary for over 10 years I originally
used an aftermarket HALTECH F3 unit (single CPU, but did have a mixture
control) ' it failed after 2 =BD years ' fortunately while doing a
run-up on
the ground. I have since flow with a dual CPU EFI system and while I
firmly believe a microchip (if operated within its intended environment
is
about as safe and reliable as anything can be), I feel more
comfortable,
knowing at the flick of a switch I have a back up. The backup does
reduce
the pucker factor -even thought I=92ve never had to use it.
So probably does not answer your question, but just wanted to share
real-world experience with you.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Gordon
Smith
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor?
I have been following the posts on this list for a year or so and
=91Lectric
Bob=92s writings for maybe 10 years. This has led to my understanding
of
failure tolerant design, so that if any part fails (as any part can and
will) you go to plan=94B=94 with out needing to raise a sweat. Not
considered
as possible failures in this case are such things as prop bolts, wing
struts, connecting rods and the like.
I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0 Subaru Auto conversion.
The electrical system architecture will basically be Z-19.
There are electrical system designs that are very failure tolerant even
for
electrically dependent engines. And there are more and more of these
electrically dependent engines being used all the time. But usually you
have 2 fuel pumps, 2 electrical paths to the fuel injection/electronic
ignition, etc.
The Egg has 1 ECU (Engine Control Unit) computer. Without it
functioning
the fan out front does not rotate. It is a computer whose heart is a
microprocessor.
Is a microprocessor in the same league as a prop bolt for reliability?
This is a single point of failure regardless of how many electrical feed
paths are designed to feed it. What is the reliability of a
microprocessor;
does it approach a zero failure rate similar to a prop bolt or an RG
battery?
What is the answer for this? Simply accept it and increase the pucker
factor?
Also, I think that I have seen Bob mention that he might be publishing a
Z-19 modification, specific to the Egg requirements and also some
potential
pre-flight checklist recommendations for Z-19 and perhaps other designs,
Has this been done and I have missed it?
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Gordon. Tracy Crook has his EC3 fuel injection/ignition controller and he
may have a version that will work for you. The EC3 has two independent
controllers mounted on a single board in a single box. Here is the link:
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html
Tracy is out of town through the end of July, but his business partner,
Laura, is providing some support while he's gone.
Regards,
Sam Hoskins
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Gordon Smith wr
ote:
> I have been following the posts on this list for a year or so and
> =91Lectric Bob=92s writings for maybe 10 years. This has led to my
> understanding of failure tolerant design, so that if any part fails (as a
ny
> part can and will) you go to plan=94B=94 with out needing to raise a swea
t. Not
> considered as possible failures in this case are such things as prop bolt
s,
> wing struts, connecting rods and the like.
>
>
> I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0 Subaru Auto conversion.
> The electrical system architecture will basically be Z-19.
>
>
> There are electrical system designs that are very failure tolerant even f
or
> electrically dependent engines. And there are more and more of these
> electrically dependent engines being used all the time. But usually you
> have 2 fuel pumps, 2 electrical paths to the fuel injection/electronic
> ignition, etc.
>
>
> The Egg has *1 *ECU (Engine Control Unit) computer. Without it
> functioning the fan out front does not rotate. It is a computer whose he
art
> is a microprocessor.
>
> Is a microprocessor in the same league as a prop bolt for reliability?
>
>
> This is a single point of failure regardless of how many electrical feed
> paths are designed to feed it. What is the reliability of a microprocess
or;
> does it approach a zero failure rate similar to a prop bolt or an RG
> battery?
>
>
> What is the answer for this? Simply accept it and increase the pucker
> factor?
>
>
> Also, I think that I have seen Bob mention that he might be publishing a
> Z-19 modification, specific to the Egg requirements and also some potenti
al
> pre-flight checklist recommendations for Z-19 and perhaps other designs,
> Has this been done and I have missed it?
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
At 04:55 AM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>I have been following the posts on this list for a year or so and
>'Lectric Bob's writings for maybe 10 years. This has led to my
>understanding of failure tolerant design, so that if any part fails
>(as any part can and will) you go to plan"B" with out needing to
>raise a sweat. Not considered as possible failures in this case are
>such things as prop bolts, wing struts, connecting rods and the like.
>
>I am considering the use of an Eggenfellner E6.0 Subaru Auto
>conversion. The electrical system architecture will basically be Z-19.
>
>There are electrical system designs that are very failure tolerant
>even for electrically dependent engines. And there are more and
>more of these electrically dependent engines being used all the
>time. But usually you have 2 fuel pumps, 2 electrical paths to the
>fuel injection/electronic ignition, etc.
>
>The Egg has 1 ECU (Engine Control Unit) computer. Without it
>functioning the fan out front does not rotate. It is a computer
>whose heart is a microprocessor.
>Is a microprocessor in the same league as a prop bolt for reliability?
Probably not . . . but they CAN be pretty good.
How's that for a non-quantified answer? Reliability
is an oft discussed topic here on the List. When
we speak of reliability in the military or TC
aircraft world, the discussion necessarily includes
a study of failure rates for individual components
(taken from a handbook written by folks who
purport to know such things). The last reliability
study I witnessed in my career involved the mathematical
analysis of all the pieces and parts that went
into the fabrication of a super-sonic target
we were building for the Navy . . .
http://www.ordnance.org/aqm37c.htm
We expended perhaps 1000 man-hours compiling
the data and publishing a report. I don't recall
now what the numbers were. I don't put much
credence in such activities. They are
exercises in bureaucratic process that make
bureaucrats happy . . .. and they paid us
for it!
Bottom line is that most such systems, if they
are crafted with legacy products by skilled
workers and screened for defects at time
of manufacture will perform as advertised
with low risk of failure. There's that
non-quantified "low" thing again.
But suppose Eggenfellner spent $100,000 and
produced a detailed reliability study of the
system as installed per his instructions
posted at:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/electrical.htm
Suppose further that he offered a number
of 1.6 failures per million flight hours.
How would you use that number? If you have
competing suppliers and the other guy says
his gizmo has only 0.8 failures per million
flight hours, would you pay double the cost
to get double the "reliability"?
Further, the past week's discussion on a
Subaru powered RV-10 crash vividly illustrates
that a system with 1 failure per trillion
flight hours isn't worth beans if you don't
craft power sources with similarly impressive
numbers.
>
>What is the answer for this? Simply accept it and increase the pucker factor?
Being a diligent observer of demonstrated service
history is a good place to start. I've been
chastised soundly on this List for suggesting
that my observations of B&C's return products
was not a proper expression of "reliability".
I was able to offer from first hand experience
that with thousands of devices in service, his
return rates were on the order of 1-2 units
per month for repair of user induced damage.
I observed no returns for failure of the
product.
Not being inclined to spend $100,000 on a formal
reliability study, I suggested that those
observations were encouraging . . . especially
since we knew how to produce failure tolerant
systems that did not depend on a functioning
alternator for comfortable termination
of flight.
>
>Also, I think that I have seen Bob mention that he might be
>publishing a Z-19 modification, specific to the Egg requirements and
>also some potential pre-flight checklist recommendations for Z-19
>and perhaps other designs, Has this been done and I have missed it?
Some years ago I had some discussion with
Eggenfellner about a product-specific Z-figure.
I don't remember details of the conversation
now except that the idea was not received with
enough enthusiasm for the project to move
forward.
The Eggenfellner website gives us lip-service
for a resource on technique but includes a
statement, "Avoid being lured into thinking that
you can create your own alternative to the EXPBUS
and save time and money."
I've studied the EXPBUS (and similar products)
and written about them extensively. It's easy
to demonstrate that they DO NOT save money.
You can search aeroelectric.com for those
discussions.
At the same time, Eggenfellner's instructions are
painstakingly crafted and well illustrated. I have no
first hand knowledge as to how many of these
systems are flying nor do I know the history
of field service problems. Queries to the various
Lists have to be your most useful places to
put a dipstick into tribal knowledge. But
be aware that while dark-n-stormy night stories
abound in aviation, few tellers of such stories
understand the simple ideas nor do they always
have access to the facts of reported failures.
While there are things in the Eggenfellner
design I would not embrace, it's his kitchen,
his recipe for success, and his reputation
on the line. If you want to go the Z-19 route,
then let's talk about it here on the list
and tap the grey matter and experience of the
membership.
So what ever stories you uncover, bring them
to the AeroElectric List for the assistance
of many minds who are skilled at sifting
significance out of the noise.
Given the demonstrated service history of
automotive engine controllers (in environments
much more stressful than under your cowl)
I'll suggest that concerns for the hardware
are probably not well founded. These pieces
of hardware perform long and hard for
thousands of hours over the lifetime of
the vehicle. It is more likely that your
unhappy day in the cockpit will arise from
failure to exercise due diligence in the
crafting or maintaining your electrical system . . .
or still more likely from venturing into
a flight situation beyond the abilities
of you or your airplane.
There are plenty of nice ol' Lycomings out
there with a huge history of demonstrated
performance that doesn't seem to discourage
many of our ranks from launching into the blue
behind them.
Bottom line is that the risks are never
zero. We can only do our best to mitigate
those risks to acceptable levels. If you're
really worried about it . . . then don't do it.
A worried pilot with a good system is probably
at greater risk than a skilled and thoughtful
pilot with a mediocre system. Your likelihood
of walking away from an unplanned arrival
with the earth has little to do with reliability
numbers and a lot to do with how you approach
duties as pilot, designer and maintainer of
the airplane. This fact has been demonstrated
countless times throughout the history of aviation.
This is why accident rates for OBAM aircraft
are pretty much in step with accident rates in
TC aircraft. Both sets of pilots run off the same
runways, fly into the same mountains, run the
same batteries to destruction . . . or fail to
tighten the same oil drain plug.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
At 03:52 AM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello All,
>
>I hooked up my first headset yesterday. I have multiple audio
>sources mixed using an AMX-2A mixer from Vx Aviation feeding into a
>Flightcom 403 intercom. My 496 GPS told me when I turned off the
>power, my Traffic Watch that it was online and my EFIS told me
>voltage was low. My SL30 radio transmitted too, strength 5 and no
>noise! What a thrill the radio worked out of the box and all that
>spaghetti was actually functional!
