AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ix
July 31, 2009 - August 13, 2009
Williams Air Power
730 Lincoln Lake Ave Lowell MI 49331
616-897-5785
www.williamsairpower.com
BTW Bob - in all the recent thread about regular (non-breaker) toggle
switches failing there was talk of Carling and Honeywell.... do you know
whose parts B&C sells? I want to buy the switches for my RV.
dave
----- Original Message -----
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:56 PM
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: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> 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.
So I would get something separately, like the current one offered, S704-1?
> This will merge nicely with all the existing PM alternator Z-figures.
How so?
> 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.
And from the Jabiru installation manual, http://www.usjabiru.com/images/pdf/manuals/new%20stuff/3300%20Install.pdf it says on page 16 a low voltage warning light can be connected to the green wire of the voltage regulator. So I would be left with an test/reset switch.
This makes me ask, is a test/reset switch of great value for the OV disconnect
system? If it is, it seems it would be better to get it separately, instead of
in a package where most or all of the other components are of no use.
> Once the
> basic circuitry and packaging is taken care of, adding
> the extra features is about 5% of the total cost of
> the product.
I just now saw a pic of the arc suppression relay: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/Relay_with_Arc_Suppression_s.jpg I had thought the capacitor was 10 or 20 times bigger!
> I think we'll offer LED indicators, miniature switches,
> control module and the 704-1 style relay.
Sounds good. I'll wait for the announcements, or contact you if I haven't heard
anything when I'm ready to install.
Thanks again,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255476#255476
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Answers to questions/comments embedded below.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
I understand that I have added complication in order to persue this
electronic ignition/injection path, and I am not flying the same plane as
before. (The wire count is now over 150, for this little plane. My old
wire count was about 70). If I could get a reliable 1.5 hours of flight
time, from the time of an alternator faliure, I could deal with that. I fly
day VFR, but sometimes fly over the mountains and the Ozarks.
>
>
> 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's always a question about how far to take this "redundancy" issue.
I was recently thrown for another loop when Tracy Crook informed me I should
have power supplied simultaneously to both the power inputs on the EC3
controller. I have not yet figured how to do that without adding any more
switches. I had one scenario figured out, but it required the ON-ON-OFF
switch. It turns out the switch is too wide to fit into the existing rows
or switched. For right now, I am using an unwieldy workaround.
>
>
> 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?
>
I already have the two batteries installed and I like the idea of using a
timed replacement/rotation program. I would need a really complelling
reason to backtrack all that.
>
> 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??
I could do that. The backup battery is easily accessible and the main
backup is harder to get to, so that is simple and works out for charging.
>
> 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?
>
Of course, the worst failure would be the alternator giving up the ghost.
At that point, electrons become as valuable as fuel. If the alternator is
gone, I need to be able to have available all the juice in each of the
batteries.
>
> I'll try and attach a pdf.
>>
>
> Nice job on the drawing . . .
>
Thanks. I use SolidEdge 2D by Seimens. It's free. It's the most similar
to ME10/CoCreate, which we used back at the explosives factory.
>
>
> 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 . . .
>
I figure the best I can give back is to make a good record for others to
follow or to reject, as it suits them.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
> 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 11:17 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>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
Good grief! A one page .pdf file of over 12 megabytes!
Here's the meat of the text . . .
The Braided Wire BREAKS
This one was 90% failed when opened. ALL Beech
and Tyco circuit breaker switches have the braided
wire.
Yes, that basic design has existed in this
product since the early 60's. That series
of breaker-switches has been manufactured
in the hundreds of thousands with about
80K used in Beech products and perhaps
the same amount in some Cessna models.
Commercially, that design has a market footprint
probably in the millions. Now, there is
a fundamental flaw in the design for this
product. You'll all no doubt recall numerous
discussions about "gas-tight" for reliable
connectivity and "support at the stress risers"
for robustness. This is a common theme throughout
the universe of wire connection. It was discussed
at length in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
As you can see in this photo . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_w_%27Failed%27_jumper_wires.jpg
. . . the braid is SPOT WELDED to the
forward corner of the frame. Yeah, let's hear
it for gas-tight. But were is the support at the
stress-risers for robustness? It isn't there.
Now, in the photo above, the "failed" wires are
some that I cut to see if I could detect a delta-R
in the breaker's closed position for the purposes
of detecting an impending failure. It wasn't possible
with ordinary tools. However, when wires break in the
fielded products, they fail right at the edge of
the spotweld. Predictable.
When the braided wire fails it either fails open or
closed. If it fails open, the current then goes through
the arm, through the spring and onto the load bar.
The FAA used the word "shorted" in some of their
descriptions of failure modes. I objected but
the document was already published and in the
field. It's a rare bureaucrat that will
step up to do the right thing when caught with
his pants down. I don't think there were EVER
instances of shorting, only of broken wires
that transferred the major current path to
an uninsulated spring.
By insulating the spring it solved this problem. However
many Tyco circuit breaker switches have failed
closed or shorted (in all types of aircraft). When the
braid breaks off and closes the buss input to the load
bar, it renders the switch ineffective and uncontrolled
electricity goes through that circuit. After that it is
smoke, sparks, and ultimately fire unless God
intervenes.
A classic example of seizing on a few
facts, a few off the wall assumptions,
some mis-interpreted drivel from the
bureaucrats, an scare the pants off the
uninformed by alluding to enhanced risk
of joining their maker . . .
What is needed is a circuit breaker switch that
does not have a braided wire.
Simplify the current path.
Without a doubt, the new design is superior
with regard to the elimination of the poorly
implemented spot-welds for wire bonding. However,
this product doesn't have the field history
of the existing part. It's not known if 20
years and 100,000 parts from now, some new
AD won't be issued against this part as well.
What we DO know is that the failures are rare,
and relatively benign and is only a risk for
the breakers above 10A continuous loads.
If it were my airplane, I'd replace the pitot
heat and prop heat switch breakers with the
new design, leave the rest alone.
Just like the guy who got an STC for replacing
Piper's aluminum cables with copper cables
and made a bundle selling holy-watered hunks
of wire, this guy is going to make some bux
selling a $30 device at a huge mark-up . . .
made possible because he was willing to run
the traps with the folks who holy-watered
his product.
Hey, how about a "cash for breakers" program?
Talk to the right folks in Congress and I'll
bet we can soak our grandchildren for a
few $millions$ to help this guy get well quicker
and alleviate the need for prayers in the cockpit.
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 11:41 PM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
>
>So I would get something separately, like the current one offered, S704-1?
Yes
> > This will merge nicely with all the existing PM alternator Z-figures.
>How so?
Because the present design philosophy for controlling
the PM alternator is to ENERGIZE the alternator disconnect
relay to bring the alternator on line. This would remain
the same. The ground side of the alternator disconnect
relay would be controlled by the OV/LV module.
>And from the Jabiru installation manual,
>http://www.usjabiru.com/images/pdf/manuals/new%20stuff/3300%20Install.pdf
>it says on page 16 a low voltage warning light can be connected to
>the green wire of the voltage regulator. So I would be left with an
>test/reset switch.
As a general rule, the alternator failure warnings
integral to voltage regulators are indicative of
gross alternator failure and may not be sensitive
to simple reductions in voltage due to regulator
control failure and/or alternator over-loading.
Legacy design goals for TC aircraft call for LV/OV
monitoring and control to be independent systems
not electrically connected with the regulator.
It is my recommendation that the "LV warning"
built into the regulator be ignored and that
all LV/OV related functions be handled by the
AEC9011-10
>This makes me ask, is a test/reset switch of great value for the OV
>disconnect system? If it is, it seems it would be better to get it
>separately, instead of in a package where most or all of the other
>components are of no use.
Connected to the answer above. First, you'd like to
be able to pre-flight the LV/OV monitoring and
control system. The LV light begins to flash as
soon as you turn the master switch ON. After
engine start, RPMs high enough to bring the
alternator to life should turn the LV warning light
out. After that, a manual TEST trip of the OV system
should bring the LV warning back on. A RESET
should clear the LV condition. It's all a package
designed to address design goals driven by
the legacy failure modes effects analysis
process that has served us well in the TC
aircraft world for decades.
For your application, the only thing you'll leave
off is the second LV warning light.
>I just now saw a pic of the arc suppression relay:
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/Relay_with_Arc_Suppression_s.jpg
>I had thought the capacitor was 10 or 20 times bigger!
It doesn't take much. And except for the fact
that we'd like to trip the OV system once per
flight cycle in preflight, the arc suppression
system would probably not add much value. But
when you test a generator or alternator at low
rpm, field currents tend to be high and stored
energy greater than for the average OV trip
condition at cruise. So it's a good thing to
have. But control of the PM alternator doesn't
present these kinds of stresses so the arc
suppression is left off.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey, Bob :-)
> For your application, the only thing you'll leave
> off is the second LV warning light.
So I would still get the S704-1 separately and the only moving parts in the 9011
would be the OV test/reset switch?
It would look similar to the drawing on page 4 of 9011-700-1C, except everything
inside the dotted lines would be replaced by my PM alternator and my S704-1.
The inductor for my S704-1 would be wired into the OV WARN light somehow.
> The ground side of the alternator disconnect
> relay...
You mean the wire from the ground side of the inductor S704-1 that is grounded
to the firewall?
> ...would be controlled by the OV/LV module.
The OV/LV module is the 9011, 9011-10 in my case. From Z-20, I thought the 'ground
side of the alternator disconnect relay' was normally controlled by the crowbar
OVM via tripping the ALT 5A circuit breaker. You're not saying the crowbar
OVM and ALT circuit breaker would be changed, are you?
Finally, From your 2nd reply in this thread:
> So all you'll have is the OV test/reset switch and the
> LV warning light.
Which seems different than what you have said now:
> ...the only thing you'll leave
> off is the second LV warning light.
I feel like I have a progressive transfer switch in my brain. It still isn't in
the 'on-on' position for this topic, but you'll help me get it there soon!
Thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255518#255518
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com |
Subject: | why not a Schottky rectifier for essential bus diode? |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com |
Subject: | Re: why not a Schottky rectifier for essential bus |
diode?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: why not a Schottky rectifier for essential bus |
diode?
At 12:31 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
q: Why not a Schottky rectifier for essential bus diode?
a: They work too. The hype used to market them doesn't match
realities of the application but they're fine in terms
of suitability to task.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com |
Subject: | Test - why are my posts empty? |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Test - why are my posts empty? |
You have some strange HTML code in your message that is being ignored,
hence a blank message. If your email client allows you to see the raw
source of the message, you can see everything.
Try changing your text settings to "Plain Text". You loose all the
superfluous crap that comes with some HTML editors and gets your basic
message across.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:34 AM, dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dave Gribble" <dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com> |
Subject: | Re: Test - why are my posts empty? |
Thanks Steve - testing 1 2 3.... sending this with outlook express.
Previous were sent via web client, which seems to have changed for the
worse!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Test - why are my posts empty?
>
> You have some strange HTML code in your message that is being ignored,
> hence a blank message. If your email client allows you to see the raw
> source of the message, you can see everything.
>
> Try changing your text settings to "Plain Text". You loose all the
> superfluous crap that comes with some HTML editors and gets your basic
> message across.
>
>
> Steve Thomas
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:34 AM, dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dave Gribble" <dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com> |
Subject: | questions about B&C toggle swtiches |
Hello group - I have 2 questions about B&C toggle switches... they are at
the show so I thought I'd post here...
1) Anyone know what brand they are? With all the recent discussion of
switch failures I'd like to know if they are OK or not. Of course my system
will be failure tolerant so this isn't a safety question, more of a consumer
question.
2) Do the single pole and double pole switches physically look the same
from the panel side? Sometimes I've seem some that don't quite match
(toggle shape, metal finish, etc.) and in that case I'd buy all double pole
switches.
Thanks for any info, hope this post works (plain text via outlook express...
fingers crossed).
dave
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>So I would still get the S704-1 separately and the only moving parts
>in the 9011 would be the OV test/reset switch?
Yes . . .
>I feel like I have a progressive transfer switch in my brain. It
>still isn't in the 'on-on' position for this topic, but you'll help
>me get it there soon!
See wiring diagram posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/9011_PM_OV-LV.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell" <lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net> |
Does anyone have a cross reference from B & C part numbers to
Honeywell's part numbers?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: questions about B&C toggle swtiches |
At 02:54 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello group - I have 2 questions about B&C toggle switches... they
>are at the show so I thought I'd post here...
>
>1) Anyone know what brand they are? With all the recent discussion
>of switch failures I'd like to know if they are OK or not. Of
>course my system will be failure tolerant so this isn't a safety
>question, more of a consumer question.
They're Carling products. Direct descendants
of the rocker switches (including the infamous
split rocker master) used on Cessnas and others
for decades. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling/
>2) Do the single pole and double pole switches physically look the
>same from the panel side? Sometimes I've seem some that don't quite
>match (toggle shape, metal finish, etc.) and in that case I'd buy
>all double pole switches.
The are identical.
>Thanks for any info, hope this post works (plain text via outlook
>express... fingers crossed).
Yup, that works.
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> |
Great :-)
The new diagram shows no crowbar OVM, nor circuit breaker between terminals 2 and
5 in the master switch, so does this mean the 9011 will indeed replace these,
taking the overvoltage PM alternator offline?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255558#255558
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: questions about B&C toggle swtiches |
Dave Gribble wrote:
>
>
> Hello group - I have 2 questions about B&C toggle switches... they are
> at the show so I thought I'd post here...
>
> 1) Anyone know what brand they are? With all the recent discussion
> of switch failures I'd like to know if they are OK or not. Of course
> my system will be failure tolerant so this isn't a safety question,
> more of a consumer question.
>
> 2) Do the single pole and double pole switches physically look the
> same from the panel side? Sometimes I've seem some that don't quite
> match (toggle shape, metal finish, etc.) and in that case I'd buy all
> double pole switches.
>
> Thanks for any info, hope this post works (plain text via outlook
> express... fingers crossed).
>
> dave
limited answer/thought set:
2)
Many panel designers now recommend using dissimilar switch handles for
different jobs. Perfect rows of matching switches look nice on the
flight line, but bouncing around in the air in the dark, being able to
identify a switch by feel can be an asset.
outlook express: Try Thunderbird. Or just about anything other than
outlook.... :-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net> |
Subject: | UMA engine gauge problem |
I have UMA tachometer, oil pressure, oil temperature, and cylinder heat
temperature gauges installed as part of a recently completed Rotax 912S
installation in a Kitfox that previously had a 582. The airplane (and
its electrical system) are about 8 years old except for the changes made
to accommodate the brand new engine.
I am using an electrical system design as outlined in the Aeroelectric
Connection including the over voltage module and the ground block bolted
thru the firewall to the 6 awg engine ground cable.
At about seven hours of trouble-free operation the CHT and oil
temperature gauges registered 140 degrees at power-up with the ambient
temperature at about 60. The oil pressure gauge barely crept up to 12
psi as I ran the engine for about 60 seconds (before shutting down).
The plane is hangared and had sat idle thru about 10 days of damp, rainy
weather. Prior to this point the gauges had behaved in a normal way -
temperatures pegged at zero then rising as the engine warmed up and oil
pressure climbing immediately at start-up to 70 psi and then declining
as things warmed up. Oil temperature would reach 120 after about 5 to 6
minutes. The tach behaved normally.
Simple explanation, right? Evidently not. After testing the
instruments in the plane and discussion with UMA I sent the gauges back,
they were declared to be working correctly, I got them back, installed
them (one at a time with tests in between), and they worked fine. For
about two flight hours. Then after the plane sat for three or four
days the false readings reappeared.
This time I made a test rig so I could completely bypass the plane's
electrical system. I have a db9 with separate leads. I ran one to the
battery positive, one to the sensor on the engine, and held the ground
lead against the engine block within a couple of inches of the sensor.
Same false reading. Battery voltage at this point was about 11.9 (as
shown on the aircraft voltmeter just after the test). We checked the
resistance of the CHT sensor where we did the test and it was 1145 ohms
which is consistent with the ambient temperature of 70 or so.
The following day the "falseness" of the temperature readings was less.
The day after it was still less so I flew the plane a bit. Oil pressure
readings were lower than "normal"; temperatures were higher but all
within a range that I felt ok running the engine in flight (briefly).
The fact that three instruments are involved makes me wonder just what
I've done to cause this. The fact that an instrument, isolated from the
plane's electrical system, is reading inaccurately makes me wonder about
some kind of problem in all three gauges.
Can anyone on the list suggest a cause or perhaps an additional
debugging technique.
Thanks very much.
Bill
Kitfox IV 1200
Albion, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
I'm considering using two alternators, the 20 Amp B&C, and the 60 AMP Plane Power.
I'm also considering using two PP regulators, as it appears that they will
load share as a percent of output...I'm going to use a JPI 930 that has the
ability to monitor two locations with 50mv shunts...they sell 100 AMP units at
$75 a pop...I thought that to be a little much for a shunt...
I think I read that you were using 50mv shunts in your load meter set up and that
they were matched or calibrated or something...
Do you think that using two of them on the load meter of the JPI would be a good
idea...and how much are they?
