AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iw
July 15, 2009 - July 31, 2009
> After all the great info and advice I got on the fuses, I thought I
> would try asking about contacters too [Wink] .
>
> The aircraft manufacturer, and the engine manual both give a wiring
> diagram that does NOT include a master contacter. The battery
> positive goes directly to a master switch, and then to the main bus.
>
> This is the first time I have seen a configuration like this
> (without the contacter). What are the advantages, and disadvantages
> of doing it this way? My maximum current draw is around 10A, so
> well within the continuous current range of a small toggle switch.
>
> Thanks!
> Justin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253209#253209
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | D.A.R question about fuse access |
At 11:39 AM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>I wonder how a DAR would look upon Vertical Power. No fuses. You
>have a control box in the panel that you can reset a "failed"
>circuit, but that's it. There's no ability to "change fuses in flight".
. . . but you can 'reset' a tripped circuit under software
control. One of the BIG arguments for breakers over fuses
was the ease of resetting and low risk for dropping a fuse
holder's cap . . .
Emacs!
. . . not to mention relief from having to carry
spare fuses. The advantages are inarguable. Over the past
20+ years we've developed various tools for fault current
protection including remotely controlled circuit breakers
and sundry electronic fault detection and reaction systems.
The Eclipse 500 had no breakers in the cockpit but pilots
had access to LOTS of breakers via flat screens and
software.
But getting back to simple ideas: Fuses/breakers/other are
intended to protect the airframe from hard faults that put
other systems if not the entire airframe at risk. Once
that fault occurs, the system is out of business. It's
a good idea to make the event known to the crew . . . but
resetting is 99.99% never useful or a good idea. It was
reported that repeated resets of the cabin heater breaker
on an airplane carrying Ricky Nelson may have figured in
the fire that brought the airplane down.
The prudent rule for tripped breakers and fuses (that are
sized to avoid nuisance trips) is leave them alone until on
the ground. Should it be that said breaker powers something
you really need . . . then so much for failure tolerance
(or perhaps even the decision to launch).
From my personal sense of elegant solutions, the idea
that replacing a perfectly good 25 cent fuse with hardware
that is larger, more expensive, higher parts count, and
perhaps driven by software does not make the airplane
cost less, assemble faster or perform better . . .
nor is it a positive return on investment.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D.A.R question about fuse access |
I can't reach any of my fuses in flight. I did this by design. I
don't want to be tempted to fiddle with them. There isn't anything in
my panel (VFR day/night) that will kill me if it fails, but fiddling
with fuses when I should be flying the airplane can kill me.
My DAR didn't ask. Some might. Just answer that there isn't any
electrical circuit in your airplane that you can't LIVE without. If he/
she has a problem with that answer then make sure and warn your fellow
builders about that DAR so that he/she may be avoided.
Phil Birkelbach
Houston RV7 - 727WB
phil(at)petrasoft.net
http://www.myrv7.com/
On Jul 15, 2009, at 2:19 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
>
> I'm confused by this thread. Are you telling me that the D.A.R. is
> going to REQUIRE that my fuse block be accessible in flight? (Mine
> isn't.) Or are you just telling me I need to have a rap prepared to
> respond to the question.
>
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contacter, or not? |
| From: | "heisan" <justin(at)expertron.co.za> |
The battery is mounted around 12" from the starter, and 20" from the panel. All
'heavy' current wires are fairly short.
I really like the idea of making it as simple as possible. Added complexity just
means extra failure points.
I will definitely go for a fusible link and a switch.
Thanks for the info.
Justin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253233#253233
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | D.A.R question about fuse access |
Tom,
Absolutely not. You will find 100's of units with fuse blocks in very
un-reachable positions. Do a little searching on Google. Remember, we
are experimental - use poly fuses, fuse links or whatever you like. What
folks are saying is that should any individual component be lost, be
sure you can do without it (yes, Mr./Ms. DAR I can do without that).
Period. Most prefer not trying to fix the broken thingy in flight, but
rather get it down and tend to it on the ground. As Bob indicated failed
items most often have nothing to do with the fuse/breaker.
Stick and rudder folks know you really only need an airspeed indicator
to get down safely in VFR. Make it a good one.
Fuses are great and certainly reduce the owner's cost. I do like having
breakers on my alternators to kill them if necessary. There again if the
alternator breaker is popping for any reason than the occasional power
surge, just leave it out and get down until fixed.
Glenn
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Birkelbach
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D.A.R question about fuse access
I can't reach any of my fuses in flight. I did this by design. I don't
want to be tempted to fiddle with them. There isn't anything in my
panel (VFR day/night) that will kill me if it fails, but fiddling with
fuses when I should be flying the airplane can kill me.
My DAR didn't ask. Some might. Just answer that there isn't any
electrical circuit in your airplane that you can't LIVE without. If
he/she has a problem with that answer then make sure and warn your
fellow builders about that DAR so that he/she may be avoided.
Phil Birkelbach
Houston RV7 - 727WB
phil(at)petrasoft.net
http://www.myrv7.com/
On Jul 15, 2009, at 2:19 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
I'm confused by this thread. Are you telling me that the D.A.R. is
going to REQUIRE that my fuse block be accessible in flight? (Mine
isn't.) Or are you just telling me I need to have a rap prepared to
respond to the question.
--
Tom Sargent
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
o
ntribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Automotive blade fuses? |
Good Evening Sarge,
Do we really need fuses of that low an amperage?
Seems to me that what we need to protect are the wires. Unless you have
awfully small diameter wires, five amp should be as small as you need. Five
amp will protect a number twenty-two wire. That is as small as I ever use!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/15/2009 2:42:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
sarg314(at)gmail.com writes:
Autozone has them, but only in values used commonly in cars. For your
plane you will need a lot of small values - 1 or 2 or 3 amps. I doubt you'll
find those at autozone or checker. B&C Specialty has them.
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
slove00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: D.A.R question about fuse access |
Good Evening Glenn,
My primary instructor kept the airspeed covered up most of the time. I
learned to control airspeed via the sound and by the feel of the controls.
Who needs an airspeed indicator?
I may not be able to hold it dead on a specific number, but I can sure stay
fast enough to avoid a stall and slow enough to get it stopped in a
reasonable distance!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/15/2009 4:43:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
longg(at)pjm.com writes:
Stick and rudder folks know you really only need an airspeed indicator to
get down safely in VFR. Make it a good one.
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
slove00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contacter, or not? |
At 02:42 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>After all the great info and advice I got on the fuses, I thought I
>would try asking about contacters too [Wink] .
>
>The aircraft manufacturer, and the engine manual both give a wiring
>diagram that does NOT include a master contacter. The battery
>positive goes directly to a master switch, and then to the main bus.
>
>This is the first time I have seen a configuration like this
>(without the contacter). What are the advantages, and disadvantages
>of doing it this way? My maximum current draw is around 10A, so
>well within the continuous current range of a small toggle switch.
The legacy design goal for a battery master
disconnect is to provide a means by which nearly
all wiring in the airplane is 'cold' when the
disconnect is open. If the battery is conveniently
located then some form of manual switch can be
considered. Perhaps like this?
Emacs!
Emacs!
The next reason for a battery master disconnect is
to provide a means by which the battery can be
shut off if the starter contactor (solenoid)
sticks.
If the battery master cannot positioned conveniently
for manual operation, then perhaps a contactor is
indicated. These can be low power devices like the
EV series devices from TYCO . . . but it's pretty
easy to make an el-cheeso contactor emulate the
low power characteristics of the TYCO device.
Finally, a couple of guys on the list were working
on versions of remotely controlled, manual switches
like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
In any case, there's two good reasons for a battery
master disconnect. The style is up to you as is
the choice for installing one.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Automotive blade fuses? |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
Well, yes, protecting the wire is the main task of the fuse. But If I have
a device that I know should only use a fraction of an amp (my avionics
cooling fan for example) and it starts drawing 2 amps, there's probably
something seriously wrong with it. It will be toast long before the #22
wire (or a 5 amp fuse) ever burns up. The little thing could melt itself on
2 measly amps. So I put a 2 amp fuse on it. That still protects the wire
and will keep the smoke level down in the cockpit. The fan is probably dead
either way.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
> Good Evening Sarge,
>
> Do we really need fuses of that low an amperage?
>
> Seems to me that what we need to protect are the wires. Unless you have
> awfully small diameter wires, five amp should be as small as you need. Five
> amp will protect a number twenty-two wire. That is as small as I ever use!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 7/15/2009 2:42:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> sarg314(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> Autozone has them, but only in values used commonly in cars. For your
> plane you will need a lot of small values - 1 or 2 or 3 amps. I doubt
> you'll find those at autozone or checker. B&C Specialty has them.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Contacter, or not? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Bob,
Your comments gave me another idea.. If you only have 12-14A to play with
(little dynamo), and the airplane has a starter.. And your normal running
power budget is a fairly high percentage of the output of the dynamo..
One could install a battery contactor (or starter relay) just for running
the starter - in series with any starter/engine mounted relay/solenoid.
Once the engine is running, the current draw from the monster contactor
can be eliminated and you can drop back to a more power-frugal relay for
driving the rest of the electronics on the airplane - a relay installed in
parallel. I can't think of any downside.
Regards,
Matt-
> At 02:42 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>After all the great info and advice I got on the fuses, I thought I
>>would try asking about contacters too [Wink] .
>>
>>The aircraft manufacturer, and the engine manual both give a wiring
>>diagram that does NOT include a master contacter. The battery
>>positive goes directly to a master switch, and then to the main bus.
>>
>>This is the first time I have seen a configuration like this
>>(without the contacter). What are the advantages, and disadvantages
>>of doing it this way? My maximum current draw is around 10A, so
>>well within the continuous current range of a small toggle switch.
>
> The legacy design goal for a battery master
> disconnect is to provide a means by which nearly
> all wiring in the airplane is 'cold' when the
> disconnect is open. If the battery is conveniently
> located then some form of manual switch can be
> considered. Perhaps like this?
>
> Emacs!
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> The next reason for a battery master disconnect is
> to provide a means by which the battery can be
> shut off if the starter contactor (solenoid)
> sticks.
>
> If the battery master cannot positioned conveniently
> for manual operation, then perhaps a contactor is
> indicated. These can be low power devices like the
> EV series devices from TYCO . . . but it's pretty
> easy to make an el-cheeso contactor emulate the
> low power characteristics of the TYCO device.
>
> Finally, a couple of guys on the list were working
> on versions of remotely controlled, manual switches
> like this:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
>
> In any case, there's two good reasons for a battery
> master disconnect. The style is up to you as is
> the choice for installing one.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick and Sandra Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com> |
That is really what you should be using (is ATO blade type fuses) over
the
>glass fuses. From our experience, using glass fuses has many negatives
and
>they aren't something we'd really recommend for airplanes anymore.
Bob> Absolutely! These have fragile internal connections at
the ends of the fusible links . . . they also used large
area, low pressure connections in their holders. Not
gas-tight.
Hi all: 1st time posting to this list.
Years ago I owned a "75 Celica GT that had an electric fuel pump. The
car kept quitting for no apparent reason (usually when my girlfriend
drove it). Ended up my favorite auto mechanic found the fuse end cap
was loose that fed the fuel pump. There is no way I would use glass
fuses for anything in an aircraft.
Regards
Rick Lark
Southampton, Ont
RV10
#40956
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contacter, or not? |
At 06:50 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Your comments gave me another idea.. If you only have 12-14A to play with
>(little dynamo), and the airplane has a starter.. And your normal running
>power budget is a fairly high percentage of the output of the dynamo..
>One could install a battery contactor (or starter relay) just for running
>the starter - in series with any starter/engine mounted relay/solenoid.
>Once the engine is running, the current draw from the monster contactor
>can be eliminated and you can drop back to a more power-frugal relay for
>driving the rest of the electronics on the airplane - a relay installed in
>parallel. I can't think of any downside.
That would work too. I'm thinking that for small airplanes,
the manual battery switch makes the most sense. They're light
and inexpensive.
I've got a prototype contactor power manager on the bench but
didn't get to finish evaluating it before I had to pull
the plugs and start moving equipment and inventory.
It would allow the builder to achieve low power operation
with an el-cheeso contactor. Further, if the contactor
needs replacing, you don't have to replace the associated
electronics too . . . and 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: D.A.R question about fuse access |
At 05:25 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>Good Evening Glenn,
>
>My primary instructor kept the airspeed covered up most of the time.
>I learned to control airspeed via the sound and by the feel of the controls.
>
>Who needs an airspeed indicator?
Only those not skilled in doing without them. When I
checked out new renters in our 150's I used to demonstrate
that "sticking the upper edge of the cowl on the
horizon" got you an 80 mph climb. I further demonstrated
that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
in the pattern.
I found this necessary/useful when new renters were
transitioning to an uncontrolled field sharing a 5
mile radius with 5 other uncontrolled fields. It was
a good idea to keep your eyes on the surrounding
environment as opposed to sticking the needles on some
finely tuned value for speeds and power.
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> |
At 09:06 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>That is really what you should be using (is ATO blade type fuses) over the
> >glass fuses. From our experience, using glass fuses has many negatives and
> >they aren't something we'd really recommend for airplanes anymore.
>
> Bob> Absolutely! These have fragile internal connections at
> the ends of the fusible links . . . they also used large
> area, low pressure connections in their holders. Not
> gas-tight.
>
>Hi all: 1st time posting to this list.
Welcome aboard sir!
>
>Years ago I owned a "75 Celica GT that had an electric fuel
>pump. The car kept quitting for no apparent reason (usually when my
>girlfriend drove it). Ended up my favorite auto mechanic found the
>fuse end cap was loose that fed the fuel pump. There is no way I
>would use glass fuses for anything in an aircraft.
Hmmm . . . that too. I've seen those critters get
'unhooked' inside on several occasions myself. Those
little two-legged plastic critters may look cheesy
but they're the culmination of a century of lessons
learned and recipes for success with very long
field histories.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Solid State Relays |
Saw these
http://www.futurlec.com/RelSS.shtml
and for $20 they look like possible replacements for the common
electro-mechanical relays that we now use. These are light, compact, and
very reliable. But I don't know if there are gradations of MOSFETs or if
they're just basic building blocks. The cost of these is about 1/8 of an
almost identical Teledyne unit and I wonder if "you get what you pay
for" is appropriate to apply here? Or is Teledyne just passing on the
costs of marketing, regulatory environment, lawyers, pensions, etc?
The only obvious downside that is evident from the data sheet is that
the load capability starts falling off at about 60 deg C, so
installation in an engine compartment is off the table without a blast
tube and heatsink.
One of these has a load spec of 240VAC @ 70A and another specs 100VDC @
40A. I'd rather have more amperage capacity. Do solid state relays care
whether the load is DC or AC?
What think you all?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an
in-line "glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is
ON. I put my only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the
firewall. It's hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches
long - with no chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick and Sandra Lark
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
That is really what you should be using (is ATO blade type fuses) over
the
>glass fuses. From our experience, using glass fuses has many
negatives and
>they aren't something we'd really recommend for airplanes anymore.
Bob> Absolutely! These have fragile internal connections at
the ends of the fusible links . . . they also used large
area, low pressure connections in their holders. Not
gas-tight.
Hi all: 1st time posting to this list.
Years ago I owned a "75 Celica GT that had an electric fuel pump. The
car kept quitting for no apparent reason (usually when my girlfriend
drove it). Ended up my favorite auto mechanic found the fuse end cap
was loose that fed the fuel pump. There is no way I would use glass
fuses for anything in an aircraft.
Regards
Rick Lark
Southampton, Ont
RV10
#40956
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid State Relays |
OK, I should've gone to the archives BEFORE I posted this thread.
But the objection 11/2 yrs ago was a voltage drop of 1.5 @ 12v. These
claim .35v @30V. Did the earlier versions claim a similarly low V drop?
I guess the only way to be sure is to buy one and test it.
JB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | D.A.R question about fuse access |
Bob,
Too funny! So true - I have had the same experience in the Pitts - you
can feel when it's right. The Pitts will let you know when it's not. In
a Lanciar, I find it behaves best when flown by the numbers. I should
throw in a caveat of "the last standing instrument I'd enjoy having"
Remember, flying is easy - the plane will always go where you point it,
except when you are too slow. Don't do that.
Have a great day.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D.A.R question about fuse access
At 05:25 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
Good Evening Glenn,
My primary instructor kept the airspeed covered up most of the time. I
learned to control airspeed via the sound and by the feel of the
controls.
Who needs an airspeed indicator?
Only those not skilled in doing without them. When I
checked out new renters in our 150's I used to demonstrate
that "sticking the upper edge of the cowl on the
horizon" got you an 80 mph climb. I further demonstrated
that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
in the pattern.
I found this necessary/useful when new renters were
transitioning to an uncontrolled field sharing a 5
mile radius with 5 other uncontrolled fields. It was
a good idea to keep your eyes on the surrounding
environment as opposed to sticking the needles on some
finely tuned value for speeds and power.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid State Relays |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
If I read the data correctly, it appears these relays are only rated at 3A
continuous which even fairly small switches can handle. Not sure why
you'd pick the relay over a switch unless you wanted to use a micro-micro
switch to control something.
Also, a few other issues:
- It's rated for AC. Not sure how it will perform controlling a DC load.
- The forward voltage drop seems like it might be large - up to 1.5V at
peak current. Not only is that a bit of a performance hit, it will
generate some heat. The app notes specify to provide adequate
ventilation.
- Don't know what behavior you might see if the load tried to drive the
source - might not be bidirectional.
Regards,
Matt-
> Saw these
> http://www.futurlec.com/RelSS.shtml
> and for $20 they look like possible replacements for the common
> electro-mechanical relays that we now use. These are light, compact, and
very reliable. But I don't know if there are gradations of MOSFETs or if
they're just basic building blocks. The cost of these is about 1/8 of an
almost identical Teledyne unit and I wonder if "you get what you pay
for"
> is appropriate to apply here? Or is Teledyne just passing on the costs
of
> marketing, regulatory environment, lawyers, pensions, etc?
>
> The only obvious downside that is evident from the data sheet is that
the
> load capability starts falling off at about 60 deg C, so installation in
an engine compartment is off the table without a blast tube and
heatsink.
>
> One of these has a load spec of 240VAC @ 70A and another specs 100VDC @
40A. I'd rather have more amperage capacity. Do solid state relays care
whether the load is DC or AC?
>
> What think you all?
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid State Relays |
I think you may have looked at the wrong part. You have to go down to
the bottom of the page to find the high amp rated DC units.
That said, see my previous email.
Dick Tasker
Matt Prather wrote:
>
> If I read the data correctly, it appears these relays are only rated at 3A
> continuous which even fairly small switches can handle. Not sure why
> you'd pick the relay over a switch unless you wanted to use a micro-micro
> switch to control something.
>
> Also, a few other issues:
>
> - It's rated for AC. Not sure how it will perform controlling a DC load.
> - The forward voltage drop seems like it might be large - up to 1.5V at
> peak current. Not only is that a bit of a performance hit, it will
> generate some heat. The app notes specify to provide adequate
> ventilation.
> - Don't know what behavior you might see if the load tried to drive the
> source - might not be bidirectional.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid State Relays |
The 0.35V drop only applies to the low voltage assemblies which are not
listed at Futurlec. They only show the 100V and 200V for sale and they
have a much higher voltage drop at a lower current.
The 30V versions look very attractive with the 0.007 milliohm on
resistance at 50A.
However, they say nothing about reverse voltage, so I would have to
assume that these are only good for supplying power to a load and not
good for use where there could be a reverse voltage on them - such as
what would occur if you were trying to use two of these to switch two
different batteries to a common load.
Dick Tasker
John Burnaby wrote:
> OK, I should've gone to the archives BEFORE I posted this thread.
> But the objection 11/2 yrs ago was a voltage drop of 1.5 @ 12v. These
> claim .35v @30V. Did the earlier versions claim a similarly low V drop?
> I guess the only way to be sure is to buy one and test it.
>
> JB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D.A.R question about fuse access |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 05:25 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>> Good Evening Glenn,
>>
>> My primary instructor kept the airspeed covered up most of the time.
>> I learned to control airspeed via the sound and by the feel of the
>> controls.
>>
>> Who needs an airspeed indicator?
>
> Only those not skilled in doing without them. When I
> checked out new renters in our 150's I used to demonstrate
> that "sticking the upper edge of the cowl on the
> horizon" got you an 80 mph climb. I further demonstrated
> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
> in the pattern.
That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has to be
recalibrated for some of us 8*)
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better choice
with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the same reasons
that the automotive world went blade style to replace the "old technology"
"glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no low pressure contacts
to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A. http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae
Similar holders are available for the Maxi series as well if you require
higher ratings.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an in-line
"glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is ON. I put my
only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the firewall. It's
hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches long - with no
chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick and Sandra Lark <mailto:jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
That is really what you should be using (is ATO blade type fuses) over the
>glass fuses. From our experience, using glass fuses has many negatives and
>they aren't something we'd really recommend for airplanes anymore.
Bob> Absolutely! These have fragile internal connections at
the ends of the fusible links . . . they also used large
area, low pressure connections in their holders. Not
gas-tight.
Hi all: 1st time posting to this list.
Years ago I owned a "75 Celica GT that had an electric fuel pump. The car
kept quitting for no apparent reason (usually when my girlfriend drove it).
Ended up my favorite auto mechanic found the fuse end cap was loose that fed
the fuel pump. There is no way I would use glass fuses for anything in an
aircraft.
Regards
Rick Lark
Southampton, Ont
RV10
#40956
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Situational awareness as an instrument of flight. |
>> Only those not skilled in doing without them. When I
>> checked out new renters in our 150's I used to demonstrate
>> that "sticking the upper edge of the cowl on the
>> horizon" got you an 80 mph climb. I further demonstrated
>> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
>> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
>> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
>> in the pattern.
>That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has to
>be recalibrated for some of us 8*)
Yeah . . . that's why I was happy the thing averaged
80 . . .
Short guys IAS was a little slower, taller guys were
a little faster but rate of climb wasn't enough different
to worry about. Bottom line was that it kept the
guy's eyeballs out of the cockpit in the airport traffic
area.
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: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight |
redux
>>> . . . . I further demonstrated
>>> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
>>> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
>>> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
>>> in the pattern.
>>That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has
>>to be recalibrated for some of us 8*)
>
> Yeah . . . that's why I was happy the thing averaged
> 80 . . .
>
> Short guys IAS was a little slower,
Got that backwards! Must have been too much
hauling furniture in the 100+ heat for two
days! Obviously, if the individual is shorter
then for any given deck angle, his response
would be to LOWER the nose to bring it back
into alignment with the horizon, i.e. IAS
will he HIGHER for the same gross weight,
and power setting. Had hard time getting
to sleep last night thinking about it and
discovering my brain-f#@t . . .
Probably need to avoid heavy thinking for a
few days. We got Dr. Dee's office spaces
90% moved (probably 1000 pounds of books
and another 500 pounds of filing cabinets.
I'm trying whole-house wi-fi to avoid
stringing lots of cat-5 cable. After an
arm wrestling match with "Network Magic"
I tossed it out and studied the semi-lame
instructions for the router. Got it to
come up nicely with the MAC address filtering
mode for security so the ground has been
prepared for expanding the network to the
house and shop.
When Dad built this house, I strung hundreds
of feet of of twin-lead antenna and twisted-pair phone
lines around. Today, none of those wires
are in use. A single strand of glass comes to
the back of the house to deliver telephone,
high speed Internet, and soon to be TV. Both
Internet and telephone are hardwired from the
fiber modem to network nodes that move
all data around the house over spread-
spectrum radio.
My Dad would be fascinated with all that is
changing with the house he built in 4 years
of "spare" time 44 years ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness as |
an instrument of flight redux
Bob et al...
Since we are quickly moving to a wireless world...
I haven't seen wireless aircraft headsets.
This seems like an ideal application for the technology.
Is anyone making such a device?
Chris Stone
RV-8
Oregon
> I'm trying whole-house wi-fi to avoid
> stringing lots of cat-5 cable. After an
> arm wrestling match with "Network Magic"
> I tossed it out and studied the semi-lame
> instructions for the router. Got it to
> come up nicely with the MAC address filtering
> mode for security so the ground has been
> prepared for expanding the network to the
> house and shop.
>>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | D.A.R question about fuse access |
Ernest, you are definitely a geek. Why not try an electric engine?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D.A.R question about fuse access
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 05:25 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>> Good Evening Glenn,
>>
>> My primary instructor kept the airspeed covered up most of the time.
>> I learned to control airspeed via the sound and by the feel of the
>> controls.
>>
>> Who needs an airspeed indicator?
>
> Only those not skilled in doing without them. When I
> checked out new renters in our 150's I used to demonstrate
> that "sticking the upper edge of the cowl on the
> horizon" got you an 80 mph climb. I further demonstrated
> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
> in the pattern.
That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has to be
recalibrated for some of us 8*)
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuseblock drawings |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view? I am
looking for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of the fuse
size, and the wire that attaches to it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: offtopic: the goodie of todays communication |
world
At 08:40 AM 7/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>off topic as not aircraft related.
>
>Bob, you can go even a step further, my Audio setup consists of
>several Logitech boxes (squeezebox receiver, boom, duett
><http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/products/overview.html>)
Interesting! I'll check it out. Thanks!
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: Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness |
as an instrument of flight redux
At 08:41 AM 7/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob et al...
>
>Since we are quickly moving to a wireless world...
>I haven't seen wireless aircraft headsets.
>This seems like an ideal application for the technology.
You got that right. I'm thinking I saw an article
on a DIY OBAM aircraft wireless headset project but don't
recall where. Getting one 'approved' to go into an airplane
might be another matter. But totally wireless would be
a real breath of fresh air in the cockpit of most
airplanes.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuseblock drawings |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Sam,
Here is a dwg file and a pdf drawing of the 8-fuse block that is in my airplane.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:49 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuseblock drawings
Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view?? I am looking
for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of the fuse size, and
the wire that attaches to it.
Thanks.
Sam Hoskins
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuseblock drawings |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Great, Jay! Saved me a bunch of time!