>
>One caveat. I could hear the inner workings of my AFS 3500 EFIS. Can
>anyone help me with identifying the usual suspects that may assist
>me in tracking down and eliminating the source of the noise?
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? There's
an extensive chapter on noise mitigation that offers a
good start for your investigation
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 05:51 PM 6/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>Lectric Bob asked:
>
> Have you done a load analysis on minimum
> energy requirements for sustained flight? Exactly
> how many watt-seconds of energy per flight hour are
> needed to run your engine?
>
>Don't have watt-seconds/flight-hour but there is a spread sheet with amps
>required in various flight modes. Here's a link to my electrical system
>design documentation.
>
>http://kr.flyboybob.com/web_pages/kr2/electrical%20and%20instrument/electrical.htm
>At the bottom of the page there are links to the wiring diagrams.
Okay, I've got you drawing. Let me pray over it
for a few days . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 6/29/2009 11:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> But suppose Eggenfellner spent $100,000 and
> produced a detailed reliability study of the
> system as installed per his instructions
> posted at:
>
> http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/electrical.htm
Just fyi, those are an older set of wiring instructions for the
Eggenfellner package. The latest instructions can be found at
<http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/ESeriesInstallationGuide.pdf>
starting on page 45 with other references for the package at
<http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/iindex.htm>
> The Eggenfellner website gives us lip-service
> for a resource on technique but includes a
> statement, "Avoid being lured into thinking that
> you can create your own alternative to the EXPBUS
> and save time and money."
Please note that the current wiring instructions are quite different
from the old, and do not include the EXPBUS. Refer to page 51 for a
schematic.
fyi
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
At 10:52 AM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>
> Just fyi, those are an older set of wiring instructions for the
>Eggenfellner package. The latest instructions can be found at
>
><http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/ESeriesInstallationGuide.pdf>
>
>starting on page 45 with other references for the package at
><http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/iindex.htm>
Interesting! Thank you. At first blush, it looks
like a lower parts count, 'leaner' architecture.
I'll look it over in more detail later. Appreciate
the heads-up . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Dr. Bob,
I also have a noise problem. I do indeed have a copy of the
"Connection" and have what you might have described as a "Really off the
wall problem". I wonder if you or any of your "listeners" would have a
clue.
My RV-9A has a Garmin GNX300 XL GPS/Com, a Narco AT165 transponder, a
Dynon EFIS D10A, and a Rocky Mountain enging micromonitor. The comms
are routed through a Flightcomm 403. The power distribution is through
an EXP2BUS.
In flight I get an irregular clankety-clank noise in both headsets that
sounds like someone whacking a rudder cable against the fuselage but
it's electrical. When I remove the headset and listen to the cabin
noise, all I hear is a louder engine noise.
It's all about the same pitch, but almost sounds almost like some form
of sparking or discharging.
There is no whining or other noise, and this seems to only happen when
the engine in running (i.e. most of the time). The sound reduces when I
turn down the volume, and goes away when I "isolate" the pilot from the
passenger on the Flightcomm 403 with the "ICS/Isolate" switch.
This is such a unique noise I just wondered if anyone else had heard it
or heard of it.
Thanks in advance for any of your wisdom.
Ian Brown,
Bromont
Quebec
>
> At 03:52 AM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hello All,
> >
> >I hooked up my first headset yesterday. I have multiple audio
> >sources mixed using an AMX-2A mixer from Vx Aviation feeding into a
> >Flightcom 403 intercom. My 496 GPS told me when I turned off the
> >power, my Traffic Watch that it was online and my EFIS told me
> >voltage was low. My SL30 radio transmitted too, strength 5 and no
> >noise! What a thrill the radio worked out of the box and all that
> >spaghetti was actually functional!
> >
> >One caveat. I could hear the inner workings of my AFS 3500 EFIS. Can
> >anyone help me with identifying the usual suspects that may assist
> >me in tracking down and eliminating the source of the noise?
>
> Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? There's
> an extensive chapter on noise mitigation that offers a
> good start for your investigation
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
I have read a lot on this forum about alternator failures and e-busses and backup
alternators. Is it possible that the battery can fail in a way that short
circuits the bus, causing a total power failure? If so, is there sufficient probably
that I should design around that?
My RV will be equipped for light IFR, and I'll have an e-bus with sufficient reserve
to fly for an hour after an alternator failure. I may add a 2nd alternator
at some point, but for now, just a single battery/alternator.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250646#250646
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Time to Battery Exhaustion: RE: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
Having had some recent real-world experience with battery exhaustion, I
though some of you might be interested in actual flight duration with all
systems on - until the battery voltage dropped below that necessary to run
crucial flight systems.
Without going into the "why it happened - switch in wrong place, deficient
design" as that has already been posted to this forum, rather this is the
following systems I had on during the period of battery-only powered flight:
1. Engine started from battery (naturally) after refueling - no recharging
after start - due to switch in wrong position.
2. Two 50 watt Landing lights ON (my normal practice for take off and
landing)
3. Two High pressure EFI fuel pumps (probably drawing 4-5 amps each)
4. One 6 psi boost pump
5. 4 electronic fuel injectors
6. 2 ignition modules
7. 1 radio
8. 1 transponder
9. 1 Gps
10. 1 Strobe light on
I took off with a 1 1/2 year old PC 680 Odyssey battery (which as I
mentioned above did not get alternator recharge after engine start - so was
somewhat depleted).
I took off and flew for 45 minutes before (dropping battery voltage) started
to manifest itself in undesirable and very noticeable ways. Approx 50
minutes after take off I found the engine would no longer run - prop
stopped. Approx 54 minutes after take off while in engine-out glide to Craig
Field, Selma, Al. The master relay (held closed by battery voltage) gave up
and removed the alternator and therefore all power from the system. Dead
panel, dead engine - rather lonely. Did get one radio call off before panel
went dead.
No - low battery voltage will not show up if your voltmeter and low voltage
warning LED happens to be on the alternator circuit and the battery is
disconnected from the alternator - which is one of the reasons I had problem
convincing myself it was anything other than a fuel problem - but, it was
solely electrical, inadvertently (you don't think I did it on purpose do
you?) induced by the pilot and supported by a design deficiency - no
isolation diode between battery and alternator only a switch(which ended up
in the wrong position).
Next morning, once switch was placed in the proper position (connecting
battery to alternator) a test flight was made and all checked out and I
continued on to Texas. Flew back with no incident. However, I doubt the
battery would do as well a second time as the voltage had dropped to 6 volts
by the time I checked on the ground. From what I understand is that once a
battery undergoes that degree of discharge, its capacity is less than it
was.
The battery is rated at 17 AH, don't know how much the engine start drained
but at 400 amp for say 5 second for engine start = 0.55 amp-hour leaving
theoretically 16.45 amp hour in the battery. Flew for 45 minutes before the
dropping voltage started undesirable things happening so 45/60 = .75 hour of
battery powered flight. That theoretically would indicate a 16.45/.75 = 21
amp/hour load. Clearly lots of estimation here but that load (with two 50
watt landing lights on) does not seem unreasonable to me. YMMV
But all things considered - the battery did a credible job of lasting as
long as it did. Just wanted to post a real world example of battery power
duration.
Lessons learned - stick in the isolation diode so battery will get
alternator juice regardless of essential bus switch
position
- Put check of Essential bus switch on emergency as well
as regular check list
- Don't fixate on what you "THINK" the problem is, check
both fuel and electrical
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric dependent Engine - Pucker Factor? |
As reliable as ecu's are, solid state electronics and wiring often don't
give much warning before failing. So I opted for Z-14 with a second
independent engine control system running off the second electrical
system. At 300 hours I too have never needed it. It is handy for
troubleshooting as well as pucker minimization.
In the past, a manual backup valve to feed fuel into the intake manifold
was mentioned. Another thought would be a switch (and diodes) to
ground all the injectors low side. On an installation with separate
backup ignition, positive voltage supply to the injectors, and positive
fuel pump control, that will keep the engine running as long as the
throttle is kept at near a cruise setting or higher, even after a total
EFI system electronic failure. Certainly simpler, if less elegant in
operation, than my second ecu system. A robust exhaust system would be
in order and of course the challenge of implementing it without reducing
primary system reliability.
Ken
Gordon Smith wrote:
> I have been following the posts on this list for a year or so and
> Lectric Bobs writings for maybe 10 years. This has led to my
> understanding of failure tolerant design, so that if any part fails (as
> any part can and will) you go to planB with out needing to raise a
> sweat. Not considered as possible failures in this case are such things
> as prop bolts, wing struts, connecting rods and the like.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
I have a noise in the Flightcomm 403 intercom that I would describe as a
snare drum. It goes away when the squelch is adjusted.
John
Ian wrote:
>
> Dr. Bob,
> I also have a noise problem. I do indeed have a copy of the
> "Connection" and have what you might have described as a "Really off the
> wall problem". I wonder if you or any of your "listeners" would have a
> clue.
>
> My RV-9A has a Garmin GNX300 XL GPS/Com, a Narco AT165 transponder, a
> Dynon EFIS D10A, and a Rocky Mountain enging micromonitor. The comms
> are routed through a Flightcomm 403. The power distribution is through
> an EXP2BUS.
>
> In flight I get an irregular clankety-clank noise in both headsets that
> sounds like someone whacking a rudder cable against the fuselage but
> it's electrical. When I remove the headset and listen to the cabin
> noise, all I hear is a louder engine noise.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery failure |
At 01:39 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I have read a lot on this forum about alternator failures and
>e-busses and backup alternators. Is it possible that the battery
>can fail in a way that short circuits the bus, causing a total power failure?
No. We used to see the occasional shorted
cell in flooded batteries. This could cause
a 12 volt battery to become a 10 volt battery.
Remaining good cells then suffered overcharging.
RG batteries don't do this.
> If so, is there sufficient probably that I should design around that?
No
>My RV will be equipped for light IFR, and I'll have an e-bus with
>sufficient reserve to fly for an hour after an alternator
>failure. I may add a 2nd alternator at some point, but for now,
>just a single battery/alternator.
Start out with Z-11 which is easily morphed
to Z-13/8 at a later time.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
AeroElectric-List message posted by:
What I have read on this list is that yes, batteries fail, but
historically dead shorts are rare and worries are few. Thus, large ANL
protection (200 amp) between battery and contactor are deemed
unnecessary.