Any other comments welcome, especially on the PP regulators and the load sharing
feature.
PS...I found the Tyco EV200 relays for $50, delivered...so I bought them.
Thanks,
Al Kittleson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255568#255568
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:40 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>Great :-)
>
>The new diagram shows no crowbar OVM, nor circuit breaker between
>terminals 2 and 5 in the master switch, so does this mean the 9011
>will indeed replace these, taking the overvoltage PM alternator offline?
that's what it does . . .
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 04:13 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>Does anyone have a cross reference from B & C part numbers to
>Honeywell's part numbers?
>
The last two digits of B&C's numbers carry over
to the Honeywell part numbers shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Microswitch/Microswitch_TL-Series.pdf
For example, the S700-2-3 is a Honeywell 2TL1-3
| | | |
| | | \--Function
| | \-- # of poles
| \---- Function
\----- # of poles
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: Load Monitoring |
At 06:28 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>I'm considering using two alternators, the 20 Amp B&C, and the 60
>AMP Plane Power. I'm also considering using two PP regulators, as
>it appears that they will load share as a percent of output...I'm
>going to use a JPI 930 that has the ability to monitor two locations
>with 50mv shunts...they sell 100 AMP units at $75 a pop...I thought
>that to be a little much for a shunt...
>
>I think I read that you were using 50mv shunts in your load meter
>set up and that they were matched or calibrated or something...
>
>Do you think that using two of them on the load meter of the JPI
>would be a good idea...and how much are they?
>
>Any other comments welcome, especially on the PP regulators and the
>load sharing feature.
>
>PS...I found the Tyco EV200 relays for $50, delivered...so I bought them.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Al Kittleson
Please don't do this. The elegant application of
the two alternators is EITHER as shown in
Z-11 or INDEPENDENT W/cross-feed as shown in
Z-14.
What are your load requirements that you think you'll
ever need the combined output of both alternators to
drive a single bus?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
Sorry to not word the question better regarding the shunts.
I was generally thinking of a design along the lines of Z-14...my thought was to
run with the crossfeed tie closed in normal operation and use both alternators
to feed the tied busses...
If that is a bad idea, then I'll run split busses.
My monitor should function the same way, regardless of whether the buss tie is
open or closed...that is where the question regarding the shunts enters the picture.
Thanks,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255585#255585
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
At 09:03 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>Sorry to not word the question better regarding the shunts.
>
>I was generally thinking of a design along the lines of Z-14...my
>thought was to run with the crossfeed tie closed in normal operation
>and use both alternators to feed the tied busses...
>
>If that is a bad idea, then I'll run split busses.
The cross-tie is used only when one alternator has
failed and there's a useful mode of operation where
one alternator can feed equipment on both sides.
The cross-tie contactor is closed only for engine
cranking and single-alternator operations.
>My monitor should function the same way, regardless of whether the
>buss tie is open or closed...that is where the question regarding
>the shunts enters the picture.
If you've done your homework (load analysis) then
the amount of power required of either alternator is
known before-hand for all flight conditions. In
other words, your plan-A, plan-B . . . plan-x execution
should not depend on reading an ammeter. But if your
electrical system monitoring device(s) come with
hall effect sensors, then they can go on the alternator
b-leads. For the most part, current displays are most
useful on the ground as trouble shooting assists.
Run each alternator with its own, stand alone regulator
and ov protection . . . and if your glass panels do not
include active notification of low voltage, then that
feature should be part of your instrumentation planing
for both sides.
What airplane are you building where you think you
can get a good return on investment for Z-14?
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: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
All,
I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
agree" or just to be "chatty".
2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
just look at the "to" line. If it says
"aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
with the specific sender's email address.
There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
the best out of bulletin boards.
OK, bye for now.
Ian Brown
>
> 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- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
Bob,
I think we have a numbers of things that have come up regarding my original question...which
was inquiring about the 50mv shunts and their price, which was the
question du jour.
But to answer your question, I'm working on a rebuild of an Express (four place,
low wing composite...family mobile, X-C plane)...It has an IO-520, three blade
prop. I already have the 60-70 amp alternator belt driven alternator and the
B&C gear driven unit.
As I don't plan to put in a vacuum system, the Z-14 design appears to be a good
choice.
Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load share seems
like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with the open tie buss design.
I've flown a lot of big airplanes where tying the busses together is ops normal.
I've had some thought of trying this too. If it is, or turns out to be a bad
idea, all I need to do is open the tie buss relay.
I'll do all the normal buss load analysis and thought that an easy way to monitor
loads would be to use your shunt, along with the JPI monitor. This monitor
has user settable alarms for current and voltage.
What are your thoughts on the shunts in this application? I don't have any hall
effect ammeters right now and as the JPI has two shunt type ammeters available,
I thought it would be a good idea to use them...
What about the Plane Power regulators? From talking to the owner of the company,
they work in tandem by turning each alternator "ON" for the same period of
time. He claims that dissimilar sized alternators can easily be used in this
type of setup. It's normally used in twin engine aircraft, with one buss.
I'm not attempting to be a heretic, just exploring other options...I have almost
all the parts that I have scrounged second hand (Including the JPI monitor)...
How about "them shunts"...?
Cheers,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255643#255643
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-31A question |
Ian,
If the quantity of e-mails bothers you, then why not just opt for the
"Digest" only! This will insure you get all the info in a format you can
scan through quickly, all with only ONE e-mail.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian" <ixb(at)videotron.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-31A question
>
> All,
> I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
> over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
> quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
>
> 1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
> agree" or just to be "chatty".
>
> 2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
> request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
>
> 3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
> of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
>
> If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
> just look at the "to" line. If it says
> "aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
> with the specific sender's email address.
>
> There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
> the best out of bulletin boards.
>
> OK, bye for now.
>
> Ian Brown
>
>>
>>
>> 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: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
Subject: | Alternator charging battery |
Bob, et. al.,
I am aware that the wrong battery charger will overcharge and
ultimately ruin a PC-680 type battery. My 60 amp B&C alternator puts
out a lot of amps right after engine start, and has that capability
indefinitely. Of course, the regulator maintains the voltage at a
reasonable level. But what determines the alternator amperage output
during battery charging and after the battery is fully charged. It
would seem to me that during a several hour flight, the battery could
be over charged and damaged by the alternator output. That apparently
does not happen, but I don't understand why not.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-31A question |
From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 8/2/2009 12:18 PM, Roger wrote:
> If the quantity of e-mails bothers you, then why not just opt for the
> "Digest" only!
It also helps if people do not include the ENTIRE copy of the previous
message to which they are replying. Snipping everything but the
relevant parts help to make the digest version much easier to read.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
At 10:35 AM 8/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I think we have a numbers of things that have come up regarding my
>original question...which was inquiring about the 50mv shunts and
>their price, which was the question du jour.
oops . . . yeah. If your system uses 50mv shunts both
I and B&C have them in stock in various sizes. I can
cut larger shunts down to smaller applications as
well. I think we both get $25.00/ea for them.
>But to answer your question, I'm working on a rebuild of an Express
>(four place, low wing composite...family mobile, X-C plane)...It has
>an IO-520, three blade prop. I already have the 60-70 amp
>alternator belt driven alternator and the B&C gear driven unit.
Oh yeah, I recall that now.
>As I don't plan to put in a vacuum system, the Z-14 design appears
>to be a good choice.
Agreed
>Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
Not a thing. I'm sure their product performs as advertised. But
it's not clear that they are true load sharing devices driven
by DIRECT MEASUREMENT of output from all power generating
devices. For example, the Hawkers have two engine driven
generators and one APU driven generator. ALL three can be
tied to the one bus at the same time. Each generator will
be loaded to it's proportionate share of the load based on
individual capability (the APU generator is smaller than
the other two). This isn't rocket science but it's not
trivial either.
>I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load
>share seems like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with
>the open tie buss design.
That's the original design goal for Z-14 for a variety
of reasons . . . not the least of which is the hassle/
expense of true load-sharing regulators. I've designed
and proposed two different load sharing regulators over
the years. All worked as advertised but were markedly
more expensive than the stand-alone, single alternator
regulators. We never went to production with them in
spite of the fact that the Cessna and Beech light
twins really needed them. Today, I could do a uP based
regulator for a small fraction of the cost and much
better performance . . . neat stuff that software!
The really cool thing about the old carbon pile
regulator for generators is their ease of paralleling
using the relatively high voltage drop in generator's
compensation windings as a crude shunt. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Parallel_Aircraft_Generators.jpg
a simple addition of a few turns of wire in the
regulator wired to cross-tied compensation windings
did a pretty good job of paralleling the generators
with a minimum parts count. Alternators are a whole
other problem . . .
>I've flown a lot of big airplanes where tying the busses together is
>ops normal. I've had some thought of trying this too. If it is, or
>turns out to be a bad idea, all I need to do is open the tie buss relay.
Yup, wiring the 2-50 switch as illustrated gives you
auto-tie for cranking and leaves the bus-tie contactor
open unless selected by moving to the opposite position.
>I'll do all the normal buss load analysis and thought that an easy
>way to monitor loads would be to use your shunt, along with the JPI
>monitor. This monitor has user settable alarms for current and voltage.
Very well. We can get the proper shunts into your
possession through several venues.
>What are your thoughts on the shunts in this application? I don't
>have any hall effect ammeters right now and as the JPI has two shunt
>type ammeters available, I thought it would be a good idea to use them...
If they're already in place, then putting them
to useful service is not a bad idea. The shunts
don't weigh much either.
>What about the Plane Power regulators? From talking to the owner of
>the company, they work in tandem by turning each alternator "ON" for
>the same period of time. He claims that dissimilar sized
>alternators can easily be used in this type of setup. It's normally
>used in twin engine aircraft, with one buss.
In that situation you MUST do something to
distribute the loads. Making two IDENTICAL
alternators, turning THE SAME SPEED approximately
share loads by what I BELIEVE Plane Power does is
indeed practical. But I that control philosophy
wouldn't work with a 60/20 or 40/20 combination
like Z-14 where the alternators are different from
each other and turn different speeds.
>I'm not attempting to be a heretic, just exploring other options...I
>have almost all the parts that I have scrounged second hand
>(Including the JPI monitor)...
Understand and no fault perceived. Sounds
like you've got a workable plan that needs
at most a bit of tweaking.
>How about "them shunts"...?
Can fix you up. You can place an order by ordering
a dual ammeter kit from the website and enter quantity
of "0" but put values in for the shunts you need.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
With Z-14 normally running with isolated alternators, I have instant
notification of either alternator failing due low voltage. With
paralleled alternators I presume you would add something like low
current warnings (independent of the regulator) to warn of a bad alternator.
Ken
>> Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
>
> Not a thing. I'm sure their product performs as advertised. But
> it's not clear that they are true load sharing devices driven
> by DIRECT MEASUREMENT of output from all power generating
> devices. For example, the Hawkers have two engine driven
> generators and one APU driven generator. ALL three can be
> tied to the one bus at the same time. Each generator will
> be loaded to it's proportionate share of the load based on
> individual capability (the APU generator is smaller than
> the other two). This isn't rocket science but it's not
> trivial either.
>
>> I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load
>> share seems like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with
>> the open tie buss design.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
I think Matt's rules and guidelines work just fine.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-31A question
All,
I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
agree" or just to be "chatty".
2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
just look at the "to" line. If it says
"aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
with the specific sender's email address.
There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
the best out of bulletin boards.
OK, bye for now.
Ian Brown
>
> 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- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
Bob,
I really appreciate your insight into this stuff. I'm not just "kicking the tires"
but really plane some installation in the near future and I'm just getting
stuff lined up...
Regarding the PP regulators, I'm sure Les said that alternators of dissimilar outputs
would load share based upon their respective max values...If, for example,
you used the 20/60 amp combo and required 40 amps, each alternator would be
tasked with 50% of the load...but I'll check into it...I believe he said that
it could be done by each regulator being fired up for the same amount of time...does
that make sense to you?
I'm not sure why that would work, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said was the
basis for the idea. I believe both regulators are connected by a single wire
that gives the feedback of them "knowing" how long to stay on.
Probably my final question on this topic: If more current is needed from an alternator
than it is able to make, what happens?
I expect that most of these alternators will produce more than the rated current.
At PP they told me that the 60 amp will easily put out more than 70. I'm
not advocating that anyone try it, and I expect there are a lot of bad things
that would happen if one tried to do it for a long time. Excess heat and premature
failure are two things I can think of, or even catastrophic failure of the
unit...what I'm wondering is...what would occur if, say, the 60 amp unit failed
and only the 20 amp unit stayed on line when the overall requirement was
50 amps.
Would the 20 amp unit continue to do it's job to the best of it's ability, with
the battery(s) picking up the slack for as long as they could, or would something
worse happen?
I'm wondering as this could be the situation IF the 60 amp unit failed and one
continued with the 20. I expect I could get by indefinitely on the 20 as long
it's pitot heat and/or lights were needed...just wondering if when that occurred,
what would happen.
I suspect that the alternator would do what it could and that the battery(s) would
pick up the slack with the buss voltage going down from 13.8-14 to whatever
voltage the batteries could supplement...like 12.2 something...
What do you think?
Sorry if this is an old question, but I'm new to the forum and didn't find anything
with a search.
Thanks again,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255670#255670
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
At 12:04 PM 8/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>With Z-14 normally running with isolated alternators, I have instant
>notification of either alternator failing due low voltage. With
>paralleled alternators I presume you would add something like low
>current warnings (independent of the regulator) to warn of a bad alternator.
>Ken
The B&C alternator controllers were designed such that
LV warning is powered independently of the lead that
powers the alternator. The idea was to maintain as much
separation as possible between jelly-bean parts that
"regulate" as those which "warn".
Newer designs with micro-controllers often tempt the
designer to roll it all up in one piece of silicon.
The legacy design goals for separation suggest this
is not a good idea. So even if we were to develop
a processor based regulator, the OV/LV protection
and warning would still be electrically independent
even if they shared the same enclosure.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Alternator charging battery |
Charlie;
The wrong battery charger will eventually overcharge and ruin any
battery.
Your 60 amp B&C alternator puts out whatever current is required (up to
approximately 60 amps or so) to recharge your battery and support system
loads whether right after starting or any other time it=92s turning
quickly
enough to do so. (Always assuming everything is operating correctly of
course) Yes it has the ability to do that indefinitely. The voltage
regulator regulates the output of the alternator to maintain the system
voltage at the required level, approximately 14 volts. If the battery is
charged, then no more current will flow into it and the alternator will
just
be supplying system loads. Should the loads exceed the alternators
ability
to supply current then the battery will take up the slack. When system
loads
are again reduced below the 60+ amps able to be supplied by the
alternator
alone, then the excess current will recharge the battery once again
until it
is fully charged at which point the alternator output will reduce to
match
the system requirements. The only way to overcharge the battery is for
the
regulator to fail and cause the system voltage to rise too high. Hence
the
desirability of over voltage protection. The alternator only generates
whatever current is required not its full rated output. Just like your
battery might be capable of supplying 1000 amps, but if all you have
connected is a single 6 watt light bulb, it will only supply the =BD amp
or so
required by that light bulb, not the full 1000 amps it=92s capable of.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message----
> -
> From: owner-
> aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Charles
> Brame
> Sent: Sunday, August
> 02, 2009 12:24 PM
> To: AeroElectric List
> Subject: AeroElectric-
> List: Alternator charging
> battery
>
> --> AeroElectric-List
> message posted by:
> Charles Brame
>
>
> Bob, et. al.,
>
> I am aware that the
> wrong battery charger
> will overcharge and
> ultimately ruin a PC-680
> type battery. My 60 amp
> B&C alternator puts
> out a lot of amps right
> after engine start, and
> has that capability
> indefinitely. Of course,
> the regulator maintains
> the voltage at a
> reasonable level. But
> what determines the
> alternator amperage
> output
> during battery charging
> and after the battery is
> fully charged. It
> would seem to me that
> during a several hour
> flight, the battery could
> be over charged and
> damaged by the
> alternator output. That
> apparently
> does not happen, but I
> don't understand why
> not.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> AeroElectric-List Email
> Forum -
> List Features Navigator
> to browse
> utilities such as List
> Un/Subscription,
> Download, 7-Day
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> much much more:
> http://www.matronics.c
> om/Navigator?AeroElect
> ric-List
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> MATRONICS WEB
> FORUMS -
> also available via the
> Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics
> .com
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> Contribution Web Site -
> generous support!
> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> http://www.matronics.c
> om/contribution
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
At 12:53 PM 8/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I really appreciate your insight into this stuff. I'm not just
>"kicking the tires" but really plane some installation in the near
>future and I'm just getting stuff lined up...
Understand.
>Regarding the PP regulators, I'm sure Les said that alternators of
>dissimilar outputs would load share based upon their respective max
>values...If, for example, you used the 20/60 amp combo and required
>40 amps, each alternator would be tasked with 50% of the load...but
>I'll check into it...I believe he said that it could be done by each
>regulator being fired up for the same amount of time...does that
>make sense to you?
sort of . . . but given my limited knowledge of
their design's inner workings, I'd be out of school
to offer well considered opinion.