Sam
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM, wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Here is a dwg file and a pdf drawing of the 8-fuse block that is in my
> airplane.
>
> Jay Bannister
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
> To: Aerolectric List
> Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:49 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuseblock drawings
>
> Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view? I am
> looking for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of the fuse
> size, and the wire that attaches to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John B Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com> |
Can I use the Exp Bus as a device (35-60 Amp Fuse) on the Main Power
Distribution Bus (Z11). Do I need to put a diode between the two buses and
what kind? I have an Exp Bus and would like to find out if I can use it on
the Main Bus. Just wondering if this is doable.
John Szantho
RV9A
jszantho(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuseblock drawings |
Here are the two sizes that I use in AutoCAD ver14 dwg format.
If you need them in another format, let me know.
Dick Tasker
Sam Hoskins wrote:
> Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view? I
> am looking for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of
> the fuse size, and the wire that attaches to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Bob:
Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse - all
others are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is only
ONE case whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I still
believe it - and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all of
the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better
choice with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the
same reasons that the automotive world went blade style to replace the
"old technology" "glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no
low pressure contacts to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more
reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A.
http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae Similar holders are available for the Maxi
series as well if you require higher ratings.
Bob McC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an
in-line "glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is
ON. I put my only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the
firewall. It's hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches
long - with no chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D.A.R question about fuse access |
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> Ernest, you are definitely a geek. Why not try an electric engine?
>
-Weight.
-Power availability.
-Range.
Technology is improving, but it isn't there.....yet.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Ernest;
I did originally read your post carefully and still wonder why you would
retain the "ONE" glass fuse. Why not use an ATO here as well?? That was the
point of my post, not that you didn't use ATO for all others, just why
retain the single glass one when you are obviously aware of the superiority
of the ATO style? Is the justification that it's already there and hard to
replace?? Thus the most difficult to access fuse is also the least reliable
and most likely to fail?? Not meaning to be critical, just not understanding
the logic.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Bob:
Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse - all others
are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is only ONE case
whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I still believe it -
and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all of the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better choice
with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the same reasons
that the automotive world went blade style to replace the "old technology"
"glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no low pressure contacts
to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A. http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae
Similar holders are available for the Maxi series as well if you require
higher ratings.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an in-line
"glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is ON. I put my
only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the firewall. It's
hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches long - with no
chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Barrow <bobbarrow10(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fat feed confusion |
I note in a June post that Bob Nuckolls said that "fat feed" wires (6 AWG o
r larger) do not need a fuse or current limiter. I understand the logic beh
ind that.
However I note in the Nuckolls Z14 architecture that the wire between the C
rossfeed Contactor and the Auxiliary Bus is 10 AWG and has no protection.
Why is this an exception to the rule.
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest news=2C goss and sport Make ninemsn your homepage!
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness |
as an instrument of flight redux
The Navy helicopter world has been toying around with wireless com. For
instance long chords used by crew chiefs when standing out front during
start up or walking back and forth in the cabin (MH-53E) have proven to be a
safety hazard when trying to egress during ditching. The main issues with
going wireless in the Navy is making it a secure communication channel and
also making sure the crew is not heard by another crew during formation
flight or on the flight line. I am sure OBAM needs would not be as great
and it would be more doable.
-Chris
RV-10
#40072
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness
as an instrument of flight redux
At 08:41 AM 7/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob et al...
>
>Since we are quickly moving to a wireless world...
>I haven't seen wireless aircraft headsets.
>This seems like an ideal application for the technology.
You got that right. I'm thinking I saw an article
on a DIY OBAM aircraft wireless headset project but don't
recall where. Getting one 'approved' to go into an airplane
might be another matter. But totally wireless would be
a real breath of fresh air in the cockpit of most
airplanes.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness as |
an instrument of flight redux
In case you are interested I found this on google.
-Chris
RV-10
http://www.multispectral.com/pdf/MSSI161103b.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Stone
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness as
an instrument of flight redux
Bob et al...
Since we are quickly moving to a wireless world...
I haven't seen wireless aircraft headsets.
This seems like an ideal application for the technology.
Is anyone making such a device?
Chris Stone
RV-8
Oregon
> I'm trying whole-house wi-fi to avoid
> stringing lots of cat-5 cable. After an
> arm wrestling match with "Network Magic"
> I tossed it out and studied the semi-lame
> instructions for the router. Got it to
> come up nicely with the MAC address filtering
> mode for security so the ground has been
> prepared for expanding the network to the
> house and shop.
>>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth headsets was Situational awareness |
as an instrument of flight redux
I haven't had a chance to read it yet but the issue of "QST" that arrived
today had an article about setting up a blue tooth type connection to
amateur transceivers. Might be something to look into.
Bill
Glasair
>>
>>Since we are quickly moving to a wireless world...
>>I haven't seen wireless aircraft headsets.
>>This seems like an ideal application for the technology.
>
> You got that right. I'm thinking I saw an article
> on a DIY OBAM aircraft wireless headset project but don't
> recall where. Getting one 'approved' to go into an airplane
> might be another matter. But totally wireless would be
> a real breath of fresh air in the cockpit of most
> airplanes.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
18:00:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Fat feed confusion |
A 10 AWG wire is smaller than a 6 AWG, not larger. In wire gauge notation a
low number is a big wire, a higher number is a smaller wire.
William Slaughter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Barrow
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fat feed confusion
I note in a June post that Bob Nuckolls said that "fat feed" wires (6 AWG or
larger) do not need a fuse or current limiter. I understand the logic behind
that.
However I note in the Nuckolls Z14 architecture that the wire between the
Crossfeed Contactor and the Auxiliary Bus is 10 AWG and has no protection.
Why is this an exception to the rule.
_____
Make ninemsn your homepage! Get
<http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730> the latest news,
goss and sport
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuseblock drawings |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Thank you, Dick. I can modify them to suit.
Sam
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Richard Tasker wrote:
> Here are the two sizes that I use in AutoCAD ver14 dwg format.
>
> If you need them in another format, let me know.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Sam Hoskins wrote:
>
>> Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view? I am
>> looking for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of the fuse
>> size, and the wire that attaches to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sam Hoskins
>> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fat feed confusion |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
william,
since 10 ga is smaller than 6ga that is why the question ''why no
protection''.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:32 AM, William Slaughter <
william_slaughter(at)att.net> wrote:
> A 10 AWG wire is smaller than a 6 AWG, not larger. In wire gauge
> notation a low number is a big wire, a higher number is a smaller wire.
>
>
> William Slaughter
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Barrow
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Fat feed confusion
>
>
> I note in a June post that Bob Nuckolls said that "fat feed" wires (6 AWG
> or larger) do not need a fuse or current limiter. I understand the logic
> behind that.
>
> However I note in the Nuckolls Z14 architecture that the wire between the
> Crossfeed Contactor and the Auxiliary Bus is 10 AWG and has no protection.
>
> Why is this an exception to the rule.
> ------------------------------
>
> Make ninemsn your homepage! Get the latest news, goss and sport<http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Flow - Hoskins FT 101 Fuel Flow not working |
| From: | "rogrbal" <rogrbal(at)yahoo.com> |
Hoskins FT 101 Fuel Flow not working:
1. Lights stay on - all zeros
2. Unplugging connector in rear gets it working for a while, then it goes to #1
state again.
3. Resetting by doing #2 does not carry forward any fuel used between resets.
4. If reset it every time it goes to state #1, it will accumulate all the fuel
used while working. Only missing that used while in state #1.
Since it always shows some power applied, I do not think this is an intermittent
power problem.
Since it accumulates, I do not think this is a problem in the wire going to the
battery for residual power to retain accumulated fuel.
The transducer has three wires to it, maybe one of them is the problem.
Since doing #2 always fixes it, maybe the problem is in or near this plug?
Any ideas help??
Wiring diagram is available at
http://www.instrumenttech.com/productsupport.shtml
Look in the POH for the FT101A. It shows the plug pin diagram. Although I have
a 101 the only difference I can tell, is that the type reading - gallons, pounds,
etc. - is user resetable vice manufacturer set.
Thanks for your ideas. Need to fix it tomorrow - Sunday 7/19/09
Roger
--------
Thanks for the help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253624#253624
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ft_101a_fuelflow_poh_160.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselinks & breakers |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, in several of your Z drawings, you show a fuselink in series with a
breaker. For instance, Z-18. You also have a fuselink and a breaker
separated only by a relay in Z-18RB.
What is the rationale behind this seemingly redundant layout?
Thanks
Sam Hoskins
(Not related to Hoskins fuel systems)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erinoff(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight |
redux
Bob,
Don't rely on MAC address filtering for security. It is very easy to defeat. Sniffers
show the MAC addresses in use and most wireless network interface cards
allow you to change the MAC address. Don't use WEP either. Only WPA encryption
is (reasonably) secure.
Mark
Sonex 713
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:49:10 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight
redux
>>> . . . . I further demonstrated
>>> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
>>> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
>>> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
>>> in the pattern.
>>That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has
>>to be recalibrated for some of us 8*)
>
> Yeah . . . that's why I was happy the thing averaged
> 80 . . .
>
> Short guys IAS was a little slower,
Got that backwards! Must have been too much
hauling furniture in the 100+ heat for two
days! Obviously, if the individual is shorter
then for any given deck angle, his response
would be to LOWER the nose to bring it back
into alignment with the horizon, i.e. IAS
will he HIGHER for the same gross weight,
and power setting. Had hard time getting
to sleep last night thinking about it and
discovering my brain-f#@t . . .
Probably need to avoid heavy thinking for a
few days. We got Dr. Dee's office spaces
90% moved (probably 1000 pounds of books
and another 500 pounds of filing cabinets.
I'm trying whole-house wi-fi to avoid
stringing lots of cat-5 cable. After an
arm wrestling match with "Network Magic"
I tossed it out and studied the semi-lame
instructions for the router. Got it to
come up nicely with the MAC address filtering
mode for security so the ground has been
prepared for expanding the network to the
house and shop.
When Dad built this house, I strung hundreds
of feet of of twin-lead antenna and twisted-pair phone
lines around. Today, none of those wires
are in use. A single strand of glass comes to
the back of the house to deliver telephone,
high speed Internet, and soon to be TV. Both
Internet and telephone are hardwired from the
fiber modem to network nodes that move
all data around the house over spread-
spectrum radio.
My Dad would be fascinated with all that is
changing with the house he built in 4 years
of "spare" time 44 years ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
> The short answer is, I recommend you stay with the architecture
> described in Z-16.
>
Bob,
Thank you for your response.
Sorry for answering late, but I've been with no Internet connection for
several weeks.
Thanks again,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Bob: I understand our differences. I am using Bob's system, using fuse
blocks. My system is completely installed using his approach. I use
four of his B & C fuse blocks (10 sockets each). It's great. However,
the "live" circuit for the Ignition is an exception. It requires
"close" circuit protection. I did not want to run the hot circuit to a
fuse block near the instrument panel. Any change could be problematic.
What if I removed the instrument panel??? I just wanted NUTTIN
affecting this hot circuit. I looked at the in-line fuse holder
installed very close to the battery as a conservitive situation. I
think that it is totally safe. I don't know anything safer (I am
electronics challenged).
Ernest; I did originally read your post carefully and still wonder why
you would retain the "ONE" glass fuse. Why not use an ATO here as well??
That was the point of my post, not that you didn't use ATO for all
others, just why retain the single glass one when you are obviously
aware of the superiority of the ATO style? Is the justification that
it's already there and hard to replace?? Thus the most difficult to
access fuse is also the least reliable and most likely to fail?? Not
meaning to be critical, just not understanding the logic.
Bob McC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Kells
Bob: Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse -
all others are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is
only ONE case whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I
still believe it - and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all
of the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better
choice with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the
same reasons that the automotive world went blade style to replace the
"old technology" "glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no
low pressure contacts to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more
reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A.
http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae Similar holders are available for the Maxi
series as well if you require higher ratings.
Bob McC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an
in-line "glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is
ON. I put my only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the
firewall. It's hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches
long - with no chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum --->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - - List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I think you guys are missing each others point. You could have your inline
fuse "inline" anywhere you want it and still use an ATO. They make inline
ATO holders. http://tinyurl.com/lcvcjq
HTH, Tim Andres
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Bob: I understand our differences. I am using Bob's system, using fuse
blocks. My system is completely installed using his approach. I use four of
his B & C fuse blocks (10 sockets each). It's great. However, the "live"
circuit for the Ignition is an exception. It requires "close" circuit
protection. I did not want to run the hot circuit to a fuse block near the
instrument panel. Any change could be problematic. What if I removed the
instrument panel??? I just wanted NUTTIN affecting this hot circuit. I
looked at the in-line fuse holder installed very close to the battery as a
conservitive situation. I think that it is totally safe. I don't know
anything safer (I am electronics challenged).
Ernest;I did originally read your post carefully and still wonder why you
would retain the "ONE" glass fuse. Why not use an ATO here as well?? That
was the point of my post, not that you didn't use ATO for all others, just
why retain the single glass one when you are obviously aware of the
superiority of the ATO style? Is the justification that it's already there
and hard to replace?? Thus the most difficult to access fuse is also the
least reliable and most likely to fail?? Not meaning to be critical, just
not understanding the logic.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Bob: Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse - all
others are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is only ONE
case whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I still believe it
- and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all of the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better choice
with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the same reasons
that the automotive world went blade style to replace the "old technology"
"glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no low pressure contacts
to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A. http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae
Similar holders are available for the Maxi series as well if you require
higher ratings.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an in-line
"glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is ON. I put my
only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the firewall. It's
hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches long - with no
chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
<>--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
270.13.19/2245 - Release Date: 07/18/09 05:57:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
http://www.michigan.gov/aero/0,1607,7-145-14493-29639--,00.html
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
405. 426.5377 cell
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Just installed the icom 210a as per the diagram Bob posted earlier.It receives
just fine but the mics are dead.Using 2 x Ray Allen grips [601xl Y grips] with
the PTT switches and 2 place phone and mic wired in parallel.Should pin 10 be
grounded via a switch for the intercom to work as well???? Thank you
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253689#253689
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks & breakers |
At 12:15 PM 7/18/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, in several of your Z drawings, you show a fuselink in series
>with a breaker. For instance, Z-18. You also have a fuselink and a
>breaker separated only by a relay in Z-18RB.
>
>What is the rationale behind this seemingly redundant layout?
Fusible links are not to be confused or even placed
in the same class as breakers and the run-o-the-mill
plastic fuses. Not all that is offered as a "circuit
protective device" has the same design goals.
Fuses are VERY FAST acting devices compared to
thermal breakers. Fusible links and the ANN/ANL
"current limiters" are VERY SLOW compared to the
breakers and slower still compared to fuses.
In the cases you cited, the protective device upstream
of a crowbar ov protection system needs to be pilot
re-setable . . . but when combined with remotely
mounted fuse blocks, a "extension" of the main bus
bar up to the field breaker, the legacy design goals
call for some form of protection for the extended
bus that drives the one and only breaker. However,
it must be MUCH more robust protection than the breaker
itself. I.e., feeders protected with ANL limiters or
fusible links.
Fusible links and current limiters are SPECIAL,
robust forms of circuit protection which are NOT
interchangeable with fuses and breakers on distribution
feeders. They are recommended for use only in
situations described in the Z-figures.
I had a builder some years ago share his wiring diagram
with me concerning some other issues wherein he had
scattered a number of fusible links around the system.
Your car has one, maybe two fusible links. All other
circuit protection is breakers, fuses or polyfuses
specifically tailored to the protection task. Before
you do anything with links or limiters, let's talk about
it here on the list before you do it. Further, the
short answer to your question is that the buss extension
up to the breakers cited is classically protected by
some extra-robust device at the feeder end.
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: | D.A.R question about fuse access |
>
>The nice thing about having internal batteries within the EFIS is that
>nothing changes while you scurry to either change the fuse or land and
>repair - even for the AP. If I couldn't isolate the problem by replacing
>the fuse - I'd just land. Kind-o-like the ole' circuit breaker theory -
>if it blows once you reset it. If it blows twice, you leave it.
But what is the likelihood that replacing a properly sized,
popped fuse will restore any system to functionality? If
it's anticipated that the wing leveler's services will ever
be critical to comfortable termination of flight, then
is not as essential as radio navigation or cockpit lighting?
Perhaps dual wing levelers are in order? I'd bet that a BIG
chunk of the accidents due to poor pilot visibility and/or
workload distractions for single-pilot IFR would have been
averted electrons had the stick. I'll suggest that most
IFR capable airframes would be better outfitted for ventures
into poor visibility if there were NO displays on the panel
and dual, heading-slaved wing levelers installed. The wing
levelers are probably lighter and more reliable than a suite
of panel mounted gyros and more capable than pilot's trying
to manage an airplane interleaved with other distractions/
duties in the cockpit . . . including the distraction of
fiddling with fuses -OR- breakers.
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: D.A.R question about fuse access |
Good Evening Bob,
I agree with your evaluation, but back when Mooney tried it, most pilots
didn't care for it. You would regularly find the interrupt button taped down
thus deactivating the system. I feel certain that some method could be made
to work and still be acceptable to the average pilot, but no one has, as
yet, figured out that method.
Had JFK jr just let his autopilot fly his airplane, we would probably have
a light plane pilot high in our government hierarchy by now.
'Tis a quandary indeed!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 7/19/2009 12:53:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
Perhaps dual wing levelers are in order? I'd bet that a BIG
chunk of the accidents due to poor pilot visibility and/or
workload distractions for single-pilot IFR would have been
averted electrons had the stick. I'll suggest that most
IFR capable airframes would be better outfitted for ventures
into poor visibility if there were NO displays on the panel
and dual, heading-slaved wing levelers installed. The wing
levelers are probably lighter and more reliable than a suite
of panel mounted gyros and more capable than pilot's trying
to manage an airplane interleaved with other distractions/
duties in the cockpit . . . including the distraction of
fiddling with fuses -OR- breakers.
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.c
om/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweuslove00000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | p and retard leads |
| From: | Jeff Peterson <jeffreyb.peterson(at)gmail.com> |
I have an engine with bendix shower of sparks magnetos.
The mags have number S4LN-200 and S4LN-204.
I need 2 ea. p-leads and 1 ea. retard lead to hook this up.
I dont know whether I need the hex nut or round nut connector,
nor where I can get same.
--
Jeff Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:06 PM 7/19/2009, you wrote:
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>I agree with your evaluation, but back when Mooney tried it, most
>pilots didn't care for it. You would regularly find the interrupt
>button taped down thus deactivating the system. I feel certain that
>some method could be made to work and still be acceptable to the
>average pilot, but no one has, as yet, figured out that method.
Yeah . . . PC (positive control) by Brittain as I recall.
A totally pneumatic wing leveler that operated directly
though valves at the back of the turn-coordinator driving
"tomato juice can" servos. A truly elegant design for its
time. Just found that the system is still offered at:
http://www.brittainautopilots.com/
I liked it. You couldn't hurt it by direct over-ride while
engaged. No servos to smoke, no clutches to burn, no
engagement solenoids to burn out. This was TSO-C3a hardware
which tells us how far back that goes. I did a little white
paper for Cessna way back when that suggested large diaphragm
pneumatic force cartridges operated by pitot/static delta-P
and permanently rigged to ailerons. A simple reed valve system
driven from a turn-coordinator would drive a simple set
of electronics that consumed less than 1 watt of total power.
Three moving parts, no lubrication issues, etc. etc. But they
were the proud owners of ARC who was already offering a line
of autopilots that plagued with every failure mode that such
devices might offer . . .
>
>Had JFK jr just let his autopilot fly his airplane, we would
>probably have a light plane pilot high in our government hierarchy by now.
Hmmm . . . you can lead a horse to water. . .
All we can do as teachers/designers/suppliers is offer well
considered advice backed by a history of recipes for success. Dr.
Dee speaks of a human condition known as "cognitive dissonance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
which we've all observed first hand: "I KNOW that
smoking is bad for me . . . but I (like/need/want)
to do it". We've all observed a pilot's worst ever
day in the cockpit that appeared to rise from a
dead-short-between-the-headphones. It's called the
"bell curve". For the very best among us, there MUST
be individuals who balance out the other end of the
curve.
>
>'Tis a quandary indeed!
Let us continue to strive for position on the upper
slope of that curve . . .
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: p and retard leads |
I have those mags on my Mooney. The P-leads take one size round
connector, the retard lead is a different size, so you can't mix them up.
Jeff Peterson wrote:
> I have an engine with bendix shower of sparks magnetos.
> The mags have number S4LN-200 and S4LN-204.
>
> I need 2 ea. p-leads and 1 ea. retard lead to hook this up.
>
>
> I dont know whether I need the hex nut or round nut connector,
> nor where I can get same.
>
> --
> Jeff Peterson
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Air conditioning stuff for sale |
Don't know if any of you are contemplating an air conditioning system in
your airplane or have an old R-12 system in your airplane (or car) that
needs fixing but I may have what you need. Since I no longer own a vehicle
that uses R-12 refrigerant I have seven 12 ounce cans available for sale at
$35 dollars apiece (a repair shop now charges upwards of $100 a pound for
R-12, if they can locate some). I also have an R-12 manifold gauge set
(used to monitor the high and low pressures in an R-12 system while filling)
and a tap for the R-12 cans ($35.00 for both of these). Let me know if you
need any of these or, buy the whole ball of wax for $250.00.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Prop removed for radiographic inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Bob Nuckolls said, "Perhaps dual wing levelers are in order? I'd bet
that a BIG
chunk of the accidents due to poor pilot visibility and/or
workload distractions for single-pilot IFR would have been
averted (if) electrons had the stick. I'll suggest that most
IFR capable airframes would be better outfitted for ventures
into poor visibility if there were NO displays on the panel
and dual, heading-slaved wing levelers installed. The wing
levelers are probably lighter and more reliable than a suite
of panel mounted gyros and more capable than pilot's trying
to manage an airplane . . . .."
I agree wholeheartedly. Flying IFR, if we can trust our lives to
electronics to take information from sensors and display that
information, then why can't we trust electronics to actually operate the
controls? The human being is the weak link in the system. Have you
ever noticed the control movements when the autopilot is on, compared to
when a human is in control? Some planes have dual EFISs. I suggest
that it would be better to have dual autopilots with dual servos. The
recreational IFR pilot is better off monitoring the system as a whole,
watching for component failure, making sure that the altitude and
heading are correct, handling radio communications, looking for traffic,
and etc.
Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and that the
quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about which way is up
is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about!
Not sure where you were working at the time or how close you were to
automatic flight, but I bet you know about how Beech competed with Mooney's PC.
Beech installed a Century I (The folks who made it were called Edo Aire
Mitchell at the time) Wing Leveler and my memory is that they called it the
Constant Copilot. The main difference was that Beech provided an ON/OFF
switch so the pilot could choose to use it or not.
My recollection is that Piper offered a similar unit, but I do not recall
who made it for them or what they called it.
Back to the Constant Copilot.
If the switch was left on, the wing leveler worked full time just like the
Mooney PC. It could be easily over ridden without causing any damage to the
unit and it was made inoperative by pressing an interrupter switch on the
control wheel. Take your thumb off the switch button and the leveler took
over.
We always told our customers to use it regularly.
Almost nobody did!
Just a bit more musing if you don't mind.
Back when autopilots were first being introduced in air carrier use, one of
the first things we were taught to do when any flight attitude problem was
encountered was to turn OFF the autopilot. The thought was that any
deviation from normal was most likely caused by an autopilot failure. When we
flew into turbulence, we were also told to turn off the autopilot. That
attitude certainly did not encourage us to rely on the autopilot when things
started to get dicey.
Maybe we need to train pilots to use and trust the autopilot from the very
first time they ever get in the airplane? That is almost how the Airbus
pilots are trained today!
For fully automatic landings, we initially used three autopilots and a
comparator circuit that told us to execute a miss if any one of those three
autopilots felt that things are not going well.
Seems as if there is something worthwhile in that fully automatic flight
regime, but the issues are not easily solved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS My current transportation steed is a 1978 V35B and I still keep the
Century I Constant Copilot in good working order. The early ones shared a roll
servo with the regular autopilot and that was how mine was set up when I
bought it. A few years ago I changed the primary autopilot. The new one has
it's own roll servo so my airplane now has two roll autopilots available. If
I hit the interrupter button, both are turned off. When I let go of the
button, the Century One will come back on line but the primary one stays off.
The only problem is that I can't use both at the same time because they
will fight with each other! Not sophisticated enough to use the same inputs
and do the comparison bit.
In a message dated 7/19/2009 10:39:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 06:06 PM 7/19/2009, you wrote:
Good Evening Bob,
I agree with your evaluation, but back when Mooney tried it, most pilots
didn't care for it. You would regularly find the interrupt button taped down
thus deactivating the system. I feel certain that some method could be
made to work and still be acceptable to the average pilot, but no one has, as
yet, figured out that method.
Yeah . . . PC (positive control) by Brittain as I recall.
A totally pneumatic wing leveler that operated directly
though valves at the back of the turn-coordinator driving
"tomato juice can" servos. A truly elegant design for its
time. Just found that the system is still offered at:
_http://www.brittainautopilots.com/
_ (http://www.brittainautopilots.com/) I liked it. You couldn't hurt it by
direct over-ride while
engaged. No servos to smoke, no clutches to burn, no
engagement solenoids to burn out. This was TSO-C3a hardware
which tells us how far back that goes. I did a little white
paper for Cessna way back when that suggested large diaphragm
pneumatic force cartridges operated by pitot/static delta-P
and permanently rigged to ailerons. A simple reed valve system
driven from a turn-coordinator would drive a simple set
of electronics that consumed less than 1 watt of total power.
Three moving parts, no lubrication issues, etc. etc. But they
were the proud owners of ARC who was already offering a line
of autopilots that plagued with every failure mode that such
devices might offer . . .
Had JFK jr just let his autopilot fly his airplane, we would probably have
a light plane pilot high in our government hierarchy by now.
Hmmm . . . you can lead a horse to water. . .
All we can do as teachers/designers/suppliers is offer well
considered advice backed by a history of recipes for success. Dr.