Correct. If current limiters are found in battery
circuits, they are to protect WIRES from the fault
currents that can flow (1000+ amps) when a battery
becomes the SOURCE driving a HARD FAULT.
I have discussed this same topic recently with my
mechanics. They have indicated heat is a real danger of Mr. Battery.
Extreme amounts of it can and will cause dead shorts internally (I've
yet to experience one). Thus, if I am to keep Mr. Battery on the
firewall I am ill advised to protect it with shielding, venting and ANL
fuse to keep it from going poof.
RG batteries contain a relatively small amount
of moisture compared to the flooded
cells of yesteryear. When an RG battery is
deliberately abused by either hard fault or
overcharge, the manufacturer is well advised
to design cases to withstand over-pressures
(typically 2 PSI) whereupon the vent valves
open and the battery goes "sssssss" not
"boom".
I used to have running conversations with
the Navy's battery test facilities in Crane
Indiana where EVERY battery in Navy inventory
and many other batteries were test for worst
case outcomes in horrible failure modes.
Our friends at Concorde were routinely subject
to Crane's House of Battery Horrors to verify
their suitability to task in military programs.
It's an easy and not terribly expensive
thing to try for yourself. Hook 3 golf cart
6v batteries in series and hook 17 a.h.
RG in parallel with it. Thermocouple the
battery, watch the current as the 18v
source "cooks" the 12v battery. Test #2 calls
for throwing a dead short across the same
fully charged battery and tracking temperatures
and currents.
Early on in the history of all batteries,
there were some spectacular outcomes for
these tests. However, given the ubiquitous
presence of the SVLA battery in everything
from video cameras to toys to airplanes to
submarines, the family of suppliers have
pretty much all become righteous citizens.
When you see fuses in series with batteries,
it's to protect external things from the energy
the batteries contain . . . not vice versa.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
Having had some recent real-world experience with battery exhaustion, I
though some of you might be interested in actual flight duration with all
systems on - until the battery voltage dropped below that necessary to run
crucial flight systems.
Next morning, once switch was placed in the proper position (connecting
battery to alternator) a test flight was made and all checked out and I
continued on to Texas. Flew back with no incident. However, I doubt the
battery would do as well a second time as the voltage had dropped to 6 volts
by the time I checked on the ground. From what I understand is that once a
battery undergoes that degree of discharge, its capacity is less than it
was.
This is why the Z-figures and other writings in
the 'Connection suggest ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF
LOW VOLTAGE on the main bus. When you turn the
battery master on before cranking the engine, that
light is an irritating feature on the panel and
remains so until the alternator comes on to boost
the bus above 13.0 volts.
The battery is rated at 17 AH, don't know how much the engine start drained
but at 400 amp for say 5 second for engine start = 0.55 amp-hour leaving
theoretically 16.45 amp hour in the battery. Flew for 45 minutes before the
dropping voltage started undesirable things happening so 45/60 = .75 hour of
battery powered flight. That theoretically would indicate a 16.45/.75 = 21
amp/hour load. Clearly lots of estimation here but that load (with two 50
watt landing lights on) does not seem unreasonable to me.
See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
The typical 17 a.h. battery being discharged in 40
minutes when presented with a 17A load. This yields
a useful capacity on the order of 17 x 0.7 or 12 ampere
hours.
But all things considered - the battery did a credible job of lasting as
long as it did. Just wanted to post a real world example of battery power
duration.
Lessons learned - stick in the isolation diode so battery will get
alternator juice regardless of essential bus switch
position.
Without seeing your power distribution diagram, I'm
not sure what the "isolation diode" is about. Active
and irritating notification of low voltage becomes
a expected event that cannot missed or ignored. I
requires no training and/or checklist activity for
making sure things are up and running before flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
Hi Bob,
The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
battery to get alternator voltage.
The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
starting did not much affect the duration.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
Having had some recent real-world experience with battery exhaustion, I
though some of you might be interested in actual flight duration with all
systems on - until the battery voltage dropped below that necessary to run
crucial flight systems.
Next morning, once switch was placed in the proper position (connecting
battery to alternator) a test flight was made and all checked out and I
continued on to Texas. Flew back with no incident. However, I doubt the
battery would do as well a second time as the voltage had dropped to 6 volts
by the time I checked on the ground. From what I understand is that once a
battery undergoes that degree of discharge, its capacity is less than it
was.
This is why the Z-figures and other writings in
the 'Connection suggest ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF
LOW VOLTAGE on the main bus. When you turn the
battery master on before cranking the engine, that
light is an irritating feature on the panel and
remains so until the alternator comes on to boost
the bus above 13.0 volts.
The battery is rated at 17 AH, don't know how much the engine start drained
but at 400 amp for say 5 second for engine start = 0.55 amp-hour leaving
theoretically 16.45 amp hour in the battery. Flew for 45 minutes before the
dropping voltage started undesirable things happening so 45/60 = .75 hour of
battery powered flight. That theoretically would indicate a 16.45/.75 = 21
amp/hour load. Clearly lots of estimation here but that load (with two 50
watt landing lights on) does not seem unreasonable to me.
See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
The typical 17 a.h. battery being discharged in 40
minutes when presented with a 17A load. This yields
a useful capacity on the order of 17 x 0.7 or 12 ampere
hours.
But all things considered - the battery did a credible job of lasting as
long as it did. Just wanted to post a real world example of battery power
duration.
Lessons learned - stick in the isolation diode so battery will get
alternator juice regardless of essential bus switch
position.
Without seeing your power distribution diagram, I'm
not sure what the "isolation diode" is about. Active
and irritating notification of low voltage becomes
a expected event that cannot missed or ignored. I
requires no training and/or checklist activity for
making sure things are up and running before flight.
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
>
>It's all about the same pitch, but almost sounds almost like some form
>of sparking or discharging.
>
>There is no whining or other noise, and this seems to only happen when
>the engine in running (i.e. most of the time). The sound reduces when I
>turn down the volume, and goes away when I "isolate" the pilot from the
>passenger on the Flightcomm 403 with the "ICS/Isolate" switch.
>
>This is such a unique noise I just wondered if anyone else had heard it
>or heard of it.
>
>Thanks in advance for any of your wisdom.
What is the repetition rate for the noise. How many
times per minute. Its it a regular rate or random?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
At 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
>feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
>If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
>switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
>battery to get alternator voltage.
I'm still not getting a mental image of
how you had it wired. How does the
existence or lack of the diode affect
connection between battery and alternator?
>The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
>was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
>alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
>dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
>indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
>battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
So have (or are you planning) you movee the low
voltage sensing point in your system?
Could you sketch and scan the distribution
system and share with us? Normally, alternator
has no way NOT to charge the battery if the
engine is running -AND- both the alternator
and battery control circuits are closed. I'm
having trouble visualizing how "both were
functioning" but the alternator was still not
connected to the battery.
>Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
>current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
>starting did not much affect the duration.
While starters take a lot of POWER it is for
just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is quite
low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of
battery energy used to start is a small fraction
of the total. In this start current curve we
took off a Beechjet . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
. . . it takes about 20 seconds for cranking
current to taper from 800A to 300A and another
7 seconds to go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery
is tapped for only 5 to 6 percent of total
stored energy. In piston singles where the engine
starts readily, it's about half that total.
You mentioned in the earlier post that you thought
you might have seriously whacked the battery's
ability to store energy when you allowed it to be
so severely depleted. This is generally no big
deal.
Brand new batteries subjected to a series of 90%
depletion cycles will slowly drop in capacity with
each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several
hundred deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their
capacity.
Emacs!
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a
lithium battery . . . lead-acid curves are similar
they just don't go out to those really big numbers.
But a single deep discharge of your battery followed
by a recharging activity does not seriously affect
future performance.
Now, leaving the master switch on and leaving the
battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another
matter . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
Ok, Bob, here is a crude sketch of the essential elements
ALT B Lead ------------------- Aircraft
Bus---------------------------------------------------- None Essential Load
|
|
|
|
|
|
Switch
Diode (not installed at time of incident)
Essential Bus Load ---------------------------- |---------- |
|
|
Battery
The alternator B lead feeds the aircraft main bus. The switch is designed
to be closed during normal operation permitting the alternator to charge/
recharge the battery - in this incident it became open - therefore no
alternator voltage to charge battery. The diode would have permitted the
alternator to charge the battery (regardless of switch position) IF I had
installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back then was that if the
alternator failed, I could remove the battery and essential load from that
circuit by opening the switch. The diode (if I had installed it) would have
prevent the very problem I encountered - that of the battery being exhausted
because it could get no voltage from the alternator due to the inadvertently
opened switch. Why a diode and a switch - well, diodes can fail, switches
can fail - unlikely both would at the same time. - In reality, I have never
moved the switch from the Alternator connection position in 10 years of
flying - until, of course, this incident.
The idea of having the low voltage warning LED tied to the alternator
circuit was that it would give first notice (before the battery started to
drain) if there was a problem with alternator. The volt meter has a toggle
switch so I can monitor either alternator or battery voltage.
Unfortunately, I had it set to alternator and therefore it didn't register
the deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the switch in question is
ON then alternator and battery voltage will read the same - so to check the
battery voltage solely, I would need to open the Switch removing the
alternator temporarily from feeding the battery.
This all seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so since the incident - as you
might imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my mistakes - certainly
not trying to defend what in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in my
design.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
At 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
battery to get alternator voltage.
I'm still not getting a mental image of
how you had it wired. How does the
existence or lack of the diode affect
connection between battery and alternator?
The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
So have (or are you planning) you movee the low
voltage sensing point in your system?
Could you sketch and scan the distribution
system and share with us? Normally, alternator
has no way NOT to charge the battery if the
engine is running -AND- both the alternator
and battery control circuits are closed. I'm
having trouble visualizing how "both were
functioning" but the alternator was still not
connected to the battery.
Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
starting did not much affect the duration.
While starters take a lot of POWER it is for
just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is quite
low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of
battery energy used to start is a small fraction
of the total. In this start current curve we
took off a Beechjet . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
. . . it takes about 20 seconds for cranking
current to taper from 800A to 300A and another
7 seconds to go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery
is tapped for only 5 to 6 percent of total
stored energy. In piston singles where the engine
starts readily, it's about half that total.