>I'm not sure why that would work, but I'm pretty sure that's what he
>said was the basis for the idea. I believe both regulators are
>connected by a single wire that gives the feedback of them "knowing"
>how long to stay on.
This description suggests something of a synchronization
signal that causes the duty-cycle regulators to do some
sort of cooperative activity. But this is a kind of
"feed forward" or "open loop" control philosophy that
depends on or assumes certain things about the alternator
characteristics and operation.
The system may well have performed to design goals in
PP's testing and field experience with what ever
combinations of alternators were tried. My personal
experience suggests that the universal, "feed back" design
doesn't care about speeds, sizes or transfer functions.
It does the tight-wire balancing act by monitoring
actual alternator output as a proportion of total.
>Probably my final question on this topic: If more current is needed
>from an alternator than it is able to make, what happens?
Field voltage is max'd out. The regulator is turned on
hard. Now the alternator goes into a current limited
mode based on its physics and depending on how gross
the overload is, the bus voltage begins to sag.
>I expect that most of these alternators will produce more than the
>rated current. At PP they told me that the 60 amp will easily put
>out more than 70. I'm not advocating that anyone try it, and I
>expect there are a lot of bad things that would happen if one tried
>to do it for a long time. Excess heat and premature failure are two
>things I can think of, or even catastrophic failure of the
>unit...what I'm wondering is...what would occur if, say, the 60 amp
>unit failed and only the 20 amp unit stayed on line when the overall
>requirement was 50 amps.
You've touched on a small segment of the failure
modes considered for crafting your design. Paralleling
two alternators makes it difficult to tell when one
has failed unless the system is ALSO fitted with
gross imbalance detection and warning in addition to low
voltage warning. Making the two systems independent
of each other builds a solid partition between both
flight operations and failure detection.
If you had 50 amps being sucked from a 70A paralleled
system, the smaller alternator would go into current
limit and it's output sag until the battery picks up
the difference. I.e. bus voltage drops below 13.0 volts
and the battery joins the defence to keep the panel
lit up until (1) you become aware of the condition
and (2) react to it with a plan-b activity. But
nothing "smokes". In fact, a properly installed
alternator is essentially overload-proof. People
who have burned alternators up didn't "overload" them
with respect to their ratings . . . they "under-cooled"
them such that ratings could not be met without
over heating.
There's been much past discussion here on the List
about "de-rating" alternators to prevent bad-days
in the cockpit. The ratings are what the ratings are.
Continuous loading at or even past the nameplate ratings
without electrical damage . . . as long as you get the
heat out. We routinely TEST as-installed generators and
alternators to this design philosophy in TC aircraft.
>Would the 20 amp unit continue to do it's job to the best of it's
>ability, with the battery(s) picking up the slack for as long as
>they could, or would something worse happen?
>I'm wondering as this could be the situation IF the 60 amp unit
>failed and one continued with the 20. I expect I could get by
>indefinitely on the 20 as long it's pitot heat and/or lights were
>needed...just wondering if when that occurred, what would happen.
>
>I suspect that the alternator would do what it could and that the
>battery(s) would pick up the slack with the buss voltage going down
>from 13.8-14 to whatever voltage the batteries could
>supplement...like 12.2 something...
>
>What do you think?
Yup, you've figured it out. Your well maintained battery
steps in to hold the gremlins at bay until you can
react to the warnings.
>Sorry if this is an old question, but I'm new to the forum and
>didn't find anything with a search.
No problem sir. Out of 1800 other folks who frequent this
list, there's a bunch who haven't heard this before either.
This is a classroom, not a one-shot reference library.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Alternator charging battery |
From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator charging battery
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:13:25 -0400
Bob,
You've offered a great explanation of the physics of
battery charging as we understand it. I'll offer to
expand on your treatise as follows:
Charlie;
The wrong battery charger will eventually
overcharge and ruin any battery. Your 60 amp B&C
alternator puts out whatever current is required
(up to approximately 60 amps or so) to recharge
your battery and support system loads whether
right after starting or any other time its
turning quickly enough to do so. (Always assuming
everything is operating correctly of course) Yes
it has the ability to do that indefinitely. The
voltage regulator regulates the output of the
alternator to maintain the system voltage at the
required level, approximately 14 volts.
Exactly, battery charging behavior is very tightly
tied to system voltage. We know that the lead-acid
battery will EVENTUALLY assume 100% state of charge
if the system voltage is held at 13.8 volts. However,
a design goal for the use of batteries in vehicles is
to achieve a timely replacement of battery energy
used in pre-flight. The folks who have studied battery
physics in detail are in lockstep agreement. The
current "smart" chargers have a CONTROLLED recharge
protocol that looks like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
If one wishes to MAXIMIZE battery life as a function
of charging protocols, then present thinking suggests
that you charge at best rate (what ever current your
charger is capable of) until the battery voltage
reaches a plateau in voltage that assures a timely
top-off for state of charge. This is generally on the
order of 14.5 volts.
Holding the battery at this charge level is mildly
abusive of the chemistry. In other words, once top-off
is achieved, holding the battery at this level whittles
away at the battery's chemistry in tiny chunks. It's
important to emphasize that this is only slightly
abusive of the battery. I had a GMC Safari with a
"bad" regulator that was ran 15.3 volts that didn't
kill the battery for the first two or three YEARS
that I owned the car. When I replaced the battery,
and discovered the too high voltage, I decided to
leave it and see how it goes.
The car ran another two years on the too-high voltage
before the alternator crapped . . . the new alternator
ran at 14.5 volts. But the battery did't get "cooked"
and was still in the car when I sold it a couple years
later.
However, the folks who have optimized battery CHARGING
and STORAGE protocols have told us that after top-off,
you can drop the system voltage to some value just
above the battery's open-circuit terminal voltage.
That number is just above 13.0 volts. Too low
to charge a battery, but high enough to keep the battery's
internal leakages from running the battery down
while stored.
If the battery is charged, then no more current
will flow into it and the alternator will just be
supplying system loads. Should the loads exceed
the alternators ability to supply current then
the battery will take up the slack. When system
loads are again reduced below the 60+ amps able
to be supplied by the alternator alone, then the
excess current will recharge the battery once
again until it is fully charged at which point
the alternator output will reduce to match the
system requirements. The only way to overcharge
the battery is for the regulator to fail and
cause the system voltage to rise too high.
Exactly. As I've described above, a system voltage
that is "too high" by perhaps a volt or more does
not stand your battery against the wall for execution.
It's not ideal but not automatically lethal.
Hence the desirability of over voltage
protection. The alternator only generates
whatever current is required not its full rated
output. Just like your battery might be capable
of supplying 1000 amps, but if all you have
connected is a single 6 watt light bulb, it will
only supply the amp or so required by that
light bulb, not the full 1000 amps its capable of.
This emphasizes the importance of PREDICTABLE and
reasonably ACCURATE control of the alternator (or
battery charger's output voltage). Plug-in-the-wall
battery chargers of yesteryear had NO voltage regulation.
They ranged from BOOST or CRANKING current levels
of a dozen to hundreds of amps of output capability.
These devices had to be SUPERVISED. You came back in
a few hours to disconnect the thing after you were
convinced that a top-off event had occurred. The
larger machines had a timer built in to prevent
inadvertent destruction of your battery if you forgot
to come back and shut the thing off.
Modern chargers offer some form of the battery
RECHARGE and MAINTENANCE protocols described
above and are suited for continuous and unlimited
connection to the battery being serviced. Your
alternator behaves in the same manner EXCEPT that
its regulator doesn't offer a set-back feature for
reduction of bus voltage after top-off. Given that
the duration of operation in the top-off mode is
tiny compared to the service life of the battery,
the cost of adding a "set back" feature in the
voltage regulator has a poor if not zero return
on investment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Firewall position of electrical components [RV-7A -- |
Z-13/8]
Did a search for this under the RV archive but couldn't find what I was loo
king for.- I just got my initial order from B&C of electrical system comp
onents (i.e. "electro-whizzies").- Can someone with an RV series aircraft
post or send me a picture/diagram/description of where on the firewall you
located the battery, starter contactor, battery contactor and B&C groundin
g block?- Van's firewall diagram doesn't really address this, although it
looks like he intends for the battery to be mounted down low on the right
side.- I'm planning on mounting an IO-320 (someday) and using a Z-13/8 ar
chitecture with a swing-down fuse block panel on the passengers side of the
sub-panel so this position would seem to make sense.- The contactors are
heavier than I expected so I'm guessing they need to be mounted on somethi
ng sturdier than just the firewall skin.- Any comments welcome.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
RV-7A- fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago. I used it to test my
electrical system while I was wiring the plane. I've recharged it with a
motorcycle battery charger. It spent 99% of it's time doing nothing. Never
had much of a demand place on it. Still seems to hold a charge well. My
engine start is going to be in September, probably.
Should I replace this battery before I fly? It would seem prudent, though I
note they've gone up in price about 30% since I bought this one.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
I bought 2 PC680s a couple of years ago. Mainly did nothing but
notably, they were left in various stages of discharge for some period.
One just lost a cell. I'm still using both of them for avionics work
and keeping them charges but I will be swapping both out when I go
flying (next year?).
thomas sargent wrote:
> I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago. I used it to test my
> electrical system while I was wiring the plane. I've recharged it
> with a motorcycle battery charger. It spent 99% of it's time doing
> nothing. Never had much of a demand place on it. Still seems to hold
> a charge well. My engine start is going to be in September, probably.
>
> Should I replace this battery before I fly? It would seem prudent,
> though I note they've gone up in price about 30% since I bought this one.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Firewall position of electrical components [RV-7A |
-- Z-13/8]
Are you planning the battery on the engine side of the firewall or inside?
IIRC the inside install has the contactors spec'd to be mounted on the
battery box and that's on one of the fuselage drawings. For the taildragger,
the Odyssey battery can be mounted on the right side with the contactors
just below it. The drawing has very specific locations for the battery box
and the contactors and a doubler so it ties to the firewall angles. The nose
wheel location is different due to the interference of the mount but I'm
sure it's equally as specific. It's on a drawing that comes with the
firewall forward kit. Firewall penetration points are on a different drawing
that may also be part of the FWF kit. If you didn't buy the FWF from Van's
then you probably don't have the right drawing. I borrowed them from a
friend but I think Van's will sell you any individual drawing for $3. Sorry
but I don't have the numbers handy.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln
Keill
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:14 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall position of electrical components
[RV-7A -- Z-13/8]
Did a search for this under the RV archive but couldn't find what I was
looking for. I just got my initial order from B&C of electrical system
components (i.e. "electro-whizzies"). Can someone with an RV series
aircraft post or send me a picture/diagram/description of where on the
firewall you located the battery, starter contactor, battery contactor and
B&C grounding block? Van's firewall diagram doesn't really address this,
although it looks like he intends for the battery to be mounted down low on
the right side. I'm planning on mounting an IO-320 (someday) and using a
Z-13/8 architecture with a swing-down fuse block panel on the passengers
side of the sub-panel so this position would seem to make sense. The
contactors are heavier than I expected so I'm guessing they need to be
mounted on something sturdier than just the firewall skin. Any comments
welcome.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
RV-7A fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
If you have kept it on a smart charger and you are electrically dependant..
then no do not replace it..It will be just fine.
If you have charged it occasionally but your running magnetoes and a mechac
nical fuel pump...then once again it will be fine.
If you Have electronic ignitions and electric fuel pumps (and have not kept
it regularly smart charged) , but it cranks over the engine then do all yo
ur phase one (day VFR) flying and consider replacing then....Before you do
long cross country flying where you might need the full capacity of the bat
tery to get you to a safe spot.
if it won't start the engine..well the choice is obvious.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas sargent
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago. I used it to test my electr
ical system while I was wiring the plane. I've recharged it with a motorcy
cle battery charger. It spent 99% of it's time doing nothing. Never had m
uch of a demand place on it. Still seems to hold a charge well. My engine
start is going to be in September, probably.
Should I replace this battery before I fly? It would seem prudent, though
I note they've gone up in price about 30% since I bought this one.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
From: | Byron Janzen <thorps18(at)gmail.com> |
I would replace it, but if you have a magneto, you could probably get by. I
had one of these in my motorcycle for 6 years before it needed replacing.
IIRC, Mr. Nuckolls recommends changing every two years, but this may be for
dual electronic ignition aircraft.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:52 AM, thomas sargent wrote:
> I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago. I used it to test my
> electrical system while I was wiring the plane. I've recharged it with a
> motorcycle battery charger. It spent 99% of it's time doing nothing. Never
> had much of a demand place on it. Still seems to hold a charge well. My
> engine start is going to be in September, probably.
>
> Should I replace this battery before I fly? It would seem prudent, though
> I note they've gone up in price about 30% since I bought this one.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
ROFL!
At my home airport a regional airline hit a fish on short final.No one
would believe the pilot until they found the fish on the runway.
An ospray has a nest near by and was returning with the fish when was
startled by the aircraft and dropped the fish.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to do
the same thing.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron
Janzen
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
I would replace it, but if you have a magneto, you could probably get
by. I had one of these in my motorcycle for 6 years before it needed
replacing. IIRC, Mr. Nuckolls recommends changing every two years, but
this may be for dual electronic ignition aircraft.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:52 AM, thomas sargent
wrote:
I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago. I used it to test my
electrical system while I was wiring the plane. I've recharged it with
a motorcycle battery charger. It spent 99% of it's time doing nothing.
Never had much of a demand place on it. Still seems to hold a charge
well. My engine start is going to be in September, probably.
Should I replace this battery before I fly? It would seem prudent,
though I note they've gone up in price about 30% since I bought this
one.
--
Tom Sargent
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
At 11:52 AM 8/3/2009, you wrote:
>I have a PC-680 that I bought 2 or 3 years ago.
>I used it to test my electrical system while I
>was wiring the plane. I've recharged it with a
>motorcycle battery charger. It spent 99% of
>it's time doing nothing. Never had much of a
>demand place on it. Still seems to hold a
>charge well. My engine start is going to be in September, probably.
>
>Should I replace this battery before I fly? It
>would seem prudent, though I note they've gone
>up in price about 30% since I bought this one.
You are now squarely facing the question that will
confront you for the entire time that you own this
airplane. What are YOUR conditions for continued
airworthiness? What are YOUR plans for monitoring
battery suitability to task? The decision to fly
or replace the battery today is no different than
the decisions to be made in years hence.
Even if it starts the engine you need to know more.
Hook a car headlamp and voltmeter to your fully
charged battery and monitor the time to take the
battery down to 10.5 volts. Is that enough time
to give you confidence in this battery's performance
for ANY flight?
There are thousands of worry-words exchanged on
the 'net every day about, "should I our shouldn't
I replace this battery?" Lord Kelvin was credited
with saying . . .
"When you cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory
kind."
So while preparing for first flight, I'll suggest
it is prudent to also prepare for responsible and
confident operation of your airplane. All the worry-
words exchanged without the benefit of data are
essentially useless. Figure out a practical way to
"get the numbers". Then you can tell US whether
or not the battery needs replacing.
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: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to
>do the same thing.
Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
longer any excuse for doing it right.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
I need this clarified. HE asks if he needs one of those hyped up chargers.
The response is "yes yes yes" but then it sounds like the answer is "no no
no"... That the Walmart charger is good enough.
Do I have that right?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
-->
At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to do
>the same thing.
Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
longer any excuse for doing it right.
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: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
At 09:45 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>>Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped
>>up fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction,
>>super reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a
>>bunch of marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job
>>that seems to do the same thing.
>
> Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
> have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
> I've purchased from Walmart was one of the Schumacher
> 1562 series device for under $20 and is one of
> the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
> longer any excuse for NOT doing it right.
Got it right this time . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brooke Wolf <bwolf1(at)tds.net> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
I think Bob is saying, "There is no longer an excuse for NOT doing it
right". Buy the Walmart charger.
Brooke
On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Bob Collins wrote:
> >
>
> I need this clarified. HE asks if he needs one of those hyped up
> chargers.
> The response is "yes yes yes" but then it sounds like the answer is
> "no no
> no"... That the Walmart charger is good enough.
>
> Do I have that right?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
>
> -->
>
> At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>> Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>> fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>> reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>> marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems
>> to do
>> the same thing.
>
> Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
> have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
> I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
> 1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
> the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
> longer any excuse for doing it right.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
...since I'm looking through the archives right now, I'll take a crack
at it...
Yes, you do want and need a good 'smart' charger. A good smart charger
can be had a good price where ever stuff is sold, like Walmart. But
presumably there's junk out there too. And perhaps more importantly,
some smart chargers that are better than others.
So I'm going smart shopping....
I believe Bob has documented the specific performance we should look for
and I remember a graph of a good performing charger. I'm looking for it
now.
Bob Collins wrote:
>
> I need this clarified. HE asks if he needs one of those hyped up chargers.
> The response is "yes yes yes" but then it sounds like the answer is "no no
> no"... That the Walmart charger is good enough.
>
> Do I have that right?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
>
> -->
>
> At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>> Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>> fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>> reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>> marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to do
>> the same thing.