Dee speaks of a human condition known as "cognitive dissonance"
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
which we've all observed first hand: "I KNOW that
smoking is bad for me . . . but I (like/need/want)
to do it". We've all observed a pilot's worst ever
day in the cockpit that appeared to rise from a
dead-short-between-the-headphones. It's called the
"bell curve". For the very best among us, there MUST
be individuals who balance out the other end of the
curve.
'Tis a quandary indeed!
Let us continue to strive for position on the upper
slope of that curve . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fat feed confusion |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Sharp eye! I think that's a typo. To qualify as a "fat feeder" with inherent resistance
to ground-fault-burning of wire/insulation, the current carrying ability
of the wire compared with highest hypothesized fault needs to be pretty high.
While the 10AWG buss feeder is adequate to the task of servicing electro-whizzies
that load the 20A alternator, it's also small enough to be at risk for
burning the length of the wire along with the attendant risk of smoke in the
cockpit, etc.
We have two choices here to slide this feeder under the umbrella of legacy design
goals: (a) add a fusible link to the feed-end of this wire (6" of 14 AWG would
be fine) or (b) increase the 10AWG feeder to at least a 6AWG. Since we're
already wired with lots of 4AWG, that would be good too.
Actually, there's a third option. We bought the Delrin stock from which we can
fabricate mounting blocks for the minature robust, ANL style fuses. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ABI_fuses.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/megafuse250.gif
http://www.knukonceptz.com/productMaster.cfm?category=Mini-ANL%20Fuse#
We're going to stock one of these fuse topologies and offer a mounting block to
to with it. But these can be fabricated locally from the right nuts, washers,
screws, and block of Delrin or cloth filled phenolic.
While on the subject of fuses, check out this little treatis I found on the 'net.
Nicely done . . .
http://www.bcae1.com/fuses.htm
Note the author's caveat concerning the quality levels of glass cartridge fuses.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253876#253876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat feed confusion |
When we put a high amp alternator in the truck we used a fuse with
holder to protect against alt internal failure. Same kind should work
fine for the batt feeder as recommended by Littelfuse?
http://www.littelfuse.com/part/0298175.html No need to fabricate a
holder. Pretty common in my truck world.
Use it in-line or bolt it to the structure. Very low tech and functional.
PW
=========
At 08:05 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Sharp eye! I think that's a typo. To qualify as a "fat feeder" with
>inherent resistance to ground-fault-burning of wire/insulation, the
>current carrying ability of the wire compared with highest
>hypothesized fault needs to be pretty high. While the 10AWG buss
>feeder is adequate to the task of servicing electro-whizzies that
>load the 20A alternator, it's also small enough to be at risk for
>burning the length of the wire along with the attendant risk of
>smoke in the cockpit, etc.
>
>We have two choices here to slide this feeder under the umbrella of
>legacy design goals: (a) add a fusible link to the feed-end of this
>wire (6" of 14 AWG would be fine) or (b) increase the 10AWG feeder
>to at least a 6AWG. Since we're already wired with lots of 4AWG,
>that would be good too.
>
>Actually, there's a third option. We bought the Delrin stock from
>which we can fabricate mounting blocks for the minature robust, ANL
>style fuses. See
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ABI_fuses.jpg
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/megafuse250.gif
>
>http://www.knukonceptz.com/productMaster.cfm?category=Mini-ANL%20Fuse#
>
>We're going to stock one of these fuse topologies and offer a
>mounting block to to with it. But these can be fabricated locally
>from the right nuts, washers, screws, and block of Delrin or cloth
>filled phenolic.
>
>While on the subject of fuses, check out this little treatis I found
>on the 'net. Nicely done . . .
>
>http://www.bcae1.com/fuses.htm
>
>Note the author's caveat concerning the quality levels of glass
>cartridge fuses.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253876#253876
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 09:04 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and
that the quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about
which way is up is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about!
The debate for visual display of yaw rate and
apparent center of the earth (gravity) as
a flight instrument is only slightly related to
the task of providing a practical automatic
flight control system. For a simple yaw damper
to work, it needs only numerical knowledge of
turning rate about the yaw axis.
However, given that the process of turning the airplane
to a new heading BEGINS with a change in roll
followed by a change in yaw rate. Doing the job
smoothly with a single rate sensor required some
knowledge of both roll (to anticipate a heading
change) and yaw (to quantify the rate of change
after the turn was established).
While the T&B may well be best suited to recovering
from an upset condition, the TC is best suited for
avoiding that upset in the first place. I.e, Brittain
could not have achieved the design goal without a
carefully considered "pollution" of TB data.
Not sure where you were working at the time or how close you were to
automatic flight, but I bet you know about how Beech competed with
Mooney's PC.
Only vaguely. I'll have to ask some of the grey-beards
if they recall the system. I guess I could get on
the computer and check service parts catalogs. I think
Beech listed their A/P hardware in those books.
Beech installed a Century I (The folks who made it were called Edo
Aire Mitchell at the time) Wing Leveler and my memory is that they
called it the Constant Copilot. The main difference was that Beech
provided an ON/OFF switch so the pilot could choose to use it or not.
My recollection is that Piper offered a similar unit, but I do not
recall who made it for them or what they called it.
I believe Piper had the Brittian system too but
featured a valve in the vacuum supply line to
shut if off if wanted. I think that valve was
added to the Mooneys later.
Back to the Constant Copilot.
If the switch was left on, the wing leveler worked full time just
like the Mooney PC. It could be easily over ridden without causing
any damage to the unit and it was made inoperative by pressing an
interrupter switch on the control wheel. Take your thumb off the
switch button and the leveler took over.
We always told our customers to use it regularly.
Almost nobody did!
Yeah, the "Right Stuff" syndrome. I guess it
depends on what you use the airplane for and
how you assess risk for the situations in which
you fly. I enjoy flying. I enjoyed honing my
under-the-hood skills. But when it was necessary
to competently and smoothly manage a transition
though IMC, I've never been adverse to calling
up what ever support was available to reduce both
sweat and risk.
I've run the traps with some fellow techo-wiennies
here in Wichita for a roll servo that contains
a dedicated GPS receiver, canted roll/yaw rate
sensor and a micro-controller that will "hold that
GPS track" to plus/minus 1 degree. Controls would
be limited to an on/off switch and bi-directional
track increment buttons. Click one for each degree
of track change. Hold button for standard rate turn.
The servo would have a serial port that accepts
commands for "new track to make good". The same
line outputs system status. As a single installation,
you install a servo, hook up an antenna, hook up
14v and you're done. As a dual installation, there
would be a "arbitrator box" that compares data
to and from the pair of wing levelers with data from
a panel mounted GPS and raises a warning flag if
one of the systems mis-behaves. Each system is
powered from a separate source.
It's my belief that such a system would allow a
pilot to comfortably enter a controlled airspace
environment and comply with all ATC instructions
with great precision, low risk and very low
sweat factor . . . and never have to touch the
stick. E.g. cluttering the panel with attitude
displays would add nothing to the design goal.
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat feed confusion |
At 10:36 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>When we put a high amp alternator in the truck we used a fuse with
>holder to protect against alt internal failure. Same kind should
>work fine for the batt feeder as recommended by Littelfuse?
>http://www.littelfuse.com/part/0298175.html No need to fabricate a
>holder. Pretty common in my truck world.
>Use it in-line or bolt it to the structure. Very low tech and functional.
Yup, that's a righteous product. It's a miniaturize
version of the 70 year old ANN/ANL series devices.
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human pilots.
Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I have expanded
on that thought here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B
and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to
have considerable merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
Bob. . .
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Modern autopilots are remarkably better performers than their elder
parents.. The P3 Orion had an autopilot which had a component with a
limited operating life.. Crews would often hand fly en route to and from
their station in order to improve the odds that the autopilot would work
during a critical period.
My only personal experience with autopilots is in late 70's Archers which
I think had a rebadged Century III. They do the job (track a nav source),
but sloppily. They tend to wander heading a fair amount and if the rudder
trim isn't spot-on they can see-saw back and forth. In a flight regime
with low indicated airspeed (climb or high altitude cruise) the increased
adverse yaw makes the ride somewhat unpleasant and is kind of distracting.
Especially in an airplane with fairly strong roll-yaw coupling. If that
were the state of the art for autopilots, I'd be much less excited about
having one.
My impression is that the modern autopilots are much, much better.
Although, I did get a ride in the right seat of a PC12.. At cruise (in
the low FL's) in smooth air the airplane tended to slowly vary altitude
+/-100ft from the programmed value. Seemed a bit odd in a brand new
(30TTSN) multi-million dollar machine. Probably just needed a bit of
tuning.
Finally, pilots need to train like they fly, and fly like they train.
Pilots need to let George fly enough so that they have confidence in "his"
abilities.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> At 09:04 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
> Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>
> Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
>
> It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
> might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
>
> It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and
> that the quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about
> which way is up is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
>
> Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about!
>
> The debate for visual display of yaw rate and
> apparent center of the earth (gravity) as
> a flight instrument is only slightly related to
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with pictorial
displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong visual information
.
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:17:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing leveler than
does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human pilots. Too much
conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I have expanded on that thought
here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B and the
TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to have considerable
merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
> $200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
> of other duties!
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
________________________________
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Evening James,
I sure hope something works out along that line, but suitable reliability
and usability has not yet been demonstrated.
Glass is also way out of my price range at the present time. The TC and
T&B have been fairly economical in the past, though the prices have
skyrocketed in the last couple of years. Do you figure on two glass units to
provide back up or are you willing to go with a single source of information?
I
kinda like Jim Younkin's instrument for experimental aircraft. We who fly
certified antiques are not allowed to use Jim's stuff.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/20/2009 4:26:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jbr79r(at)yahoo.com writes:
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with
pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong
visual information .
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Hi Jim,
It's been proven time and time again that you're better off using a
backup system that uses a different method of operation when your panel
goes dark.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Robinson
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with
pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret
Strong visual information .
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
_____
From: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:17:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human
pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I
have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B
and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me
to have considerable merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
Bob. . .
_____
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
<http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009> for any
occasion.
________________________________________________________________________________
Tim Andres wrote:
> I think you guys are missing each others point. You could have your
> inline fuse inline anywhere you want it and still use an ATO. They
> make inline ATO holders. *http://tinyurl.com/lcvcjq*
I'd like to add that I have had (on my 1976 GMC Motorhome) 2 circuits
that were added during the 90's or early 20's fail. Both using inline
glass fuse holders (one under the dash and another behind the remote
generator control panel). In both cases, the fuse holder actually failed
dropping the fuses out of the holder.
Just another data point and maybe the fuse holders were inferior quality
to what you plan to use, but I wouldn't do it.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I have the trutrak auto pilot and it has been very dependable. Also the support
has be very good. I fly with 2 screen Cheltons with some round gauges as backup
and a AOA. I am all electric with a 2 alternator setup. It definitely ups
the ante however
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:15:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Evening James,
I sure hope something works out along that line, but suitable reliability and usability
has not yet been demonstrated.
Glass is also way out of my price range at the present time. The TC and T&B have
been fairly economical in the past, though the prices have skyrocketed in the
last couple of years. Do you figure on two glass units to provide back up or
are you willing to go with a single source of information? I kinda like Jim
Younkin's instrument for experimental aircraft. We who fly certified antiques
are not allowed to use Jim's stuff.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/20/2009 4:26:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jbr79r(at)yahoo.com
writes:
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with pictorial
displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong visual
information .
>
> James Robinson
>Glasair lll N79R
>Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
An Excellent21323041x1201367261/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62>See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I have backup round gauges and auto pilot and AOA to help me out=0A=0A Jame
s Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT U77=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______
_________________________=0AFrom: Bruce Gray <Bruce(at)Glasair.org>=0ATo: aero
electric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:32:14 PM=0ASubj
ect: RE: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"=0A=0A =0AHi Ji
m,=0A =0AIt=99s=0Abeen proven time and time again that you=99re
better off using a backup=0Asystem that uses a different method of operati
on when your panel goes dark.=0A =0ABruce=0Awww.Glasair.org =0A-----Origina
l Message-----=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mail
to:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Robinso
n=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:05=0APM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics
.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List:=0AAutopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
=0A =0AWe have something better than T&B or TC. =0AIt's call glass panels w
ith pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do=0Amuch to interpret
Strong visual information .=0A =0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpa
nish Fork UT U77=0A =0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:"
BobsV35B(at)aol.com" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009=0A2:17:26 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Lis
t:=0AAutopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"=0A=0A=0A=0AGood=0AAfternoon 'Lectric
Bob,=0A =0AI=0Atotally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for
a wing leveler=0Athan does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we
human pilots. Too=0Amuch conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But
I have expanded on that=0Athought here many times in the past.=0A =0AI wou
ld=0A love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B and
=0Athe TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to h
ave=0Aconsiderable merit.=0A =0AHappy=0ASkies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0ALL22=0APiper
=0APacer N2858P=0A =0AIn a=0Amessage dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central
Daylight Time,=0Anuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:=0ABill of materials
for=0A>the full-up system is under=0A>> $200. All I need is a 36 hour d
ay and a relaxation=0A>> of other duties!=0A>=0A>> Bob. . .=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AWhat's=0Afor dinner tonight? F
ind quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion.=0A =0A =0A - T
he AeroElectric-List Email Forum -=0A --> http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?AeroElectric-List=0A - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -=0A --> ht
tp://forums.matronics.com=0A - List Contribution Web Site -=0A
Thank you for your generous support!=0A -Matt
Dralle, List Admin.=0A --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0A
====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 03:17 PM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
>I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a
>wing leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with
>we human pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal
>sensors. But I have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
>
>I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the
>T&B and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position
>seems to me to have considerable merit.
Stabilization and control of the airframe is
still based on interpretation of rotational
rate values. The sensors are now all solid
state as opposed to spinning up a rotor
on bearings. The rate sensors have become
so commonplace that simple versions are offered
to augment pilot controls for flying model
r/c helicopters . . . and they're just a
few dollars.
http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc
Two more technologies have come forward to make
the job easier and better. GPS and microprocessors.
Our first autopilot for the MQM-107
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-107.html
was totally analog. 741 op amps and fists full of
transistors. The next autopilot was a TI 9900
processor. All of a sudden, our calculating
ability combined with differentiation (anticipation)
made this bird fly even better yet.
We never got to put GPS on this bird but it went
into other products.
http://tinyurl.com/lhwmnp
The availability of ground track nav data opened
the horizons for auto flight AND auto navigation.
The thing that would be pretty cool with the products
I described is access to the serial data ports.
The stand-alone device would nicely steer an
airplane. But anyone handy with byte thrashing
could craft an auto-navigation application in the
portable number cruncher of their choice.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I recall hearing that the solid state sensors (gyros) had a problem with
drift. Is this still an issue?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst"
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:17 PM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>> Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>>
>> I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
>> leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human
>> pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I
>> have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
>>
>> I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the
>> T&B and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems
>> to me to have considerable merit.
>
> Stabilization and control of the airframe is
> still based on interpretation of rotational
> rate values. The sensors are now all solid
> state as opposed to spinning up a rotor
> on bearings. The rate sensors have become
> so commonplace that simple versions are offered
> to augment pilot controls for flying model
> r/c helicopters . . . and they're just a
> few dollars.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc*
>
> Two more technologies have come forward to make
> the job easier and better. GPS and microprocessors.
>
> Our first autopilot for the MQM-107
>
> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-107.html
>
> was totally analog. 741 op amps and fists full of
> transistors. The next autopilot was a TI 9900
> processor. All of a sudden, our calculating
> ability combined with differentiation (anticipation)
> made this bird fly even better yet.
>
> We never got to put GPS on this bird but it went
> into other products.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/lhwmnp*
>
> The availability of ground track nav data opened
> the horizons for auto flight AND auto navigation.
>
> The thing that would be pretty cool with the products
> I described is access to the serial data ports.
> The stand-alone device would nicely steer an
> airplane. But anyone handy with byte thrashing
> could craft an auto-navigation application in the
> portable number cruncher of their choice.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Is this ok for a Circuit diagram for a 2 place, 2 x ptt no external intercom ??????
Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254063#254063
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/icom_a210_835.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc
>
The cheap ones like the above don't work that well (although it will
still make the tail human controllable during helicopter aerobatics).
The quality futaba products aren't that cheap. The difference between
the quality and cheaper products are how much drift in yaw they allow
under normal circumstances and how that effect varies based on input
voltage variance and temperature variance and how well the gyro deals
with vibration. The expensive ones perform better in other ways that
matter in a rc helicopter but aren't needed in a wing leveler
environment (which would be levels of magnitude less demanding).
If i'm not mistaken Futaba actually produces their own sensors which
implies to me that signal conditioning commercial off the shelf
sensors must not be easy in demanding situations.
Then again you talk about gps input so with proper software you could
continually calibrate what signal from the gyro means "zero yaw" (or
any other yaw rate). The thing is if you're going to do that it might
just be as easy to buy a quality gps chipset and calculate for bank
angle based on ground speed and turning radius (like the Garmin 396
and later do on their instrument page). Without the gps input or
alternately a 3-axis compass input it would be difficult to not have
the autopilot (using whatever sensors are in the cheaper rc heli
gyros) continually command a very slow (yet highly annoying) turn.
c'ya,
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Morning Michael,
Great information for an old guy like me that is still struggling with Ohms
Law!
May I interject a few thoughts though?
This new technology is certain to provide us with excellent autopilots and
situational awareness instrumentation. The advancements in technology are
mind boggling. Anything we purchase becomes obsolete before the ink is dry
on the check.
That is all to the good and I love to see it happening.
Back to the world of application.
The first time Wilbur, Orville or Glenn had difficulty establishing their
reference to the natural horizon, folks realized that some instrumentation
would be required to allow safe flight when visibility was reduced.
The principles of the gyroscope were well understood and it was not long
before various adaptations were applied to aircraft control.
At the same time, the Wrights and other pioneers realized that there was
benefit to building aerodynamic stability into their flying machines. As an
aside, the Wrights had initially thought that the machine needed to be built
with almost neutral stability in order for it to be controllable. The
reason they never rebuilt the original Wright Flyer, but went on to another
design is because their flights on December 17, 1903 taught them that the
Flyer was not stable enough for practical flight.
By the end of World War One, the concept of making the airplane dynamically
stable and using a gyroscope to tell the pilot he/she was turning was well
established. Monster ship's gyroscopes were too expensive and too heavy
for practical airborne use, but a simple gyroscope hooked to some sort of an
indicator that could tell the pilot the craft was turning was light weight
and cheap enough that it became common equipment. Most of those units used
a needle of some sort to tell the pilot what was happening. Many of the
ones developed by European interests had the needle hinged at the top. Most
that were developed on our side of the pond had the needle hinged at the
bottom.
By using the Turn needle to keep any turning force to a minimum and by
learning the idiosyncrasies of Magnetic Compass precession during turns, it
became practical to fly in cloud. Not easy, but doable.
By the end of WW I the shape of future instrumentation was quite evident.
They had learned that if you stop the turn, you will survive!
Since coordinated flight was found to be advantageous, a simple
inclinometer was added to the flight panel to display the degree of coordination
being used. By the beginning of WWII, most turn instruments had that ball
included within the same instrument case.
Gyroscopes that showed an artificial horizon were developed, but they
tended to be very heavy, very expensive, very delicate and not at all reliable
if their mechanical limitations were exceeded.
During the late twenties and early thirties, instrument flight became a
practical endeavor. The Turn and Bank was the main thing used to allow the
pilots to perceive a turning moment and the built in stability of the aircraft
was such that it was relatively easy to evaluate the pitch and speed of
the aircraft by the response of the airspeed indicator and the altimeter.
Thus we had Needle, Ball, and Airspeed IFR flight.
By the time WWII came along, the artificial horizons had gotten cheap
enough and light enough such that they were fitted to most airliners and many
larger military aircraft. Sure made for easier and smoother flight
operations.
Notice that, thus far, we were still relying primarily on a human being to
supply the motion need to position the controls?
Efforts had been made to build machinery that would perform that function,
but was not yet well developed.
Since this dissertation is getting way too long for an avionics list, fast
forward to today.
We now have almost unlimited calculating capability and there seems to be
no reason why the human even needs to be involved other than as a mechanism
to monitor what the electrons are doing. Given sufficient computing power,
there is no doubt in my mind that it is relatively easy to make a machine
that has a lower failure rate than do we mere humans.
So, I guess the question is, how much do we want humans to be involved?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 7/21/2009 3:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mjpereira68(at)gmail.com writes:
Then again you talk about gps input so with proper software you could
continually calibrate what signal from the gyro means "zero yaw" (or
any other yaw rate). The thing is if you're going to do that it might
just be as easy to buy a quality gps chipset and calculate for bank
angle based on ground speed and turning radius (like the Garmin 396
and later do on their instrument page). Without the gps input or
alternately a 3-axis compass input it would be difficult to not have
the autopilot (using whatever sensors are in the cheaper rc heli
gyros) continually command a very slow (yet highly annoying) turn.
c'ya,
Michael
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 03:05 AM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc
> >
>
>The cheap ones like the above don't work that well (although it will
>still make the tail human controllable during helicopter aerobatics).
The citation of this particular part was not intended to
suggest suitability to any task, only to illustrate the
advancements in micro-electronics for the sensing of physical
phenomena. Certainly there are moderately priced, solid state
rate sensors that may be better suited to the task of
crafting a flight augmentation system for a manned aircraft.
But even the best sensors have offset gain and temperature
coefficient errors that must be considered as part of the
overall error budget. The neat thing about teaming these devices
with micro-controllers is the ability to compare sensor outputs
with other, more stable data sources and deduce those errors
for the purposes of reducing/eliminating their effects.
For example, we could take the least expensive of
rate sensors combined with a GPS receiver and artfully
crafted software that would allow the autopilot to go through
some gentle maneuvers, compare expected GPS data with real
data and calculate new offset and gain values for the
as-installed rate sensor. Tailoring an autopilot
to a specific airframe and its installation is a tedious
and exacting process. However, for the simple heading-hold
wing leveler, a freshly installed system could be placed in
a temporary calibration mode and flown at altitude while
allowing the autopilot to wiggle the controls and deduce
appropriate gain and offset values for ALL of the as-installed
hardware. Once the calibration sequence is completed, a
switch is moved from the CAL to the FLY position and the
processor stores all the new values for operation.
If the el-cheeso rate sensor exhibits some degree of
long term drift, the CAL process can be repeated at
the owner's convenience to trim up system performance
at any time. Further, cross checking against GPS data,
allows small values of drift to be deduced on-the-fly
and accounted for. FAA rules for software qualification
would make such conveniences very difficult in a TC aircraft.
As I suggested in an earlier post, the availability
and capability of inexpensive GPS engines, micro-controllers
and low-cost rate sensors is head-and-shoulders above
those components which were the best we knew how to do
30 years ago.
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 10:58 PM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>I recall hearing that the solid state sensors (gyros) had a problem
>with drift. Is this still an issue?
You betcha! But it's slow and can be accommodated
in software. See companion posting.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Baleshta" <dbaleshta(at)tru.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Air conditioning stuff for sale |
Hi Dean, I'll pass on the R12, apparently, it's pretty difficult to get through
the 49th Parallel Wall and I don't have a use for it right now. Thanks for
thinking of me, anything else you have?
Doug
>>> DEAN PSIROPOULOS 07/19/09 9:22 PM >>>
Don't know if any of you are contemplating an air conditioning system in
your airplane or have an old R-12 system in your airplane (or car) that
needs fixing but I may have what you need. Since I no longer own a vehicle
that uses R-12 refrigerant I have seven 12 ounce cans available for sale at
$35 dollars apiece (a repair shop now charges upwards of $100 a pound for
R-12, if they can locate some). I also have an R-12 manifold gauge set
(used to monitor the high and low pressures in an R-12 system while filling)
and a tap for the R-12 cans ($35.00 for both of these). Let me know if you
need any of these or, buy the whole ball of wax for $250.00.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Prop removed for radiographic inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)GMAIL.COM> |
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls,
III wrote:
>
>
> At 03:05 AM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc
>> >
>>
>> The cheap ones like the above don't work that well (although it will
>> still make the tail human controllable during helicopter aerobatics).
>
> The citation of this particular part was not intended to
> suggest suitability to any task, only to illustrate the
> advancements in micro-electronics for the sensing of physical
> phenomena. Certainly there are moderately priced, solid state
> rate sensors that may be better suited to the task of
> crafting a flight augmentation system for a manned aircraft.
>
> But even the best sensors have offset gain and temperature
> coefficient errors that must be considered as part of the
> overall error budget. The neat thing about teaming these devices
> with micro-controllers is the ability to compare sensor outputs
> with other, more stable data sources and deduce those errors
> for the purposes of reducing/eliminating their effects.
>
> For example, we could take the least expensive of
> rate sensors combined with a GPS receiver and artfully
> crafted software that would allow the autopilot to go through
> some gentle maneuvers, compare expected GPS data with real
> data and calculate new offset and gain values for the
> as-installed rate sensor. Tailoring an autopilot
> to a specific airframe and its installation is a tedious
> and exacting process. However, for the simple heading-hold
> wing leveler, a freshly installed system could be placed in
> a temporary calibration mode and flown at altitude while
> allowing the autopilot to wiggle the controls and deduce
> appropriate gain and offset values for ALL of the as-installed
> hardware. Once the calibration sequence is completed, a
> switch is moved from the CAL to the FLY position and the
> processor stores all the new values for operation.
Oh i agree with everything you've said. I think you'd have to manage
without a specific calibration routine however, it's something that
would have to run constantly (and that's assuming the quality
gyro/rate sensor).
>
> If the el-cheeso rate sensor exhibits some degree of
> long term drift, the CAL process can be repeated at
> the owner's convenience to trim up system performance
> at any time. Further, cross checking against GPS data,
> allows small values of drift to be deduced on-the-fly
> and accounted for. FAA rules for software qualification
> would make such conveniences very difficult in a TC aircraft.
The thing with the cheesy sensors as applied to the rc heli gyros is
the drift varies from minute to minute requiring constant trim
adjustments to the tail channel so it'll sit (relatively) still while
the stick is at neutral. Now, the problem could be more related to
crummy software than the sensor itself. No way to know in this kind of
black box situation what components are generating what percentage of
the total error.