You mentioned in the earlier post that you thought
you might have seriously whacked the battery's
ability to store energy when you allowed it to be
so severely depleted. This is generally no big
deal.
Brand new batteries subjected to a series of 90%
depletion cycles will slowly drop in capacity with
each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several
hundred deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their
capacity.
Emacs!
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a
lithium battery . . . lead-acid curves are similar
they just don't go out to those really big numbers.
But a single deep discharge of your battery followed
by a recharging activity does not seriously affect
future performance.
Now, leaving the master switch on and leaving the
battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another
matter . . .
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
I've also emailed Flightcom for help.
Regards,
Ian Brown
>
>
> >
> >It's all about the same pitch, but almost sounds almost like some form
> >of sparking or discharging.
> >
> >There is no whining or other noise, and this seems to only happen when
> >the engine in running (i.e. most of the time). The sound reduces when I
> >turn down the volume, and goes away when I "isolate" the pilot from the
> >passenger on the Flightcomm 403 with the "ICS/Isolate" switch.
> >
> >This is such a unique noise I just wondered if anyone else had heard it
> >or heard of it.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any of your wisdom.
>
> What is the repetition rate for the noise. How many
> times per minute. Its it a regular rate or random?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found |
Bob,
I am trying to-build a Z-11 wiring scheme for now with eventual upgrade t
o dual batteries and alternators.
-
The AEC-Z-11 figure shows a generic Ford regulator and the AEC 9005-101 L
ow Voltage Monitor Module. However, the Appendix Z notes-for the Z-11 fig
ure-advises that-"it features the B&C alternator control sytem (regulat
or, OV protection and LV warning in a single product)".
-
I ran a search on the list and on the AEC website for the AEC 9005-101 LVMM
, but failed to find any reference for it.-Have the-AEC 9005-101 LVMM a
nd generic Ford regulator been phased out in favor-of the-comparatively
costly-LR-3 B&C alternator control system?
-
Thanks for your help,
Eric Schlanser=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AThank you Ed,=0A =0AI have learned a number of things due to your willin
gness to share your experience and system configuration.=0A =0AJon Finley
=0AN314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22=0A[http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx] ht
tp://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AF
rom: "Ed Anderson" =0ASent: Tuesday, June 30, 20
09 9:02am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: FW: AeroElectric
-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion=0A=0A=0A=0A =0AOk, Bob, here is a c
rude sketch of the essential elements=0A =0A =0A ALT B Lead ------------
------- Aircraft Bus---------------------------------------------------- No
ne Essential Load=0A
| | =0A
| |=0A
| |=0A
Switch Diod
e (not installed at time of incident)=0A Essential Bus Load --
-------------------------- |---------- |=0A
| |=0A
Battery=0A =0AThe alt
ernator B lead feeds the aircraft main bus. The switch is designed to be c
losed during normal operation permitting the alternator to charge/ recharge
the battery =93 in this incident it became open =93 therefore
no alternator voltage to charge battery. The diode would have permitted th
e alternator to charge the battery (regardless of switch position) IF I had
installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back then was that if the altern
ator failed, I could remove the battery and essential load from that circui
t by opening the switch. The diode (if I had installed it) would have prev
ent the very problem I encountered =93 that of the battery being exha
usted because it could get no voltage from the alternator due to the inadve
rtently opened switch. Why a diode and a switch =93 well, diodes can
fail, switches can fail =93 unlikely both would at the same time.
=93 In reality, I have never moved the switch from the Alternator con
nection position in 10 years of flying =93 until, of course, this inc
ident.=0A =0AThe idea of having the low voltage warning LED tied to the alt
ernator circuit was that it would give first notice (before the battery st
arted to drain) if there was a problem with alternator. The volt meter has
a toggle switch so I can monitor either alternator or battery voltage. U
nfortunately, I had it set to alternator and therefore it didn=99t re
gister the deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the switch in quest
ion is ON then alternator and battery voltage will read the same =93
so to check the battery voltage solely, I would need to open the Switch rem
oving the alternator temporarily from feeding the battery. =0A =0AThis al
l seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so since the incident - as you might
imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my mistakes =93 certain
ly not trying to defend what in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in
my design.=0A =0A =0AEd=0A=0AEd Anderson=0ARv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered=0AMa
tthews, NC=0Aeanderson@carolina.rr.com=0A[http://www.andersonee.com/] http:
//www.andersonee.com=0A[http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html] http://www.d
mack.net/mazda/index.html=0A[http://www.flyrotary.com/] http://www.flyrotar
y.com/=0A[http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm] http://member
s.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW=0A[http://www.rotaryaviation.c
om/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm] http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.h
tm[http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html] =0A=0A=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric
-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics
.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III=0ASent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1
0:12 AM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-L
ist: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion=0A =0AAt 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
na.rr.com>=0A=0AHi Bob,=0A=0AThe "isolation diode" was a poor choice of wor
ds for the schokkty battery=0Afeed diode between alternator power and the e
ssential bus battery circuit.=0AIf I had installed that diode 10 years ago
(per your design) then having the=0Aswitch in the wrong position wouldn't h
ave affected the ability of the=0Abattery to get alternator voltage.=0A=0A
I'm still not getting a mental image of=0A how you had it wired. How d
oes the=0A existence or lack of the diode affect=0A connection between
battery and alternator?=0A=0A=0A=0AThe problem with my "low voltage warning
" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)=0Awas they were on the alternator circ
uit and NOT the battery. Since the=0Aalternator was working fine and conti
nued to produce power (until the=0Adropping battery voltage opened the mast
er relay), these two devices never=0Aindicated low voltage. IF I had though
t to switch the voltmeter to the=0Abattery then I would likely have noticed
the decreasing battery voltage.=0A=0A=0A So have (or are you planning) y
ou movee the low=0A voltage sensing point in your system?=0A=0A Could y
ou sketch and scan the distribution=0A system and share with us? Normally
, alternator=0A has no way NOT to charge the battery if the=0A engine i
s running -AND- both the alternator=0A and battery control circuits are c
losed. I'm=0A having trouble visualizing how "both were =0A functioning
" but the alternator was still not=0A connected to the battery.=0A=0A=0A
=0AThanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as m
uch=0Acurrent drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered requir
ed for=0Astarting did not much affect the duration.=0A=0A While starters
take a lot of POWER it is for=0A just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is
quite=0A low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of=0A battery ener
gy used to start is a small fraction=0A of the total. In this start curre
nt curve we=0A took off a Beechjet . . .=0A=0A[http://www.aeroelectric.co
m/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg] http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures
/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg=0A=0A . . . it takes about 20 seconds for cra
nking=0A current to taper from 800A to 300A and another=0A 7 seconds to
go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery=0A is tapped for only 5 to 6 percen
t of total=0A stored energy. In piston singles where the engine=0A star
ts readily, it's about half that total.=0A=0A You mentioned in the earlie
r post that you thought=0A you might have seriously whacked the battery's
=0A ability to store energy when you allowed it to be=0A so severely de
pleted. This is generally no big=0A deal. =0A=0A Brand new batteries s
ubjected to a series of 90%=0A depletion cycles will slowly drop in capac
ity with=0A each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several=0A hundr
ed deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their=0A capacity.=0A=0A=0A=0A
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a=0A lithium bat
tery . . . lead-acid curves are similar=0A they just don't go out to t
hose really big numbers.=0A But a single deep discharge of your batter
y followed=0A by a recharging activity does not seriously affect=0A
future performance.=0A=0A Now, leaving the master switch on and lea
ving the=0A battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another=0A
matter . . .=0A=0A=0A Bob . . .=0A=0A=0A__________ Information from E
SET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __
________=0A=0AThe message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signa
ture database 3267 (20080714) __________=0A=0AThe message was checked by ES
ET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________ Information from ESET NOD32 An
tivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________=0A
=0AThe message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found |
At 11:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I am trying to build a Z-11 wiring scheme for now with eventual
>upgrade to dual batteries and alternators.
>
>The AEC Z-11 figure shows a generic Ford regulator and the AEC
>9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor Module. However, the Appendix Z notes
>for the Z-11 figure advises that "it features the B&C alternator
>control sytem (regulator, OV protection and LV warning in a single product)".
>
>I ran a search on the list and on the AEC website for the AEC
>9005-101 LVMM, but failed to find any reference for it. Have the AEC
>9005-101 LVMM and generic Ford regulator been phased out in favor of
>the comparatively costly LR-3 B&C alternator control system?
That particular product has been discontinued at
the 'Connection and will be replaced with the
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
This is a multi-tasking product that can be used
for any combination of following monitoring/control:
Low volts annunciation on Bus
Low volts annunciation on Aux
Overvolts shutdown and annunciation on Bus
If you need something sooner you can consider
the LVWarn/ABMM module from
http://periheliondesign.com/lvwaabm.htm
or you can craft your own from the original
AEC design as described at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
and built on ExpressPCB artwork supplied at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
The AEC9011 will be available later this year.
I'm teaching my kids how to assemble and program
these critters. They'll be in production as soon
as I can get moved out of this house and the
kids get moved in.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
At 10:37 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
>sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
>aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
>second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
>three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
>has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
>intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
>you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
Hmmm . . . beats me. Were the problem in my shop, I'd
have to break out the 'scope and signal tracer and start
poking around the innards of things.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
At 10:02 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>Ok, Bob, here is a crude sketch of the essential elements
>
>
> ALT B Lead ------------------- Aircraft
> Bus---------------------------------------------------- None Essential
Load
>
>| |
>
>| |
>
>| |
>
>Switch Diode (not installed at time of incident)
> Essential Bus Load ---------------------------- |----------
|
>
>| |
>
>Battery
>
>The alternator B lead feeds the aircraft main
>bus. The switch is designed to be closed during
>normal operation permitting the alternator to
>charge/ recharge the battery ' in this incident
>it became open ' therefore no alternator voltage
>to charge battery. The diode would have
>permitted the alternator to charge the battery
>(regardless of switch position) IF I had
>installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back
>then was that if the alternator failed, I could
>remove the battery and essential load from that
>circuit by opening the switch. The diode (if I
>had installed it) would have prevent the very
>problem I encountered ' that of the battery
>being exhausted because it could get no voltage
>from the alternator due to the inadvertently
>opened switch. Why a diode and a switch ' well,
>diodes can fail, switches can fail ' unlikely
>both would at the same time. ' In reality, I
>have never moved the switch from the Alternator
>connection position in 10 years of flying ' until, of course, this
incident.