>>
>
> Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
> have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
> I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
> 1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
> the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
> longer any excuse for doing it right.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
Here's a link with several embedded links on subject
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
here's the chart:
http://tinyurl.com/553kmu
Bob Collins wrote:
>
> I need this clarified. HE asks if he needs one of those hyped up chargers.
> The response is "yes yes yes" but then it sounds like the answer is "no no
> no"... That the Walmart charger is good enough.
>
> Do I have that right?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
>
> -->
>
> At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>> Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>> fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>> reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>> marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to do
>> the same thing.
>>
>
> Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
> have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
> I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
> 1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
> the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
> longer any excuse for doing it right.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
Thanks Bob,
Yup, this one looks like mine. Schumacher SEM-1562A 1.5 Amp Slow Charge
Battery Companion
$25 - $30 on Amazon.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
At 08:55 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>Speaking of charging the 680. Do I really need one of those hyped up
>fancy chargers all the dealers sell for double deep-reduction, super
>reserve, cranks like a wild monkey charging? Sounds like a bunch of
>marketing to get to 13.2 volts. I've got a Walmart job that seems to
>do the same thing.
Yes, YES, YEEEESS! What "walmart" device do you
have? Know that one of the least expensive devices
I've purchased from Walmart was the Schumacher
1562 series devices for under $20 and is one of
the smartest chargers you can buy. There is no
longer any excuse for doing it right.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
At 11:16 AM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>Yup, this one looks like mine. Schumacher SEM-1562A 1.5 Amp Slow Charge
>Battery Companion
>
>$25 - $30 on Amazon.
>
>Glenn
==========
And $18.xx at any Walmart with no shipping.
BTW, don't mislead the newbes. The subject is a "battery maintainer"
not a smart charger.
PW
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Pienaar" <mjpienaar(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi All,
If I have more than one com radio do I need an antenna for each and if
yes how close to each other can I put the antennas. This will be in a
composite aircraft and the antennas will hopefully be in the vertical
stabilizer
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
There are a couple of switch devices that allow you to do this. However, I would
use two antennas with two radios - check the archives for the distance requirements
and a discussion of this topic.
I have two radios - and two antennas - one on top and the other on the bottom.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Pienaar <mjpienaar(at)shaw.ca>
>Sent: Aug 4, 2009 3:43 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Com antenna
>
>Hi All,
>
>If I have more than one com radio do I need an antenna for each and if yes how
close to each other can I put the antennas. This will be in a composite aircraft
and the antennas will hopefully be in the vertical stabilizer
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:43 PM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>If I have more than one com radio do I need an antenna for each and
>if yes how close to each other can I put the antennas. This will be
>in a composite aircraft and the antennas will hopefully be in the
>vertical stabilizer
Yes, two antennas are called for with dual comm transceivers.
The antenna sharing "switches" for comm transceivers are
problematic. You'll need to separate the antennas. How about
one in the vertical fin and the other on the belly?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
Bob, I'm confused. Have you seen the August issue
of Kitplanes and the article titled, "Are All Battery Chargers Alike?"?
Bob Fritz, who wrote the article, says the following:
"Last month we went through battery basics and
saw that different requirements translate into
different hardware. We=92d been trying to find an
approach to this subject for a couple of months
when we were contacted by Bill Woods of VDC
Electronics with an offer to assist in a piece on
battery chargers and how they relate to aviation
batteries. He was enthusiastic about a new
charger the company had developed specifically
for aviation and wanted to tell us about it.
"Sensing an opportunity for some new information,
we continued the conversation. For the sake of
objectivity we also contacted representatives at
Concord and Odyssey, and then spent the day at a
Teledyne Battery 101 class. Teledyne is the maker
of Gill batteries. It soon became apparent that
this was really two stories, one about batteries
and another about battery chargers."
"Number six (a 12248-AA-S3, Dee) is a desulfating
charger designed specifically for Odyssey 12-volt batteries...."
"Given the results (see the chart), would I
recommend the units from VDC? I=92d have to say
yes, partly in light of the dismal results
displayed by those chargers obtained at the auto
parts store, and partly because of knowledge
gained from a broad range of sources....
"Another factor in my thumbs up to the
BatteryMINDer from VDC is that it=92s the only
charger I=92ve seen that included a third wire with
a ring lug. Said lug sends a temperature reading
back to the black box and adjusts the power going
to the battery according to the temperature of
the battery. The ideal output of 13.1 volts is
valid for a battery temperature of 77=B0 F (25=B0 C).
Let the battery temp go above 125=B0 F (52=B0 C), and
serious damage will be done. So when the battery
goes above that 25=B0 C, the sensor sends a signal
that throttles back the output 28 millivolts per degree C. "
And under a photo of the five chargers he tested is the following caption:
Five chargers and four levels of performance.
Note also that the two chargers on the upper
right are from BatteryMINDer. One is labeled is
the 12248-AA-S3 for =93Odyssey type=94 batteries, and
the other is the S2, for conventional
flooded-cell batteries. These chargers are
designed for specific applications and, although
they will work on, say, your car, for the best
battery life the charger should match.
After checking with Marc Cook, Editor of
Kitplanes, he made it clear we should only
consider the 12248-AA-S3 charger for our
Eggenfellner E6 3.6L, electrically dependent
engine. That costs $189.95 from BatteryMINDers or VDC. What are your
thoughts?
Also, we are not clear how we would attached this
charger to our dual Odyssey 680 batteries. Must
we charge each one separately since apparently
there is only one temperature sensing lead? And
if we charged them together, would this charger
handle them each correctly since one could be a
year older than the other if we follow your
suggestion of replacing one battery each year?
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Subject: | Time for a new PC 680 ? |
OK I am coming up on 3 years with my original Odyssey 680, I am completely
electrically dependant..Electronic ignitions, Fuel pumps (I don't have a me
chanical fuel pump) and I fly in IMC..I have a single battery and a backup
SD8 alternator.
I will probably do a load test on the Odyssey this year but if it gives me
decent range on min power then its not getting changed.
it spends almost all of its life on a smart charger.
Frank RV7
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DeWitt Whittington
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Time for a new PC 680 ?
Bob, I'm confused. Have you seen the August issue of Kitplanes and the arti
cle titled, "Are All Battery Chargers Alike?"?
Bob Fritz, who wrote the article, says the following:
"Last month we went through battery basics and saw that different requireme
nts translate into different hardware. We'd been trying to find an approach
to this subject for a couple of months when we were contacted by Bill Wood
s of VDC Electronics with an offer to assist in a piece on battery chargers
and how they relate to aviation batteries. He was enthusiastic about a new
charger the company had developed specifically for aviation and wanted to
tell us about it.
"Sensing an opportunity for some new information, we continued the conversa
tion. For the sake of objectivity we also contacted representatives at Conc
ord and Odyssey, and then spent the day at a Teledyne Battery 101 class. Te
ledyne is the maker of Gill batteries. It soon became apparent that this wa
s really two stories, one about batteries and another about battery charger
s."
"Number six (a 12248-AA-S3, Dee) is a desulfating charger designed specific
ally for Odyssey 12-volt batteries...."
"Given the results (see the chart), would I recommend the units from VDC? I
'd have to say yes, partly in light of the dismal results displayed by thos
e chargers obtained at the auto parts store, and partly because of knowledg
e gained from a broad range of sources....
"Another factor in my thumbs up to the BatteryMINDer from VDC is that it's
the only charger I've seen that included a third wire with a ring lug. Said
lug sends a temperature reading back to the black box and adjusts the powe
r going to the battery according to the temperature of the battery. The ide
al output of 13.1 volts is valid for a battery temperature of 77=B0 F (25
=B0 C). Let the battery temp go above 125=B0 F (52=B0 C), and serious damag
e will be done. So when the battery goes above that 25=B0 C, the sensor sen
ds a signal that throttles back the output 28 millivolts per degree C. "
And under a photo of the five chargers he tested is the following caption:
Five chargers and four levels of performance. Note also that the two charge
rs on the upper right are from BatteryMINDer. One is labeled is the 12248-A
A-S3 for "Odyssey type" batteries, and the other is the S2, for conventiona
l flooded-cell batteries. These chargers are designed for specific applicat
ions and, although they will work on, say, your car, for the best battery l
ife the charger should match.
After checking with Marc Cook, Editor of Kitplanes, he made it clear we sho
uld only consider the 12248-AA-S3 charger for our Eggenfellner E6 3.6L, ele
ctrically dependent engine. That costs $189.95 from BatteryMINDers or VDC.
What are your thoughts?
Also, we are not clear how we would attached this charger to our dual Odyss
ey 680 batteries. Must we charge each one separately since apparently there
is only one temperature sensing lead? And if we charged them together, wou
ld this charger handle them each correctly since one could be a year older
than the other if we follow your suggestion of replacing one battery each y
ear?
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
Bob, I'm confused. Have you seen the August issue of Kitplanes and the
article titled, "Are All Battery Chargers Alike?"?
Bob Fritz, who wrote the article, says the following:
"Last month we went through battery basics and saw that different
requirements translate into different hardware. We'd been trying to find
an approach to this subject for a couple of months when we were
contacted by Bill Woods of VDC Electronics with an offer to assist in a
piece on battery chargers and how they relate to aviation batteries. He
was enthusiastic about a new charger the company had developed
specifically for aviation and wanted to tell us about it.
"Sensing an opportunity for some new information, we continued the
conversation. For the sake of objectivity we also contacted
representatives at Concord and Odyssey, and then spent the day at a
Teledyne Battery 101 class. Teledyne is the maker of Gill batteries. It
soon became apparent that this was really two stories, one about
batteries and another about battery chargers."
"Number six (a 12248-AA-S3, Dee) is a desulfating charger designed
specifically for Odyssey 12-volt batteries...."
"Given the results (see the chart), would I recommend the units from
VDC? I'd have to say yes, partly in light of the dismal results
displayed by those chargers obtained at the auto parts store, and partly
because of knowledge gained from a broad range of sources....
"Another factor in my thumbs up to the BatteryMINDer from VDC is
that it's the only charger I've seen that included a third wire with a
ring lug. Said lug sends a temperature reading back to the black box and
adjusts the power going to the battery according to the temperature of
the battery. The ideal output of 13.1 volts is valid for a battery
temperature of 77=B0 F (25=B0 C). Let the battery temp go above 125=B0 F
(52=B0 C), and serious damage will be done. So when the battery goes
above that 25=B0 C, the sensor sends a signal that throttles back the
output 28 millivolts per degree C. "
And under a photo of the five chargers he tested is the following
caption:
Five chargers and four levels of performance. Note also that the two
chargers on the upper right are from BatteryMINDer. One is labeled is
the 12248-AA-S3 for "Odyssey type" batteries, and the other is the S2,
for conventional flooded-cell batteries. These chargers are designed for
specific applications and, although they will work on, say, your car,
for the best battery life the charger should match.
After checking with Marc Cook, Editor of Kitplanes, he made it clear
we should only consider the 12248-AA-S3 charger for our Eggenfellner E6
3.6L, electrically dependent engine. That costs $189.95 from
BatteryMINDers or VDC. What are your thoughts?
There may be some very minor advantage to this super intelligent
temperature monitoring charger but... Think of where your battery
resides most of the time. It is in your airplane, enduring wide
temperature swings, and tied to your electrical system. Do you suppose
that there is this much monitoring of the temp and the input and
output currents to your battery, while in your plane?? I think NOT, in
about 99% of the aircraft. The little Schumacher battery charger /
maintainer is much more gentle than any aircraft electrical
system when connected to your battery. If you are going to spend
$185 for a charger then maybe you want to look into better control and
monitoring of the battery in the aircraft. Proper battery
maintenance and regular interval load testing is always necessary,
especially in an all electric aircraft. You may get a slitely
longer interval between battery replacements, by investing in a "super
gee whizz whow" charger, but is it worth it? Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Two Alternators, one Ammeter? |
From: | Brooks Wolfe <slipstream(at)wavecable.com> |
I found this in the archives, from December of 2002:
>Also, I'm thinking about using a DPDT
>switch for the aux alt and using the xtra set of terminals to switch the
>ammeter so I don't need two ammeters--what do you think?
>
> It would need to be a three pole switch. You need to switch
> ammeter leads as pairs . . . but what you propose would work.
Which switch would you recommend for this purpose?
Brooks
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
From: | Byron Janzen <thorps18(at)gmail.com> |
This, about Batteryminder, is interesting too:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=41000
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Roger wrote:
>
>
> Bob, I'm confused. Have you seen the August issue of Kitplanes and the
> article titled, "Are All Battery Chargers Alike?"?
>
> Bob Fritz, who wrote the article, says the following:
>
> "Last month we went through battery basics and saw that different
> requirements translate into different hardware. We=92d been trying to fin
d an
> approach to this subject for a couple of months when we were contacted by
> Bill Woods of VDC Electronics with an offer to assist in a piece on batte
ry
> chargers and how they relate to aviation batteries. He was enthusiastic
> about a new charger the company had developed specifically for aviation a
nd
> wanted to tell us about it.
> "Sensing an opportunity for some new information, we continued the
> conversation. For the sake of objectivity we also contacted representativ
es
> at Concord and Odyssey, and then spent the day at a Teledyne Battery 101
> class. Teledyne is the maker of Gill batteries. It soon became apparent t
hat
> this was really two stories, one about batteries and another about batter
y
> chargers."
>
> "Number six (a 12248-AA-S3, Dee) is a desulfating charger designed
> specifically for Odyssey 12-volt batteries...."
>
> "Given the results (see the chart), would I recommend the units from VDC?
> I=92d have to say yes, partly in light of the dismal results displayed by
> those chargers obtained at the auto parts store, and partly because of
> knowledge gained from a broad range of sources....
>
> "Another factor in my thumbs up to the BatteryMINDer from VDC is that it
=92s
> the only charger I=92ve seen that included a third wire with a ring lug.
Said
> lug sends a temperature reading back to the black box and adjusts the pow
er
> going to the battery according to the temperature of the battery. The ide
al
> output of 13.1 volts is valid for a battery temperature of 77=B0 F (25=B0
C).
> Let the battery temp go above 125=B0 F (52=B0 C), and serious damage will
be
> done. So when the battery goes above that 25=B0 C, the sensor sends a sig
nal
> that throttles back the output 28 millivolts per degree C. "
>
> And under a photo of the five chargers he tested is the following caption
:
>
> Five chargers and four levels of performance. Note also that the two
> chargers on the upper right are from BatteryMINDer. One is labeled is the
> *12248-AA-S3* for =93Odyssey type=94 batteries, and the other is the S2,
for
> conventional flooded-cell batteries. These chargers are designed for
> specific applications and, although they will work on, say, your car, for
> the best battery life the charger should match. After checking with Marc
> Cook, Editor of Kitplanes, he made it clear we should only consider the
> 12248-AA-S3 charger for our Eggenfellner E6 3.6L, electrically dependent
> engine. That costs $189.95 from BatteryMINDers or VDC. What are your
> thoughts?
>
> **
>
> There may be some very minor advantage to this super intelligent
temperature monitoring charger but... Think of where your battery resides
most of the time.
> It is in your airplane, enduring wide temperature swings, and tie
d to your electrical system. Do you suppose that there is this much monito
ring of the temp
> and the input and output currents to your battery, while in your
plane?? I think NOT, in about 99% of the aircraft. The little Schumacher
battery charger / maintainer
> is much more gentle than any aircraft electrical system when conn
ected to your battery.
>
> If you are going to spend $185 for a charger then maybe you want
to look into better control and monitoring of the battery in the aircraft.
>
> Proper battery maintenance and regular interval load testing is a
lways necessary, especially in an all electric aircraft.
> You may get a slitely longer interval between battery replacement
s, by investing in a "super gee whizz whow" charger, but is it worth it?
>
> Roger
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Two Alternators, one Ammeter? |
At 12:10 PM 8/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I found this in the archives, from December of 2002:
>
> >Also, I'm thinking about using a DPDT
> >switch for the aux alt and using the xtra set of terminals to switch the
> >ammeter so I don't need two ammeters--what do you think?
> >
> > It would need to be a three pole switch. You need to switch
> > ammeter leads as pairs . . . but what you propose would work.
>
>Which switch would you recommend for this purpose?
See page 3 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
ANY two pole, double throw would work. Consider
a miniature toggle like
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=CKN1035-ND
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
>
>
>Bob, I'm confused. Have you seen the August issue of Kitplanes and
>the article titled, "Are All Battery Chargers Alike?"?
>
>Bob Fritz, who wrote the article, says the following:
>
>"Last month we went through battery basics and saw that different
>requirements translate into different hardware.
> There may be some very minor advantage to this super
> intelligent temperature monitoring charger but... Think of where
> your battery resides most of the time.
>
>
> It is in your airplane, enduring wide temperature swings,
> and tied to your electrical system. Do you suppose that there is
> this much monitoring of the temp
>
> and the input and output currents to your battery, while in
> your plane?? I think NOT, in about 99% of the aircraft. The
> little Schumacher battery charger / maintainer
>
>
> is much more gentle than any aircraft electrical system
> when connected to your battery.
>
>
> If you are going to spend $185 for a charger then maybe you
> want to look into better control and monitoring of the battery in the aircraft.