Whatever the case is with the cheesy gyros, futaba has it nailed with
their more expensive stuff. Their tech is probably good enough for
the cockpit (at least in general aviation). The drift errors are
small, that has to make writing the calibration software easier. They
probably aren't crazy enough to license it to that market considering
the market size/liability issues though.
> As I suggested in an earlier post, the availability
> and capability of inexpensive GPS engines, micro-controllers
> and low-cost rate sensors is head-and-shoulders above
> those components which were the best we knew how to do
> 30 years ago.
So i'm curious. I've read a bit about 3-axis electronic compasses
(basically the 3d allows the device to automatically compensate for
magnetic tilt errors). If these devices are accurate enough and update
fast enough, could one of these alone drive a simple wing leveler ?
ie. change in heading divided by time equals rate of turn, etc. Well
actually, I guess it would act nuts if you were operating close enough
to one of the magnetic poles, nevermind. lol.
c'ya,
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
>
>Oh i agree with everything you've said. I think you'd have to manage
>without a specific calibration routine however, it's something that
>would have to run constantly (and that's assuming the quality
>gyro/rate sensor).
Sure, with the GPS engine data we can resolve slow, short term
drifts and compensate on-the-fly. The larger calibration
corrections would probably be a one-time thing that would
wash out initial offset, gains and mechanism transfer
functions.
>The thing with the cheesy sensors as applied to the rc heli gyros is
>the drift varies from minute to minute requiring constant trim
>adjustments to the tail channel so it'll sit (relatively) still while
>the stick is at neutral. Now, the problem could be more related to
>crummy software than the sensor itself. No way to know in this kind of
>black box situation what components are generating what percentage of
>the total error.
We would probably not choose to get THAT cheesy. There's a host
of rate sensors offered by the micro-machined chip manufacturers
with very useable drift characteristics.
>Whatever the case is with the cheesy gyros, futaba has it nailed with
>their more expensive stuff. Their tech is probably good enough for
>the cockpit (at least in general aviation). The drift errors are
>small, that has to make writing the calibration software easier. They
>probably aren't crazy enough to license it to that market considering
>the market size/liability issues though.
Wouldn't seek a "license" . . . there are plenty of
commercial, off-the-shelf devices to choose from that
have no more liability for airplanes falling out of the
sky than do the nail manufacturer's have to shoulder for
houses falling down.
> > As I suggested in an earlier post, the availability
> > and capability of inexpensive GPS engines, micro-controllers
> > and low-cost rate sensors is head-and-shoulders above
> > those components which were the best we knew how to do
> > 30 years ago.
>
>So i'm curious. I've read a bit about 3-axis electronic compasses
>(basically the 3d allows the device to automatically compensate for
>magnetic tilt errors). If these devices are accurate enough and update
>fast enough, could one of these alone drive a simple wing leveler ?
>ie. change in heading divided by time equals rate of turn, etc. Well
>actually, I guess it would act nuts if you were operating close enough
>to one of the magnetic poles, nevermind. lol.
They're interesting devices and we looked at them several
times at the Beech/RAC Targets division. Problem is that
there are 3 conditions of orientation where these devices
fall out of bed. That's when any one of the three axes are
exactly aligned with earth magnetic flux lines. Under that
condition, the other two axes see the same data no matter
how the device is rotated about that axis. While these
may be transient conditions, they offered enough risk to
operation of the fully aerobatic target that we rejected
their incorporation into the product.
It may be that one could use them with more confidence
where the design goal is not to recover from an unusual attitude
but to keep from getting into an unusual attitude.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Bob,
Great review......
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Morning Michael,
Great information for an old guy like me that is still struggling with
Ohms Law!
May I interject a few thoughts though?
This new technology is certain to provide us with excellent autopilots
and situational awareness instrumentation. The advancements in
technology are mind boggling. Anything we purchase becomes obsolete
before the ink is dry on the check.
That is all to the good and I love to see it happening.
Back to the world of application.
The first time Wilbur, Orville or Glenn had difficulty establishing
their reference to the natural horizon, folks realized that some
instrumentation would be required to allow safe flight when visibility
was reduced.
The principles of the gyroscope were well understood and it was not
long before various adaptations were applied to aircraft control.
At the same time, the Wrights and other pioneers realized that there
was benefit to building aerodynamic stability into their flying
machines. As an aside, the Wrights had initially thought that the
machine needed to be built with almost neutral stability in order for it
to be controllable. The reason they never rebuilt the original Wright
Flyer, but went on to another design is because their flights on
December 17, 1903 taught them that the Flyer was not stable enough for
practical flight.
By the end of World War One, the concept of making the airplane
dynamically stable and using a gyroscope to tell the pilot he/she was
turning was well established. Monster ship's gyroscopes were too
expensive and too heavy for practical airborne use, but a simple
gyroscope hooked to some sort of an indicator that could tell the pilot
the craft was turning was light weight and cheap enough that it became
common equipment. Most of those units used a needle of some sort to
tell the pilot what was happening. Many of the ones developed by
European interests had the needle hinged at the top. Most that were
developed on our side of the pond had the needle hinged at the bottom.
By using the Turn needle to keep any turning force to a minimum and by
learning the idiosyncrasies of Magnetic Compass precession during turns,
it became practical to fly in cloud. Not easy, but doable.
By the end of WW I the shape of future instrumentation was quite
evident.
They had learned that if you stop the turn, you will survive!
Since coordinated flight was found to be advantageous, a simple
inclinometer was added to the flight panel to display the degree of
coordination being used. By the beginning of WWII, most turn instruments
had that ball included within the same instrument case.
Gyroscopes that showed an artificial horizon were developed, but they
tended to be very heavy, very expensive, very delicate and not at all
reliable if their mechanical limitations were exceeded.
During the late twenties and early thirties, instrument flight became
a practical endeavor. The Turn and Bank was the main thing used to allow
the pilots to perceive a turning moment and the built in stability of
the aircraft was such that it was relatively easy to evaluate the pitch
and speed of the aircraft by the response of the airspeed indicator and
the altimeter.
Thus we had Needle, Ball, and Airspeed IFR flight.
By the time WWII came along, the artificial horizons had gotten cheap
enough and light enough such that they were fitted to most airliners and
many larger military aircraft. Sure made for easier and smoother flight
operations.
Notice that, thus far, we were still relying primarily on a human
being to supply the motion need to position the controls?
Efforts had been made to build machinery that would perform that
function, but was not yet well developed.
Since this dissertation is getting way too long for an avionics list,
fast forward to today.
We now have almost unlimited calculating capability and there seems to
be no reason why the human even needs to be involved other than as a
mechanism to monitor what the electrons are doing. Given sufficient
computing power, there is no doubt in my mind that it is relatively easy
to make a machine that has a lower failure rate than do we mere humans.
So, I guess the question is, how much do we want humans to be
involved?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 7/21/2009 3:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mjpereira68(at)gmail.com writes:
Then again you talk about gps input so with proper software you
could
continually calibrate what signal from the gyro means "zero yaw" (or
any other yaw rate). The thing is if you're going to do that it
might
just be as easy to buy a quality gps chipset and calculate for bank
angle based on ground speed and turning radius (like the Garmin 396
and later do on their instrument page). Without the gps input or
alternately a 3-axis compass input it would be difficult to not
have
the autopilot (using whatever sensors are in the cheaper rc heli
gyros) continually command a very slow (yet highly annoying) turn.
c'ya,
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any
occasion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Yes, with the wondrous capabilities and reliability of today's computer controlled
machines, be assured that nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong....go........
I seem to recall reading about several accidents caused by the erroneous actions
of computer controlled servo systems; actions that couldn't be detected nor
corrected by the pilots.? Admittedly, these were the result of faulty assumptions
being built into the computer's database by humans.? I guess it comes down
to "who (or what) do you trust?"
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: David LLoyd <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Sent: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 10:27 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Bob,
?
Great review......
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From:
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:12
AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Morning Michael,
?
Great information for an old guy like me that is still struggling with
Ohms Law!
?
May I interject a few thoughts though?
?
This new technology is certain to provide us with excellent autopilots
and situational awareness instrumentation. The advancements in technology are
mind boggling. Anything we purchase becomes obsolete before the ink is dry on
the check.
?
That is all to the good and I love to see it happening.
?
Back to the world of application.
?
The first time Wilbur, Orville or Glenn had difficulty establishing their
reference to the natural horizon, folks realized that some instrumentation
would be required to allow safe flight when visibility was reduced.
?
The principles of the gyroscope were well understood and it was not long
before various adaptations were applied to aircraft control.
?
At the same time, the Wrights and other pioneers realized that there was
benefit to building aerodynamic stability into their flying machines. As an
aside, the Wrights had initially thought that the machine needed to be built
with almost neutral stability in order for it to be controllable. The reason
they never rebuilt the original Wright Flyer, but went on to another design is
because their flights on December 17, 1903 taught them that the Flyer was not
stable enough for practical flight.
?
By the end of World War One, the concept of making the airplane
dynamically stable and using a gyroscope to tell the pilot he/she was turning
was well established. Monster ship's gyroscopes were too expensive and too
heavy for practical airborne use, but a simple gyroscope hooked to some sort
of an indicator that could tell the pilot the craft was turning was light
weight and cheap enough that it became common equipment.? Most of those
units used a needle of some sort to tell the pilot what was happening. Many of
the ones developed by European interests had the needle hinged at the top.
Most that were developed on our side of the pond had the needle hinged at the
bottom.
?
By using the Turn needle to keep any turning force to a minimum and by
learning the idiosyncrasies of Magnetic Compass precession during turns, it
became practical to fly in cloud. Not easy, but doable.
?
By the end of? WW I the shape of future instrumentation was quite
evident.
?
They had learned that if you stop the turn, you will survive!
?
Since coordinated flight was found to be advantageous, a simple
inclinometer was added to the flight panel to display the degree of
coordination being used. By the beginning of WWII, most turn instruments had
that ball included within the same instrument case.
?
Gyroscopes that showed an artificial horizon were developed, but they
tended to be very heavy, very expensive, very delicate and not at all reliable
if their mechanical limitations were exceeded.
?
During the late twenties and early thirties, instrument flight became a
practical endeavor. The Turn and Bank was the main thing used to allow the
pilots to perceive a turning moment and the built in stability of the aircraft
was such that it was relatively easy to evaluate the pitch and speed of the
aircraft by the response of the airspeed indicator and the altimeter.
?
Thus?we had Needle, Ball, and Airspeed IFR flight.
?
By the time WWII came along, the artificial horizons had gotten cheap
enough and light enough such that they were fitted to most airliners and many
larger military aircraft. Sure made for easier and smoother flight
operations.
?
Notice that, thus far, we were still relying primarily on a human being
to supply the motion need to position the controls?
?
Efforts had been made to build machinery that would perform that
function, but was not yet well developed.
?
Since this dissertation is getting way too long for an avionics list,
fast forward to today.
?
We now have almost unlimited calculating capability and there seems to be
no reason why the human even needs to be involved other than as
a?mechanism to monitor what the electrons are doing. Given sufficient
computing power, there is no doubt in my mind that it is relatively easy to
make a machine that has a lower failure rate than do we mere humans.
?
So, I guess the question is, how much do we want humans to be
involved?
?
Happy Skies,
?
Old Bob
LL22
Stearman N3977A
?
In a message dated 7/21/2009 3:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mjpereira68(at)gmail.com writes:
Then again you talk about gps input so with proper software
you could
continually calibrate what signal from the gyro means "zero
yaw" (or
any other yaw rate).? The thing is if you're going to do
that it might
just be as easy to buy a quality gps chipset and calculate
for bank
angle based on ground speed and turning radius (like the Garmin
396
and later do on their instrument page).? Without the gps input
or
alternately a? 3-axis compass input it would be difficult to not
have
the autopilot (using whatever sensors are in the cheaper rc
heli
gyros) continually command a very slow (yet highly annoying)
turn.
c'ya,
Michael
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and
easy dinner ideas for any occasion.
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
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the Atlantic... |
Hey there all,
I posted something similar to what I will write now but it does not seem to
have come through. Two mates of mine will attempt (and hopefully complete)
a flight across the Atlantic, from Conakry, Guinea to Belem, Brazil tomorrow
evening. They are flying an aircraft called the 'Sling' that they designed
and built here in South Africa; to be sold as a light sport kit. The
aircraft is a low wing 2 seater with a 912 Rotax engine and is specially
modified so that the whole leading edge of each wing is a fuel tank (divided
into 6 tanks), carrying 450 litres of fuel. Tomorrow evening their flight
will use 440 litres.. Its going to be a narrow thing.
The aircraft has a modified Z-16 diagram that I used from Bob's (thank you!)
lists/diagrams. In the aircraft there are 2 MGL Voyagers, a stormscope,
transponder, Garmin SL30 Nav/ Comm radio, auto pilots, and bits and pieces
including a satellite linked GPS tracker so that we can follow their
progress. This last Saturday they took off from near Johannesburg here in
South Africa and flew non-stop for 20 hours to reach Sao Tome off the west
African coast, just south of Nigeria. I was with them when James, one of
the pilots, filed an unbelievable flight plan for an LSA aircraft. He had
to repeat and confirm the distances and aircraft type several times- and
explain this to the disbelieving official at the other end.
If you're curious and would like to see more have a look at
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
You will be able to track their flight across the Atlantic tomorrow if all
goes well, and for those of you going to Oshkosh, they'll be there.
Bob, I've read your arguments and as an electrical engineer they made a lot
of sense; I used your suggestions and designs in this aircraft and so far it
has worked well and I am sure that it will continue to do so. Here's hoping
that my mates make it across the pond!
Jay from South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical stuff for sale. |
| From: | "gr8matronics" <gr8flyer7(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Dean,
I am wondering if the Rocky Mountain Instrument - Micro Encoder (Unassembled Kit),
fits std 3 1/8 inch instrument hole, displays airspeed, altitude, VSI, OAT,
Altitude alerting, misc warnings. Half the price of new at $450.00 still available?
Is it the low speed or standard speed microencoder? I am interested
in buying this from you. Thank you, Aaron.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254201#254201
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The weak link |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Joe wrote:
> Bob Nuckolls said, "Perhaps dual wing levelers are in order? I'd bet that a
> BIG
> chunk of the accidents due to poor pilot visibility and/or
> workload distractions for single-pilot IFR would have been
> averted (if) electrons had the stick. I'll suggest that most
> IFR capable airframes would be better outfitted for ventures
> into poor visibility if there were NO displays on the panel
> and dual, heading-slaved wing levelers installed. The wing
> levelers are probably lighter and more reliable than a suite
> of panel mounted gyros and more capable than pilot's trying
> to manage an airplane . . . .."
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Flying IFR, if we can trust our lives to
> electronics to take information from sensors and display that information,
> then why can't we trust electronics to actually operate the controls? The
> human being is the weak link in the system. Have you ever noticed the
> control movements when the autopilot is on, compared to when a human is in
> control? Some planes have dual EFISs. I suggest that it would be better to
> have dual autopilots with dual servos. The recreational IFR pilot is better
> off monitoring the system as a whole, watching for component failure, making
> sure that the altitude and heading are correct, handling radio
> communications, looking for traffic, and etc.
> Joe Gores
Joe,
Having software manage your flight controls doesn't eliminate the
human "weak link" it just moves it from the pilot (who's own butt is
on the line) and transfers it to computer programmers, the vast
majority of which only understand a small part of the total program on
large projects (which is unavoidable). They have the privilege of not
being in the aircraft when their products fail (unless they're
working for a major aircraft manufacturer and suffer an incredible
case being in the wrong place at the wrong time).
Don't cast me as a luddite, I have a ton of IT experience. And
honestly all that experience makes me appreciate the concept of having
a hunk of spinning iron as a backup. In fact, since efis is dependant
on electricity, It'd be nice if that spinning gyro was based on vacuum
(or an electrically driven one with it's own internal battery that
*only* drives the motor).
c'ya,
Michael
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Jacobs <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
Howdy folks,
In my work we use 30v transorbs similar the ones that have been discussed on
this list for years. We use them to limit relay contact arcing when
switching inductive loads such as mag locks and electric strikes. We have
hundreds in the field and until yesterday I would have said they never go
bad - but yesterday I had a service call and sure enough a transorb had
shorted. In our applications the coil currents range from 125ma to maybe an
amp or so. I don't know why it failed, maybe a manufacturing defect, but
the point becomes that they CAN fail.
So I'm thinking, if I have one of these things across the coil on my master
contactor and it shorts - bad things happen. Not only would I loose
electric power but the un-fused master switch wiring would be overloaded.
I'm thinking maybe a 30v transorb across the master switch - not the
contactor coil may be a better choice if you are going to use them at all.
It would still protect the switch, it would still allow about 15v reverse
voltage to collapse the field in the coil (12v system - use a 45v transorb
in a 24v system) and in a failure mode you would just be unable to shut off
the power.
Anyway, I just wanted to bring attention to an admittedly remote failure
mode and a possible re-configuration that would have a much more favorable
result if a failure did occur.
Joel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The weak link |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>
>
snip
>> communications, looking for traffic, and etc.
>> Joe Gores
>
> Joe,
>
> Having software manage your flight controls doesn't eliminate the
> human "weak link" it just moves it from the pilot (who's own butt is
> on the line) and transfers it to computer programmers, the vast
> majority of which only understand a small part of the total program on
> large projects (which is unavoidable). They have the privilege of not
> being in the aircraft when their products fail (unless they're
> working for a major aircraft manufacturer and suffer an incredible
> case being in the wrong place at the wrong time).
>
> Don't cast me as a luddite, I have a ton of IT experience. And
> honestly all that experience makes me appreciate the concept of having
> a hunk of spinning iron as a backup. In fact, since efis is dependant
> on electricity, It'd be nice if that spinning gyro was based on vacuum
> (or an electrically driven one with it's own internal battery that
> *only* drives the motor).
>
> c'ya,
> Michael
>
One benefit the computer programmer has is the opportunity to ponder bad
things happening while sitting at a desk (on the ground), drinking a
favored beverage. On the other hand, the pilot gets to ponder these bad
things while riding through said bad things (which are often quite
distracting). Sometimes the pilot doesn't make the right decision and
doesn't get to take another shot at it. The computer programmer can (with
the help of peers) consider all sorts of malfunctions.
One other thought.. The act of using GPS data to correct for roll/yaw
gyro drift is a far cry (much simpler task) from the tasks currently being
accomplished by the current crop of EFISs. Simpler tasks mean simpler
code, and a much easier device to debug. What amounts to be a single axis
autopilot could be done in very few lines of code.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Interesting.
I could imagine that Bob might like to look at the shorted device - if
it's still around.
I wonder what short circuit current such a transorb might support before
itself becoming a fuse (going open circuit).. If the switch and wiring
can handle it, this may not be a terribly serious issue. A bit smokey
perhaps...
Matt-
> Howdy folks,
> In my work we use 30v transorbs similar the ones that have been discussed
> on
> this list for years. We use them to limit relay contact arcing when
> switching inductive loads such as mag locks and electric strikes. We have
> hundreds in the field and until yesterday I would have said they never go
> bad - but yesterday I had a service call and sure enough a transorb had
> shorted. In our applications the coil currents range from 125ma to maybe
> an
> amp or so. I don't know why it failed, maybe a manufacturing defect, but
> the point becomes that they CAN fail.
>
> So I'm thinking, if I have one of these things across the coil on my
> master
> contactor and it shorts - bad things happen. Not only would I loose
> electric power but the un-fused master switch wiring would be overloaded.
> I'm thinking maybe a 30v transorb across the master switch - not the
> contactor coil may be a better choice if you are going to use them at all.
> It would still protect the switch, it would still allow about 15v reverse
> voltage to collapse the field in the coil (12v system - use a 45v transorb
> in a 24v system) and in a failure mode you would just be unable to shut
> off
> the power.
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to bring attention to an admittedly remote failure
> mode and a possible re-configuration that would have a much more favorable
> result if a failure did occur.
>
> Joel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Michael,
>
> Great information for an old guy like me that is still struggling with Ohms
> Law!
>
> May I interject a few thoughts though?
>
> This new technology is certain to provide us with excellent autopilots and
> situational awareness instrumentation. The advancements in technology are
> mind boggling. Anything we purchase becomes obsolete before the ink is dry
> on the check.
>
>
You still write checks? Don't you know that technology have made them
obsolete? 8*)
>
> So, I guess the question is, how much do we want humans to be involved?
>
I didn't get a pilot's license so that a machine could fly me around. 8*)
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Evening Ernest,
May I take it from that statement that you prefer a Boeing over an Airbus?
I repeat: The question is, how much do we want humans to be involved?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/21/2009 8:16:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
I didn't get a pilot's license so that a machine could fly me around. 8*)
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Jacobs <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
Yes I still have it and I'd be happy to send it to Bob if he wants to take a
look. It's in heat shrink with lead wires sticking out. I haven't molested
it yet - just checked it with a meter. A transorb is basicaly two zeners
back to back and one in this is shorted. It measures a standard diode drop
one way and open the other.
Joel
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
> >
>
> Interesting.
>
> I could imagine that Bob might like to look at the shorted device - if
> it's still around.
>
> I wonder what short circuit current such a transorb might support before
> itself becoming a fuse (going open circuit).. If the switch and wiring
> can handle it, this may not be a terribly serious issue. A bit smokey
> perhaps...
>
>
> Matt-
>
> > Howdy folks,
> > In my work we use 30v transorbs similar the ones that have been discussed
> > on
> > this list for years. We use them to limit relay contact arcing when
> > switching inductive loads such as mag locks and electric strikes. We
> have
> > hundreds in the field and until yesterday I would have said they never go
> > bad - but yesterday I had a service call and sure enough a transorb had
> > shorted. In our applications the coil currents range from 125ma to maybe
> > an
> > amp or so. I don't know why it failed, maybe a manufacturing defect, but
> > the point becomes that they CAN fail.
> >
> > So I'm thinking, if I have one of these things across the coil on my
> > master
> > contactor and it shorts - bad things happen. Not only would I loose
> > electric power but the un-fused master switch wiring would be overloaded.
> > I'm thinking maybe a 30v transorb across the master switch - not the
> > contactor coil may be a better choice if you are going to use them at
> all.
> > It would still protect the switch, it would still allow about 15v reverse
> > voltage to collapse the field in the coil (12v system - use a 45v
> transorb
> > in a 24v system) and in a failure mode you would just be unable to shut
> > off
> > the power.
> >
> > Anyway, I just wanted to bring attention to an admittedly remote failure
> > mode and a possible re-configuration that would have a much more
> favorable
> > result if a failure did occur.
> >
> > Joel
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the Atlantic... |
Hey there all,
I posted something similar to what I will write now but it does not seem to
have come through. Two mates of mine will attempt (and hopefully complete)
a flight across the Atlantic, from Conakry, Guinea to Belem, Brazil this
evening. They are flying an aircraft called the Sling that they designed
and built here in South Africa; to be sold as a light sport kit. The
aircraft is a low wing 2 seater with a 912 Rotax engine and is specially
modified so that the whole leading edge of each wing is a fuel tank (divided
into 6 tanks), carrying 450 litres of fuel. This evening their flight will
use 440 litres. Its going to be a narrow thing.
The aircraft has a modified Z-16 diagram that I used from Bobs (thank you!)
lists/diagrams. In the aircraft there are 2 MGL Voyagers, a stormscope,
transponder, Garmin SL30 Nav/ Comm radio, auto pilots, and bits and pieces
including a satellite linked GPS tracker so that we can follow their
progress. This last Saturday they took off from near Johannesburg here in
South Africa and flew non-stop for 20 hours to reach Sao Tome off the west
African coast, just south of Nigeria. I was with them when James, one of
the pilots, filed an unbelievable flight plan for an LSA aircraft. He had
to repeat and confirm the distances and aircraft type several times- and
explain this to the disbelieving official at the other end.
If youre curious and would like to see more have a look at
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
You will be able to track their flight across the Atlantic tomorrow if all
goes well, and for those of you going to Oshkosh, theyll be there.
Bob, Ive read your arguments and as an electrical engineer they made a lot
of sense; I used your suggestions and designs in this aircraft and so far it
has worked well and I am sure that it will continue to do so. Heres hoping
that my mates make it across the pond!
Jay from South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | differences in fuses versus circuit breakers |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Hi Bob,
For the 12v/24v DC circuits typically used in our aircraft, is there
any difference in the rating one would select if using a fuse versus a
circuit breaker? In other words, a hypothetical example, if one arrived
at a value of 15 amps to protect a wire, would a 15 amp fuse be
interchangeable with a 15 amp circuit breaker for protecting the wire?
I ask for two reasons - in a discussion on another mailing list,
someone has said that fuses and circuit breakers of the same rated value
are not interchangeable, and AC43.13-1B table 11-3 on page 11-15 in
Section 4 shows a 15 amp CB or a 10 amp fuse to protect a 16 gauge
copper wire (picture attached).
If there is a difference, do you know and can you explain in simple
terms why?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar 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: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
It appears the EV200 is a good master relay...anyone know why it should not be
used as a starter relay...also...?
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254326#254326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Yes I still have it and I'd be happy to send it to Bob if he wants to take a look.
It's in heat shrink with lead wires sticking out. I haven't molested it yet
- just checked it with a meter. A transorb is basicaly two zeners back to back
and one in this is shorted. It measures a standard diode drop one way and open
the other.
Yes, I'd like to look at it. Please send to Bob Nuckolls,
P.O. Box 130, Medicine Lodge, KS 67104-0130.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254333#254333
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:31 AM 7/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>It appears the EV200 is a good master relay...anyone know why it
>should not be used as a starter relay...also...?
To what advantage? This is a contactor that operates for
a few seconds per flight cycle. The el-cheeso parts
have performed well and demonstrated good value. The
EV200 may function well too . . . but what's the
expected return on investment for the more expensive
purchase?
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: differences in fuses versus circuit breakers |
At 10:06 AM 7/22/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
> For the 12v/24v DC circuits typically used in our aircraft, is there
>any difference in the rating one would select if using a fuse versus a
>circuit breaker? In other words, a hypothetical example, if one arrived
>at a value of 15 amps to protect a wire, would a 15 amp fuse be
>interchangeable with a 15 amp circuit breaker for protecting the wire?