Understand. Know that there are a host of reasons why
Z-11 is crafted the way it's illustrated in the
'Connection. This is a step-up from the legacy power
distribution common to 99.9% of all single-engine aircraft
ever flown.
The design goals call for main bus, battery and alternator
to be firmly in connection with each other. The purpose
of the endurance bus isolation diode is to prevent back-feeding
power from the e-bus while the e-bus alternate feed switch
is supplying power directly from the battery. The diode
has no function with respect to the relationship between
alternator and battery.
>
>The idea of having the low voltage warning LED
>tied to the alternator circuit was that it
>would give first notice (before the battery
>started to drain) if there was a problem with
>alternator. The volt meter has a toggle switch
>so I can monitor either alternator or battery
>voltage. Unfortunately, I had it set to
>alternator and therefore it didn=92t register the
>deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the
>switch in question is ON then alternator and
>battery voltage will read the same ' so to check
>the battery voltage solely, I would need to open
>the Switch removing the alternator temporarily from feeding the battery.
>
>This all seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so
>since the incident - as you might
>imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my
>mistakes ' certainly not trying to defend what
>in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in my design.
Understand. Suggest you re-configure to Z-11 as soon
as practical if you you haven't already . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery facts and myths redux . . . |
Since this topic seems to be simmering again on the list,
I thought it would be useful to share an excerpt from another
conversation concerning battery characteristics and performance:
>It is my understanding that a battery can fail in only one of three
>ways (modes):
> 1. An internal short circuit that results in a direct closed
> path from the (+) to the (-) terminals.
Never happens. Single cells might short thus
reducing a 12v battery to a 10v battery. This
causes the system to respond by overcharging
what it perceives is a seriously discharged
12v battery. Failure of other cells due to
overcharging is the secondary effect.
> 2. An internal open circuit that results in no path between the
> (+) and (-) terminals.
Yes . . . but very rare. Usually due to manufacturing
defect.
> 3. An internal resistence (I beleive this is correct) that
> results in the inability of the battery to provide power/accept a
> charge, but not 1 and 2.
All power sources have internal resistance. This
is inherent in any "non-perfect" device. The
resistance may be quite low (typically 10 milliohms
for a small 12v RG battery) but rises with time
as cell-stes in the battery begin to die off.
A battery that is ready to be replaced due to
loss of capacity might expect to see a 30-40%% increase
or so in internal resistance. Still capable of
cranking an engine but not capable of meeting
endurance mode requirements. This would not be
classed as a failure but an end of life event.
>Open Circuit (#2):
>A. For two batteries: It would not affect the second parallel
>battery. The only effect on the system would be to reduce capacity
>by the failed battery's contribution.
Yes.
>B. For a single battery: The effect on the system would be the
>same as no battery. If the alternator were running, power would
>continue to be provided subject to the conditions that would take
>the alternator off line, at which time no power would be
>provided. Otherwise no power would be provided.
Yes.
>Internal Resistance (#3):
>A. For two batteries: It would not effect the second parallel
>battery. The effect on the system would be to reduce capacity by
>the failed battery's contribution, in some proportion to the
>increase in resistance. In other words, the failed battery would
>not drain energy from the second battery.
Yes.
>B. For a single battery: The effect on the system would be to
>reduce capacity in some proportion to the increase in
>resistence. At some point the capacity would be reduced to below
>that necessary to keep the alternator on line, at which time no
>power would be provided.
Demonstrated internal resistance would/should
never be allowed to degrade to a "no power"
condition. This is a service life issue that
should be addressed as a preventative maintenance
program on the airplane.
>Short Circuit (#3):
> A. For two batteries: It would cause an immediate drain on the
> second parallel battery.
Yes.
>With no means to isolate the failed battery it would cause a failure
>of the two battery system.
The OK battery would not be at risk but its
stored energy would combine with alternator output
to overcharge the 10v battery.
>If the alternator were running, and the failed battery system were
>not isolated, the drain on the whole system would excede the
>alternator capacity and the whole system would fail.
No, the alternator MIGHT go into current limited
operation at the 10V level but in a matter of
minutes, overcharged cells in the failed battery
would outgas, their internal resistance would rise
and the failure would essentially isolate itself
over time. This presumes of course that the battery
has a demonstrated ability to go into passive failure
under severe overcharge conditions. Batteries qualified
for military and aircraft use are subjected to such
tests in the lab. It's likely that even a commercial
off the shelf product would be similarly disposed to
go quietly off into the sunset.
>If the failed battery system were isolated, it would have the same
>effect as no battery except that it is probable that the alternator
>would be off line due to reduced system voltage at the time of
>isolation and the whole system would be failed.
No. As long as the bus voltage stays above one volt
or so, the alternator never "quits". In the shorted
cell case, there's no reason to expect bus voltage to
drop below 10-11 volts while being feed by the
alternator. If the battery is well behaved in the
shorted cell scenario, then I would expect the low
voltage condition to last perhaps 30 minutes before
the failed battery unhooks itself.
>B. For a single battery: It would have the same effect as A. for
>the failure of the two battery system.
For a single battery, single shorted cell, the system
voltage would depress to 11 or so volts and the combined
output of alternator and battery would go to work boiling
of the liquid in the remaining good cells. Passive
disconnect followed by return to normal bus voltage
would be expected.
>III. Detection (assuming a system volt meter and alternator load meter)
>
>Opern Circuit (#2) and Internal Resistance (#3):
>A. For two batteries: At start up, it might be detectable as
>reduced or insufficinet cranking capactiy. In flight, it would not
>be detectable as long as the alternator was functioning and loads
>were below the alternator capacity. If loads exceeded alternator
>capacity, it might be detectable by a greater than expected drop in
>system voltage in relation to load. If the alternator failed, it
>would be detectable by a greater than expected drop in system
>voltage in relation to load.
If the alternator is on line, bus is supported at
the setpoint votlage and low voltage warning would
be dark. If the alternator goes off line, then
the bus would still fall to the expected 12.5 or so
volts and decay from there depending on load. The
low voltage warning light would be ON but you would
obviously not have access to the expected capacity
of both batteries. This would take some time to
discover when expected endurance performance falls
short by about 1/2.
>B. For a single battery: At start up it would be detecable as zero
>or insufficient cranking capacity. In flight, basically the same as
>A except that the drop in system voltage would be more severe and
>detectable, and with the alternator failed, the there woul be no
>power under #2.
>
>It that understanding correct??
Essentially
>Short Circuit (#1):
>A. For one and two batteries: It would be detectable as an immediate
>drop in system voltage and if not isolated immediately, failure of
>the whole system. Even if isolated immediately, it is probable
>that the whole system would be failed due to the initial
>drop in system voltage taking the alternator off line.
No, a shorted cell doesn't take the
whole system down. There would be a
momentary drop in voltage probably
annunciated by low voltage warning
and paired with alternator loadmeter
showing a maxed out machine. But as
the still functioning cells are cooked
off, voltage would rise and the alternator
output would drop back to the value
demanded by system loads.
Probability of cell shorting is exceedingly
low because the typical RG battery has
physical barriers of porous plastic and/or
glass mat fiber between plates . . .
Emacs!
Emacs!
Emacs!
As you can see in these views on a Concorde RG
battery, alternate plates are completely bagged
in fiberglas and plastic. No shorted cells in
this product.
All of these hypothetical failures presume that
an alternator is sufficiently cooled to tolerate
current limited operation for a period of time.
They also presume benign response to overcharging
that is demanded of batteries qualified to
aviation and military service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
You're welcome, Jon
That's the entire intention - to share my screw-ups, so that other's won't
make the same ones - advance the state of the art - make a new one {:>).
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jon(at)finleyweb.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: FW: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
Thank you Ed,
I have learned a number of things due to your willingness to share your
experience and system configuration.
Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise Problem |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Maybe it would only serve novelty purposes, but it would be interesting to
me to be able to hear these various sounds. Has anyone tried to record
anything like this? Share it on the web?
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> At 10:37 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
>>sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
>>aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
>>second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
>>three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
>>has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
>>intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
>>you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
>
> Hmmm . . . beats me. Were the problem in my shop, I'd
> have to break out the 'scope and signal tracer and start
> poking around the innards of things.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Race timing help |
I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd call it
a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for such a small
group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and staggered starts we got
folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern altitude. Suffice to say
that human errors on both the pilots and timers parts caused a lot of grief.
Sooo... what kind of technology is out there to assist? All we really need
is start and finish times for each plane. It could be plane based, ground
based or a combo but it needs to be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and
able to deliver the results quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of
everyone's 396/496 bread crumb trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking
of giant barcodes under the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-)
Hopefully someone knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant.
What's available?
Thanks,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Race timing help |
Many of us in the SARL (www.sportairrace.org) purchased low cost GPS
data loggers to analyze our own performance. It records at 1sec
(programmable) resolution, Lat, Long, Speed, and Alt for about 5hrs,
more at lower res. The data can then be uploaded into Google Earth and
viewed. It is very easy to mark the crossing of start/finish lines,
turn points, etc. From that, you can derive your TRUE course timing -
much more accurately than a human centric process. Eventually, the
races will be timed off of these units instead of human timers and turn
point observers.
http://www.globalsat.com.tw/eng/product_detail_00000090.htm
This is the one I use, many others are out there. Be sure the one you
choose has the ability to output or export to .GPX format. This is the
"standard" GPS data format that is expected by most data formatting
sites and programs. I also use http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ to
colorize my track by speed, add a semi-transparent wall connected to the
ground, and other things. Very neat stuff. It sure lets you know if
you blow a turn or wander in altitude/heading. My closest competitor
and I share our data and superimpose our tracks on GoogleEarth to see
how each others performance compared.
At less than $100...this things are golden in my book!
James Redmon
Berkut #013/Race 13
www.berkut13.com
2007 SARL Silver National Champion
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Young
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Race timing help
I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd
call it a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for
such a small group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and
staggered starts we got folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern
altitude. Suffice to say that human errors on both the pilots and timers
parts caused a lot of grief. Sooo... what kind of technology is out
there to assist? All we really need is start and finish times for each
plane. It could be plane based, ground based or a combo but it needs to
be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and able to deliver the results
quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of everyone's 396/496 bread crumb
trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking of giant barcodes under
the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-) Hopefully someone
knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant. What's available?