>
>
> Proper battery maintenance and regular interval load
> testing is always necessary, especially in an all electric aircraft.
>
>
> You may get a slitely longer interval between battery
> replacements, by investing in a "super gee whizz whow" charger, but
> is it worth it?
>
ABSOLUTELY! It's interesting to source the constellation of "requirements"
tossed about with so much allusion to practical significance. This
"Odyssey versus the charger world" battle has been raging for some years.
Arguments have bounced around like ping-pong balls in box rolling
down hill.
I have yet to see the results of any repeatable experiments
that demonstrate a positive return on investment for having
$purchased$ any "super-charger" combined with the $time$ needed
to apply it to practical management of a battery in an airplane
of any size but in particular, an RV8.
I'm working on a IR&D project for a new lead acid battery that
shows great promise for increased performance, lighter weight
and longer life. However, this isn't going to hit the market
as an inexpensive battery. Quite the contrary. This is why
we're mulling over ideas for optimized maintenance tools to
built right into the battery itself. The formula that evaluates
return on investment has a lot of variables that are themselves
somewhat ethereal. It's not easy.
In the mean time, the infomercials are in constant
competition for your attention, time and money.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | " Bruce Bell" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Battery Maintainer |
Hi Bob,
What is your take on the Schumacher SEM-1562A battery Maintainer for gel
cell batteries. I have two 17 amp gel cells from B&C in my RV-4. Wired to
your spec's and NO electrical problems at all!
Best regards, Bruce Bell, RV-4 N23BB, 75 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Maintainer |
At 03:14 PM 8/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>What is your take on the Schumacher SEM-1562A battery Maintainer for
>gel cell batteries. I have two 17 amp gel cells from B&C in my RV-4.
>Wired to your spec's and NO electrical problems at all!
>Best regards, Bruce Bell, RV-4 N23BB, 75 hours.
That series of maintainers are among those I've
tested for entirely adequate performance for both
charging (slow) and leaving hooked up forever
in the maintenance mode. At $20 or so at Walmart,
it's the best value out there right now.
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: | Battery Chargers and Maintainers |
I've received some direct emails from folks who were upset
about what they perceived as a poo-pooing of someone's work
in describing the current market choices in battery chargers.
I've not read the article and what I wrote was not directed
at the author nor toward any of the products he described.
Let's look at it this way:
Suppose you get up some early Sunday morning back in the
days of 12 VHF channels on TV and while sipping your coffee,
every stop while flipping through the channels presents you
with some guy who is VERY enthusiastic about HIS
particular fishing product.
You are persuasively "educated" on the merits of various means
by which aquatic life can be extracted from the wild. You
might have Mr. Ronco pitching the pocket fisherman on one
channel. Somebody else may be trying to convince you to take
out a mortgage on your first born and join the ranks of
the crabbers in the Bearing Sea. Certainly the range of
fishing gear and the applications they address can cover
a huge range of capability and cost.
On none of those infomercials will it be suggested that
you establish design goals, budgets and utilization
profiles that allow you to judge return on investment
for your purchase. Indeed, there are many $20K bass-rigs
sitting in folks back yards where the owner wishes he
had is money back!
Every one of those purveyors of marvelous fishing products
can go through his 1/2 hour pitch without ever having
lied to you. Each product will perform as advertised.
But since his goal is to convince you that you need his
product, the last thing he wants to do is suggest tools
for decision making that put his sales at risk.
Further, you may well find that the most practical
solution to a fishing task isn't even offered on T.V.
Your kid may come home some day with a string he
caught using a hook, personally captured bait, 20'
of monofilament and a wine cork as a float. "Lookit
here dad. Caught these guys off the 21st street bridge
with less than 50 cents worth of gear!" I can
confidently suggest that the kid's return on investment
was pretty good.
Certainly the battery charging marketplace is flooded
with the ability to do a great deal. Jelly-bean
microprocessors and compact power electronics has
opened a floodgate of opportunities. Just check though
the patents on ideas for charging and testing batteries.
However, the bottom line for getting good utility out
of our battery purchases remains unchanged for nearly
a century. No matter how many bells and whistles are
built into your battery chargers and/or test tools,
it's still up to YOU to set goals and craft processes
by which those goals will be met at an expenditure of $time$
you're willing to pay. The elegant solution is
invariably the one with highest benefit/cost ratio.
Quite often, the supper-whippy, platinum plated battery
charger is DEPENDED upon to make some poor sap's battery
last forever. The sad truths are discovered and the
dependence proven irrational when a battery fails
to perform at some critical time in the future.
Nobody's enthusiasm for selling you a battery charger
will replace or even slightly relieve YOU of the need
for understanding how YOUR battery does or does not
work and tailoring YOUR processes and tools to the
task for meeting YOUR alternator-out endurance goals.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
-------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | $99.00 weather plus |
From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I am forwarding this from the Q-List. I thought it is pretty cool and will
try it, next time I fly, with my new wife's kitchen digital TV.
I'd like to hear a few more flight reports.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
I just happened to pick up a 7inch digital portable T-V and took it for a
> ride in the sky. Made a small mount up at the sun visor center bolt that
> will till the t-v up and out of the way and also can be removed easy. I live
> at least 60 miles from the nearest city and could pick up the local wx
> digital stations after a few hundred feet above ground. At 1000 ft. I was
> getting up to 40 chanels. A trip that took me from N-W Ohio to southern KY.
> I had continuous Wx the whole trip and back. Each city I got close to I
> rescaned for new channels and had gread reception with the T-V antenna
> pulled out only 6inches. This T-V has a rechargeabe battery that has a 2
> hour time and with the sound to 0 I still had battery power after 3hours of
> flying. Also has a remote for us guys. The price for the yearly subcription
> $00.00 And to think I was looking at XM weather... NOT
> Flying can be great if we just help each other find ways to save $$
> Mark, Q200 in the works
>
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/message/34323;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cW83NjVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BG1zZ0lkAzM0MzIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MAR0cGNJZAMzNDMyMw-->(
1) Reply (via web post)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdTZ0ZnBwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BG1zZ0lkAzM0MzIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA--?act=reply&messageNum=34323>|
Start
a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbXRhNWN2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA-->
Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcGJyNXZjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA-->|
Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb25zZjZnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDk0NzYwNzA->|
Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJldnBjMWJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA-->|
Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlanV2YWk0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA-->
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org
[image: Yahoo!
Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMHJsdTRoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjQ5NDc2MDcw>
Change settings via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWlqdjdsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDk0NzYwNzA->(Yahoo!
ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest|
Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZDR2YWRqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjQ5NDc2MDcw>|
Yahoo!
Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
- 3
New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcXBxZjNzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDk0NzYwNzA->
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOTZvbG52BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxMjQxNTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NjE4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI0OTQ3NjA3MA-->
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJtcWJnZ3E2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMjEyNDE1OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjU2MTgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNicmFuZARzdGltZQMxMjQ5NDc2MDcw;_ylg=1/SIG=11314uv3k/**http%3A//brand.yahoo.com/forgood>
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group<http://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJvcWgwbWdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMjEyNDE1OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjU2MTgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNncm91cHMyBHN0aW1lAzEyNDk0NzYwNzA->
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
__,_._,___
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
Subject: | Battery Chargers and Maintainers |
BOB: Just a point of clarification, the Mr. Ronco that you referred to is
really Ron Popeil who made a fortune selling the Pocket Fisherman, the
Veg-O-Matic and Rotisserie Grill among many others. I wish that his name was
Ronco and that I was related to him for obvious reasons. I don't know how
many times I have been asked about being related.
Joe Ronco
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Chargers and Maintainers
I've received some direct emails from folks who were upset
about what they perceived as a poo-pooing of someone's work
in describing the current market choices in battery chargers.
I've not read the article and what I wrote was not directed
at the author nor toward any of the products he described.
Let's look at it this way:
Suppose you get up some early Sunday morning back in the
days of 12 VHF channels on TV and while sipping your coffee,
every stop while flipping through the channels presents you
with some guy who is VERY enthusiastic about HIS
particular fishing product.
You are persuasively "educated" on the merits of various means
by which aquatic life can be extracted from the wild. You
might have Mr. Ronco pitching the pocket fisherman on one
channel. Somebody else may be trying to convince you to take
out a mortgage on your first born and join the ranks of
the crabbers in the Bearing Sea. Certainly the range of
fishing gear and the applications they address can cover
a huge range of capability and cost.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: $99.00 weather plus |
From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I was unaware that the same nexrad info on XM was broadcast locally. I
thought I knew all my local digital channels bu I haven't seen it. How do I
find this ?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I am forwarding this from the Q-List. I thought it is pretty cool and will
> try it, next time I fly, with my new wife's kitchen digital TV.
>
> I'd like to hear a few more flight reports.
>
> Sam
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: $99.00 weather plus |
From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I don't know much abnout it yet, but the digital stations have extra
channels. For instance
6-1 HD is Channel 6's regular format
6.2 WX is Channel 6's weather format.
It has nothing to do with XM, I think.
Sam
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM, thomas sargent wrote:
> I was unaware that the same nexrad info on XM was broadcast locally. I
> thought I knew all my local digital channels bu I haven't seen it. How do I
> find this ?
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
>
>> I am forwarding this from the Q-List. I thought it is pretty cool and
>> will try it, next time I fly, with my new wife's kitchen digital TV.
>>
>> I'd like to hear a few more flight reports.
>>
>> Sam
>> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
Subject: | Re: $99.00 weather plus |
Hi Sam,
What an incredible idea! Went to amazon and searched for 'digital portable tv'
and got about a dozen options for less $140 (most around $100-120 mark). I
wonder if any of them have either transreflective displays or displays that are
bright enought to be seen in the sun?
/\/elson
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I am forwarding this from the Q-List. I thought it is pretty cool and will try
it, next time I fly, with my new wife's kitchen digital TV.
>
> I'd like to hear a few more flight reports.
>
> Sam
> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> I just happened to pick up a 7inch digital portable T-V and took it for
a ride in the sky. Made a small mount up at the sun visor center bolt that will
till the t-v up and out of
> the way and also can be removed easy. I live at least 60 miles from the
nearest city and could pick up the local wx digital stations after a few hundred
feet above ground. At 1000
> ft. I was getting up to 40 chanels. A trip that took me from N-W Ohio to
southern KY. I had continuous Wx the whole trip and back. Each city I got close
to I rescaned for new
> channels and had gread reception with the T-V antenna pulled out only 6inches.
This T-V has a rechargeabe battery that has a 2 hour time and with the
sound to 0 I still had battery
> power after 3hours of flying. Also has a remote for us guys. The price
for the yearly subcription $00.00 And to think I was looking at XM weather...
NOT
> Flying can be great if we just help each other find ways to save $$
> Mark, Q200 in the works
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: $99.00 weather plus |
David E. Nelson wrote:
> I wonder if any of them have either transreflective displays or
> displays that are bright enought to be seen in the sun?
>
If it is so sunny that you can't see the weather on the TV, do you
REALLY need the TV to tell you what the weather is like? 8*)
Heh, just askin', ya' know.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
Subject: | Re: $99.00 weather plus |
Ahhh, but then my passenger is watching movies! ;)
/\/elson
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> David E. Nelson wrote:
>> I wonder if any of them have either transreflective displays or displays
>> that are bright enought to be seen in the sun?
>>
> If it is so sunny that you can't see the weather on the TV, do you REALLY
> need the TV to tell you what the weather is like? 8*)
>
> Heh, just askin', ya' know.
>
> --
> Ernest Christley, President
> Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
>
> TechnicalTakedown, LLC
> www.TechnicalTakedown.com
> 101 Steep Bank Dr.
> Cary, NC 27518
> (919) 741-9397
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi ernest
What's your thoughts on silver plating magic powder I
sent you?
I did a test putting samples outside, copper very
tarnished, silver holding up well. On plane my thin wide crossfeed made
out of copper is very tarnished and silver looks still fine.
Thx.
Ron P.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Ernest Christley
>
>
> David E. Nelson wrote:
>> I wonder if any of them
have either transreflective displays or
>> displays that are
bright enought to be seen in the sun?
>>
> If it is
so sunny that you can't see the weather on the TV, do you
>
REALLY need the TV to tell you what the weather is like? 8*)
>
> Heh, just askin', ya' know.
>
> --
>
Ernest Christley, President
> Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
>
> TechnicalTakedown, LLC
>
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
> 101 Steep Bank Dr.
> Cary,
NC 27518
> (919) 741-9397
>
>
>
>
List Features Navigator to browse
such as List Un/Subscription,
Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
available via the Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
generous support!
--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Two Alternators, one Ammeter? |
From: | Brooks Wolfe <slipstream(at)wavecable.com> |
Just what I'm looking for.. Thanks!
Brooks
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
While web-searching another task, I stumbled across this
bit . . .
http://nutsandboltsfoundation.org/word-from-john.cfm
. . . do any of you have progeny who've displayed
any sparks of interest in what's happening in YOUR
shop? Here's an interesting organization that not only
senses a demonstrable decay in talent for our formerly
capable, hands-on industries, they've identified an activity
to search out, encourage and mentor young prospects.
I plan visit with the teachers at M.L. High School
early in the school year to see if I can get a sense
of where they're coming from and where they think
their kids are going.
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: Check this out |
The news may not be as bad as it seems to some.
http://www.instructables.com/
I am subscribed to their email publication and have seen many new ideas
and new uses for old stuff.
I think one problem is that our society doesn't value a jack of all
trades. Specialization is where the money is.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> While web-searching another task, I stumbled across this
> bit . . .
>
> http://nutsandboltsfoundation.org/word-from-john.cfm
>
> . . . do any of you have progeny who've displayed
> any sparks of interest in what's happening in YOUR
> shop? Here's an interesting organization that not only
> senses a demonstrable decay in talent for our formerly
> capable, hands-on industries, they've identified an activity
> to search out, encourage and mentor young prospects.
>
> I plan visit with the teachers at M.L. High School
> early in the school year to see if I can get a sense
> of where they're coming from and where they think
> their kids are going.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle switch |
starting
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Right now I'm starting to draw up my electrical schematic using Z-20 as a guideline
for my Jabiru 3300. Z-20 shows a 1-3 switch for each ignition and a separate
push starter switch. I read in chapter 11 of the AEC that a 2-50 switch could
be used to combine the starter switch with one of the ignition switches, thereby
eliminating one switch. I assume this would be a good idea, since it is
one less thing to buy, install, and have break.
But I am a little confused on the wiring, both of this particular config and of
magneto wiring in general. There is a diagram on p11-19 of AEC, but Z-17 doesn't
show enough detail for me. It would be great if I could get the terminal connections
for the two 2-50 (or 2-5) switches, including how the shields are wired
at the engine. It also seems a 1-3 on-off switch would work for the right
mag.
I've heard of 'O' and 'P' leads. As I understand it, the 'P' leads ground to kill
the mags. They are shielded, but seems like I've heard both of grounding just
one end and grounding both ends. Not clear on the physical grounding connections,
either. If you're able to shed some light on this, that would be great!
Thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256461#256461
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mag_ignition_and_starter_wiring_questions_185.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Still trying to get these fuel gauges to work. The sender units are 10-76 ohms
and the ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL Indicators are 0 - 90 ohms also if I apply 12v
to the sen terminal and put a 45 ohm resister inline to ground on the center terminal
[the center terminal has a metal plate which extends to around the light
bulb hole ] it reads 1/2 way on the gauge which appears to be the correct
value.Still not sure what the ign terminal is used for then !!!! Cheers Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256462#256462
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle switch |
starting
Hi there Dan,
I also considered using the 2-50 switches but decided to use a separate push
button to start because I like to have the ability to crank the engine
without the mags on; sometimes useful for troubleshooting and maintenance.
With the 2-50 switches you have to have both mags on to crank.
South African Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of messydeer
Sent: 07 August 2009 08:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle
switch starting
Right now I'm starting to draw up my electrical schematic using Z-20 as a
guideline for my Jabiru 3300. Z-20 shows a 1-3 switch for each ignition and
a separate push starter switch. I read in chapter 11 of the AEC that a 2-50
switch could be used to combine the starter switch with one of the ignition
switches, thereby eliminating one switch. I assume this would be a good
idea, since it is one less thing to buy, install, and have break.
But I am a little confused on the wiring, both of this particular config and
of magneto wiring in general. There is a diagram on p11-19 of AEC, but Z-17
doesn't show enough detail for me. It would be great if I could get the
terminal connections for the two 2-50 (or 2-5) switches, including how the
shields are wired at the engine. It also seems a 1-3 on-off switch would
work for the right mag.
I've heard of 'O' and 'P' leads. As I understand it, the 'P' leads ground to
kill the mags. They are shielded, but seems like I've heard both of
grounding just one end and grounding both ends. Not clear on the physical
grounding connections, either. If you're able to shed some light on this,
that would be great!
Thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256461#256461
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mag_ignition_and_starter_wiring_questions
_185.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
Alan;
I have no direct knowledge of these particular gauges, but in the automotive
world any terminal marked "sen" would be the sensor terminal and would be
the terminal which would be connected to your tank sending unit which would
then ground this terminal through whatever resistance resulted from the
current fuel level. i.e. this is where you would connect your "resistor to
ground" (your 45 ohm test resistor for example)
The connections you said you used for "test" support this as you've done the
same thing only backwards. (You've applied 12 Volts to ground and grounded
the power lead through your resistance. Should still read approx 1/2 scale
as your results show.)