This is a classic example of how AC43.13 offers advice that
is not explained and makes no sense based on the physics.
For example, AC43.13 says their table applies to fuses per
Mil-F-15160. Here . . .
http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/ListDocs.asp?BasicDoc=MIL-PRF-15160
we see that the general spec covers a couple dozen types
of fast acting fuses (1 hour trip at 135%, seconds to few
minutes at 200%). The spec called out is constellation of
FORM/FIT/FUNCTION specs for a variety of fuses.
Now we go look at Mil-C-5806G . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Circuit_Breaker/Mil-C-5806G.pdf
This is a QUALIFICATION TEST spec for circuit breakers
of unspecified performance. The poor sap who takes AC43.13 table
11-13, and the specifications called out (gee the talked about
Mil-W-5088 wire too!) will be pretty much in the dark as to how
a considered selection can be made. MOST readers will simply check
to see that the sales brochure for each part under consideration
simply cites these specs . . . without a clue as to how the
part performs to design goals.
> I ask for two reasons - in a discussion on another mailing list,
>someone has said that fuses and circuit breakers of the same rated value
>are not interchangeable, and AC43.13-1B table 11-3 on page 11-15 in
>Section 4 shows a 15 amp CB or a 10 amp fuse to protect a 16 gauge
>copper wire (picture attached).
For our purposes, breakers and fuses are size-for-size interchangeable.
The table cited from AC43.13 is but one of many examples of
poor and/or senseless advice. Please consider running section 11
through the shredder and come here to the AeroElectric List for
advice based on experience and proven recipes for success. The
article at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf
speaks to the practical aspects of wire sizing and selection
of circuit protection. For the airplanes we're building,
it DOESN'T need to be complicated.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
If I could get the parts cheap enough, the benefit for me, with two planes, would
be interchangeability...or just having one spare on the shelf.
Thanks for the initial lead, it looks like a great relay, but like you say, can
be pricey...I think I can get them at a little over $40.
Cheers,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254422#254422
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Uuuh... Because a much cheaper and perfectly adequate solution is
available - the normal el-cheapo starter relay.
The only reason I can see for ever using the EV200 is that it uses less
current when it is energized which might be justifiable for the master
relay. But for the starter relay - how long would it be on when
starting - 2-5 seconds?
Save the money and spend it on gas...
My $0.02
Dick Tasker
al38kit wrote:
>
> It appears the EV200 is a good master relay...anyone know why it should not be
used as a starter relay...also...?
>
> Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: differences in fuses versus circuit breakers |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 7/22/2009 7:25 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> For our purposes, breakers and fuses are size-for-size interchangeable.
Thanks! :-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 11:21 AM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
>Yes, with the wondrous capabilities and reliability of today's
>computer controlled machines, be assured that nothing can go
>wrong...go wrong...go wrong....go........
>
>I seem to recall reading about several accidents caused by the
>erroneous actions of computer controlled servo systems; actions that
>couldn't be detected nor corrected by the pilots. Admittedly, these
>were the result of faulty assumptions being built into the
>computer's database by humans. I guess it comes down to "who (or
>what) do you trust?"
Or designing for failure tolerance. Accidents
that follow servo system failures are generally
situations where the pilot did not have his/her
hand on the stick while too close to the ground.
I've had a/p systems hiccup . . . and it's
never pleasant. I wouldn't shoot a coupled
approach without having a hand on the wheel
and a thumb on the disconnect switch. You
need to unhook the autopilot to land so you
can be ready to punch it off when you break out
and/or punch it off when and if it strays.
I worked a FMEA on a Baron accident where the
pilot was in a climb and punched altitude hold
as he approached his assigned level. The autopilot
immediately grabbed pitch and held the desired
altitude. At the same time, it started driving
trim to take force out of the pitch servo.
Unfortunately, the down-pitch relay stuck and
continued to trim down while the a/p servo worked
to keep pitch level. When the pitch servo ran out
of authority, the aircraft nosed down. The pilot
was then aware of a problem. He correctly deduced
a difficulty in the automatic flight control
system and punched the a/p disconnect button.
The pitch servo relaxed and the airplane was
now trimmed nearly full nose down trim. Forces
on the wheel needed to keep the airplane level
would have been high. He was so busy trying
to fly the airplane that he probably didn't notice
the trim situation. This was a smoking hole event
where all of the wreckage ended up in a single
divot.
In years since we've installed pitch authority
limiters in servos (no reason for the a/p to
be more capable than a robust pilot), trim in
motion annunciation signals, and software based
monitors that watch for diverging forces.
The accident was a simple, analog, single channel
autopilot that had a connection to the standard
factory electric trim. The a/p had no way to spot
the stuck relay but was capable of standing off
the effects of divergent forces until they were
too large for the pilot to physically handle
when he told the autopilot to buzz off.
Microprocessors, highly integrated flight
control systems, and lessons-learned have largely
eliminated such events. The forces and rates
in a stepper motor implemented wing leveler
can never over-stress a pilot or an airframe.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The weak link |
At 07:10 PM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
> >
>
>One benefit the computer programmer has is the opportunity to ponder bad
>things happening while sitting at a desk (on the ground), drinking a
>favored beverage. On the other hand, the pilot gets to ponder these bad
>things while riding through said bad things (which are often quite
>distracting). Sometimes the pilot doesn't make the right decision and
>doesn't get to take another shot at it. The computer programmer can (with
>the help of peers) consider all sorts of malfunctions.
>
>One other thought.. The act of using GPS data to correct for roll/yaw
>gyro drift is a far cry (much simpler task) from the tasks currently being
>accomplished by the current crop of EFISs. Simpler tasks mean simpler
>code, and a much easier device to debug. What amounts to be a single axis
>autopilot could be done in very few lines of code.
Absolutely! This is why the design goals I suggested
for the GPS aided wing leveler has the gps receiver
built in along with the rate sensors. No wiring other
than to power it up, hook up an antenna and pushbuttons.
If a valid gps signal isn't present, the system won't
drive. If 14v isn't present, it won't drive. Software has but
one task only . . . hold gps course of the moment
which is modified by simple push-button commands -or-
offered by external flight planning accessory over the
serial bus. VERY simple code in a one-chip microprocessor.
total parts count is very low . . . i.e. failure rates
driven by complexity go way down.
If you push all the fancy maneuvering software and
hardware out to a plug-n-play device like a palm-
computer, then the guy who keeps the airplane right
side up and pointed the right direction is not distracted
nor are his design goals plagued with CPU "business".
Let somebody else with equally constrained design goals
write the software that does the fancy steering . . .
but in a device that can be unplugged or turned off
without influencing the performance of the wing-leveler.
This distributed processing, minimalist hardware approach
offers an opportunity for a small, light, low cost
end product, and reduces probability of high-risk software.
A dual wing-leveler package has two control gps receivers
cross-checked with data from a third panel mounted receiver.
Probability for an system failure to endure unattended
by the pilot is low and plan-a/plan-b tolerance to failure
is high.
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> |
At 06:23 PM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
>Howdy folks,
>In my work we use 30v transorbs similar the ones that have been
>discussed on this list for years. We use them to limit relay
>contact arcing when switching inductive loads such as mag locks and
>electric strikes. We have hundreds in the field and until yesterday
>I would have said they never go bad - but yesterday I had a service
>call and sure enough a transorb had shorted. In our applications
>the coil currents range from 125ma to maybe an amp or so. I don't
>know why it failed, maybe a manufacturing defect, but the point
>becomes that they CAN fail.
The transorb is indeed a specialized zener. In the
zener conduction mode, the potential for dissipating
a deleterious level of heat is much higher than for
a diode rectifier. The energy available from a magnetic
field collapse is quite low and measured in millijoules.
Certainly a low risk stress to any power semiconductor.
The ability of the electrical system to deliver energy
to the transorb in a voltage transient condition is
many times higher.
>So I'm thinking, if I have one of these things across the coil on my
>master contactor and it shorts - bad things happen. Not only would
>I loose electric power but the un-fused master switch wiring would
>be overloaded. I'm thinking maybe a 30v transorb across the master
>switch - not the contactor coil may be a better choice if you are
>going to use them at all. It would still protect the switch, it
>would still allow about 15v reverse voltage to collapse the field in
>the coil (12v system - use a 45v transorb in a 24v system) and in a
>failure mode you would just be unable to shut off the power.
But there are OTHER, equally likely failure modes that
can take the battery contactor out of service. That's
what the e-bus alternate feed path is all about. The
optimum location for transient suppression is at the
contactor coil terminals.
Do I correctly deduce from your posting that your
contactor coils are protected by a single transorb?
If so, then it has to be wired as shown in -A- below.
Emacs!
In this configuration, the device HAS to be biased in
the zener conduction mode polarity while coiled power
IS APPLIED. When the switch opens, the top of the coil
swings negative . . . and the transorb is now biased
in the diode conduction mode. This configuration doesn't
take advantage of the transorb's voltage limiting function
as a specialized zener. In other words, your transorb
functionality in the coil release mode is the same as
for the simple diodes described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
The proper application of uni-polar transorbs or zeners
for SPIKE mitigation is to place them in series with
a plain vanilla rectifier as shown in -B-. In this
case, power that energizes the coil is blocked by the
diode, but the strong negative swing at switch opening
time is carried through the diode to the transorb that
conducts like a ZENER to limit the excursion to more
attractive levels (and allows the contactor to release
faster). See:
If the contactor release time (15mS versus 60 mS)
is critical the use of transorbs as shown in -B- is
indicated . . . -OR- you can use a single, bi-directional
device to keep the wiring complexity down and eliminate
device polarity concerns.
If your transorbs are implemented as in -A- then
they've offered no more functionality than the simple
rectifier diode would offer. If contactor release time
is critical, then changing to -B- or changing to
bi-directional devices is called for. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Cole-Hersee_with_Diode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Cole-Hersee_without_Diode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_2x18v_Transorbs.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_120_Ohm.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_1n5400.gif
>Anyway, I just wanted to bring attention to an admittedly remote
>failure mode and a possible re-configuration that would have a much
>more favorable result if a failure did occur.
Failures of the plain-vanilla diode are unknown to
me. They're simply never electrically stressed in
a manner that puts them at risk for failure. Similarly,
Transorbs wired as shown in -B- cannot be impressed with
system transients because they're isolated by the
series diode.
I'll suggest that there's more to your failure
experience than what you've related in your posting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the Atlantic... |
Hey there all,
I posted something similar to what I will write now but it does not seem to
have come through. Two mates of mine will attempt (and hopefully complete)
a flight across the Atlantic, from Conakry, Guinea to Belem, Brazil tomorrow
evening. They are flying an aircraft called the 'Sling' that they designed
and built here in South Africa; to be sold as a light sport kit. The
aircraft is a low wing 2 seater with a 912 Rotax engine and is specially
modified so that the whole leading edge of each wing is a fuel tank (divided
into 6 tanks), carrying 450 litres of fuel. Tomorrow evening their flight
will use 440 litres.. Its going to be a narrow thing.
The aircraft has a modified Z-16 diagram that I used from Bob's (thank you!)
lists/diagrams. In the aircraft there are 2 MGL Voyagers, a stormscope,
transponder, Garmin SL30 Nav/ Comm radio, auto pilots, and bits and pieces
including a satellite linked GPS tracker so that we can follow their
progress. This last Saturday they took off from near Johannesburg here in
South Africa and flew non-stop for 20 hours to reach Sao Tome off the west
African coast, just south of Nigeria. I was with them when James, one of
the pilots, filed an unbelievable flight plan for an LSA aircraft. He had
to repeat and confirm the distances and aircraft type several times- and
explain this to the disbelieving official at the other end.
If you're curious and would like to see more have a look at
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
You will be able to track their flight across the Atlantic tomorrow if all
goes well, and for those of you going to Oshkosh, they'll be there.
Bob, I've read your arguments and as an electrical engineer they made a lot
of sense; I used your suggestions and designs in this aircraft and so far it
has worked well and I am sure that it will continue to do so. Here's hoping
that my mates make it across the pond!
Jay from South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage Drop / amp ????? |
I have wired my RV7A with the 13/8 revision L. I did modify it to include t
he LR3C Alternator controller in place of genric Ford Regulator and the AEC
9005-101 Low Voltage Module. In looking at the 13/8 revision Q there is an
addition of a S704-1 / diode combo added to the Main Battery Bus / Enduranc
e Bus / Endurance Bus Switch. I also have noted that a AEC9001 Schottky Dio
de can be used in place of a bridge diode.
As I notded in a previous email. 1. When the master switch is closed the vo
ltage showes around 10.8 volts with rock solid amps indication on the Dynon
D-120 EMS. When the endurance switch is closed the Voltage moves up to 12.
8 or 12.9 and the amps meter begins to fluctuate. Open the Master Switch th
us having the load go to only the endurance bus side the voltage maintains
at 12.8 to 12.9 volts and the amps still fluctuates. This situation happens
with or with out the engine running. The battery maintains charge.
Since I sent the last email I have learned that the bridge diode will cause
a drop in voltage. (Even this 62 year old guy can learn stuff....) =2C but
I would have though it would cause the endurance voltage to be less on the
endurance bus side not the main bus side with the master switch closed.???
????
Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1 / diode combo added at
the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to ad
ded it. 2. Would it be of value to added the Schottly in place of the bridg
e diode. I would think yes if the voltage drop is less and thus give a more
accurate voltage reading. 3. Why the higher voltage drop on the Main Bus a
s compared to the Endurance Bus? 4. Whay the conflicting amp reading betwee
n the Main vs Endurance Bus.
Thanks in advance for any help in this matter
Frank @ 1L8 ...RV7A... Phase 1 underway
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Hotmail=AE: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports
pics. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the Atlantic... |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
They made it to Brazil.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the |
Atlantic...
Yeah- its been a very anxious and scary time for all of us. I think that
they have made aviation history doing it. After Oshkosh there is still a
big journey awaiting them. They're already heroes here in SA and we are
planning a huge party when they arrive.
If you've been following the website you'll have seen the desperation,
anxiety and elation the trip has caused. I trust that y'all ;-) will give
them a great reception at Oshkosh!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rckol
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over
the Atlantic...
They made it to Brazil.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert D. Taylor" <FLYDAD57(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the |
Atlantic...
Tell 'em CONGRATULATIONS! And thanks for letting us know. Hope they have a
safe trip the rest of the way to Oshkosh.
Bob Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over
the Atlantic...
>
> They made it to Brazil.
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the |
Atlantic...
If you go to their website
(http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp) you can leave them a
message yourself :-) - they'd really appreciate it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert D.
Taylor
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA
over the Atlantic...
Tell 'em CONGRATULATIONS! And thanks for letting us know. Hope they have a
safe trip the rest of the way to Oshkosh.
Bob Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over
the Atlantic...
>
> They made it to Brazil.
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
(some repost here...) I have railed against these Type-70 contactors for years.
But they are almost obsolete. Most electronics distributors have dropped them
from their lines.
Problems--
1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace Creek in Death
Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is primarily due to the
Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to avoid the part.
2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
3) Low interrupt capacity.
4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation. 2G rating?
6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these. This causes short
lifetimes on the B&C parts.
7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget the B-lead
applications)
See: www.stancor.com
There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP) and
Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11. Expensive but preferred.
Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
---Aldous Huxley
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254518#254518
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the |
Atlantic...
Hey there everyone,
My apologies for the multiple posts on this; my webmail service and email
server was arbitrarily placing mails into a junk folder that was not
accessed by the POP3 download so I was not seeing any replies and was
getting very frustrated!
For your interest here is a bit from a post that I made on another forum.
Thanks to all of you who have sent messages of congratulations!
******************
I was also most pleased to hear that the storm scope worked well- the
antenna for that (very complex with a whole bunch of individually screened
twisted pairs in an overall screened cable) was wired one bitterly cold
evening at 3am in the Springs hanger as the guys bashed and moved the
airframe around getting the wings installed!
The aircraft has an unusual fitting as well- a hooter; this was Mikes idea
which he thought might help to scare birds away when flying low level near
the coast. That was wired up that same evening a couple of hours earlier -
Mike was under the aircraft on his back and the guys were trying to
manoeuvre the wing into its slot (extra layers of paint was making this
difficult and they had to keep removing it and sand paint away...). Without
thinking I switched the DC Master on and pressed the hooter button. Mike
must have been concentrating fiercely because he shot out and up from under
the aircraft yelling 'yah, yah, yaaaah!' He had got one heck of a fright.
It provided a laugh and a slight warm up for all of us. :lol:
*****************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA
over the Atlantic...
If you go to their website
(http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp) you can leave them a
message yourself :-) - they'd really appreciate it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert D.
Taylor
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA
over the Atlantic...
Tell 'em CONGRATULATIONS! And thanks for letting us know. Hope they have a
safe trip the rest of the way to Oshkosh.
Bob Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over
the Atlantic...
>
> They made it to Brazil.
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over the |
Atla...
Good Morning Jay,
Just wanted to thank you for letting us know about this project.
I did attempt to send a message to your friends, but I don't think it
worked. My lack of computer skills became evident as I attempted to work my way
through the process.
In any case, I will be looking for them at Oshkosh.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/24/2009 4:58:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jay(at)horriblehyde.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jay Hyde"
Hey there everyone,
My apologies for the multiple posts on this; my webmail service and email
server was arbitrarily placing mails into a junk folder that was not
accessed by the POP3 download so I was not seeing any replies and was
getting very frustrated!
For your interest here is a bit from a post that I made on another forum.
Thanks to all of you who have sent messages of congratulations!
******************
I was also most pleased to hear that the storm scope worked well- the
antenna for that (very complex with a whole bunch of individually screened
twisted pairs in an overall screened cable) was wired one bitterly cold
evening at 3am in the Springs hanger as the guys bashed and moved the
airframe around getting the wings installed!
The aircraft has an unusual fitting as well- a hooter; this was Mikes idea
which he thought might help to scare birds away when flying low level near
the coast. That was wired up that same evening a couple of hours earlier -
Mike was under the aircraft on his back and the guys were trying to
manoeuvre the wing into its slot (extra layers of paint was making this
difficult and they had to keep removing it and sand paint away...).
Without
thinking I switched the DC Master on and pressed the hooter button. Mike
must have been concentrating fiercely because he shot out and up from under
the aircraft yelling 'yah, yah, yaaaah!' He had got one heck of a fright.
It provided a laugh and a slight warm up for all of us. :lol:
*****************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA
over the Atlantic...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jay Hyde"
If you go to their website
(http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp) you can leave them a
message yourself :-) - they'd really appreciate it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
D.
Taylor
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA
over the Atlantic...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert D. Taylor"
Tell 'em CONGRATULATIONS! And thanks for letting us know. Hope they have
a
safe trip the rest of the way to Oshkosh.
Bob Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wild flights... 22 hr trip in an LSA over
the Atlantic...
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rckol"
>
> They made it to Brazil.
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254508#254508
>
>
>
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage Drop / amp ????? |
I have wired my RV7A with the 13/8 revision L. I did modify it to
include the LR3C
Alternator controller in place of genric Ford Regulator and the AEC9005-101 Low
Voltage Module. In looking at the 13/8 revision Q there is an
addition of a S704-1 /
diode combo added to the Main Battery Bus / Endurance Bus / Endurance
Bus Switch.
I also have noted that a AEC9001 Schottky Diode can be used in place
of a bridge diode.
As I noted in a previous email. 1. When the master switch is closed the voltage
shoes around 10.8 volts with rock solid amps indication on the Dynon D-120 EMS.
From this I deduce that your Dynon is measuring the e-bus voltage.
Indeed, with master switch ON and alternator not running, the main
bus would normally be a about 12.5 volts. An expected 0.7 volt drop
in normal feed diode produces an e-bus voltage on the order of
11.8 volts.
When the endurance switch is closed the Voltage moves up to 12.8 or 12.9 and
the amps meter begins to fluctuate. Open the Master Switch thus having the
load go to only the endurance bus side the voltage maintains at 12.8
to 12.9 volts
and the amps still fluctuates.
Okay, with the alternator OFF the battery-only voltage would
be expected to fall in this range. When you say the amps
"fluctuates" what's the max-min numbers displayed?
This situation happens with or without the engine running. The
battery maintains charge.
With the engine running, do you turn the alternator ON to
see if it elevates the bus to the nominal 14.2 to 14.6 volts?
Since I sent the last email I have learned that the bridge diode will
cause a drop in voltage. (Even this 62 year old guy can learn stuff....),
but I would have though it would cause the endurance voltage to be
less on the endurance bus side not the main bus side with the master
switch closed.???????
Then the Dynon is NOT monitoring the e-bus? If you close the
e-bus alternate feed switch and the Dynon display goes UP,
then it appears that the Dynon is on the e-bus.
Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1/diode combo added at
the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to added
it?
Don't know what an S204-1 device is . . . and don't know why
ANY diode would be wired to the e-bus alternate feed switch.
2. Would it be of value to added the Schottly in place of the bridge diode?
Slightly . . . but from the readings you cite it's not clear
that the Dynon is connected to the Main bus . . . hence SOME
degree of bus votlage suppression would be expected.
I would think yes if the voltage drop is less and thus give a more accurate
voltage reading.
The voltmeter is already ACCURATE. It's showing the votlage
at where ever it's attached. I'm guessing the e-bus. So all other
things being normal and functioning to design goals, the readings
are expected and normal.
3. Why the higher voltage drop on the Main Bus as compared to the
Endurance Bus?
With engine not running and alternator OFF . . .
Get out a voltmeter and connect the (-) lead to the battery (-)
or to airframe ground. With master switch ON, E-bus alternate
feed switch OFF, measure and record main and e-bus voltages.
Turn E-Bus alternate feed switch ON and repeat the measurements.
Leave B-Bus switch ON turn master switch OFF and repeat the
measurements.
With engine running and alternator ON . . .
With master switch ON, E-bus alternate feed switch OFF,
measure and record main and e-bus voltages. Turn E-Bus alternate
feed switch ON and repeat the measurements. Leave B-Bus switch
ON turn master switch OFF and repeat the measurements.
4. Why the conflicting amp reading between the Main vs Endurance Bus.
I don't know WHAT your amp reading means nor how big the
fluctuations are. These are digital instruments with quantitization
errors that may well display some tiny wobble in readings even when
the actual value is steady. Are the strobes running? This would
cause an explain a jumpy ammeter reading.
Thanks in advance for any help in this matter
We need DATA under various configurations in order to deduce
the whether the system is wired as designed and whether or
not the components are functioning as expected.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage Drop / amp ????? |
Thanks Bob for the info. My next trip to the airport will begin the process
of trouble shooting as you suggest.
In regards to this part of the email I made a typo..
Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1/diode combo( should ha
ve been S704-1 / diode combo) added at
the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to add
it?
Don't know what an S204-1 device is . . . and don't know why
ANY diode would be wired to the e-bus alternate feed switch.
> Date: Thu=2C 23 Jul 2009 13:39:00 -0500
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Voltage Drop / amp ?????
>
kolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> I have wired my RV7A with the 13/8 revision L. I did modify it to
> include the LR3C
> Alternator controller in place of genric Ford Regulator and the AEC9005-1
01 Low
> Voltage Module. In looking at the 13/8 revision Q there is an
> addition of a S704-1 /
> diode combo added to the Main Battery Bus / Endurance Bus / Endurance
> Bus Switch.
> I also have noted that a AEC9001 Schottky Diode can be used in place
> of a bridge diode.
>
> As I noted in a previous email. 1. When the master switch is closed the v
oltage
> shoes around 10.8 volts with rock solid amps indication on the Dynon D-12
0 EMS.
>
> From this I deduce that your Dynon is measuring the e-bus voltage.
> Indeed=2C with master switch ON and alternator not running=2C the main
> bus would normally be a about 12.5 volts. An expected 0.7 volt drop
> in normal feed diode produces an e-bus voltage on the order of
> 11.8 volts.
>
> When the endurance switch is closed the Voltage moves up to 12.8 or 12.9
and
> the amps meter begins to fluctuate. Open the Master Switch thus having th
e
> load go to only the endurance bus side the voltage maintains at 12.8
> to 12.9 volts
> and the amps still fluctuates.
>
> Okay=2C with the alternator OFF the battery-only voltage would
> be expected to fall in this range. When you say the amps
> "fluctuates" what's the max-min numbers displayed?
>
> This situation happens with or without the engine running. The
> battery maintains charge.
>
> With the engine running=2C do you turn the alternator ON to
> see if it elevates the bus to the nominal 14.2 to 14.6 volts?
>
> Since I sent the last email I have learned that the bridge diode will
> cause a drop in voltage. (Even this 62 year old guy can learn stuff....)
=2C
> but I would have though it would cause the endurance voltage to be
> less on the endurance bus side not the main bus side with the master
> switch closed.???????
>
> Then the Dynon is NOT monitoring the e-bus? If you close the
> e-bus alternate feed switch and the Dynon display goes UP=2C
> then it appears that the Dynon is on the e-bus.
>
> Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1/diode combo added at
> the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to a
dded
> it?
>
> Don't know what an S204-1 device is . . . and don't know why
> ANY diode would be wired to the e-bus alternate feed switch.
>
> 2. Would it be of value to added the Schottly in place of the bridge diod
e?
>
> Slightly . . . but from the readings you cite it's not clear
> that the Dynon is connected to the Main bus . . . hence SOME
> degree of bus votlage suppression would be expected.
>
> I would think yes if the voltage drop is less and thus give a more accura
te
> voltage reading.
>
> The voltmeter is already ACCURATE. It's showing the votlage
> at where ever it's attached. I'm guessing the e-bus. So all other
> things being normal and functioning to design goals=2C the readings
> are expected and normal.
>
> 3. Why the higher voltage drop on the Main Bus as compared to the
> Endurance Bus?
>
> With engine not running and alternator OFF . . .
>
> Get out a voltmeter and connect the (-) lead to the battery (-)
> or to airframe ground. With master switch ON=2C E-bus alternate
> feed switch OFF=2C measure and record main and e-bus voltages.
> Turn E-Bus alternate feed switch ON and repeat the measurements.