Thanks,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | self weighing our planes |
Does anyone have experience with strain gauges? I envision strain
gauges somewhere on each of the 3 "legs" of the plane, calibrated
initially at the empty weight of the plane and then again at full fuel,
oil, and etc. What that would give us is a constant readout or our
plane's weight, esp on takeoff. One could argue that landing weight
could be inferred as well while still in the air. This should help
immensely with the (uncommon) problems of taking off too heavy or (gasp)
CG being out of range.
I want to try this on my plane but I have no experience with strain
gauges. I'm thinking of mounting them where the legs meet the fuselage
for the mains, and maybe at the movable joint on the front (mine is a
trike.)
Any ideas?
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio panel for nav audio |
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy asked for help in installing his Garmin SL30.
I'll need some clarification about nav audio. Do we actually need an audio panel
in order to hear the nav audio input through the phones ?
Sorry if this has been asked before, but my home internet connection has been down
for weeks.
Thanks in advance,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: self weighing our planes |
Good Morning David,
Strain gauges do have a lot of capability. For some reason, every time a
proposal is made to use them for a control function, various calibration
issues arise. It will be interesting to see what the brainy guys on the list
come up with.
The idea of having an instantaneous check of weight has been toyed with for
many years. Not sure how long ago it started. However, my first exposure
was just after WWII when tricycle landing gear became common on air carrier
aircraft. Since everyone of the then popular tricycle landing geared
airliners used air/oil hydraulic struts on their landing gear, the obvious
answer was to measure the change in strut pressure as the aircraft was being
loaded.
The first objection came from those who mentioned air loads. We can't even
get a good static weighing of an airplane unless the weighing is being
conducted in a closed hangar. Even ceiling fans must be shut off because those
have been known to affect a precise weighing.
Once an engine is started, additional varying loads would be applied that
mess up the weight numbers.
If all those variables are considered, do we really want something that
will tell us we are ten pounds too heavy? Or maybe that our CG is two tenths
of an inch aft of where it should be?
For safety, I think we would all like to have that information, but only if
it was absolutely guaranteed to be accurate and repeatable information.
I wish you well in your endeavor and hope that the problems can be solved,
but the powers that be have elected to study the situation quite a bit more
before using it in commercial aviation.
Let us know how it works for you.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Downers Grove IL
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 7/1/2009 6:37:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
ainut(at)hiwaay.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M."
Does anyone have experience with strain gauges? I envision strain
gauges somewhere on each of the 3 "legs" of the plane, calibrated
initially at the empty weight of the plane and then again at full fuel,
oil, and etc. What that would give us is a constant readout or our
plane's weight, esp on takeoff. One could argue that landing weight
could be inferred as well while still in the air. This should help
immensely with the (uncommon) problems of taking off too heavy or (gasp)
CG being out of range.
I want to try this on my plane but I have no experience with strain
gauges. I'm thinking of mounting them where the legs meet the fuselage
for the mains, and maybe at the movable joint on the front (mine is a
trike.)
Any ideas?
David M.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A customer of mine is buying LED Headlamps from Truck-Lite. They make these for
the military and come in 12V and 28V. Direct replacement for Par56, H6014 and
H6024 lamps. Expensive...$309.99 each.
See: http://www.levineautoparts.com/ledheadlights.html
I have no experience with them, but this is where the world will go when the price
drops. And other sizes and forms will dominate no doubt.
"Inventor: A person who makes an
ingenious arrangement of wheels,
levers and springs, and believes
it civilization."
--Ambrose Bierce
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250932#250932
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jared Yates" <junk(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | self weighing our planes |
I think that some airliners have tried onboard systems, but the shortcoming
is that it is hard to build a system that is sensitive enough to keep the
accuracy where you would want it but yet strong enough to survive the
stresses of landings. Most big planes have instead moved in the direction
of math calculations with average weights instead. Those calculations have
a lot of room for error, and yet someone must have decided at some point
that they were still more accurate than strain gauges. Maybe with a small
plane and feather fingertips for the landings, you could make it work!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David M.
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: self weighing our planes
Does anyone have experience with strain gauges? I envision strain
gauges somewhere on each of the 3 "legs" of the plane, calibrated
initially at the empty weight of the plane and then again at full fuel,
oil, and etc. What that would give us is a constant readout or our
plane's weight, esp on takeoff. One could argue that landing weight
could be inferred as well while still in the air. This should help
immensely with the (uncommon) problems of taking off too heavy or (gasp)
CG being out of range.
I want to try this on my plane but I have no experience with strain
gauges. I'm thinking of mounting them where the legs meet the fuselage
for the mains, and maybe at the movable joint on the front (mine is a
trike.)
Any ideas?
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with LCD Circuit Design - Altitude & Heading |
Hi Mike,
You might look into the "Arduino".
>From a learning perspective, this looks to be pretty easy to get started (ie
relatively low entry cost and easy access to h/w) and has lots of potential to
go crazy (in a good way, of course ;). The integrated development environment
(IDE) is open-source and works under Linux, Windows, and MacOS X.
Some links:
http://www.arduino.cc
http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/HomePage - Getting Started
http://www.arduino.cc/playground/
http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Code/LCD - LCD Specific writings...
I don't have experience in this area, but thought I'd pass it on in the spirit
of the original inquiry.
Good luck,
/\/elson
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with LCD Circuit Design - Altitude & Heading |
Or http://www.nerdkits.com/. Nice "noob starter" manual comes with
the kit.
On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:32 AM, David E. Nelson wrote:
> >
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> You might look into the "Arduino".
>
>> From a learning perspective, this looks to be pretty easy to get
>> started (ie
> relatively low entry cost and easy access to h/w) and has lots of
> potential to go crazy (in a good way, of course ;). The integrated
> development environment (IDE) is open-source and works under Linux,
> Windows, and MacOS X.
>
> Some links:
>
> http://www.arduino.cc
> http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/HomePage - Getting Started
> http://www.arduino.cc/playground/
> http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Code/LCD - LCD Specific writings...
>
> I don't have experience in this area, but thought I'd pass it on in
> the spirit of the original inquiry.
>
> Good luck,
> /\/elson
>
>
> ~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any
> spring. ~~
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: self weighing our planes |
On 1 Jul 2009, at 07:32, David M. wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with strain gauges? I envision strain
> gauges somewhere on each of the 3 "legs" of the plane, calibrated
> initially at the empty weight of the plane and then again at full
> fuel, oil, and etc. What that would give us is a constant readout
> or our plane's weight, esp on takeoff. One could argue that landing
> weight could be inferred as well while still in the air. This
> should help immensely with the (uncommon) problems of taking off too
> heavy or (gasp) CG being out of range.
> I want to try this on my plane but I have no experience with strain
> gauges. I'm thinking of mounting them where the legs meet the
> fuselage for the mains, and maybe at the movable joint on the front
> (mine is a trike.)
> Any ideas?
One big problem will be that as you add weight, and the gear flexes,
the bottom end of the gear legs need to move outwards. If you are
stopped, the friction between the tires and the ground prevent the
bottom ends of the gear legs from spreading apart. Once you start to
move, and the wheels roll, the wheels will spread apart a bit to allow
the gear legs to take up their new natural position. So, once the
aircraft is loaded, you won't get a repeatable measurement until the
aircraft rolls a few feet. If while the aircraft is rolling, a tire
comes upon a piece of ground that is not even from side to side, that
will tend to make the wheel roll a bit to the left or right of its
natural position, which will affect the strain on the upper end of the
gear leg, changing the strain gauge output.
There is no harm in conducting the experiment, but I'm not optimistic
that you would be able to get acceptable accuracy in the real world.
I'll be amazed if you get accuracy better than 100 lb.
Please keep up posted. This is an interesting project.
--
Kevin Horton (Grounded)
RV-8 (Flight Test Phase)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with LCD Circuit Design - Altitude & |
Heading
| From: | Mike Fontenot <mikef(at)apexconsultingservices.com> |
Thanks Guys,
I have so far gone with the simple Push Wheel switch that Bob K suggested. I
got the parts from Digikey for about $50 for 7 pushwheels, end caps, and a
simple black enclosure. I mounted it up in a four button/altitude and three
button/heading configuration. Simple and easy to mount.
I'll try to post a photo over the holiday weekend.
Thanks,
Mike
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
> sean(at)stephensville.com>
>
> Or http://www.nerdkits.com/. Nice "noob starter" manual comes with the
> kit.
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:32 AM, David E. Nelson wrote:
>
>> david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> You might look into the "Arduino".
>>
>> From a learning perspective, this looks to be pretty easy to get started
>>> (ie
>>>
>> relatively low entry cost and easy access to h/w) and has lots of
>> potential to go crazy (in a good way, of course ;). The integrated
>> development environment (IDE) is open-source and works under Linux, Windows,
>> and MacOS X.
>>
>> Some links:
>>
>> http://www.arduino.cc
>> http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/HomePage - Getting Started
>> http://www.arduino.cc/playground/
>> http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Code/LCD - LCD Specific writings...
>>
>> I don't have experience in this area, but thought I'd pass it on in the
>> spirit of the original inquiry.
>>
>> Good luck,
>> /\/elson
>>
>>
>> ~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any
>> spring. ~~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Mike
===============================
Mike Fontenot
Apex Consulting & Services LLC
Lakewood, Colorado
303 / 731-6645
mikef AT apexconsultingservices DOT com
===============================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel for nav audio |
Gilles,
The nav audio is available from the SL-30 without an audio panel.- You ca
n also access the menus to adjust the volume of the nav audio relative to t
he volume of the com audio.- I have my nav volume set at 80 percent so th
at I always hear the com audio over the nav audio.- I've been flying the
airplane with this arrangement for 5 years.
Greg
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr wrote:
From: Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel for nav audio
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 7:38 AM
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy asked for help in installing his Garmin SL30.
I'll need some clarification about nav audio. Do we actually need an audio
panel in order to hear the nav audio input through the phones ?
Sorry if this has been asked before, but my home internet connection has be
en down for weeks.
Thanks in advance,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Race timing help |
James,
Where can you buy one?