The "ign" terminal is connected to the ignition live connection or in the
aviation world would be supplied with battery power.
The third terminal, the centre one as you call it, is ground, an hypothesis
which is supported by your information that it also seems to be supplying
the ground connection for the light.
As I said this is logic based on the automotive industry with no direct
knowledge of the specific parts you have.
Good luck
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Thruster87
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:11 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING
>
>
> Still trying to get these fuel gauges to work. The sender units are 10-76
ohms and the
> ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL Indicators are 0 - 90 ohms also if I apply 12v to
the sen
> terminal and put a 45 ohm resister inline to ground on the center terminal
[the center
> terminal has a metal plate which extends to around the light bulb hole ]
it reads 1/2
> way on the gauge which appears to be the correct value.Still not sure
what the ign
> terminal is used for then !!!! Cheers Alan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256462#256462
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Battery Maintainer |
From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Guys.
Ref Schumacher SEM1562A 1.5-Amp Automatic Battery Charger
The advertising on this products packaging states "FOR 6 AND 12 VOLT LEAD ACID
BATTERIES" Please confirm, this is good (safe) for Gel batteries??.....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256487#256487
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Maintainer |
At 08:24 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>Guys.
>Ref Schumacher SEM1562A 1.5-Amp Automatic Battery Charger
>The advertising on this products packaging states "FOR 6 AND 12 VOLT
>LEAD ACID BATTERIES" Please confirm, this is good (safe) for Gel
>batteries??.....Geoff
"Gel" batteries are flooded batteries with some
jello added to the electrolyte to make it less
likely to leak. They're still a lead-acid device
that operates on the same chemistry as their
flooded ancestors and recombinant gas descendants.
The 1562 battery charger/maintainer offers
satisfactory performance for servicing your
batteries. You asked about a "gel" battery.
There are a lot folks that erroneously call
a sealed, vented, lead-acid, recombinant-gas
battery a "gel cell". I'm guessing that the
battery you're referring to is not a gel cell.
Gel batteries are still made and they're
preferred for deep cycle, spill-resistant
applications like wheel chairs. But they
make up a very small percentage of the
lead-acid battery market.
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: Check this out |
At 12:42 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>The news may not be as bad as it seems to some.
>
>http://www.instructables.com/
>
>I am subscribed to their email publication and have seen many new
>ideas and new uses for old stuff.
>
>I think one problem is that our society doesn't value a jack of all
>trades. Specialization is where the money is.
Unfortunately, public education does little if
anything to suggest the alternative. One of my
most revered philosophers was Robert Heinlein
who wrote . . .
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building,
write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone,
comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
While the list of tasks we're willing and able to
do (or learn) may vary, the ideas behind his
sentiments are quite clear. Now, how to share
this recipe for success with our children?
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: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
At 01:10 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>Still trying to get these fuel gauges to work. The sender units are
>10-76 ohms and the ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL Indicators are 0 - 90 ohms
>also if I apply 12v to the sen terminal and put a 45 ohm resister
>inline to ground on the center terminal [the center terminal has a
>metal plate which extends to around the light bulb hole ] it reads
>1/2 way on the gauge which appears to be the correct value.Still
>not sure what the ign terminal is used for then !!!! Cheers Alan
Did you try hooking 12v to IGN, center to ground
and SEN to ground through a 45 ohm resistor? The
meanings of the markings are quite clear. Applying
12v to a SEN terminal will yield meaningless results
and may damage the instrument.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Battery Maintainer |
From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Bob
"There are a lot folks that erroneously call
a sealed, vented, lead-acid, recombinant-gas
battery a "gel cell". I'm guessing that the
battery you're referring to is not a gel cell."
Dead right. Thats what I've got....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256510#256510
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
Advice please.
A friend of mine has a Pitts he recently purchased and has been
fighting to fix ugly noises in the radio since he bought it.
The electrical system is quite simple - no lights, VFR panel, single
radio, transponder, basic intercom, battery, alternator and starter.
The radio is a King KX145, which has reportedly passed a bench test.
The noise sounds to me like engine induced noise. It is not clean
white noise, but continuous static with lots of scratches and pops in
it.
Before I got involved, the radio was bench tested. The original
antenna on the turtledeck was taken off the and grounds cleaned up.
The avionics shop talked him into a new antenna, which was installed
on the bottom of the aircraft instead, and a new cable which connects
to about a 1 foot long pigtail coming out of the back of the radio
rack. Now he has spent over $1000 and the problem persists.
So yesterday, I got in the plane with him and we played around on the
ground. The static exists whenever the radio's squelch is
unsquelched, or when receiving a less than very strong signal. That
is, the tower and ATIS are cleanly heard, but an aircraft calling from
12 miles is easily understood among a background of static. This is
with the engine not running and just the radio powered on.
With the engine running the static is pretty much the same, except you
need to turn the volume up a bit due to the external engine and wind
noise. The static does not change when the alternator is switched on
and off. It does not change at all with engine rpm or when switching
mags on and off. So even though it sounds very much like engine
interference, it must not be, since it can be heard with the engine
stopped.
Curiously, the static is much louder as the plane is oriented toward
the south-east. So listening to the ATIS broadcast, the audio is
clean for about 270 degrees of the circle, but the voice stays the
same, but the background static dramatically increases to almost as
loud as the voice, when facing the southeast quadrant. This
directional characteristic is the same whether behind the hangars, or
out on the main ramp a half mile away.
To be sure the VOR antenna and the COM antenna cables were not mixed
up, I unplugged them one at a time and got no difference. In the end,
we had all the antenna cables unplugged and the receive audio was the
same ???? Both handhelds available receive no audible signal without
their antenna connected. So how can we be picking up the ATIS without
an antenna ? Could the signal be picked up via the intercom wires ?
The intercom requires pushing a switch to talk to the other person.
Yesterday, I pulled the jacks off the panels. They are wired with
proper shielded cable and I installed insulated washers at the jacks,
just in case there was some grounding problem. No change.
Generally tranmit is quite good. I have picked up this aircraft, very
clearly, when flying my own 20 miles apart. Generally the tower
reports our transmissions as 5x5, however, when on the ramp facing
southeast, they report the transmission is slightly garbled. The
owner reports sometimes having to change direction in flight in order
to call up the tower.
Ideas what should be done next ? I have suggested another bench test
of the radio, which probably won't tell us anything that wasn't
revealed the first time. I don't have access to a VSWR meter. The
wiring is pretty shabby, so perhaps just re-wiring it all from scratch
is a good idea.
I intend to make a patch cable that will allow testing the entire
cable and antenna installation with a handheld radio.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Silver plating |
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
> Hi ernest
>
> What's your thoughts on silver plating magic powder I sent you?
>
> I did a test putting samples outside, copper very tarnished, silver
> holding up well. On plane my thin wide crossfeed made out of copper is
> very tarnished and silver looks still fine.
>
The experiment has made as much progress as the rest of my project since
I got laid off. None. I think I might have logged as many as 10 hours
of building time since February.
OTOH, I do have some really cool software to sell if you're involved
with amateur wrestling.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
My suggestion about a very large contributing factor to this problem is that
so few of us are raised on a farm or ranch anymore. Any farm kid learns that
if something needs doing, you need to be able to do it; when something
breaks, you need to be able to fix it. To eat, you need to plant seeds and
assure their growth, or to be willing to slaughter an animal you have known
all its life. I don't know how you translate this into an urban lifestyle
where we may be many layers away from the source of what we want or need,
but it's a great loss if we can't do it. Maybe it's just teaching kids the
joy of working with their head AND their hands at the same time, or the
satisfaction of playing with or living in or riding in or flying in
something they built with their own hands.
Terry
-----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, August 07, 2009 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Check this out
At 12:42 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>The news may not be as bad as it seems to some.
>
>http://www.instructables.com/
>
>I am subscribed to their email publication and have seen many new
>ideas and new uses for old stuff.
>
>I think one problem is that our society doesn't value a jack of all
>trades. Specialization is where the money is.
Unfortunately, public education does little if
anything to suggest the alternative. One of my
most revered philosophers was Robert Heinlein
who wrote . . .
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building,
write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone,
comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
While the list of tasks we're willing and able to
do (or learn) may vary, the ideas behind his
sentiments are quite clear. Now, how to share
this recipe for success with our children?
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 11:45 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>My suggestion about a very large contributing factor to this problem is that
>so few of us are raised on a farm or ranch anymore. Any farm kid learns that
>if something needs doing, you need to be able to do it; when something
>breaks, you need to be able to fix it.
You are quite correct sir. I've lived both sides of that
coin. My grandfather came to Wichita from Arkansas as a
nurseryman but skilled in building every resource needed to support
that trade. By the time he was 40 he had built, operated and
sold a nursery, started a contracting services activity.
Traded land in Wichita for farm land in Medicine Lodge and
added farming to his constellation of endeavors.
This is one reason I'm moving back to M.L. and hoping to
take all my kids and grandchildren with me. We have great-
grandpa's and grandpa's legacies along with a home that
will house woodworking, hvac, locksmithing, electronics,
catering, tree trimming and publishing services managed
by two professional teachers and four professional craftsmen.
It's my new career goal to die stone broke with
my family living in paid-for houses and radiating a
culture of "how can we help you today?" mentality.
>Maybe it's just teaching kids the
>joy of working with their head AND their hands at the same time, or the
>satisfaction of playing with or living in or riding in or flying in
>something they built with their own hands.
Yup, that's what launched my father's lifestyle and
ultimately my own . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Unfortunately, difficult to achieve in an Wii, Ipod,
let's-get-eternally high/excited/pleasured-culture. I'm seeing only
vestiges of that in M.L. so far. Perhaps we can help
plant the seeds of a few old but well proven recipes
for success there. I'll be seeking out other real teachers
first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio noises |
>\\
At 10:51 AM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
Advice please.
Now he has spent over $1000 and the problem persists.
So yesterday, I got in the plane with him and we played around on the
ground. The static exists whenever the radio's squelch is
unsquelched, or when receiving a less than very strong signal. That
is, the tower and ATIS are cleanly heard, but an aircraft calling from
12 miles is easily understood among a background of static. This is
with the engine not running and just the radio powered on.
What, if any other accessories are operating on the
airplane during this test. Try pulling all other breakers/
fuses except radio/audio system to search out possible
cause/effect on board the aircraft. In particular, make
sure the alternator's regulator is not powered up.
With the engine running the static is pretty much the same, except you
need to turn the volume up a bit due to the external engine and wind
noise. The static does not change when the alternator is switched on
and off.
Oops, Okay . . . scratch the alternator.
It does not change at all with engine rpm or when switching
mags on and off. So even though it sounds very much like engine
interference, it must not be, since it can be heard with the engine
stopped.
agreed.
Curiously, the static is much louder as the plane is oriented toward
the south-east. So listening to the ATIS broadcast, the audio is
clean for about 270 degrees of the circle, but the voice stays the
same, but the background static dramatically increases to almost as
loud as the voice, when facing the southeast quadrant. This
directional characteristic is the same whether behind the hangars, or
out on the main ramp a half mile away.
Does the noise go away when you disconnect the antenna?
Have you checked for presence of this noise while away
from the field? The directional effects suggest possible
local source on the ground.
To be sure the VOR antenna and the COM antenna cables were not mixed
up, I unplugged them one at a time and got no difference. In the end,
we had all the antenna cables unplugged and the receive audio was the
same ????
Okay, that answers that question.
Both handhelds available receive no audible signal without
their antenna connected. So how can we be picking up the ATIS without
an antenna ? Could the signal be picked up via the intercom wires ?
Good question. Back in the good ol' days the radios for light
aircraft were not subjected to many sources of outside stimulus
and testing for vulnerabilities on other than power and antenna
lines was limited. Nowadays, we look at ALL wires which enter
or exit the box along with shielding integrity of the box itself.
This is one of Ed King's earliest crystal synthesized radios
that came out about 1975 as I recall. Have you checked to see
if this radio still qualifies under tightened frequency
accuracy and receiver bandwidth requirements were levied for
8.33 Khz channel spacing?
The intercom requires pushing a switch to talk to the other person.
Yesterday, I pulled the jacks off the panels. They are wired with
proper shielded cable and I installed insulated washers at the jacks,
just in case there was some grounding problem. No change.
Generally tranmit is quite good. I have picked up this aircraft, very
clearly, when flying my own 20 miles apart. Generally the tower
reports our transmissions as 5x5, however, when on the ramp facing
southeast, they report the transmission is slightly garbled. The
owner reports sometimes having to change direction in flight in order
to call up the tower.
Hmmmm happens in flight too and is getting into the
the transmitter?
Ideas what should be done next ? I have suggested another bench test
of the radio, which probably won't tell us anything that wasn't
revealed the first time. I don't have access to a VSWR meter. The
wiring is pretty shabby, so perhaps just re-wiring it all from scratch
is a good idea.
I intend to make a patch cable that will allow testing the entire
cable and antenna installation with a handheld radio.
Good lick too. I was considering that suggestion. Also, check
performance at the top end of the comm frequency rage with a
remotely located hand held for weak signal. See if the problem
is frequency sensitive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Bob,
That is a long list of goals, but I believe I have been successful in achieving
at least one already....the 'stone broke' thing. lol
Chuck
-----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, August 07, 2009 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Check this out
This is one reason I'm moving back to M.L. and hoping to
take all my kids and grandchildren with me. We have great-
grandpa's and grandpa's legacies along with a home that
will house woodworking, hvac, locksmithing, electronics,
catering, tree trimming and publishing services managed
by two professional teachers and four professional craftsmen.
It's my new career goal to die stone broke with
my family living in paid-for houses and radiating a
culture of "how can we help you today?" mentality.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:55 PM 8/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>That is a long list of goals, but I believe I have been successful
>in achieving at least one already....the 'stone broke' thing. lol
Don't know which (if any) combination of those
skills will come to fruition as a goal. They
exist to some degree in some of us. All we can
do is offer them up to each other and to our
neighbors as opportunities to be exploited.
In the mean time, my working goal is the houses.
Two down and two to go.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: ROCHESTER FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR WIRING |
From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Received a wiring diagrams from Aircraft Spruce So thank you all for your help
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256565#256565
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/3090_106instructions2_194.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/3090_106instructions1_282.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle switch |
starting
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> I also considered using the 2-50 switches but decided to use a separate push
> button to start because I like to have the ability to crank the engine
> without the mags on; sometimes useful for troubleshooting and maintenance.
>
Good point, Jay :-) Others have also mentioned that, so I think I'll go with a
push start that is separate from the mag switches. So that means I don't have
to worry about how the wiring goes for the mag/starter switch combo anymore.
Yippie!
And I think I understand how the mag wiring works now. I have dual mag ignitions
in my Jab 3300. I was also told that they don't have impulse coupling either,
which makes me wonder if one or both have the 'shower of sparks' type of starting
mechanism. I've only glanced at that so far.
So I've put my thoughts on cyberpaper and with any luck there'll be a pdf file
attached below. I do have one big question that came up while I was copying the
mag drawings from Z-20. The right mag is shown wired to the switch differently
than the left. I don't know why it is shown like that.
Take care,
Dan
PS: I goofed and uploaded 2 copies of the file. They're both the same.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256594#256594
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/my_magneto_wiring_with_1_3_switches_145.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/my_magneto_wiring_with_1_3_switches_100.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Pitot tube heater requirements . . . |
>Question: I read your article on pitot tube heaters...absolutely
>right...as far as it went.
>
>What I was trying to find out was...how much power is required to
>maintain the temperature on the surface and in the ram air (Pt)
>throat above freezing in the face of a mach .82 blast at 35,000 ft
>pressure and -80 deg C???
Actually, it's really easy to keep it hot. I have
data collected from pitot tubes in flight and it's
not uncommon to see 100C surface temperatures at
max cruise, 41,000 feet altitude and in clear air.
>This will be complicated by the fact that a thermally conductive
>pitot tube is mounted to a very cold metal heat sink (aka the
>airframe). Then there is the fact that the air pressure is very
>low...basicly a cold near vacuum!!!
>
>My experience with high altitude cold is that hot things get hotter,
>and cold things get colder. The shape of the pitot head
>matters...imagine it had fins!!
The ability of air to carry away heat isn't the issue.
The ability of super-cooled WATER to carry away heat
IS the issue. This is why pitot tube temperatures in normal
conditions have little significance for operation under
icing conditions. This is why virtually every new pitot tube
installation is qualified with ICING TUNNEL tests to confirm
their ability to shed ice accumulated as a result of
super-cooled water impacts of so many grams/second/square
CM. Now, any icing tunnel worth its cost of operation
should be capable of overwhelming about any pitot tube
so that folks are aware of the tube's capabilities.
The program I worked about ten years ago was to investigate
CLEAR AIR lost of pitot data on both sides of a
biz jet at 41,000 feet. Data that returned as soon as the
airplane descended to lower, warmer altitudes. These were
pitot tubes previously qualified in a icing tunnel. The tubes
were modified based on second set of tests. However, some
airplanes (fewer) still experience the event.