> Leave B-Bus switch ON turn master switch OFF and repeat the
> measurements.
>
> With engine running and alternator ON . . .
>
> With master switch ON=2C E-bus alternate feed switch OFF=2C
> measure and record main and e-bus voltages. Turn E-Bus alternate
> feed switch ON and repeat the measurements. Leave B-Bus switch
> ON turn master switch OFF and repeat the measurements.
>
> 4. Why the conflicting amp reading between the Main vs Endurance Bus.
>
> I don't know WHAT your amp reading means nor how big the
> fluctuations are. These are digital instruments with quantitization
> errors that may well display some tiny wobble in readings even when
> the actual value is steady. Are the strobes running? This would
> cause an explain a jumpy ammeter reading.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help in this matter
>
> We need DATA under various configurations in order to deduce
> the whether the system is wired as designed and whether or
> not the components are functioning as expected.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Hotmail=AE: Search=2C add=2C and share the web=92s latest s
ports videos. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:03 PM 7/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>(some repost here...) I have railed against these Type-70 contactors
>for years. But they are almost obsolete. Most electronics
>distributors have dropped them from their lines.
Really? Who used to carry them that doesn't any
more. My preferred sources are still offering
them. I think the Cole-Hersey guys are still
cranking out their equivalent parts in volume.
I think these are the devices that Van's offers.
>Problems--
>
>1) Low Temperature rating. Only 122F max. You could land at Furnace
>Creek in Death Valley in May and take off in October. Maybe. This is
>primarily due to the Nylon innards. This is a drop-dead reason to
>avoid the part.
And hundreds of thousands of el-cheeso contactors
have been used in airplanes for decades and for
some reason, they never seem to have bubbled up
high enough on the "problems list" to have been
replaced. The max temperature ratings for cited
for the purpose of meeting specified design goals
over a products service lifetime. The 122F max
does not mean that the critter goes into destructive
meltdown at 123, 153 or even 200F.
We've had numerous discussions on the List concerning
ratings vs. limits vs. service life, on a host
of products. The physics of the matter haven't
changed. That 122F figure is not a drop-dead
reason for doing anything. It's a reason to consider
the product's suitability to task using a combination
of understanding what the ratings mean -AND-
demonstrated field history.
>2) Not sealed. Not dust proof, or fuel proof.
No, not hermetically sealed. But those cans
are steel and the caps are swaged on with
hydraulics or some form of rolling press. I've
opened dozens (not easy to do) for various reasons
and have yet to discover a spec of dust. And how many
contactors are expected function as advertised
while sloshed with fuel? The venerable Cutler-
Hammer 6041 series contactors have been around
since the late 30's and are less "sealed"
or "fuel proof" than the el-cheeso RPM/W-H/Stancor
devices. Yet they are still in current production on
many of the Hawker-Beech products. What part would
you recommend that HBC consider for upgrading their
choice of contactors? I'd be pleased to forward
your recommendations to their VP of Engineering.
>3) Low interrupt capacity.
And what current levels do you propose to interrupt?
A battery contactor opens just before shutdown
of the airplane when it's parked. How much current
does the contactor carry under these conditions?
If the service life at full rated current is in
the tens of thousands of operations, how much will
it go up if you only open it during shutdown
of the airplane? 10 Amps? Gee, that's a killer.
>4) High hold current---16 ohm coil. Almost one amp.
Yes . . . it's "higher" than the EV200, but not
nearly one amp. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Battery_Contactor_Temps_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Battery_Contactor_Temps_1.jpg
>5) Low hold force. The specifications call for specific orientation.
>2G rating?
I've not seen that. Please cite the page and paragraph
where this is offered. I've done linear g-loading tests
on these contactors and was unable to open them at the
limits of my centrifuge . . . 10+ G
>6) Wildly wrong for B&C to use coil suppression diodes on these.
>This causes short lifetimes on the B&C parts.
Absolute BS. I've demonstrated many times that the
assessment that you and others have offered on the
diode suppression issue is without foundation in the
simple ideas and physics behind the design and
incorporation of these devices. You guys read specs,
and then demonstrate your lack of understanding by
posting a "doom-n-gloom of the day" article that
does NOT demonstrate or explain where I'm wrong.
>7) Not designed to open against voltages above 36 volts. (So forget
>the B-lead applications)
For normal operations, the b-lead contactor is not
subjected to more than 36 volts. When operated as
recommended, the service life on an el-cheeso
contactor in the b-lead is not at risk. However,
during an OV runaway, you damn betcha the contactor
is expected to open at more than 36 volts . . . and
why should we care? If the OV protection system
does it's job . . . and just assuming that a couple
of high-energy opening events for the contactor
is going to trash it . . . do I care?
>See: www.stancor.com
>
>There are better ways to go. Omron's line of automotive contactors (CHEAP)
Which OMRON part would you recommend?
> and Kilovac's EV200 series, Blue Sea 9012, Gigavac's GX-11.
> Expensive but preferred.
>
>Can you use them? Sure. Should you use them?....not on my bird, Bubela.
Your choice are your own and I wouldn't dream of
attempting to dissuade you from exercising the
right to make them and enjoy the consequences
therefrom. But your participation here on the
List needs to offer more than your opinions
based on poor interpretation of spec sheets,
understanding of design goals and knowledge of
demonstrated recipes for success.
>Better yet, avoid all contactors and use manual switches if you can.
>
>"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
ABSOLUTELY! . . . so why do you continue to ignore
that which I have offered on this topic for years?
Make my day, show me where I'm wrong.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage Drop / amp ????? |
At 10:51 AM 7/24/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob for the info. My next trip to the airport will begin the
>process of trouble shooting as you suggest.
>
>In regards to this part of the email I made a typo..
>
>Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1/diode combo(
>should have been S704-1 / diode combo) added at
>the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to add
>it?
Okay. The normal e-bus feed path diode shown on Figure
Z-11 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11M.pdf
shows an isolation diode between the main bus and
the endurance bus. The purpose of this device is
to PREVENT the main bus from being powered up
from the E-bus during battery-only operations.
If you're subscribing to the design goals described
for the endurance bus, then this diode is necessary.
Do I deduce correctly that this diode is not presently
a part of your current configuration?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltage Drop / amp |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>From the discussion, I still haven't seen evidence that either alternator
is putting anything on either bus - the voltage reported doesn't
correspond with them charging - I think that's what I was saying before.
Maybe they are charging, but no values have been reported that would
indicate as such.
It doesn't sound like you have a design or component selection problem - I
think you have all of the right pieces, but maybe not all of the
connections are exactly like they should be. I don't think adding a diode
here or there is going to make any difference. I suppose it is possible
that ended up with a diode some place there shouldn't be - but that means
it wasn't put together according to one of the Z-diagrams.
>From my experience debugging problems like this, it always helps to have
an extra set of eyes (hopefully with a brain behind them) to which I
explain how the system is supposed to work. I'll take the wiring diagram
(do you have one?) and point to each item on it and then to each item in
the real system. Then I point to each wire (connection) on the diagram
and then point to each wire in the system. Sometimes I'll even grab each
wire and tug on it a little to make sure I can tell where it's routed.
Often (the) problem(s) will become apparent well short of going through
the whole process. If I uncover something I don't understand I'll make
notes about that (sometimes just writing it down helps figure it out), and
then find someone I can explain my question to - even if they probably
won't have an answer.
I'm interested in seeing values for each of Bob's queries. I suspect the
solution to the problem may become apparent to you while taking the data.
Regards,
Matt-
> At 10:51 AM 7/24/2009, you wrote:
>>Thanks Bob for the info. My next trip to the airport will begin the
>>process of trouble shooting as you suggest.
>>
>>In regards to this part of the email I made a typo..
>>
>>Now the questions. 1. Why the addition of the S204-1/diode combo(
>>should have been S704-1 / diode combo) added at
>>the endurance bus switch and will it be of value in my configuration to
>> add
>>it?
>
>
> Okay. The normal e-bus feed path diode shown on Figure
> Z-11 . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11M.pdf
>
>
> shows an isolation diode between the main bus and
> the endurance bus. The purpose of this device is
> to PREVENT the main bus from being powered up
> from the E-bus during battery-only operations.
>
> If you're subscribing to the design goals described
> for the endurance bus, then this diode is necessary.
> Do I deduce correctly that this diode is not presently
> a part of your current configuration?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands Has Launched |
I see that Mark and James of ZU-TAF fame have launched from Belem, Brasil
and are headed to the U.S. Virgin Islands. These two guys and their
airplane are incredible! I'm observing their flight path and their present
location on Google Earth per Jay Hyde's earlier posting/weblink, which I'm
including below. Thanks, Jay!
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands Has |
Launched
I watched them as they crossed the Atlantic..21 hours! I think they are
nuts! They needed 440 liters of gas to make the crossing. They were
carrying 450 liters!
B2
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of S.
Ramirez
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:19 PM
Subject: [Bulk] AeroElectric-List: ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands Has
Launched
I see that Mark and James of ZU-TAF fame have launched from Belem, Brasil
and are headed to the U.S. Virgin Islands. These two guys and their
airplane are incredible! I'm observing their flight path and their present
location on Google Earth per Jay Hyde's earlier posting/weblink, which I'm
including below. Thanks, Jay!
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Icom A210 receiving and transmitting just fine but the bloody intercom won't co-operate
at all.I must be missing something in the menu setup so any help would
be appreciated. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254649#254649
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage Drops/Amps, Cabbages and Kings |
At 06:16 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote:
>
> >From my experience debugging problems like this, it always helps to have
>an extra set of eyes (hopefully with a brain behind them) to which I
>explain how the system is supposed to work.
This is a CORE COMPONENT of every successful skunk-werks
venture. While privileged to be an employee of the
targets business unit at Beech/RAC/HBC, every time a
program or portion of a program wan in trouble, a
meeting was called. In some organizations, such
meetings are uncomfortable events entered
with foreboding. The mind-set of many folks walking
in was to figure out ways to avoid blame. If one leaves
with less stress, it's probably because they were not
found at fault and some other poor sap was taking the hit.
My leaders and colleagues both understood recipes
for success demonstrated many times in the
past by the likes of Kettering, Johnson, Kay, Beech,
Lear, et. als. They understood that it's a rare
mind that can grasp the totality of a program
and that the intellectual whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. Meetings at the Beech targets
unit were always something to be welcomed . . .
anyone walking in with a problem walked out with
new insight, additional support, a map for future
learning. Everyone walked out with a sense of
accomplishment.
This isn't about, positions of hierarchy or
competition. It's about the joy of finding things
out (being a good student) and then sharing that
understanding with others (being a good teacher).
We were all diligent students of the ideas demonstrated
by participants of the original Skunk Works.
I suggest that we would do well to bring the same
goals to the activity here on the List. Our
skunk-werks isn't a single facility, it's
thousands of facilities scattered all over the
planet. We're not working one momentous task
to be delivered in 180 days, we have thousands
of projects that will take years. But the
task is the same. Produce machines that perform
to design goals operated by pilots who understand
how those goals were selected, achieved and
maintained.
Meetings at the Matronics List Servers should
always be something to be welcomed . . .
anyone posting a problem or sharing an idea
should look forward to achieving new insight, additional
support for a problem, and map for future learning.
It would be well if everyone who takes the time to
participate or simply observe happenings on the
Lists walk away with a sense of accomplishment.
Our teachers were not carving a place in history
for themselves, they were striving to share
their understanding with as many folks as
possible. They knew that the more times good ideas
and recipes for success are shared, the more
valuable they become.
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: Icom A-210 intercom |
At 10:50 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>Icom A210 receiving and transmitting just fine but the bloody
>intercom won't co-operate at all.I must be missing something in the
>menu setup so any help would be appreciated. Cheers
Can you describe your observations of symptoms?
"Won't cooperate" as a symptom does not bring ideas
to mind.
The intercom function of most of the small radios
is a "hot mic" activated by a push to talk button
that simply engages the transmitter's side tone
(listen to yourself) feature. Hence no squelch
adjustment for voice activated opening of the
signal channel . . . and no separate volume control
for intercom versus receiver. This is an exceedingly
minimalist (but very robust) approach to an intercom
function. However, it is nothing like that which is found
in most airplanes. Perhaps it's working as intended
but you're expecting something different?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands Has |
Launched
I see on Google Earth that they've landed at H.S. Truman airport in the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Never mind what happened crossing the Atlantic. That's
ancient history! :)
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2009
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Bulk] AeroElectric-List: ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands
Has Launched
I watched them as they crossed the Atlantic..21 hours! I think they are
nuts! They needed 440 liters of gas to make the crossing. They were
carrying 450 liters!
B2
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of S.
Ramirez
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:19 PM
Subject: [Bulk] AeroElectric-List: ZU-TAF: Belem To U.S. Virgin Islands Has
Launched
I see that Mark and James of ZU-TAF fame have launched from Belem, Brasil
and are headed to the U.S. Virgin Islands. These two guys and their
airplane are incredible! I'm observing their flight path and their present
location on Google Earth per Jay Hyde's earlier posting/weblink, which I'm
including below. Thanks, Jay!
http://www.airplanefactory.co.za/world/default.asp
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Here is the installation diagram and operating manual
http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III<
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>
> At 10:50 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Icom A210 receiving and transmitting just fine but the bloody intercom
>> won't co-operate at all.I must be missing something in the menu setup so
any
>> help would be appreciated. Cheers
>
> Can you describe your observations of symptoms?
> "Won't cooperate" as a symptom does not bring ideas
> to mind.
>
> The intercom function of most of the small radios
> is a "hot mic" activated by a push to talk button
> that simply engages the transmitter's side tone
> (listen to yourself) feature. Hence no squelch
> adjustment for voice activated opening of the
> signal channel . . . and no separate volume control
> for intercom versus receiver. This is an exceedingly
> minimalist (but very robust) approach to an intercom
> function. However, it is nothing like that which is found
> in most airplanes. Perhaps it's working as intended
> but you're expecting something different?
>
>
> 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: Icom A-210 intercom |
At 09:09 AM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
>Here is the installation diagram and operating manual
><http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx>http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/avionics/panelmount/a210/default.aspx
>
Aha! This is more to this little critter than I realized.
I might have expected this from Icom. I'll have to
study up. Thanks for the heads-up.
In the mean time "Thruster87" might we know your name
along with a better description of the problems you're
having?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
Lectric Bob,
You said:
<>
Are you still praying, or did you decide to exercise my design of using z14
for the engine (electrionic ignition, fuel pumps alternators and batteries)
and z13 (main bus and e-bus) for everything else?
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a separate button,so
one just speaks and the other person hears you.Pressing the PTT it transmits
OK and the passenger can also hear what you say and both can hear just fine
the incoming calls.I have not tried connecting the intercom switch to pin 10
Intercom IN and joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it should not require
this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan [610xl builder almost
ready to start taxi run testing]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254719#254719
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 03:59 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Lectric Bob,
>
>You said:
>
>< for a few days . . .>>
>
>Are you still praying, or did you decide to exercise my design of using z14
>for the engine (electrionic ignition, fuel pumps alternators and batteries)
>and z13 (main bus and e-bus) for everything else?
I've got a plan. The kids are down for the weekend
and my grandson is looking for a lot of grandpa-time.
But I'll do a system for Corvair engines. It will
become Z-9.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I have an all electric plane and have attempted to emulate Z19-RB.
Both batteries are the same size, but I am intending on starting on the main
battery only. My alternator-out load analysis shows around 17 amps to keep
it in the air, though I think I can drop that to 10.
The "keep the engine running" components may run off either bus, but the
endurance bus is just connected to the main.
Could I install a crossfeed switch between the main and engine batteries,
without a contactor? It would allow me to use the engine battery for the
endurance bus, to supplement the main battery. That would also allow me to
simultaneously charge both batteries without engaging the engine battery
contactor.
I'll try and attach a pdf.
BTW, after a year and a half, I am somewhat back in the air, though many
bugs remain.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
At 05:00 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a
>separate button,so one just speaks and the other person hears
>you.Pressing the PTT it transmits OK and the passenger can also hear
>what you say and both can hear just fine the incoming calls.I have
>not tried connecting the intercom switch to pin 10 Intercom IN and
>joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it should not require
>this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan [610xl builder
>almost ready to start taxi run testing]
After reading through the available installation data
on the Icom IC-A210 I've discovered that the 210 is
a head-n-shoulders upgrade from the 200. Most noteworthy
are extensive audio management features with functions
and gains set by software using a front panel menu
system.
Another interesting feature is what appears to be
rear connector plate options. The stock input/output
connector plate works with the same Molex wires-to-
ecb style of harnes connector . . . same as the A200.
The A210 install kit comes with an "MB-113" adapter
module to convert the legacy molex connnector interface
Emacs!
To the more robust Dsub 15 connector.
Emacs!
If we look at the A210 installation data . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nxw5jm
. . . we see that half of the 30 wires available
in the Molex pin-out are available in Dsub
pinout and in different combinations. For example,
only 2 of the 6 power/gnd connections are available
in the Dsub. The Molex doesn't offer the RS232
GPS interface option. The Molex connection offers
3 aux audio inputs, the Dsub offers only one.
Certainly, the Dsub pinouts offer enough
features to accomplish a perfectly useful installation
in an airplane.
Getting back to the intercom issue, we see that
there's a raft of menu driven audio performance
setup features. Further, pin 10 (intercom enable)
in the Molex connector does not appear on the
Dsub connector. Admittedly, with out a schematic
of the MB-113 adapter, we don't know if Molex 10
is simply ignored or is tied to ground by the
adapter. Further, functionality of the intercom
ground to activate connection is not explained. It's
illustrated in the Molex wiring as a useful thing
to attache to an intercom PTT button, but in the
user's manual . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nsvye4
the use of this push button is not explained. However,
on the description of panel controls we see that
item (1) DUAL SWITCH has a time-based function
(hold for 2+ seconds) to turn the intercom function
ON or OFF.
It would be nice if the manuals were more complete in
this regard. I'll keep an eye open for the service
manual on this radio. Schematics are VERY useful in
figuring out how things work. Does anyone on the List
have an A210 installed and working who can help Alan
sort through this radio's intercom functionality?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
I have installed one of these (A210) in conjunction with a PM1000II intercom
(from PS-Engineering) on a 4 seater aircraft where there I need more than 2
intercom stations. It was a bit of nightmare; I couldn't get the two
systems working- the headphones worked fine but the mic circuits wouldn't
work properly (I am still busy with that project). Recently I had to
install the PM1000II on the Sling (that little aircraft that is making its
way between the Virgin Islands and Florida as I write!) where it interfaced
to a Garmin SL30 nav/ comm radio.
This time I called PS themselves and checked up on a few things. One of the
things that I discovered was that one must not put an 'aux PTT' in the same
way that they call for 'aux mic and phone jacks'. I have yet to test the
A210/ PM1000 system after removing this item but I can tell you that the
SL30/ PM1000 combination worked just fine when I left the 'aux PTT' out- so
perhaps that's one of the problems?
As a matter of interest, PS Eng told me that the PTT's are hard wired
through so that, even if (in the unlikely event of failure, ladies and
gentleman.) there is a failure with PM1000 the PTT's will still work.
Jay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Hyde
HH Enterprises
Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
jay(at)horriblehyde.com
Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
International: +27 83 300 8675
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 27 July 2009 06:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
At 05:00 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a separate
button,so one just speaks and the other person hears you.Pressing the PTT it
transmits OK and the passenger can also hear what you say and both can hear
just fine the incoming calls.I have not tried connecting the intercom switch
to pin 10 Intercom IN and joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it
should not require this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan
[610xl builder almost ready to start taxi run testing]
After reading through the available installation data
on the Icom IC-A210 I've discovered that the 210 is
a head-n-shoulders upgrade from the 200. Most noteworthy
are extensive audio management features with functions
and gains set by software using a front panel menu
system.
Another interesting feature is what appears to be
rear connector plate options. The stock input/output
connector plate works with the same Molex wires-to-
ecb style of harnes connector . . . same as the A200.
The A210 install kit comes with an "MB-113" adapter
module to convert the legacy molex connnector interface
Emacs!
To the more robust Dsub 15 connector.
Emacs!
If we look at the A210 installation data . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nxw5jm
. . . we see that half of the 30 wires available
in the Molex pin-out are available in Dsub
pinout and in different combinations. For example,
only 2 of the 6 power/gnd connections are available
in the Dsub. The Molex doesn't offer the RS232
GPS interface option. The Molex connection offers
3 aux audio inputs, the Dsub offers only one.
Certainly, the Dsub pinouts offer enough
features to accomplish a perfectly useful installation
in an airplane.
Getting back to the intercom issue, we see that
there's a raft of menu driven audio performance
setup features. Further, pin 10 (intercom enable)
in the Molex connector does not appear on the
Dsub connector. Admittedly, with out a schematic
of the MB-113 adapter, we don't know if Molex 10
is simply ignored or is tied to ground by the
adapter. Further, functionality of the intercom
ground to activate connection is not explained. It's
illustrated in the Molex wiring as a useful thing
to attache to an intercom PTT button, but in the
user's manual . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nsvye4
the use of this push button is not explained. However,
on the description of panel controls we see that
item (1) DUAL SWITCH has a time-based function
(hold for 2+ seconds) to turn the intercom function
ON or OFF.
It would be nice if the manuals were more complete in
this regard. I'll keep an eye open for the service
manual on this radio. Schematics are VERY useful in
figuring out how things work. Does anyone on the List
have an A210 installed and working who can help Alan
sort through this radio's intercom functionality?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luigit(at)freemail.it |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luigit(at)freemail.it |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
I did the 2 second push on the Dual button and the screen shows the ics as on and
still no go.Spoke to Icom techi with whom we went thru the menu but still no
go . Might look at putting a intercom in. Cheers Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254978#254978
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | That magic moment when everything comes together..... |
| From: | "ianwilson2" <ianwilson2(at)hotmail.com> |
Just wanted to post and say that my X-Air Hanuman (French microlight 79II) finally
flew this weekend. I adopted Bob's Z-20 for the Jabiru installation and apart
from wiring the mags the wrong way round (I'm still learning!) everything
else works perfectly.
I just wanted to say a big thank you to Bob and everyone else on this list - I
REALLY couldn't have done it without all of your considerable expertise and willingness
to help a rookie.
A short, but very sweet video is here....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSv4sqDxdQ
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255001#255001
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
The indicator has 3 posts on the back marked SEN, middle not marked and IGN which
goes to which.Didn't want to fry anything. Cheers Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255035#255035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Approximately 100 hours ago, I replaced all of my Carling toggle switches
with Honeywell/Microswitch switches in my RV-9A. I had experienced
multiple failures with the Carling switches in the first 150 hours due to
loose terminals and overheating leading to charred terminals and wiring.
There is a long thread on this topic, including some failure analysis by
Bob.
At this point, I have had no additional switch failures after switching to
the Honeywell switches. At the time, Bob postulated that the lack of
decoupling loops in the wiring may have contributed. I was not so sure, so
I made no other changes other than replacing the switches.
While not conclusive, I would say the root cause of failure was the loose
riveted terminals on the Carling Switches. The lack of decoupling loops in
the wiring may have contributed, but it appears that a higher quality switch
is an effective solution.
I had two failures on the Strobe circuit, one on the Landing light circuit
and one on the progressive-transfer Master Switch in the first 150 hours
with the Carling Switches.
So, if anyone thinks that this is just a characteristic of our OBAM aircraft
being built with "substandard" components, look at this:
======================
FAA Issues Airworthiness Bulletin For Cessna GA Aircraft
Tue, 28 Jul '09
SAIB Affects 100, 200, 300 Series Cessna Aircraft
The FAA has issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) to
advise pilots and owners of an airworthiness concern on mandatory
replacement intervals of Cessna Landing Light, Beacon Light, and Taxi Light
switches on Cessna 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes, specified in Cessna
service bulletins MEB09-3 and SEB09-6 dated May 11, 2009.
Cessna 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes utilize switches in the Landing
Light, Beacon Light, and Taxi Light circuits that have been reported failing
in the field causing overheating and smoke in the cockpit. There have been
reports of burned insulation on the wiring terminals to the switch. On at
least one occasion, there was a small fire in the cockpit. The failure in
these applications can be attributed to contact erosion leading to irregular
arcing and eventual failure of the switch. The contact erosion has been
shown to occur after approximately 4,000 cycles of operation.
Cessna service bulletins SEB09-6 and MEB09-3, initial release, dated May 11,
2009, specify the following:
.An inspection to determine time-in-service for the switches.
.Replacement of switches that have been in service for four or more years
with the month and year of the installation written on the new replacement
switch.
.The month and year of the initial installation written on switches that
have been in service for less than four years.
The FAA recommends that owners, operators, and maintenance technicians act
on the above-referenced service bulletins within the next 400 hours of
operation, 12 months, or the next annual inspection, whichever comes first.
======
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>
>
> I did the 2 second push on the Dual button and the screen shows the ics as
> on and still no go.Spoke to Icom techi with whom we went thru the menu but
> still no go . Might look at putting a intercom in. Cheers Alan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254978#254978
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
I have an interesting problem with my newly installed King KX125.
While everything seems to be working correctly and I am clearly received
when I transmit, there is no sidetone during transmission (I do not hear
myself in the head set). I have eliminated the intercom completely, using an
older handheld mike and phones only - same symptoms - rx clear, tx clear, no
sidetone. Could it be that I have not installed some jumper not shown?? Or
is there a pot somewhere I need to tweek?
I have attached the section of the schematic that pertains to this.
I do not have any connections to pin 501-16 nor do I have a switch on the
mike jack as shown.
The applicable notes refer to switching 100-H to 501-16 and opening up 100-8
to prevent your audio from being transmitted.
Any clues or hints as to what I have missed doing??
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
| From: | peter laurence <peterlaurence6(at)gmail.com> |
Vern
Can you post the product number for the Honeywell switches?
Peter
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Vern Little wrote:
> rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
>
> Approximately 100 hours ago, I replaced all of my Carling toggle switches
> with Honeywell/Microswitch switches in my RV-9A. I had experienced
> multiple failures with the Carling switches in the first 150 hours due to
> loose terminals and overheating leading to charred terminals and wiring.