Thanks,
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: berkut13(at)berkut13.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Race timing help
Many of us in the SARL (www.sportairrace.org) purchased low cost GPS
data loggers to analyze our own performance. It records at 1sec
(programmable) resolution, Lat, Long, Speed, and Alt for about 5hrs,
more at lower res. The data can then be uploaded into Google Earth and
viewed. It is very easy to mark the crossing of start/finish lines,
turn points, etc. From that, you can derive your TRUE course timing -
much more accurately than a human centric process. Eventually, the
races will be timed off of these units instead of human timers and turn
point observers.
http://www.globalsat.com.tw/eng/product_detail_00000090.htm
This is the one I use, many others are out there. Be sure the one you
choose has the ability to output or export to .GPX format. This is the
"standard" GPS data format that is expected by most data formatting
sites and programs. I also use http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ to
colorize my track by speed, add a semi-transparent wall connected to the
ground, and other things. Very neat stuff. It sure lets you know if
you blow a turn or wander in altitude/heading. My closest competitor
and I share our data and superimpose our tracks on GoogleEarth to see
how each others performance compared.
At less than $100...this things are golden in my book!
James Redmon
Berkut #013/Race 13
www.berkut13.com
2007 SARL Silver National Champion
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Young
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Race timing help
I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd
call it a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for
such a small group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and
staggered starts we got folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern
altitude. Suffice to say that human errors on both the pilots and timers
parts caused a lot of grief. Sooo... what kind of technology is out
there to assist? All we really need is start and finish times for each
plane. It could be plane based, ground based or a combo but it needs to
be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and able to deliver the results
quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of everyone's 396/496 bread crumb
trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking of giant barcodes under
the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-) Hopefully someone
knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant. What's available?
Thanks,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: self weighing our planes |
>
>One big problem will be that as you add weight, and the gear flexes,
>the bottom end of the gear legs need to move outwards. If you are
>stopped, the friction between the tires and the ground prevent the
>bottom ends of the gear legs from spreading apart. Once you start to
>move, and the wheels roll, the wheels will spread apart a bit to allow
>the gear legs to take up their new natural position. So, once the
>aircraft is loaded, you won't get a repeatable measurement until the
>aircraft rolls a few feet. If while the aircraft is rolling, a tire
>comes upon a piece of ground that is not even from side to side, that
>will tend to make the wheel roll a bit to the left or right of its
>natural position, which will affect the strain on the upper end of the
>gear leg, changing the strain gauge output.
>
>There is no harm in conducting the experiment, but I'm not optimistic
>that you would be able to get acceptable accuracy in the real world.
>I'll be amazed if you get accuracy better than 100 lb.
Aha! I'd not thought of that one. Thanks Ken.
Got my feet wet in strain gages about 38 years
ago when we fiddled with adding a patient weighing
feature to the Mobilizer hospital patient transporter
for which I was developing the electrics.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Mobilizer_3s.jpg
The task using electronics available at the time
was a challenge! The feature didn't get incorporated
until years after the project was sold off and
I note that the brochure doesn't mention it now.
http://tinyurl.com/mtt42o
Here's what we wrestled with back then . . . and
you have to look forward to today.
Strain gages measure stretching or compression
on the surface. It's expressed in MICROINCHES per
INCH of dimensional variation as the material
is stressed. There's an excellent historical
on perceptions and measurement of force at:
http://www.omega.com/Literature/Transactions/volume3/history.html
The full scale value of signal from a strain
gage is very small. Typically, a strain-gage
bridge stretched (or compressed) to near limits
and excited with 10 volt will give you an output
between 5 and 20 millivolts. The materials from
which your landing gear is constructed will
determine how much strain the gage sees . . .
but in landing gears (designed for robustness)
it's hard to get large values of strain on
robust articles! It's more likely that you
would get useful data if you could incorporate
off-the-shelf, ruggedized load cells into your
gear system.
http://www.daytronic.com/products/trans/t-loadcells.htm
Pretty ugly . . . no?
Hence the signal you need to slice up into
1000-2000 parts for accurately resolving
weights can get pretty small to begin with.
As Ken mentioned, getting the geometry right
for accurately sensing the true gravity
component of load on the gear is daunting.
Measuring pressure in an oleo strut seems
most promising.
We do this kind of thing in the lab all the
time . . . and on flight test aircraft. But I
can tell you that of ALL the measurements we
do on test airframes, strain gages are the
most problematic either for bonding, wiring,
amplifying signals to useful levels, etc.
Even if you whipped the instrumentation
design, then there's a matter of robustness in
the work-a-day environment.
Accurate resolution of weight-on-wheels in service
has been considered on a lot of projects big and small.
They may be doing it well on something like
the A380 or B787 . . . but if my boss handed
me a project like that today, I'd seriously
consider advancing my retirement date! It's
NOT easy or everyone would be doing it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Race timing help |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Greg - Take a look here - "Timing the Race"
http://www.sportairrace.org/id141.html
Sam
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
> I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd call
> it a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for such a small
> group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and staggered starts we got
> folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern altitude. Suffice to say
> that human errors on both the pilots and timers parts caused a lot of grief.
> Sooo... what kind of technology is out there to assist? All we really need
> is start and finish times for each plane. It could be plane based, ground
> based or a combo but it needs to be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and
> able to deliver the results quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of
> everyone's 396/496 bread crumb trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking
> of giant barcodes under the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-)
> Hopefully someone knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant.
> What's available?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg Young
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: self weighing our planes |
IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right after
takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
| From: | "Noah" <sgninc(at)cox.net> |
Just finished reading AEC and new to forum, building RV-7. I have 2 questions
related to forum administration:
1. Why is it that when I search the archives on a particular topic, and I view
one of the threads that came up in the search, I cannot return to the "search
results" page by pressing "back" in my browser? Instead I get a "web page expired"
and have to repeat the search - every time! Truly a pain. I do not have
this problem on other forums, just matronics.
2. Is there a way yo get an RSS feed from this forum to my home page?
Thanks,
--------
Highest Regards,
Noah Forden
RV-7A
Rhode Island
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251102#251102
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
OK, my turn...we used strain gauges in the processing tanks when I
worked for a living (pharmaceutical company). It was my idea to
incorporate them, and it became my responsibility to calibrate and see
that they were properly maintained.
For example, when the 5,000 gallon processors were full of product being
manufactured, even a fork truck driving by in an aisle outside the room
would change the readings...the act of mixing the product would change
the readings...even trying to massage the information we were getting
from the gauges through computers only worked when everything was
still...running water or other liquids into the process could only be
accurately measured after the fluids had stopped sloshing around.
So, how can strain gauges ever work in a plane while it is moving (as
someone earlier wished for...to determine LANDING WEIGHT for example!)
Once the plane is in the air, the load is off the legs...the strain is
gone...at least the strain from the craft's weight. And while flying,
even if there was a method to transfer the measured load from the legs
to the wings, that would change constantly with attitude and g forces.
The only way I can see the airbus weighing themselves right after take
off is a differential between the reading on the ground motionless, and
when flying level...after that, I would think that any "weight" reading
would be interpolated from fuel burn rate and not an actual weight.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
glen matejcek wrote:
>
> IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right after
> takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Living without an audio panel |
I know this has been discussed before, please excuse, I am still confused
.
My intercom will accept one monaural input.
I want to simply "twist" all the low level audio outputs together from the
various boxes to the intercom (then solder or crimp). This will make the
volume control on the box and its on-off switch the control for that unit.
What do I put in line between the intercom input and each box? resistor,
diode, snapjack, or do I need a small isolation amplifier?
On switching the comm, I assume I need a 4pdt (on-on) to switch===
==-mic,
ptt, indicator light, and audio low so I don't get confused which comm I
am
listening to while transmitting?
Or is there a simple way to maybe add a resistor to the switch so that the
non-transmitting comm is still on but with a reduced output?
Thank you, Skip Simpson
**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops =93
Shop
Now!
=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
On 2 Jul 2009, at 08:29, glen matejcek wrote:
> >
>
> IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right
> after
> takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
I've done flight testing on most of the Airbus family, and this is the
first I've ever heard of this. The fly-by-wire Airbus aircraft do
have a backup CG calculation that uses airspeed, weight and stabilizer
angle. This serves to crosscheck the CG that is calculated from the
crew entered values of zero fuel weight and CG. Maybe this is what
you were thinking of.
--
Kevin Horton (Grounded)
RV-8 (Flight Test Phase)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
At 07:54 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Just finished reading AEC and new to forum, building RV-7. I have 2
>questions related to forum administration:
>
>1. Why is it that when I search the archives on a particular topic,
>and I view one of the threads that came up in the search, I cannot
>return to the "search results" page by pressing "back" in my
>browser? Instead I get a "web page expired" and have to repeat the
>search - every time! Truly a pain. I do not have this problem on
>other forums, just matronics.
Hmmm . . . could be a browser thing. I'm using Firefox
and when I select an item from the search results page,
it opens that selection in a new tab. I can go back
to the previous tab at any time and make further
selections.
Tried it with IE8 and got a good search results
page but when I selected an item for viewing, it
opened a new window and went into interminable "waiting
for matronics.com" annunciation . Gave up after a couple
of minutes.
>2. Is there a way yo get an RSS feed from this forum to my home page?
Don't think Matt has offered this feature. You'll need
to rattle his cage on that one.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
At 07:29 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right after
>takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
Hmmmm . . . that perhaps answers some questions
about maintain strain gage calibration that accounts
for creep in offsets. Waiting until after t.o to
display weight gets them a "zero weight" value off
the gear stress sensors that becomes a new baseline
for the next weighing action.
But that does beg the question as to what's the
value of knowing that you're over-gross/out-of-CG
AFTER takeoff?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
On 2 Jul 2009, at 08:54, Noah wrote:
>
> Just finished reading AEC and new to forum, building RV-7. I have 2
> questions related to forum administration:
>
> 1. Why is it that when I search the archives on a particular topic,
> and I view one of the threads that came up in the search, I cannot
> return to the "search results" page by pressing "back" in my
> browser? Instead I get a "web page expired" and have to repeat the
> search - every time! Truly a pain. I do not have this problem on
> other forums, just matronics.