So your right, the problem is messy and the answers
are not really intuitive. I'm obligated to tell you that
nobody can give you good advice on wattage, normal conditions
temperatures, etc. The physics by which heated pitot tubes
ultimately meet requirements are about 50% calculation, 40%
experience in the field and tunnel testing and 10% black art.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "rer51" <rer51(at)netscape.ca> |
Is there a method to test an ignition coil and ECM? I thought the answer
might lie with the electric gurus. Randy R.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
Jeff=2C
Just my $0.02 worth but...
I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common caus
e of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft... unrealis
tic expectations!
With all due respect=2C gentlemen...
If the AM background noise is the same during flight as it is on the ground
with the engine off=2C that's as good as it gets.
If=2C while on the ground with the belly mounted antenna inches from the gr
ound and upward radiation blocked by the aircraft itself=2C you can clearly
understand ATC=2C ATIS and another plane 12 miles away=2C that's as good a
s it gets.
The directionality of the "static" and the transmit is not curious at all.
All antennae=2C except "ideal" antennae of urban legend=2C produce a signal
strength pattern that is lobular. That is=2C the radio "reaches out" more
(or less) in certain directions than others. With the antenna on the belly
=2C there are numerous metallic objects nearby=2C like gear legs=2C that se
rve to produce sometimes dramatic and unpredictable signal strength lobes.
So=2C once again=2C that's as good as it gets.
Not sure on this one but... The fact that you can hear ATIS without an ante
nna just serves to underscore how good your radio is(!) and how close you a
re to the ATIS antenna. Bob has mentioned on this forum that we should not
obsess over dimensions of marker beacon antennae because the MB signal is s
o strong and we're flying just dozens of yards over the thing that we'll ge
t the info anyway. This is a similar situation I suspect.
Again=2C if you guys can communicate "very clearly" from 20 miles apart=2C
that's as good as it gets.
"Ideas what should be done next?" Bolt it down=2C adjust the squelch and st
art punching holes in the sky!
Enjoy.
Rodney in Tennessee
Unabashed Nuckollhead
Standard Disclaimer: I'm no avionics engineer. But=2C I plan on staying in
a Holiday Inn Express next month at the American Sonex Association Fly-in i
n Crossville=2C TN.
_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail=AE
.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID233
91::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Radio noises |
From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Rodney,
Well put. I held a Ham ticket for years and all you have said is
"right on". Of course, Jeff could put an antenna on top (ugly but
better transmitting patterns).
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Explore Africa with a luxurious safari vacation. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMxow2h7zFqMlJCZffBM55kmWlfoRr0VbOHlIaGCAWWhX6g1pQlUk/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
Subject: | Wisdom from Military Manuals, etc. |
A little humor since laughter is the best medicine!!!
Wit and Wisdom from Military Manuals, etc.
"A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least
expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit."
- Army's magazine of preventive maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------
"Aim towards the Enemy"
- Instructions printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher
---------------------------------------------------
"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend."
- U.S. Marine Corps
---------------------------------------------------
"Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs are
guaranteed always to hit the ground."
- USAF Ammo Troop
---------------------------------------------------
"If the Enemy is in range, so are you."
- Infantry Journal
---------------------------------------------------
"It is generally inadvisable to eject over the area you just bombed"
- U.S. Air Force Manual
---------------------------------------------------
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never
encountered automatic weapons."
- General MacArthur
---------------------------------------------------
"Try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo."
- Infantry Journal
---------------------------------------------------
"You, you, and you. Panic. The rest of you come with me."
- U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. (Mgysgt5)
----------------------------------------------------
"Tracers work both ways."
- U.S. Army Ordnance
----------------------------------------------------
"Five second fuses only last three seconds"
- Infantry Journal
----------------------------------------------------
"Don't ever be the first, don't ever be the last, and don't ever volunteer
to do anything.."
- U.S. Navy Swabbie
----------------------------------------------------
"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid."
- David Hackworth
-----------------------------------------------------
"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush."
- Infantry Journal
-----------------------------------------------------
"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection."
- Joe Gay
------------------------------------------------------
"Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once."
- unknown
------------------------------------------------------
"Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do."
- Unknown Marine Recruit
-------------------------------------------------------
"Don't draw fire; it irritates the people around you."
-------------------------------------------------------
"If you see a bomb technician running, follow him and try to keep up."
- USAF Ammo Troop
-------------------------------------------------------
"You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3."
- Paul F. Crickmore (test pilot)
-------------------------------------------------------
"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Blue water Navy truism: There are more planes in the ocean than submarines
in the sky."
- From an old carrier sailor
------------------------------------------------------
"If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a
helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe."
-------------------------------------------------------
"When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough
power left to get you to the scene of the crash."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Without munitions, the USAF would be just another expensive flying club."
-------------------------------------------------------
"What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a
pilot screws up, the pilot dies; If ATC screws up....The pilot dies."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Never trade luck for skill."
-------------------------------------------------------
The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are:
"Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" And "Oh S...!"
------------------------------------------------------
"Weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Airspeed, altitude and brains. Two are always needed to complete the flight
successfully."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Mankind has a perfect record in aviation; we've never left one up there!"
-------------------------------------------------------
"Flashlights are tubular metal containers kept in a flight bag to store dead
batteries."
-------------------------------------------------------
"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your flight to a person
on the ground who is incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
--------------------------------------------------------
"The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill
you."
- Attributed to Max Stanley (Northrop test pilot)
--------------------------------------------------------
"A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its
maximum."
- Jon McBride, astronaut
--------------------------------------------------------
"If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the
crash as possible. "
- Bob Hoover (renowned aerobatic and test pilot)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Never fly in the same cockpit with someone braver than you."
-------------------------------------------------------
"There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime."
- Sign over squadron ops desk at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, 1970
---------------------------------------------------------
"If something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to."
--------------------------------------------------------
Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near
the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of
ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more
difficult to fly there."
-------------------------------------------------------
"You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power
to taxi to the terminal."
--------------------------------------------------------------
As the test pilot climbs out of the experimental aircraft, having torn off
the wings and tail in the crash landing, the crash truck arrives, the
rescuer sees a bloodied pilot and asks, "What happened?".
The pilot's reply, "I don't know, I just got here myself!"
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle switch |
starting
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> I do have one big question that came up while I was copying the mag drawings
from Z-20. The right mag is shown wired to the switch differently than the left.
I don't know why it is shown like that.
Mystery solved. Ian sent me a version "L" of Z-20, which shows the mag switch wires
being identical. I looked through both the rev. 12 and PPS on Bob's site
and it showed "K" as the current version of the PDF. But then I went to the .dwg
files and sure enough, there was version "L".
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256646#256646
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "z747pilot" <z747pilot(at)verizon.net> |
Hey Flyers,
A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of the
antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give
you a rough idea of your VHF range.
Regards,
z747pilot
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rodney
Dunham
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio noises
Jeff,
Just my $0.02 worth but...
I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common cause
of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft... unrealistic
expectations!
With all due respect, gentlemen...
If the AM background noise is the same during flight as it is on the ground
with the engine off, that's as good as it gets.
If, while on the ground with the belly mounted antenna inches from the
ground and upward radiation blocked by the aircraft itself, you can clearly
understand ATC, ATIS and another plane 12 miles away, that's as good as it
gets.
The directionality of the "static" and the transmit is not curious at all.
All antennae, except "ideal" antennae of urban legend, produce a signal
strength pattern that is lobular. That is, the radio "reaches out" more (or
less) in certain directions than others. With the antenna on the belly,
there are numerous metallic objects nearby, like gear legs, that serve to
produce sometimes dramatic and unpredictable signal strength lobes. So, once
again, that's as good as it gets.
Not sure on this one but... The fact that you can hear ATIS without an
antenna just serves to underscore how good your radio is(!) and how close
you are to the ATIS antenna. Bob has mentioned on this forum that we should
not obsess over dimensions of marker beacon antennae because the MB signal
is so strong and we're flying just dozens of yards over the thing that we'll
get the info anyway. This is a similar situation I suspect.
Again, if you guys can communicate "very clearly" from 20 miles apart,
that's as good as it gets.
"Ideas what should be done next?" Bolt it down, adjust the squelch and start
punching holes in the sky!
Enjoy.
Rodney in Tennessee
Unabashed Nuckollhead
Standard Disclaimer: I'm no avionics engineer. But, I plan on staying in a
Holiday Inn Express next month at the American Sonex Association Fly-in in
Crossville, TN.
_____
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for HotmailR.
Try it now.
<http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391
::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Check this out |
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> My suggestion about a very large contributing factor to this problem is that
> so few of us are raised on a farm or ranch anymore. Any farm kid learns that
> if something needs doing, you need to be able to do it; when something
> breaks, you need to be able to fix it. To eat, you need to plant seeds and
> assure their growth, or to be willing to slaughter an animal you have known
> all its life. I don't know how you translate this into an urban lifestyle
> where we may be many layers away from the source of what we want or need,
> but it's a great loss if we can't do it. Maybe it's just teaching kids the
> joy of working with their head AND their hands at the same time, or the
> satisfaction of playing with or living in or riding in or flying in
> something they built with their own hands.
>
Nawh, living on a farm is orthogonal. A child just has to grow up
without being handed everything he wants. He has to learn to WANT
things. Then he has to learn that things can be had from one's own hands.
I grew up poor. Not Ethiopian starvation poor, but if I wanted a
bicycle I had to learn to build it from spare parts that I got from
castaways. I learned to build a bicycle from castaways. I'm no longer
poor by any reasonable definition, but I still can't afford a certified
airplane. If I want one, I have to learn to build it myself. We'll see
in a year or so what sort of student I am.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
I will confess to a strong possibility of prejudice based on my own
experience growing up on a farm, but I don't understand the use of the word
"orthogonal" in this context. I understand and agree that growing up poor is
a strong motivation to do things for ones self. I did run across an
interesting book that I think is on the very subject Bob was talking about.
I downloaded and read the free sample on my Kindle and will probably buy and
read the book. As an aside, I have discovered the book reviews on Amazon.com
to be a fascinating source of discovery. It's a little like wandering
through a library and sampling books, but all from your own computer and
with in many cases dozens of thoughtful reviews of the book. This particular
book is SHOP CLASS AS SOULCRAFT by Matthew B. Crawford. I think Bob in
particular would find it pertinent to his ideas. The link to the book is:
http://tinyurl.com/nrybq5
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Check this out
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> My suggestion about a very large contributing factor to this problem is
that
> so few of us are raised on a farm or ranch anymore. Any farm kid learns
that
> if something needs doing, you need to be able to do it; when something
> breaks, you need to be able to fix it. To eat, you need to plant seeds and
> assure their growth, or to be willing to slaughter an animal you have
known
> all its life. I don't know how you translate this into an urban lifestyle
> where we may be many layers away from the source of what we want or need,
> but it's a great loss if we can't do it. Maybe it's just teaching kids the
> joy of working with their head AND their hands at the same time, or the
> satisfaction of playing with or living in or riding in or flying in
> something they built with their own hands.
>
Nawh, living on a farm is orthogonal. A child just has to grow up
without being handed everything he wants. He has to learn to WANT
things. Then he has to learn that things can be had from one's own hands.
I grew up poor. Not Ethiopian starvation poor, but if I wanted a
bicycle I had to learn to build it from spare parts that I got from
castaways. I learned to build a bicycle from castaways. I'm no longer
poor by any reasonable definition, but I still can't afford a certified
airplane. If I want one, I have to learn to build it myself. We'll see
in a year or so what sort of student I am.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio noises |
I'm a little confused with the formula you proposed for simplicity lets
say the antenna height is at 9 feet above ground sq root of 9=3x2.23 =
6.69? ( feet , meters inches miles???)=0A=0A James Robinson=0AGlasair lll
N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT U77=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________
=0AFrom: z747pilot <z747pilot(at)verizon.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronic
s.com=0ASent: Saturday, August 8, 2009 8:19:11 AM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectr
ic-List: Radio noises=0A=0A =0AHey Flyers,=0A =0AA small formula here that
may help you out: take the Square root of =0Athe antennea hight (aircraft h
ight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give =0Ayou a rough idea of y
our VHF range.=0A =0ARegards,=0A =0Az747pilot=0A=0A=0A_____________________
___________=0A From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com =0A[mailt
o:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rodney =0ADunh
am=0ASent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:12 AM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matron
ics.com=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio =0Anoises=0A=0AJeff,=0A=0AJ
ust my $0.02 worth but...=0A=0AI think your friend =0Asuffers from what I c
onsider to be the most common cause of dissatisfaction with =0AVHF COMM per
formance in OBAM aircraft... unrealistic expectations!=0A=0AWith =0Aall due
respect, gentlemen...=0A=0AIf the AM background noise is the same =0Adurin
g flight as it is on the ground with the engine off, that's as good as it
=0Agets.=0A=0AIf, while on the ground with the belly mounted antenna inches
from =0Athe ground and upward radiation blocked by the aircraft itself, yo
u can clearly =0Aunderstand ATC, ATIS and another plane 12 miles away, that
's as good as it =0Agets.=0A=0AThe directionality of the "static" and the t
ransmit is not curious =0Aat all. All antennae, except "ideal" antennae of
urban legend, produce a signal =0Astrength pattern that is lobular. That is
, the radio "reaches out" more (or =0Aless) in certain directions than othe
rs. With the antenna on the belly, there =0Aare numerous metallic objects n
earby, like gear legs, that serve to produce =0Asometimes dramatic and unpr
edictable signal strength lobes. So, once again, =0Athat's as good as it ge
ts.=0A=0ANot sure on this one but... The fact that you =0Acan hear ATIS wit
hout an antenna just serves to underscore how good your radio =0Ais(!) and
how close you are to the ATIS antenna. Bob has mentioned on this forum =0At
hat we should not obsess over dimensions of marker beacon antennae because
the =0AMB signal is so strong and we're flying just dozens of yards over th
e thing that =0Awe'll get the info anyway. This is a similar situation I su
spect.=0A=0AAgain, =0Aif you guys can communicate "very clearly" from 20 mi
les apart, that's as good =0Aas it gets.=0A=0A"Ideas what should be done ne
xt?" Bolt it down, adjust the =0Asquelch and start punching holes in the sk
y!=0A=0AEnjoy.=0A=0ARodney in =0ATennessee=0AUnabashed Nuckollhead=0A=0ASta
ndard Disclaimer: I'm no avionics =0Aengineer. But, I plan on staying in a
Holiday Inn Express next month at the =0AAmerican Sonex Association Fly-in
in Crossville, TN.=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A Express y
our personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail=AE. Try it
now. =0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhref="http://forums.
matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.c
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | ANL Current limiters |
Bob:
Is there a section in AeroElectric Connection where you discuss the role
of ANL current limiters? I've got revision 11 and I can't seem to find it,
although i've read the book three times. I'm sure it's escaped me.
Many thanks for your continued guidance.
Bob Collins
St. Paul, MN
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
It happened sometime during my generation (born 1935).=C2- Up until and
during WWII, it was =9Chonorable=9D to be in the trades, work
ing with your hands.=C2- Sometime after WWII, and before the =9Cin
formation age=9D, in my world, it became imperative to go to college
and earn a degree so that one didn=99t have to work with ones hands
.=C2- Somehow, using brainpower instead of muscle power became =9C
noble=9D. There are those among us that choose to use both.=C2- We
are the =9Ctinkerers=9D.=C2- We are driven to learn, experi
ment and to create.=C2- But we are the dinosaurs, a dying breed.=C2-
Beyond the time when it was a given that a college education was all that
was necessary to succeed, along came the computer. Today=99s youth
(and some ancients) think that you can do anything if you can conquer the
computer.=C2- Never mind what makes it work.=C2- You only need to mas
ter the keyboard, the display and a host of programming tricks.=C2- This
mentality leads one to believe that =9Cstuff=9D happens witho
ut human intervention, except through the computer=99s omnipotent po
wer. Thus the decline in people that really make =9Cstuff=9D
happen - the carpenters, millwrights, farmers, machinist, plumbers, mecha
nics - all those that work with their hands.=C2- Of course, they are sti
ll out there, doing the everyday jobs that must be done, but their numbers
are rapidly declining; =98cause it=99s just not =9Ccool
=9D to work with your hands=2
0these days.=C2- By all means, allow and encourage the kids to master th
e computer.=C2- Just don=99t let it get in the way of learning abo
ut and doing things manually, creating and above all - =9CTINKERING
=9D.
Jay Bannister
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: ANL Current limiters |
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I just did a 'full Acrobat' search using Adobe Acrobat. Open a PDF document with
acrobat reader and get there by using the popup menu to the right of the search
box, or hit Ctrl+Shift+F. A new window opens and I navigated to have it search
my Electrical folder for the word 'anl'. Had to start over after it came
up with 'cleANLiness' a bunch of times. So I checked the 'whole word' option.
I came up with four hits for ANL in rev. 11, all in the Note 10 of the Z section
and associated schematic. There were a half dozen articles that showed up as
well. I'd downloaded them from Aeroelectric.com site.