> There is a long thread on this topic, including some failure analysis by
> Bob.
>
> At this point, I have had no additional switch failures after switching to
> the Honeywell switches. At the time, Bob postulated that the lack of
> decoupling loops in the wiring may have contributed. I was not so sure, so
> I made no other changes other than replacing the switches.
>
> While not conclusive, I would say the root cause of failure was the loose
> riveted terminals on the Carling Switches. The lack of decoupling loops in
> the wiring may have contributed, but it appears that a higher quality switch
> is an effective solution.
>
> I had two failures on the Strobe circuit, one on the Landing light circuit
> and one on the progressive-transfer Master Switch in the first 150 hours
> with the Carling Switches.
>
> So, if anyone thinks that this is just a characteristic of our OBAM
> aircraft being built with "substandard" components, look at this:
>
> ======================
>
> FAA Issues Airworthiness Bulletin For Cessna GA Aircraft
> Tue, 28 Jul '09
>
> SAIB Affects 100, 200, 300 Series Cessna Aircraft
> The FAA has issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) to
> advise pilots and owners of an airworthiness concern on mandatory
> replacement intervals of Cessna Landing Light, Beacon Light, and Taxi Light
> switches on Cessna 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes, specified in Cessna
> service bulletins MEB09-3 and SEB09-6 dated May 11, 2009.
>
> Cessna 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes utilize switches in the Landing
> Light, Beacon Light, and Taxi Light circuits that have been reported failing
> in the field causing overheating and smoke in the cockpit. There have been
> reports of burned insulation on the wiring terminals to the switch. On at
> least one occasion, there was a small fire in the cockpit. The failure in
> these applications can be attributed to contact erosion leading to irregular
> arcing and eventual failure of the switch. The contact erosion has been
> shown to occur after approximately 4,000 cycles of operation.
>
> Cessna service bulletins SEB09-6 and MEB09-3, initial release, dated May
> 11, 2009, specify the following:
>
> .An inspection to determine time-in-service for the switches.
> .Replacement of switches that have been in service for four or more years
> with the month and year of the installation written on the new replacement
> switch.
> .The month and year of the initial installation written on switches that
> have been in service for less than four years.
> The FAA recommends that owners, operators, and maintenance technicians act
> on the above-referenced service bulletins within the next 400 hours of
> operation, 12 months, or the next annual inspection, whichever comes first.
>
> ======
> Vern Little
> Vx Aviation
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:05 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>
>
>> alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
>>
>> I did the 2 second push on the Dual button and the screen shows the ics as
>> on and still no go.Spoke to Icom techi with whom we went thru the menu but
>> still no go . Might look at putting a intercom in. Cheers Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254978#254978
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
"The failure in these applications can be attributed to contact erosion leading
to irregular arcing and eventual failure of the switch. The contact erosion has
been shown to occur after approximately 4,000 cycles of operation."
I'm away from my office for a couple of days. I'll have a more extensive response
when I get back "to the hills".
It would be interesting/enlightening to see the failed switches. For all of the
Carling failures I examined, there was no evidence of contact erosion. In fact,
all failure examples displayed evidence of heating effects that began away
from the contacts . . . most notably at the riveted joins for the fast-on tabs.
It would also be interesting to know how the problem aircraft were flown. I've
flown dozens of Cessna aircraft fitted with switches where the factory original
switches were 40+ years old. I also recall testing the the lab at Cessna
East (single engine) on the Carling rocker switches were tens of thousands of
cycles were impressed on the switches before they were deemed suited to the task.
I suspect that root cause for this rash of failures is yet to be deduced and understood.
Action taken by the regulators was predictable. Write an $AD$ that demands
replacing a $2 switch with the one that's been re-labeled with Cessna's
$Standard-Part$ number.
I don't know if any of the gray-beards are still working out there. I'll have to
call around and see what I can discover.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255100#255100
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
J=FCrgen Amtmann
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> ========================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&
Chapter 09-07-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&C
hapter 09-07-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 07/27/09: 6
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 08:56 AM - Crossfeed (Sam Hoskins)
> 2. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
> 3. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Jay Hyde)
> 4. 01:27 PM - Icom 200 (luigit(at)freemail.it)
> 5. 10:23 PM - Icom 200 (luigit(at)freemail.it)
> 6. 11:07 PM - Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Thruster87)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossfeed
> From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
>
> I have an all electric plane and have attempted to emulate Z19-RB.
>
> Both batteries are the same size, but I am intending on starting on the
> main
> battery only. My alternator-out load analysis shows around 17 amps to ke
ep
> it in the air, though I think I can drop that to 10.
>
> The "keep the engine running" components may run off either bus, but the
> endurance bus is just connected to the main.
>
> Could I install a crossfeed switch between the main and engine batteries,
> without a contactor? It would allow me to use the engine battery for the
> endurance bus, to supplement the main battery. That would also allow me
to
> simultaneously charge both batteries without engaging the engine battery
> contactor.
>
> I'll try and attach a pdf.
>
> BTW, after a year and a half, I am somewhat back in the air, though many
> bugs remain.
>
> Sam
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>
> At 05:00 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a
> >separate button,so one just speaks and the other person hears
> >you.Pressing the PTT it transmits OK and the passenger can also hear
> >what you say and both can hear just fine the incoming calls.I have
> >not tried connecting the intercom switch to pin 10 Intercom IN and
> >joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it should not require
> >this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan [610xl builder
> >almost ready to start taxi run testing]
>
> After reading through the available installation data
> on the Icom IC-A210 I've discovered that the 210 is
> a head-n-shoulders upgrade from the 200. Most noteworthy
> are extensive audio management features with functions
> and gains set by software using a front panel menu
> system.
>
> Another interesting feature is what appears to be
> rear connector plate options. The stock input/output
> connector plate works with the same Molex wires-to-
> ecb style of harnes connector . . . same as the A200.
> The A210 install kit comes with an "MB-113" adapter
> module to convert the legacy molex connnector interface
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> To the more robust Dsub 15 connector.
> Emacs!
>
>
> If we look at the A210 installation data . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nxw5jm
>
> . . . we see that half of the 30 wires available
> in the Molex pin-out are available in Dsub
> pinout and in different combinations. For example,
> only 2 of the 6 power/gnd connections are available
> in the Dsub. The Molex doesn't offer the RS232
> GPS interface option. The Molex connection offers
> 3 aux audio inputs, the Dsub offers only one.
>
> Certainly, the Dsub pinouts offer enough
> features to accomplish a perfectly useful installation
> in an airplane.
>
> Getting back to the intercom issue, we see that
> there's a raft of menu driven audio performance
> setup features. Further, pin 10 (intercom enable)
> in the Molex connector does not appear on the
> Dsub connector. Admittedly, with out a schematic
> of the MB-113 adapter, we don't know if Molex 10
> is simply ignored or is tied to ground by the
> adapter. Further, functionality of the intercom
> ground to activate connection is not explained. It's
> illustrated in the Molex wiring as a useful thing
> to attache to an intercom PTT button, but in the
> user's manual . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nsvye4
>
> the use of this push button is not explained. However,
> on the description of panel controls we see that
> item (1) DUAL SWITCH has a time-based function
> (hold for 2+ seconds) to turn the intercom function
> ON or OFF.
>
> It would be nice if the manuals were more complete in
> this regard. I'll keep an eye open for the service
> manual on this radio. Schematics are VERY useful in
> figuring out how things work. Does anyone on the List
> have an A210 installed and working who can help Alan
> sort through this radio's intercom functionality?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>
> I have installed one of these (A210) in conjunction with a PM1000II
> intercom
> (from PS-Engineering) on a 4 seater aircraft where there I need more than
2
> intercom stations. It was a bit of nightmare; I couldn't get the two
> systems working- the headphones worked fine but the mic circuits wouldn't
> work properly (I am still busy with that project). Recently I had to
> install the PM1000II on the Sling (that little aircraft that is making it
s
> way between the Virgin Islands and Florida as I write!) where it interfac
ed
> to a Garmin SL30 nav/ comm radio.
>
>
> This time I called PS themselves and checked up on a few things. One of
> the
> things that I discovered was that one must not put an 'aux PTT' in the sa
me
> way that they call for 'aux mic and phone jacks'. I have yet to test the
> A210/ PM1000 system after removing this item but I can tell you that the
> SL30/ PM1000 combination worked just fine when I left the 'aux PTT' out-
so
> perhaps that's one of the problems?
>
>
> As a matter of interest, PS Eng told me that the PTT's are hard wired
> through so that, even if (in the unlikely event of failure, ladies and
> gentleman.) there is a failure with PM1000 the PTT's will still work.
>
>
> Jay
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Jay Hyde
>
> HH Enterprises
>
> Aircraft Manufacture, Engineering and Flying
>
> jay(at)horriblehyde.com
>
> Mobile phone: 083 300 8675
>
> International: +27 83 300 8675
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: 27 July 2009 06:06 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>
>
> At 05:00 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a separate
> button,so one just speaks and the other person hears you.Pressing the PTT
> it
> transmits OK and the passenger can also hear what you say and both can he
ar
> just fine the incoming calls.I have not tried connecting the intercom
> switch
> to pin 10 Intercom IN and joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it
> should not require this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan
> [610xl builder almost ready to start taxi run testing]
>
>
> After reading through the available installation data
> on the Icom IC-A210 I've discovered that the 210 is
> a head-n-shoulders upgrade from the 200. Most noteworthy
> are extensive audio management features with functions
> and gains set by software using a front panel menu
> system.
>
> Another interesting feature is what appears to be
> rear connector plate options. The stock input/output
> connector plate works with the same Molex wires-to-
> ecb style of harnes connector . . . same as the A200.
> The A210 install kit comes with an "MB-113" adapter
> module to convert the legacy molex connnector interface
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> To the more robust Dsub 15 connector.
> Emacs!
>
> If we look at the A210 installation data . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nxw5jm
>
> . . . we see that half of the 30 wires available
> in the Molex pin-out are available in Dsub
> pinout and in different combinations. For example,
> only 2 of the 6 power/gnd connections are available
> in the Dsub. The Molex doesn't offer the RS232
> GPS interface option. The Molex connection offers
> 3 aux audio inputs, the Dsub offers only one.
>
> Certainly, the Dsub pinouts offer enough
> features to accomplish a perfectly useful installation
> in an airplane.
>
> Getting back to the intercom issue, we see that
> there's a raft of menu driven audio performance
> setup features. Further, pin 10 (intercom enable)
> in the Molex connector does not appear on the
> Dsub connector. Admittedly, with out a schematic
> of the MB-113 adapter, we don't know if Molex 10
> is simply ignored or is tied to ground by the
> adapter. Further, functionality of the intercom
> ground to activate connection is not explained. It's
> illustrated in the Molex wiring as a useful thing
> to attache to an intercom PTT button, but in the
> user's manual . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nsvye4
>
> the use of this push button is not explained. However,
> on the description of panel controls we see that
> item (1) DUAL SWITCH has a time-based function
> (hold for 2+ seconds) to turn the intercom function
> ON or OFF.
>
> It would be nice if the manuals were more complete in
> this regard. I'll keep an eye open for the service
> manual on this radio. Schematics are VERY useful in
> figuring out how things work. Does anyone on the List
> have an A210 installed and working who can help Alan
> sort through this radio's intercom functionality?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: luigit(at)freemail.it
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom 200
>
> --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
>
> A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
> The entire body of the message was removed. Please
> resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
>
> HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
> in their client's default configuration. If you're using
> HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
> and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
>
> --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: luigit(at)freemail.it
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom 200
>
> --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
>
> A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
> The entire body of the message was removed. Please
> resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
>
> HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
> in their client's default configuration. If you're using
> HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
> and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
>
> --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
> From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
>
>
> I did the 2 second push on the Dual button and the screen shows the ics a
s
> on and
> still no go.Spoke to Icom techi with whom we went thru the menu but still
> no
> go . Might look at putting a intercom in. Cheers Alan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254978#254978
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/29/2009 11:56 AM, Janet Amtmann wrote:
> Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
"GNU Emacs is an extensible, customizable text editorand more."
fyi
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar 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: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
On Wed Jul 29 11:56:59 2009, Janet Amtmann wrote :
>Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
Emacs is the name of a very popular (in some circles) text editor. It
was authored in 1976 by Richard Stallman, initially together with Guy
L. Steele, Jr. It is most often found on Unix/Linux type systems, but
has been ported to other environments as well.
For more information that most non-geeks would care to know about Emacs
see the following URLs :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
Why Bob's posts seem to regularly include the "Emacs!" exclaimation is
a mystery I've long puzzled over.
-- Dwight
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Great question! I've been meaning to ask Bob about that for a while..
To me, emacs is a text editing program originally used on computers
running Unix OS.. I use it at work. I wonder if Bob edits his email
using emacs and maybe these sneak into his messages. Sometimes it seems
like links he intends to post get sub'ed with "Emacs!".
If it's not Bob, maybe it's Dralle..
Matt-
> Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
> Jrgen Amtmann
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server <
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
>
>> *
>>
>> ========================
>> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ========================
>>
>> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
>> the
>> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
>> formatted
>> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
>> editor
>> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>>
>> HTML Version:
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-07-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>>
>> Text Version:
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-07-27&Archive=AeroElectric
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ===============================================
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
>> ---
>> Total Messages Posted Mon 07/27/09: 6
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Today's Message Index:
>> ----------------------
>>
>> 1. 08:56 AM - Crossfeed (Sam Hoskins)
>> 2. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
>> 3. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Jay Hyde)
>> 4. 01:27 PM - Icom 200 (luigit(at)freemail.it)
>> 5. 10:23 PM - Icom 200 (luigit(at)freemail.it)
>> 6. 11:07 PM - Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Thruster87)
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 1
>> _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossfeed
>> From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> I have an all electric plane and have attempted to emulate Z19-RB.
>>
>> Both batteries are the same size, but I am intending on starting on the
>> main
>> battery only. My alternator-out load analysis shows around 17 amps to
>> keep
>> it in the air, though I think I can drop that to 10.
>>
>> The "keep the engine running" components may run off either bus, but the
>> endurance bus is just connected to the main.
>>
>> Could I install a crossfeed switch between the main and engine
>> batteries,
>> without a contactor? It would allow me to use the engine battery for
>> the
>> endurance bus, to supplement the main battery. That would also allow me
>> to
>> simultaneously charge both batteries without engaging the engine battery
>> contactor.
>>
>> I'll try and attach a pdf.
>>
>> BTW, after a year and a half, I am somewhat back in the air, though many
>> bugs remain.
>>
>> Sam
>> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 2
>> _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom
>>
>> At 05:00 PM 7/25/2009, you wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi Bob,I was expecting it to just activate [intercom] without a
>> >separate button,so one just speaks and the other person hears
>> >you.Pressing the PTT it transmits OK and the passenger can also hear
>> >what you say and both can hear just fine the incoming calls.I have
>> >not tried connecting the intercom switch to pin 10 Intercom IN and
>> >joining to pin 9 PTT + as I understand it,it should not require
>> >this switch to operate as a VOX intercom. Cheers Alan [610xl builder
>> >almost ready to start taxi run testing]
>>
>> After reading through the available installation data
>> on the Icom IC-A210 I've discovered that the 210 is
>> a head-n-shoulders upgrade from the 200. Most noteworthy
>> are extensive audio management features with functions
>> and gains set by software using a front panel menu
>> system.
>>
>> Another interesting feature is what appears to be
>> rear connector plate options. The stock input/output
>> connector plate works with the same Molex wires-to-
>> ecb style of harnes connector . . . same as the A200.
>> The A210 install kit comes with an "MB-113" adapter
>> module to convert the legacy molex connnector interface
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | RE: what is Emacs |
Emacs is a text editor. Well, that=92s like saying the Airbus A380 is
an
airplane. Anyway it=92s more used in the Linux/Unix world, though
versions
exist for windows.
Ralph Finch
Davis CA
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Janet
Amtmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs -
07/27/09
Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
J=FCrgen Amtmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Why Bob's posts seem to regularly include the "Emacs!" exclaimation is
a mystery I've long puzzled over.
Beats me. I wasn't even aware of it until it popped up
on the List just now . . . and I see it on the webmail
access to the forums. When I get back to the Gyp Hills,
I'll search my ingoing and outgoing archives to see if
it shows up.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255137#255137
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09 |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/29/2009 04:07 PM, nuckollsr wrote:
> Beats me. I wasn't even aware of it until it popped up
> on the List just now
Ah, and here I was hoping you were a closet Emacs fan... :-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. and OVM |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello :-)
First, thanks to Bob his dedication to helping build dependable electronic systems
for homebuilts. I am building a Sonex powered by a Jabiru 3300. I've read
through the book and have some questions below. Unless noted otherwise, I am
referring directly to your Z-20 diagram.
18awg and 16awg Fuse Link to Starter Contactor
On Z-20, connecting to the starter contactor is a 14awg wire from the Alt OV disconnect
relay that has an 18awg fuse link inline with it. Although it meets
the criterion of being 2 steps smaller than the 14awg, it also say to contact
Bob about making them any bigger than with a 22awg line (protececting 18awg).
Same issue occurs above this in the diagram with a 16awg fuse link called out
to protect the 12awg master power line.
Are these fuse links of a different type? On the diagram, it says to refer to Note
4, which doesn't shed any light on this issue.
DC Master Power Switch (S1)
"Up" (keyway) position: As I understand it, the 2-10 switch is a 3-position dpdt
switch. The top position (oriented according to the diagram) would connect terminal
2 to 1, connecting the main power distribution bus to the battery via
a starter contactor terminal. At the same time, terminal 5 would connect to 4,
where it connects both to the crowbar OVM and the alternator OV disconnect relay,
and if then eventually, if all is well in the world, to the PM alternator.
This would be the 'normal' position for regular flying, right?
"Center" position: Toggling the switch to the center position would still connect
terminal 2 to 1 (I had originally thought it made it open), and terminal 5
goes to 6, disconnecting the OVM and cutting power to the alt OV disconnect relay.
The alt OV disconnect magnetic field collapses, causing the NO switch to
move to the NC position.
Moving the toggle to the center position manually takes the alternator offline.
"Down" (opposite) position: Moving this switch to the down (opposite) position
disconnects terminal 2, cutting off the connection to the battery. And terminal
5 is the same as the 'center' position, disconnecting the alternator.
ALT 5A Fuse: Current will flow through the 22awg wire between terminals 2 and 5
only when the switch is in the "Up" (keyway) position, i.e. both the alternator
and battery are online. The fuse will blow when more than 5A passes through
it, caused by an overvoltage condition. But if there is an OV condition, wouldn't
the crowbar OVM take the alternator offline? Is this just redundancy, or
am I missing something? Maybe so when the OV condition returns to normal it will
keep the alternator permanently offline, instead of going off and on and off,
etc, caused by the crowbar OVM cycling off and on?
Crowbar OVM
In Z-20, the crowbar OVM is shown sharing terminal 4 of the master power switch
with the line to the alternator. For me, the crowbar OVM is a black box. All
I need to understand is what the 'net' function of it is. When it senses a voltage
above a certain value, does it allow a current path to be completed through
it to the panel ground? If so, then there would be no current going to the
alt OV disconnect relay, which would then take the alternator offline. Is that
how it works?
Alternator OV Disconnect Relay
Am I right in assuming that in the normal engine operation with the power master
switch in the 'up' position, the power is applied through the switch to the
alternator OV disconnect relay, whose magnetic field then pulls down the alt OV
switch from the N.C. position to the N.O. position? That had me confused at
first, cuz I figured 'normal' operation is when both the alternator and battery
are connected. I think I can interpret 'Normally Open, Normally Closed' as being
the 'unenergized' switch position, right?
Dynamo, aka PM Alternator
Z-20 shows just two wire coming off the alternator. One connects to the voltage
regulator at terminal 3, the other at terminal 1. There is also a tach signal
wire spliced into the terminal 1 wire. So both of these wires are carrying current
generated by the alternator to the voltage regulator? If so, why have two
leads instead of one, and shouldn't there be a ground someplace?
Capacitor
Is the capicitor after the regulator for filtering out noise to the radio? I know
of someone who wired according to Z-20, but left out the capacitor. I'm not
sure why.
Cheers,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255162#255162
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: what is Emacs |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
Uggh,
emacs vs vi discussions turn out worse than downwind turn discussions.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> Emacs is a text editor. Well, thats like saying the Airbus A380 is an
> airplane. Anyway its more used in the Linux/Unix world, though versions
> exist for windows.
>
>
> Ralph Finch
>
> Davis CA
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Janet
> Amtmann
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:57 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09
>
>
> Can someone enlighten me what the word "Emacs" means?
>
>
> Jrgen Amtmann
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
7/30/2009
Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: " I'll search my ingoing and outgoing
archives to see if
it shows up."
Thank you for your effort to resolve this mystery / aggravation. I had
assumed that it was some failing of my computer arrangement that deprived me
of what information you were trying to convey.
Emacs! usually appeared when you were attempting to place a link to some
information. Here is an example extracted from your July 23, 2009 posting on
transorbs, message # 46078 in the archives:
" Do I correctly deduce from your posting that your
contactor coils are protected by a single transorb?
If so, then it has to be wired as shown in -A- below.
Emacs!
In this configuration, the device HAS to be biased in
the zener conduction mode polarity while coiled power
IS APPLIED."
You can see that there was no way to access the intended information.
Many thanks for your help on this matter.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==============================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 07/27/09
From: "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Why Bob's posts seem to regularly include the "Emacs!" exclaimation is
a mystery I've long puzzled over.
Beats me. I wasn't even aware of it until it popped up
on the List just now . . . and I see it on the webmail
access to the forums. When I get back to the Gyp Hills,
I'll search my ingoing and outgoing archives to see if
it shows up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob,
Z-31A is for a Military Style Ground Power Jack. I understand the diode and OVM-14
on the Ground Power Contactor, but is the diode/jumper necessary on the Existing
Battery Contactor?
Also, when do you think you will be filling existing orders for OVM-14s?
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit progressing. Engine & Panel
delivery soon.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255222#255222
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: what is Emacs |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/30/2009 12:00 PM, halbenjamin(at)optonline.net wrote:
> The REAL question is what primer should be used on emacs?
Here is one:
<http://www.csm.uwe.ac.uk/~lrlang/java_html/emacsref.html>
*wink*
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. |
and OVM
Too many questions at once makes it daunting for one guy to tackle
quickly Dan. I'll take a go at the second part of your post. Maybe
someone more familiar with Z-20 will answer the first part. If not, post
the questions again that you still have.
Yes on the crowbar operation. The black box is very quick. But in
addition, the crowbar black box will trip the Circuit breaker to keep
the power off. Resetting the breaker will reset the circuit.
Alternator OV disconnect. With no power to the relay the alternator is
disconnected. Energizing the relay connects the alternator. The NC and
NO terminology has a history in electronics where normal means the
condition when the coil is not energized. No reference to airplane
operation.
Dynamo aka PM alternator. These units generate AC power not DC so they
need the two wires. The regulator also rectifies the AC into DC and then
regulates the DC output voltage.
Capacitor. Yes it will help filter noise. It also may assist the stable
generation of power if the battery fails or is disconnected. In my
machine I do not have the ability to disconnect the PM voltage regulator
from the battery and I do not have a capacitor and it all works just fine.
Ken
> Crowbar OVM
>
> In Z-20, the crowbar OVM is shown sharing terminal 4 of the master
> power switch with the line to the alternator. For me, the crowbar OVM
> is a black box. All I need to understand is what the 'net' function
> of it is. When it senses a voltage above a certain value, does it
> allow a current path to be completed through it to the panel ground?
> If so, then there would be no current going to the alt OV disconnect
> relay, which would then take the alternator offline. Is that how it
> works?
>
> Alternator OV Disconnect Relay
>
> Am I right in assuming that in the normal engine operation with the
> power master switch in the 'up' position, the power is applied
> through the switch to the alternator OV disconnect relay, whose
> magnetic field then pulls down the alt OV switch from the N.C.
> position to the N.O. position? That had me confused at first, cuz I
> figured 'normal' operation is when both the alternator and battery
> are connected. I think I can interpret 'Normally Open, Normally
> Closed' as being the 'unenergized' switch position, right?
>
> Dynamo, aka PM Alternator
>
> Z-20 shows just two wire coming off the alternator. One connects to
> the voltage regulator at terminal 3, the other at terminal 1. There
> is also a tach signal wire spliced into the terminal 1 wire. So both
> of these wires are carrying current generated by the alternator to
> the voltage regulator? If so, why have two leads instead of one, and
> shouldn't there be a ground someplace?
>
> Capacitor
>
> Is the capicitor after the regulator for filtering out noise to the
> radio? I know of someone who wired according to Z-20, but left out
> the capacitor. I'm not sure why.
>
> Cheers, Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Garmin GNS 530 Internal Battery |
It's time to change the internal battery on my GNS 530. Does anyone have
any documentation on...
1. How to find the battery?
2. What is required to remove and replace?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. and |
OVM
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Ken :-)
I'll post another topic with the any questions I still have in a few days. Chopping
the topic up into smaller pieces is a good suggestion.
Cheers,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255289#255289
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: That magic moment when everything comes together..... |
At 11:02 AM 7/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>- I REALLY couldn't have done it without all of your
> considerable expertise and willingness to help a rookie.
Yeah . . . you would have got there . . . but
perhaps with less confidence in your finished
product. Well done sir. Be sure to let your
friends know what goes on here at the AeroElectric-
List. Helping out EVERYBODY is what we do.
>A short, but very sweet video is here....
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSv4sqDxdQ
Wayyyy cool!
Send us some more video/pix when they don't get
in the way of business. Fly comfortably.
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: Z-31A question |
At 09:59 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>Z-31A is for a Military Style Ground Power Jack. I understand the
>diode and OVM-14 on the Ground Power Contactor, but is the
>diode/jumper necessary on the Existing Battery Contactor?
Yes. The jumper turns the 4-terminal contactor into
a 3-terminal contactor. The diode or other transient
trapper across the coil is always a good idea too.
>Also, when do you think you will be filling existing orders for OVM-14s?