Most web browsers allow you to open a link in a new window or tab,
keeping the original window available. Then when you close the window
for the new link, the old window with the search results is still
there. The exact way to do this varies from browser to browser, and
operating system to operating system. For many browsers in many
operating systems you would press and hold the Ctrl key, then click
the link.
--
Kevin Horton (Grounded)
RV-8 (Flight Test Phase)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
Good Morning aerobubba,
Any of us can do the same if we wish to go to the trouble of getting highl
y
accurate calibration of all factors involved. For any specific weight and
any specific angle of attack there will be just one speed at which the
aircraft will leave the ground.
If we note that speed and adjust for all the other pertinent factors we
will have the weight.
I have used that technique to some degree when flying the DC-8 in a charte
r
operation. I found that if my weight really was what the paperwork said
it
was and I initiated rotation when the book said I should, the DC-8 would
leave the surface at a nine degree nose up attitude. When I started to fi
nd
airplanes in the charter operation that didn't do what I expected, I bega
n
to evaluate each takeoff very carefully.
If I rotated to nine degrees and it did not fly, I held the nine degrees
until it did lift off. I would then add two thousand pounds to whatever
my
weight manifest said for each knot above the normal lift off speed that I
attained by holding the nine degrees. If I then added that extra weight to
my
performance calculations, all became normal.
As an example, if the lift off speed was ten knots higher than had been
calculated I would be twenty thousand pounds heavier than the paperwork
showed. By using that new weight to establish climb and cruise numbers,
the
airplane would deliver the performance required. Hopefully, modern techni
ques
for gathering the data for weight manifests have improved drastically in
the
thirty-five plus years since I flew those charters, but it worked well for
me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 7/2/2009 7:44:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glen matejcek"
IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right after
takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops =93
Shop
Now!
=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
>For example, when the 5,000 gallon processors were full of product
>being manufactured, even a fork truck driving by in an aisle outside
>the room would change the readings...the act of mixing the product
>would change the readings...even trying to massage the information
>we were getting from the gauges through computers only worked when
>everything was still...running water or other liquids into the
>process could only be accurately measured after the fluids had
>stopped sloshing around.
Yeah. I recall an associate once describing strain
gage technology akin to working with tweezers
under a microscope during an earthquake. It's
truly an exercise in sifting grains of sugar
from the rock salt. The artful application of
strain gages has been enhanced by advances in
software analysis of noise-laden micro-signals.
Computers made a huge improvement in accuracy and
resolution of slow moving data but if you're
wanting to measure vibration or other rapidly
changing data over long periods of time, it's
a whole new ball game.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Living without an audio panel |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
>>
>> Just finished reading AEC and new to forum, building RV-7. I have 2
>> questions related to forum administration:
>>
>> 1. Why is it that when I search the archives on a particular topic,
>> and I view one of the threads that came up in the search, I cannot
>> return to the "search results" page by pressing "back" in my
>> browser? Instead I get a "web page expired" and have to repeat the
>> search - every time! Truly a pain. I do not have this problem on
>> other forums, just matronics.
>
> Most web browsers allow you to open a link in a new window or tab,
> keeping the original window available. Then when you close the window
> for the new link, the old window with the search results is still
> there. The exact way to do this varies from browser to browser, and
> operating system to operating system. For many browsers in many
> operating systems you would press and hold the Ctrl key, then click
> the link.
>
> --
> Kevin Horton (Grounded)
> RV-8 (Flight Test Phase)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
With Firefix, just right click the link and select "Open in a new
Window" or "Open in a new Tab".
However, when I write something for my website, I include "Target=blank"
in the html code for any links so that ANY browser using it will open a
new window or tab without being asked or ordered to.
IMHO, all web authors using html should do this to prevent just the
problem that's mentioned above.
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Living without an audio panel |
At 08:28 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>I know this has been discussed before, please excuse, I am still confused.
>
>My intercom will accept one monaural input.
>
>I want to simply "twist" all the low level audio outputs together
>from the various boxes to the intercom (then solder or crimp). This
>will make the volume control on the box and its on-off switch the
>control for that unit.
>
>What do I put in line between the intercom input and each
>box? resistor, diode, snapjack, or do I need a small isolation amplifier?
Try series resistors as passive mixing devices. This
will take some fiddling but it may get you by. This
is described in figure 18-4 and associated text of
the 'Connection.
Alternatively, consider a small mixing (audio iso)
amplifier. An exemplar DIY project is offered at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf
there's a number of off-the-self products out there
too. Somebody announced their new offerings here
on the List a few weeks ago.
I've had a number of requests for the ECB to
build an amplifier from scratch. I'm putting the
bare ECB back on the website catalog in a few
minutes.
>
>On switching the comm, I assume I need a 4pdt (on-on) to
>switch=====-mic, ptt, indicator light, and audio low so I don't get
>confused which comm I am listening to while transmitting?
>
>Or is there a simple way to maybe add a resistor to the switch so
>that the non-transmitting comm is still on but with a reduced output?
I don't know if that's available even in the super-whizzy
audio panels. It can be done but certainly calls for a
lot of development effort.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
Perhaps knowing something about the weight and CG in case you need to make a landing,
especially an emergency landing? JR
----- Original Message ----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:19:08 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: self weighing our planes
At 07:29 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
> IIRC, the Airbus A-320 family of aircraft weigh themselves. Right after
> takeoff, and for the reasons cited previously...
Hmmmm . . . that perhaps answers some questions
about maintain strain gage calibration that accounts
for creep in offsets. Waiting until after t.o to
display weight gets them a "zero weight" value off
the gear stress sensors that becomes a new baseline
for the next weighing action.
But that does beg the question as to what's the
value of knowing that you're over-gross/out-of-CG
AFTER takeoff?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
At 10:12 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Perhaps knowing something about the weight and CG in case you need
>to make a landing, especially an emergency landing? JR
>
But is it not an FAA mandate (and a damned good
idea) that the pilot know that weight and balance
limits have been checked BEFORE takeoff?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: self weighing our planes |
Good Morning Bob,
It has to do with something like: "The best laid plans of mice and men
------ "
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/2/2009 10:22:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 10:12 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Perhaps knowing something about the weight and CG in case you need
>to make a landing, especially an emergency landing? JR
>
But is it not an FAA mandate (and a damned good
idea) that the pilot know that weight and balance
limits have been checked BEFORE takeoff?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
**************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops =93
Shop
Now!
=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
| From: | "Noah" <sgninc(at)cox.net> |
Thanks for the responses guys.
Bob, just curious why you started a new thread rather than respond to my original
post, keeping this discussion all in one thread?
Kevin, I'm using IE-7, and you suggest a reasonable workaround by opening a new
tab. Sometimes, however, opening a new tab can take up to 30 seconds do display
anything. In any event, I'm still not clear why I can do this without issue
on other forums (VAF for instance) and why it's different here. Perhaps Matt
can fix this. Google Chrome also does not exhibit this behavior.
Another feature I like on some other forums is that from the home page or search
results page, you can "hover over" the thread title to read the first couple
of sentences of the first post. VERY handy to see if it's something worth reading
without taking the time to click in, wait, read, and click back out. It's
all about reducing mouse clicks, you know!
--------
Highest Regards,
Noah Forden
RV-7A
Rhode Island
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=251165#251165
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Forum Search Problem & RSS Feed Question
From: "Noah" <sgninc(at)cox.net>
Thanks for the responses guys.
Bob, just curious why you started a new thread rather than respond to
my original post, keeping this discussion all in one thread?
Don't think I did. This is a reply to the original
from my trash bin just as it came to me about 8:00 this
morning
-------------------------
At 07:54 AM 7/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Just finished reading AEC and new to forum, building RV-7. I have 2
>questions related to forum administration:
>
>1. Why is it that when I search the archives on a particular topic,
>and I view one of the threads that came up in the search, I cannot
>return to the "search results" page by pressing "back" in my
>browser? Instead I get a "web page expired" and have to repeat the
>search - every time! Truly a pain. I do not have this problem on
>other forums, just matronics.
>
>2. Is there a way yo get an RSS feed from this forum to my home page?
>
>Thanks,
>
>----------------------
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: self weighing our planes |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> One big problem will be that as you add weight, and the gear flexes,
> the bottom end of the gear legs need to move outwards. If you are
> stopped, the friction between the tires and the ground prevent the
> bottom ends of the gear legs from spreading apart. Once you start to
> move, and the wheels roll, the wheels will spread apart a bit to allow
> the gear legs to take up their new natural position. So, once the
> aircraft is loaded, you won't get a repeatable measurement until the
> aircraft rolls a few feet. If while the aircraft is rolling, a tire
> comes upon a piece of ground that is not even from side to side, that
> will tend to make the wheel roll a bit to the left or right of its
> natural position, which will affect the strain on the upper end of the
> gear leg, changing the strain gauge output.
>
> There is no harm in conducting the experiment, but I'm not optimistic
> that you would be able to get acceptable accuracy in the real world.
> I'll be amazed if you get accuracy better than 100 lb.
>
I'd expect that what you'd get is a readout that bounced around. The
question is, does it bounce around the middle of your W&B range, or is
it bouncing around one of the extremes? If you use it for a sanity
check, it could be a useful tool. No one really needs the weight to
within a 1/4 oz anyway, just whether the wife was lying about how many
shoes she was taking. If you're trying to use it to get an exact W&B,
I'd say you were fooling yourself.
BTW, Kevin. If I were within 100lbs of gross or 1/2" of my CG limit,
I'd be reweighing stuff and re-doing my calculation a couple more times
with extra care anyway 8*)
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | AEC Products - Future Z Revisions? |
Given:
Electrically Dependent Engine
Internally Regulated Alternator
Z-19 + Z-24
AEC 9005 Discontinued
AEC 9004 & AEC 9011 to be available at a later date.
Question:
How to best accomplish OV/LV Control with Automatic Aux Battery Contactor
Control?
My thoughts:
AEC 9011 doesn't appear to have an output capable of the Aux Battery
Contactor Automatic control, and therefore might not be appropriate in this
example as an alternate replacement for the AEC 9005.
It appears that the #1 terminal of the AEC 9004 might be used to not only
control the Alternator OV Disconnect Contactor but also to offer automatic
control of the Aux Battery Contactor.
Or would something such as the LVWAABM by Eric Jones have to be employed in
addition to the AEC 9004?
Gordon Smith
June 23, 2009 - July 02, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iu