Our shops look like a train-wreck right now. I cleared
some space on a table yesterday and put a bunch of OVM-14s
together and filled all existing orders. Also put a few
on the shelf.
If you had one on order, you should have received the
e-mail notices from the credit card company and a packing
list from the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Just a follow-up..
The problem turned out to be the sidetone adjustment pot was turned all the
way down by some previous owner (or the factory). This is accessable through
a hole labeled "sidetone" in the radio case (covered by a small aluminum
tape dot). Being careful to ground myself before touching, I turned it to
halfway. Upon re-insttalling and trying it out, I could hear myself clearly
when transmitting.
While there were no repsonses about this post, I think someone else might
benefit from what I found.
Dave L.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: No Sidetone
>I have an interesting problem with my newly installed King KX125.
>
> While everything seems to be working correctly and I am clearly received
> when I transmit, there is no sidetone during transmission (I do not hear
> myself in the head set). I have eliminated the intercom completely, using
> an
> older handheld mike and phones only - same symptoms - rx clear, tx clear,
> no
> sidetone. Could it be that I have not installed some jumper not shown?? Or
> is there a pot somewhere I need to tweek?
>
> I have attached the section of the schematic that pertains to this.
>
> I do not have any connections to pin 501-16 nor do I have a switch on the
> mike jack as shown.
>
> The applicable notes refer to switching 100-H to 501-16 and opening up
> 100-8
> to prevent your audio from being transmitted.
>
> Any clues or hints as to what I have missed doing??
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
Bob,
While on the subject of switches, what's up with the AD on Beechcraft
switches? My local FBO has 3 or 4 Bonanzas and a couple of Barons in the
shop to replace all the switches on the panels. They told me the switches
were about $130 each (cost!!!!) plus several hours labor to install. I
cannot imagine charging that much for a switch.
Jerry Isler
RV4 N455J
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. and |
OVM
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> 18awg and 16awg Fuse Link to Starter Contactor
>
> On Z-20, connecting to the starter contactor is a 14awg wire from the Alt OV
disconnect relay that has an 18awg fuse link inline with it. Although it meets
the criterion of being 2 steps smaller than the 14awg, it also say to contact
Bob about making them any bigger than with a 22awg line (protececting 18awg).
Same issue occurs above this in the diagram with a 16awg fuse link called out
to protect the 12awg master power line.
>
> Are these fuse links of a different type? On the diagram, it says to refer to
Note 4, which doesn't shed any light on this issue.
Also, B & C sells FLK-2 Fusible Link Kit, 20-16 AWG, but in their instructions,
they likewise say use this method for 20 and 18 awg, no larger?
http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/Fuselink.pdf
Another Way to Skin a Cat
Instead of using a fusible link, it looks like an inline fuse with a fuse holder could be used: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=34954 In this post, Bob says to use MAXI fuses instead of ATC fuses to protect the alternator. I'm guessing this was either because ATC didn't offer them in a large enough size, or because the MAXI line was more dependable for this application.
The ATC spec page http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf shows a 25A fuse (the size Bob said would work for a 20A alternator, I believe) and a holder that would work up to 24A continuous.
The MAXI spec page http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/MAXI_Specs.pdf shows only 20A and 30A without a 25A fuse.
So how should I protect my 20A Jabiru PM alternator? Fusible link, 25A ATC fuse
and holder, or 30A MAXI fuse and holder?
> DC Master Power Switch (S1)
Bob answered my questions about this in 2007: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=21238
Thanks,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255386#255386
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. |
and OVM
At 07:41 PM 7/29/2009, you wrote:
Hello :-)
First, thanks to Bob his dedication to helping build dependable
electronic systems for homebuilts. I am building a Sonex powered by
a Jabiru 3300. I've read through the book and have some questions
below. Unless noted otherwise, I am referring directly to your Z-20 diagram.
18awg and 16awg Fuse Link to Starter Contactor
On Z-20, connecting to the starter contactor is a 14awg wire from
the Alt OV disconnect relay that has an 18awg fuse link inline with
it. Although it meets the criterion of being 2 steps smaller than the
14awg, it also say to contact Bob about making them any bigger than
with a 22awg line (protececting 18awg). Same issue occurs above this
in the diagram with a 16awg fuse link called out to protect the 12awg
master power line.
Fusible links called out in the Z-figures have been evaluated
for appropriate application of this protection philosophy. Use
in OTHER places should be discussed before proceeding. Consider
that fusible links fall in the same protection category as
ROBUST device (ANL, MANL, etc. current limiters).
Are these fuse links of a different type? On the diagram, it says to
refer to Note 4, which doesn't shed any light on this issue.
No, a fusible link can be crafted from wire that is
4AWG or more wire steps SMALLER than the wire being
protected. Note that fusible links called upon to do
their job will burn. The legacy design goal for TC
aircraft (and I presume automobiles) is that in the
rare but stressful situation that might open that
protection, the designer installs them such that
damage to adjacent wires is minimized (fiberglas
sleeving over wire) and what ever smoke is expected
will be minimized (keep link on the order of 6"
and out of the cockpit).
DC Master Power Switch (S1)
"Up" (keyway) position: As I understand it, the 2-10 switch is a
3-position dpdt switch. The top position (oriented according to the
diagram) would connect terminal 2 to 1, connecting the main power
distribution bus to the battery via a starter contactor terminal. At
the same time, terminal 5 would connect to 4, where it connects both
to the crowbar OVM and the alternator OV disconnect relay, and if
then eventually, if all is well in the world, to the PM alternator.
This would be the 'normal' position for regular flying, right?
Down is all power OFF. Mid position is intended to
bring the battery only on line. The up position adds
the engine driven power source. Full up (both sources
on) is the normal position for flight.
"Center" position: Toggling the switch to the center position would
still connect terminal 2 to 1 (I had originally thought it made it
open), and terminal 5 goes to 6, disconnecting the OVM and cutting
power to the alt OV disconnect relay. The alt OV disconnect magnetic
field collapses, causing the NO switch to move to the NC position.
Moving the toggle to the center position manually takes the
alternator offline.
yes
"Down" (opposite) position: Moving this switch to the down (opposite)
position disconnects terminal 2, cutting off the connection to the
battery. And terminal 5 is the same as the 'center' position,
disconnecting the alternator.
yes. this is explained in the section on switches where
the functionality of progressive transfer switches is
discussed.
ALT 5A Fuse: Current will flow through the 22awg wire between
terminals 2 and 5 only when the switch is in the "Up" (keyway)
position, i.e. both the alternator and battery are online. The fuse
will blow when more than 5A passes through it, caused by an
overvoltage condition.
OV conditions DO NOT increase current demands expected
to open ANY STYLE of circuit protection. Fuses and breakers
protect wires. OV conditions are managed by millisecond-fast
detection devices specific to the task of taking an alternator
off line.
But if there is an OV condition, wouldn't the crowbar OVM take the
alternator offline? Is this just redundancy, or am I missing
something? Maybe so when the OV condition returns to normal it will
keep the alternator permanently offline, instead of going off and on
and off, etc, caused by the crowbar OVM cycling off and on?
Yes, ALL ov protection devices qualified for aviation are
latching. I.e., when an ov condition is detected, the
alternator shuts down and stays down. Keep in mind that
the condition immediately following an OV trip is a LOW
VOLTS situation that should cause your LV warning system
to become active.
Crowbar OVM
In Z-20, the crowbar OVM is shown sharing terminal 4 of the master
power switch with the line to the alternator. For me, the crowbar OVM
is a black box. All I need to understand is what the 'net' function
of it is. When it senses a voltage above a certain value, does it
allow a current path to be completed through it to the panel ground?
If so, then there would be no current going to the alt OV disconnect
relay, which would then take the alternator offline. Is that how it works?
Yup, it opens the UPSTREAM circuit protection (in this
case a circuit breaker) thus latching the alternator OFF.
Alternator OV Disconnect Relay
Am I right in assuming that in the normal engine operation with the
power master switch in the 'up' position, the power is applied
through the switch to the alternator OV disconnect relay, whose
magnetic field then pulls down the alt OV switch from the N.C.
position to the N.O. position? That had me confused at first, cuz I
figured 'normal' operation is when both the alternator and battery
are connected. I think I can interpret 'Normally Open, Normally
Closed' as being the 'unenergized' switch position, right?
Yes, this is a vernacular common to relay-speak
since about day-one. Further, you may find the
"COM", "NO" and "NC" nomenclature molded into
the plastic housing of the relay. See . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/Plastic_Relay_2.jpg
Dynamo, aka PM Alternator
Z-20 shows just two wire coming off the alternator. One connects to
the voltage regulator at terminal 3, the other at terminal 1. There
is also a tach signal wire spliced into the terminal 1 wire. So both
of these wires are carrying current generated by the alternator to
the voltage regulator? If so, why have two leads instead of one, and
shouldn't there be a ground someplace?
The Dynamo is an AC power generating device that
needs both leads brought out to a rectifier/regulator
for conversion and management.
The classic "alternator" has the rectifiers
built in and usually take power (-) to case
ground thus eliminating the need for one of
the power output wires.
Capacitor
Is the capicitor after the regulator for filtering out noise to the
radio? I know of someone who wired according to Z-20, but left out
the capacitor. I'm not sure why.
The capacitor reduces alternator noise an enhances
alternator stability during battery-off operations
(contactor failed). If left off, you're not likely
to notice the difference for 99.9% of your operations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-20: Fuse Links, Master Switch, Alt OV Disc. |
and OVM
At 12:09 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > 18awg and 16awg Fuse Link to Starter Contactor
> >
> > On Z-20, connecting to the starter contactor is a 14awg wire from
> the Alt OV disconnect relay that has an 18awg fuse link inline with
> it. Although it meets the criterion of being 2 steps smaller than
> the 14awg, it also say to contact Bob about making them any bigger
> than with a 22awg line (protececting 18awg). Same issue occurs
> above this in the diagram with a 16awg fuse link called out to
> protect the 12awg master power line.
> >
> > Are these fuse links of a different type? On the diagram, it says
> to refer to Note 4, which doesn't shed any light on this issue.
>
>
>Also, B & C sells FLK-2 Fusible Link Kit, 20-16 AWG, but in their
>instructions, they likewise say use this method for 20 and 18 awg, no larger?
>
>http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/Fuselink.pdf
>
>Another Way to Skin a Cat
>
>Instead of using a fusible link, it looks like an inline fuse with a
>fuse holder could be used:
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=34954 In this post, Bob
>says to use MAXI fuses instead of ATC fuses to protect the
>alternator. I'm guessing this was either because ATC didn't offer
>them in a large enough size, or because the MAXI line was more
>dependable for this application.
>
>The ATC spec page
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
>shows a 25A fuse (the size Bob said would work for a 20A alternator,
>I believe) and a holder that would work up to 24A continuous.
>
>The MAXI spec page
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/MAXI_Specs.pdf
>shows only 20A and 30A without a 25A fuse.
>
>So how should I protect my 20A Jabiru PM alternator? Fusible link,
>25A ATC fuse and holder, or 30A MAXI fuse and holder?
Any way you wish. All of the processes you mentioned
are suited for PROTECTING THE WIRE between the bus
and the alternator's rectifier/regulator.
The Z-20 data is but one recipe for success that
will perform as advertised. There are many
variations on a theme for protection of wires
which are interchangeable if exercised with
understanding about how the ingredient substitution
is expected to perform.
The plastic fuses would be fine too.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
At 11:13 AM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>While on the subject of switches, what's up with the AD on
>Beechcraft switches? My local FBO has 3 or 4 Bonanzas and a couple
>of Barons in the shop to replace all the switches on the panels.
>They told me the switches were about $130 each (cost!!!!) plus
>several hours labor to install. I cannot imagine charging that much
>for a switch.
Gee . . . ONLY $130? It has to be because the
volume in sales is up. While I was still at HBC,
I seem to recall a price of $175 each.
The device in question is a breaker-switch . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
. . . where robustness of the braided copper jumper
wire is not meeting design goals. If the "added
insulator" is not present, jumper failure causes
load current to flow through the contact-spreading
spring. IF the switch is used in a high current
application (prop de-ice, pitot heat) then the spring
smokes and folks get upset.
Problem is similar to the AD being discussed on the
Cessna switches. The Bonanzas and Barons total about
80,000 switches in the field. The Cessna situation
is probably much larger.
This is a great example of what happens when one
discovers a failure to meet design goals in a
legacy product with huge numbers. The only folks
upset about it are the aircraft owners. The FBO
can sympathize but he cannot do anything practical.
Cessna and Beech can't do anything practical either.
First, it's unlikely that they have anyone on their
staff that truly understands root causes for
the problems. Second, practical fixes require
properly approved kits with staggering costs and
time-to-market issues driven by bureaucracy and
corporate policy/procedure albatrosses.
So, what's the easy fix? AD the critters, spread
the costs around the fleet owners. But make sure
the work is accomplished only by qualified technicians
at FBO standard rates.
The type certificated light airplane market
is sinking ever lower in the FAA/ISO tarpits.
While at Cessna in 1965 or so, we broke 10,000
airplanes per year production. It's never
been that high since and the trends are going
down.
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: | Re: Switch Failures |
Buy one switch then search heavan and earth to find the supplier and buy direct
from them..then hand them to the A&P..Got to be worth a shot..Gee!
Frank...Thankfully experimental!
Bob,
While on the subject of switches, what's up with the AD on Beechcraft switches?
My local FBO has 3 or 4 Bonanzas and a couple of Barons in the shop to replace
all the switches on the panels. They told me the switches were about $130 each
(cost!!!!) plus several hours labor to install. I cannot imagine charging that
much for a switch.
Jerry Isler
RV4 N455J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob, for answering my questions on the other thread :-)
Sifting through the forum archives, I see you have mentioned a replacement for the AEC9005-101 LV monitor module, http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf ,which shows the new product. When will the 9011 become available?
Looks like it would replace the S704-1 alternator disconnect and AEC9005-101 LV
monitor module. The alternator disconnect portion of the drawing shows a slightly
different alternator disconnect, the AEC9011-110-1. It says 'arc suppression'
and has a resistor and capacitor added. What are the pros and cons of these
pieces? If I then wanted to leave of the resistor and capacitor, could I simply
modify the 9011?
Thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255399#255399
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
At 05:28 PM 7/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>The indicator has 3 posts on the back marked SEN, middle not marked
>and IGN which goes to which.Didn't want to fry anything. Cheers Alan
Best guess is that IGN goes to your fuel gages breaker/fuse.
SEN goes to the tank sender. The unmarked goes to ground.
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> |
At 10:32 AM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
>I have an all electric plane and have attempted to emulate Z19-RB.
>
>Both batteries are the same size, but I am intending on starting on
>the main battery only. My alternator-out load analysis shows around
>17 amps to keep it in the air, though I think I can drop that to 10.
Okay, what are your design goals for battery only
endurance?
>The "keep the engine running" components may run off either bus, but
>the endurance bus is just connected to the main.
>
>Could I install a crossfeed switch between the main and engine
>batteries, without a contactor?
Obviously, yes. But 30A always hot wires to a panel mounted
switch? You're stacking lots of switches and
options together that PRESUMES you'll be making good
and useful decisions when things aren't going right.
You also appear to be stacking multiple failures onto
a single tank full of gas.
> It would allow me to use the engine battery for the endurance
> bus, to supplement the main battery. That would also allow me to
> simultaneously charge both batteries without engaging the engine
> battery contactor.
Hmmmm . . . the whole idea behind Z-19 was to partition
duties for the two batteries batteries of known condition.
If there's rationale for paralleling them, perhaps one larger
battery is more appropriate?
With respect to hangar maintenance for dual batteries, how
about dual battery maintainers? Give each their own accessory
plug to a wire off the battery bus protected with a 5A
fuse??
If you're worried about having total battery energy
available for any and all duties aboard the aircraft,
what's the failure mode that prompts the design
goal?
>I'll try and attach a pdf.
Nice job on the drawing . . .
>BTW, after a year and a half, I am somewhat back in the air, though
>many bugs remain.
Yup, it's no different in the development of TC
aircraft. Hopefully we slay all the dragons during
pre-cert flight testing and shepherding the first
dozen or so airplanes down the line. The NICE thing
about dead-dragons in the factory is that the outcome
benefits lots of future airplanes. Your website for
sharing your own hunting successes is a good and useful
thing . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-31A question |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Got confirmation on the order. Thanks!
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished. Finish Kit progressing. Engine & Panel
delivery soon.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255426#255426
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:00 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks, Bob, for answering my questions on the other thread :-)
>
>Sifting through the forum archives, I see you have mentioned a
>replacement for the AEC9005-101 LV monitor module,
>http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf ,which
>shows the new product. When will the 9011 become available?
As soon as I get my kids schooled in the
art of soldering specs of fly-#$@@ onto
ECB's. The design is done and I've had
a couple of prototypes flying for the past
6 months or so. When do you absolutely need
it?
>Looks like it would replace the S704-1 alternator disconnect and
>AEC9005-101 LV monitor module. The alternator disconnect portion of
>the drawing shows a slightly different alternator disconnect, the
>AEC9011-110-1.
No, only the AEC9005 LV warning. It COULD be used for
OV management of either generators -OR- alternators
with external regulators. The present modus operandi
for the 9011 calls for ENERGIZING the relay to shut
the alternator/generator down. For your application,
we need to ENERGIZE the relay to bring the alternator
ON and de-energize it to kill the alternator. I guess
I could do a patch to the software to make it do that.
That would allow the single device to do both OV and
LV monitoring/control on your small PM alternator.
> It says 'arc suppression' and has a resistor and capacitor added.
> What are the pros and cons of these pieces? If I then wanted to
> leave of the resistor and capacitor, could I simply modify the 9011?
Those are components added to the generator field
disconnect relay when and if the OV management relay
connects to a very inductive load (alternator or generator
field). For the application we're talking about, you
wouldn't need the arc suppression.
Let me think about this a bit and see what it would
take to offer a different dash number for the 9011.
Alternatively, I could make the existing version
energize the relay for generator turn-on . . . that
would let me offer one product into yet another application.
That's and attractive. I'll think about it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> When do you absolutely need it?
Absolutely...hmm...lemme say possibly as early as 2 months, probably between 3
and 4 months, maybe as long as 6-8 months. If I knew the dimensions, connections,
etc. I could prolly leave space for it and do a little retro fitting, if my
project stepped into the fast lane.
> No, only the AEC9005 LV warning. It COULD be used for
> OV management of either generators -OR- alternators
> with external regulators.
I won't have any aux battery, so if I outfitted it today I would need only an LV
warning light and not the rest of the options currently available.
> For your application,
> we need to ENERGIZE the relay to bring the alternator
> ON and de-energize it to kill the alternator. I guess
> I could do a patch to the software to make it do that.
> That would allow the single device to do both OV and
> LV monitoring/control on your small PM alternator.
And this device wouldn't need the arc suppression devices for my use, just like
you'd said before, right? That would be nice. Then it would replace the PM alternator
disconnect. It could use the panel display from the 9011 prototype, showing
something like lights for OV, LV, aux bat LV (wouldn't be wired in my
case), and OV test?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255446#255446
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Gribble" <dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
The cost isn't that high - I paid only $98-$105 each for my six switch /
breakers. Its the miracle of certified aviation.
BTW - there was a vendor at Oshkosh who claims that the new switches are
also defective (with a somewhat different failure mode - the breakage of the
braided wire inside). He claimed to have "just yesterday" received a PMA
for his replacement switch/breaker. It was only $130.... taking orders but
not yet available. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)windstream.net>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Switch Failures
>
>
> Bob,
>
> While on the subject of switches, what's up with the AD on Beechcraft
> switches? My local FBO has 3 or 4 Bonanzas and a couple of Barons in the
> shop to replace all the switches on the panels. They told me the switches
> were about $130 each (cost!!!!) plus several hours labor to install. I
> cannot imagine charging that much for a switch.
>
> Jerry Isler
> RV4 N455J
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:39 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>I just checked my archives, and the first Emacs showed up in a message
>January 2, 2009. Your observation that it is in the place Bob intended
>a picture or drawing to show up is accurate. However, the intended
>picture was included in my emails as an attachment which shows up at
>the bottom of the message. I can also look at the html format of those
>messages, and I see a box in the appropriate location with "Emacs!"
>inside the box. Looking at the html source, I find this:
Gee, you guys put up with this for long time before
rattling my cage . . . don't worry about getting "bit",
my rabies shots are current.
I sent myself some e-mails between matronics accounts
with embedded images and they came through as expected.
However, "embedded" appears not to mean that they are
truly merged with the text . . . rather, they're stored
in some sub-directory called "embedded". My email application
also has a directory called "attached" . . . and at first
blush, they appear quite similar.
If I erase the "embedded" images from the directory, lo-and-
behold, the html interpreter blocks out a space for that
image and labels it with "Emacs!". Further, references to
the embedded images at the bottom of the message calles
out a file name and puts a big red X through it to indicate
that it cannot be found.
I don't know how the html text and images are handled through
the list server . . . or stored in the forums archives. But
it would appear that once the image becomes detached from
it's companion text, the Emacs! thing pops up.
There's quite a number of postings that loose some flavor
when the images went away. I wonder if sending them as
attachments is any more stable. OTOH, I could go back to
archiving on my website and linking to the images. But
it IS much less convenient.
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> |
Emacs!
this is a test
Emacs!
This is another test
done!
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: Switch Failures |
At 08:08 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>The cost isn't that high - I paid only $98-$105 each for my six
>switch / breakers. Its the miracle of certified aviation.
>
>BTW - there was a vendor at Oshkosh who claims that the new switches
>are also defective (with a somewhat different failure mode - the
>breakage of the braided wire inside).
That was the ORIGINAL failure with a secondary event
(smoking spring) caused by current flowing through
the spring between the contact strut and the frame.
The "FIX" didn't stop the wire from breaking, it only
kept the secondary event from occurring. So instead
of getting a broken wire followed by smoke, you only
get a dead accessory. Now, I suppose the next shoe to
drop will insist that some light or warning be included.
Yeah, put a paragraph in the flight manual asking the
pilot to keep an eye on the ammeter lest a broken wire
sneak past without notice . . . but at least we don't
put smoke in the cockpit.
> He claimed to have "just yesterday" received a PMA for his
> replacement switch/breaker. It was only $130.... taking orders
> but not yet available. :)
Do you have his contact data?
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> |
At 07:40 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > When do you absolutely need it?
>
>
>Absolutely...hmm...lemme say possibly as early as 2 months, probably
>between 3 and 4 months, maybe as long as 6-8 months. If I knew the
>dimensions, connections, etc. I could prolly leave space for it and
>do a little retro fitting, if my project stepped into the fast lane.
the dimensions are given in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
and the mating connector is a 9 pin, female d-sub.
The only thing that MIGHT change is wiring to the
relay such that the relay's N.O. contacts are used
to control the alternator as opposed to the N.C.
contacts as shown now.
I've decided to leave the alternator/generator version
as shown . . . for several reasons. There will be a PM
alternator version -10/14V AND -11/28v that drops out
the relay for alternator OV condition. This will merge
nicely with all the existing PM alternator Z-figures.
Your installation would not have the OV warn light and
optionally, you can leave off the aux battery warn light
too.
So all you'll have is the OV test/reset switch and the
LV warning light.
> > No, only the AEC9005 LV warning. It COULD be used for
> > OV management of either generators -OR- alternators
> > with external regulators.
>
>
>I won't have any aux battery, so if I outfitted it today I would
>need only an LV warning light and not the rest of the options
>currently available.
The 'extras' come standard and are used or not used
as your particular design goals dictate. Once the
basic circuitry and packaging is taken care of, adding
the extra features is about 5% of the total cost of
the product.
>And this device wouldn't need the arc suppression devices for my
>use, just like you'd said before, right? That would be nice. Then it
>would replace the PM alternator disconnect. It could use the panel
>display from the 9011 prototype, showing something like lights for
>OV, LV, aux bat LV (wouldn't be wired in my case), and OV test?
I haven't decided whether or not to offer a placard.
Like you've already noted, the needs of each builder
can generate a lot of different placard combinations.
I think we'll offer LED indicators, miniature switches,
control module and the 704-1 style relay.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Bob,
I suspect the attachment method will be more likely to give good
results as compared to embedding the images. Even lowly text only
email clients can usually handle attachments in some way.
Bob W.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> At 08:39 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >I just checked my archives, and the first Emacs showed up in a message
> >January 2, 2009. Your observation that it is in the place Bob intended
> >a picture or drawing to show up is accurate. However, the intended
> >picture was included in my emails as an attachment which shows up at
> >the bottom of the message. I can also look at the html format of those
> >messages, and I see a box in the appropriate location with "Emacs!"
> >inside the box. Looking at the html source, I find this:
>
> Gee, you guys put up with this for long time before
> rattling my cage . . . don't worry about getting "bit",
> my rabies shots are current.
>
> I sent myself some e-mails between matronics accounts
> with embedded images and they came through as expected.
> However, "embedded" appears not to mean that they are
> truly merged with the text . . . rather, they're stored
> in some sub-directory called "embedded". My email application
> also has a directory called "attached" . . . and at first
> blush, they appear quite similar.
>
> If I erase the "embedded" images from the directory, lo-and-
> behold, the html interpreter blocks out a space for that
> image and labels it with "Emacs!". Further, references to
> the embedded images at the bottom of the message calles
> out a file name and puts a big red X through it to indicate
> that it cannot be found.
>
> I don't know how the html text and images are handled through
> the list server . . . or stored in the forums archives. But
> it would appear that once the image becomes detached from
> it's companion text, the Emacs! thing pops up.
>
> There's quite a number of postings that loose some flavor
> when the images went away. I wonder if sending them as
> attachments is any more stable. OTOH, I could go back to
> archiving on my website and linking to the images. But
> it IS much less convenient.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Gribble" <dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Failures |
His handout reads:
"MAJOR PROBLEM! If you install the NEW Beech Circuit Breaker for the AD, be
prepared for smoke, sparks, or fire in the cockpit.
THE Braided Wire BREAKS..."
You can read the rest of it with photos here:
http://www.williamsairpower.com/pdf/switches.pdf
Contact info as requested:
Daniel J. Williams
July 15, 2009 - July 31, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iw