On Bob's main page, there is a Google search box right above the yellow 'what's
new'. I typed in ANL there and came up with 4 pages of hits.
Cheers,
Dan
PS: I got my barely used Jabiru from Ion Aircraft in St. Paul in May!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256779#256779
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
From: | "icrashrc" <icrashrc(at)aol.com> |
Im building a Rotax 912uls powered Kolb. The used engine I purchased has the stock
Rotax charging system as well as a B & C SD-20/ LR3C backup system. I would
like to insure I have proper over voltage protection on both systems. I see
the LR3C claims to have over voltage crowbar protection but I see no listing of
what voltage it considers too high. Anyone know where to find that info? Also,
as I understand it there is no form of over voltage protection on the Rotax
system. I assume this is where Bobs OVM-14 comes in and Ill be happy to add one.
What voltage does the OVM-14 consider too high? Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256832#256832
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | re: WAY off topic. |
At 03:49 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
>Way off topic, but I was wondering what your address is in Medicine
>Lodge? Just wanted to check it out on Google Earth. Nothing but idle curiosity!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
209 Curry Lane
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/209_Curry_Lane.jpg
Took this picture about 30 years ago from a Sundowner.
We've got fewer trees now but the ones we have
are much larger.
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: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
At 05:38 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote:
>
>Im building a Rotax 912uls powered Kolb. The
>used engine I purchased has the stock Rotax
>charging system as well as a B & C SD-20/ LR3C
>backup system. I would like to insure I have
>proper over voltage protection on both systems.
>I see the LR3C claims to have over voltage
>crowbar protection but I see no listing of
>what voltage it considers too high. Anyone know
>where to find that info? Also, as I understand
>it there is no form of over voltage protection
>on the Rotax system. I assume this is where
>Bobs OVM-14 comes in and Ill be happy to
>add one. What voltage does the OVM-14 consider too high? Thanks,
Industry "rule of thumb" for OV protection in 14v systems
is 16.2 to 16.5 volts. This is the voltage setpoint I
designed into all of B&C's ov protection systems whether
built in or external. It's also the trip voltage setpoint
range for our OV protection products.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Time for a new PC 680 ? |
At 12:11 PM 8/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Here's a link with several embedded links on subject
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
>here's the chart:
>http://tinyurl.com/553kmu
Just finished unloading the car after returning
from our trip to Colorado Springs. Look back over the
past posts . . .
Understand that few alternative chargers will produce
recharge curves identical to that cited above. They've
got a few things in common.
Relatively constant charge to a top-off level on the
order of 14.5 to 15.0 volts.
Sustained operation at the top-off level until recharge
current drops below some arbitrary but low level on the
order of 100 mA . . . or perhaps simply based on time
like 2 hrs in top-off mode. It's not critical.
After that, output voltage goes down to some value just
above 13.0 volts indefinitely.
The Shumacher 1562 series devices have been tested
and found to be an exemplary value from Walmart
at about $20. A number of devices from Harbor Freight
have been looked and some were found inadequate to
the protocols cited above. The Battery Tender/Battery Minder
products are also good. But there are dozens of others
and I've not tested but a very few. Make it easy on yourself
Go get the Schumacher device (or any Schumacher smart product)
from Walmart.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: re: WAY off topic. |
Good Evening Bob,
Thanks much!
Looks like a great location but it appears that the local airport is a bit
under utilized.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/9/2009 9:36:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
209 Curry Lane
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
How do you calibrate fuel qty using a 10 - 75 ohm sender unit with a 0 -90 ohm
fuel gauge? in other words what's the best why to get the gauges to read accurately
near empty, which is more important then FULL. Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256888#256888
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
} I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common cause
} of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft... unrealistic
} expectations!
Unfortunately the situation is more annoying than that. There is usually
difficulty talking with the tower. Sometimes it is bad enough that clearance
has been denied. This is very inconvenient since it is the home base of this
aircraft :-(
> What, if any other accessories are operating on the
> airplane during this test. Try pulling all other breakers/
> fuses except radio/audio system to search out possible
> cause/effect on board the aircraft. In particular, make
> sure the alternator's regulator is not powered up.
There is little else electrical in the aircraft. We tried turning off the
transponder. There are no lights, fuel pump or even turn coordinator.
Switching off the alternator should also power off the regulator.
> Does the noise go away when you disconnect the antenna?
> Have you checked for presence of this noise while away
> from the field? The directional effects suggest possible
> local source on the ground.
The noise and the receive audio continue identically, not even a click as
the antenna is connected and disconnected. This baffles me.
The noise persists away from the airport. When calling up the tower from
10 miles out it is difficult to understand the controller. Sometimes the
controller also has trouble understanding the transmissions from the aircraft.
Changing the direction of the aircraft sometimes helps.
> This is one of Ed King's earliest crystal synthesized radios
> that came out about 1975 as I recall. Have you checked to see
> if this radio still qualifies under tightened frequency
> accuracy and receiver bandwidth requirements were levied for
> 8.33 Khz channel spacing?
The radio is 25KHz spacing, according to the little brochure that suffices
as the operation manual.
> Also, check performance at the top end of the comm frequency range with
> a remotely located hand held for weak signal. See if the problem is
> frequency sensitive.
Ground is 118.40, Tower is 120.10 and the ATIS is 125.67.
I haven't tried anything at the top end, but hopefully will get a chance
to do so this week when I check the antenna cables and antenna by patching
in a handheld.
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Buy a Cruz Pro gauge and calibrate is evey 1 gallon at the low end.
PW
==========
At 03:29 AM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>How do you calibrate fuel qty using a 10 - 75 ohm sender unit with
>a 0 -90 ohm fuel gauge? in other words what's the best why to get
>the gauges to read accurately near empty, which is more important
>then FULL. Thanks
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256888#256888
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: re: WAY off topic. |
At 11:34 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote:
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>Thanks much!
>
>Looks like a great location but it appears that the local airport is
>a bit under utilized.
Yeah . . . I got my first airplane ride off that
airport when I was about 4 or 5 years old. Dad
got his ticket in a J-3 on the GI bill.
They're making noises about a new airport for
M.L. seems like there's some bundle of our grandchildren's
money that's being handed out for some form of
stimulus or another. Problem with current location
is outcropping of gypsum laden dirt off north end
of the runway that disqualifies it for an instrument
approach. They're talking about a new facility
somewhere southeast.
Emacs!
The town of Pixley blew away in a tornado about 1940 or so and
was never rebuilt but it was never removed from the maps. Our
house is the little red dot in the upper left corner. Maybe
we can turn the old airport into an ultralight facility.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Radio Noise
Jeff,
I believe you said the radio was bench tested and found to be operational.
If this is the case, then from your description of the problem, it appears
that it is either the (1) antenna and/or cable, (2) power/ground wiring, or
(3) mike/speaker wiring.
If it is the antenna, you should be able to determine this by unpluging from
the radio and hook up to a portable radio for test.
If power/ground, this can be checked with a meter. (check the wiring
diagram to make sure that there are connections to all power and ground
points. Some devices have multiple power and ground wires)
If it is mike/speaker connection, this can be caused by using an incorrect
jack or miswiring, check carefully to see if jacks are the correct ones, are
wired correctly, and are isolated from ground at the mounting point.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: re: WAY off topic. |
At 11:59 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote:
>Good Evening Once again Bob,
>
>As near as I can tell the photo you provided is from the east
>looking west and you were paralleling North Cedar Street. Your
>property appears to be between Rosarian Avenue and Curry Lane with
>North Cedar Street on the west and Good? Street on the East. What
>happened to all of the industrial buildings to the east?
. . . no. The top of the photo is south. The building to
the southwest is the hospital where dad and mom spent their
last days. That hospital was built when I was in the second
grade. I think my sister was either #1 or #2 patient when
she developed a high fever. The street in front of the hospital
is Walnut. The houses to our east face Cedar. The only
large buildings close to that intersection will be the hospital
in our back yard and the catholic church about 1.5 blocks to n.e.
Google doesn't have our location right, we're up the
hill between Cedar and Walnut.
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: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
At 04:29 AM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>How do you calibrate fuel qty using a 10 - 75 ohm sender unit with
>a 0 -90 ohm fuel gauge? in other words what's the best why to get
>the gauges to read accurately near empty, which is more important
>then FULL. Thanks
The floats-on-a-swing-arm senders are
a legacy product from cars and other
vehicles that go back a very long way.
Making these things really accurate in more\
than one place is a bit fussy.
Years ago, we crafted an electronic signal
conditioning board for the Bonanzas and Barons
that allowed dead-on calibration of empty
and full. All other readings across the scale
simply fell where where the physics of the
sender dictates. The physics of these devices
are affected mildly by linearity of the wire
wound sensor resistor (usually within 5% of
true) but a whole lot by trigonometry of
the swing arm and tank geometry.
But as you've already recognized, the one
level you really want to be accurate is
the empty point. For this you can do some
things with series calibration resistors
and/or bending the float arm on the sender.
This CAN be a tedious, trial-by-error activity.
If it were my airplane, I'd probably craft
a microprocessor based signal conditioner
that would allow me to take readings at 5%
increments from empty to full and generate
a lookup table that converts as-installed
sender (transducer) readings into real
numbers. The BEST way to watch full levels
is with installation of a "dip stick" style
sensor at the low fuel warning level (generally
1/4 to 1/3 tank). Consider devices like this:
Emacs!
One of these stuck through the tank wall at
the warning level will light a lamp on the
panel at the desired fuel quantity with
no risk for drift of calibration. See:
http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282
This is the no-brainer, dead-nuts accurate
low liquid lever sensing method I know of.
Capacity fuel gages with processor augmentation
are also easy to calibrate . . . but I think
I could get by with no active fuel gaging
other than a set of optical level detectors
cited above.
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: | Pitot heaters . . . warn or not, that IS the question |
At 12:13 PM 8/8/2009, you wrote:
Bob..
The reason I asked is that I was looking at the events surrounding
Air France AF447 (A330) in mid atlantic.
I saw that AF and Airbus have been dinking around with pitot tubes,
and have been through three types (Rosemount, Goodrich, Thales
C16195AA so far, and were about to install the fourth type (Thales
C16195BA) just before the accident.
I was trying to envisage what can go wrong with a pitot tube...it's a
brutally simple device, and I came up with three scenarios:
1...Physical damage (Hail, catering trucks).
2...Insufficient heating.
3...Defective heaters.
As far as I can tell, there is no attempt made to monitor heater
performance, either by monitoring input power or by measuring
temperature., so I wondered if heating could be simply inadequate. I
came up blank when I tried to research the actual heater wattages.
Heating is almost never "inadequate" to the design
goals in place when the tube is originally installed
and qualified on that airplane. Problem is that
design goals and mother nature's ability to paste your
airplane with a layer of ice are not necessarily
in synch.
Incidentally...I believe that the primary causative factor was the
crew's decision (or non-decision??) to continue their planned flight
path despite the fact that it went directly through a monster
thunderstorm. The thing that is open to conjecture is the sequence
of events after that.
Hmmmm . . . The idea that an airplane becomes at
risk for unplanned arrival with the earth because
IAS/TAS values are suddenly "unknown" is a bit of
a stretch. But this assumes that some automatic flight
control system doesn't react and starts
fiddling with the airplane's configuration. In
the case I worked, the manufacturer wrote some specific
procedures for flying based on AOA in the rare cases
that airspeed becomes available. In any case, there
was no known risk that the event would occur during approach
to landing but even then, a landing using AOA and
windage corrected, GPS ground speed was quite possible
and practical.
If the heater is drawing current, then it's working
as designed. The Hawker-Beechcraft products nearly
all feature some form of heater current detection
to drive a light. This is spelled out as a requirement
in paragraph 1326 of both FAR Part 23 and Part 25
----------------------
Sec. 23.1326 Pitot heat indication systems.
If a flight instrument pitot heating system is installed to meet the
requirements specified in Sec. 23.1323(d), an indication system must be
provided to indicate to the flight crew when that pitot heating system is not
operating. The indication system must comply with the following requirements:
(a) The indication provided must incorporate an amber light that is in
clear view of a flightcrew member.
(b) The indication provided must be designed to alert the flight crew if
either of the following conditions exist:
(1) The pitot heating system is switched "off."
(2) The pitot heating system is switched "on" and any pitot tube heating
element is inoperative.
[Amdt. 23-49, 61 FR 5169, Feb. 9, 1996]
----------------------
If you'd like to include a similar system in your
heated pitot planning see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Failure_Detection_and_Annunciation.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | KLN 89B / 94 question |
From: | stephen coffey <n6812t(at)gmail.com> |
Good morning, all. I am almost done with the wiring harness for my
avionics. It is down to the last two connections for the
GPSAPR/ARM/ACTV annunciator. The install data is decent, but missing
clear references to a couple of connections. Imagine that. I'm
hoping someone here has done it before.
On this annunciator, there are 4 inputs:
ARM Annunciate. This has a clear match on pin 17 of connector 891. No problem.
ACTV annunciate. Same, but pin 18. No problem.
GPS APPR annunciate. There is NO connection listed anywhere in the
documentation for this. Anybody done it before?
Finally, there is the lighting. I'm 14V, so there is an input on the
KLN for 14V undimmed, which tells the GPS to dim. That part is easy.
That "dimmer" unit also needs some sort of bilevel output for the
annunciators, since the KLN itself doesn't have one. Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
Stephen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thomas <garythomas8708(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | overvoltage problem |
All,
-
I have a 601XL/Corvair with the standard William Wynne configuration.- I
have the John Deere alternator and regulator plus the PMOV overvoltage unit
from B&C.- I feel confident that I have it wired correctly since I would
get 12V when I switched on the master, and then 14V when I switched on the
alternator and started the engine.- Recently I noticed my battery had a
low charge, and the voltmeter showed a flat 12V, even with the engine runni
ng.
I had the battery recharged and load tested (it was fine), and I tested the
alternator (around 40V ac on the two wires that lead to the regulator).-
The two wires that came out of the regulator and connected to the B&C capa
citor were showing just 0.05V or so when I connected each of them separatel
y through a voltmeter to a ground.-Clearly a problem.
So I bypassed the entire overvoltage setup and connected these tabs dirrect
ly to the system bus.- Now I get 14V when the engine is running.
I am at a loss to figure out where the problem is.- I believe it must be
somewhere in the B&C overvoltage system, but don't know where.- Fuses are
all ok.
-
Any ideas?
-
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gautier, Thomas N (3266)" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 08/08/09 |
The Pythagorean theorem says that the line of sight distance between you and
the horizon is
D = sqrt(h^2 + 2hR)
Where h is your height above the ground and R is the radius of the Earth.
This assumes that the Earth is a perfect sphere and there are no mountains
or other stuff between you and the horizon. It's also the direct line of
sight, not distance over the ground (but close enough at the heights we
fly). Note that h, R and D all have the same units (feet, km, nm, etc).
Write this another way: D = sqrt(h) * sqrt(h+2R)
So, to a good approximation: D = sqrt(h) * sqrt(2R)
since h is generally puny compared to R = 3963 miles.
This gives the formula D = 89.03 sqrt(h) miles, if h is in miles or
D = 1.225 sqrt(h) miles, if h is in feet.
Nick Gautier
RV-10 fuselage
>
>
> From: "z747pilot" <z747pilot(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio noises
>
> Hey Flyers,
>
> A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of the
> antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give
> you a rough idea of your VHF range.
>
> Regards,
>
> z747pilot
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Two suggestions. If possible, find another aircraft with same model
radio, that you can swap yours into, and see how it performs.
Check your antenna cable thoroughly, substitute another cable and
antenna if possible. I had similar problems with old antenna cable that
turned out to have a cold solder joint for the shield on the radio end,
allowing lots of RF to leak back into the radio. New cable, problem gone.
If the radio has been bench checked with no problems, then the problem
has to be between the radio and the antenna, likely bad connection or no
connection.
One last long shot...turn coordinator or turn and bank are normally
wired directly to main bus to be always powered. If it has a noisy
motor, theoretically could be source even though nothing else is turned on.
Jeff Page wrote:
>
> } I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common
> cause
> } of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft...
> unrealistic
> } expectations!
>
> Unfortunately the situation is more annoying than that. There is usually
> difficulty talking with the tower. Sometimes it is bad enough that
> clearance
> has been denied. This is very inconvenient since it is the home base of
> this
> aircraft :-(
>
>> What, if any other accessories are operating on the
>> airplane during this test. Try pulling all other breakers/
>> fuses except radio/audio system to search out possible
>> cause/effect on board the aircraft. In particular, make
>> sure the alternator's regulator is not powered up.
>
> There is little else electrical in the aircraft. We tried turning off the
> transponder. There are no lights, fuel pump or even turn coordinator.
> Switching off the alternator should also power off the regulator.
>
>> Does the noise go away when you disconnect the antenna?
>> Have you checked for presence of this noise while away
>> from the field? The directional effects suggest possible
>> local source on the ground.
>
> The noise and the receive audio continue identically, not even a click as
> the antenna is connected and disconnected. This baffles me.
>
> The noise persists away from the airport. When calling up the tower from
> 10 miles out it is difficult to understand the controller. Sometimes the
> controller also has trouble understanding the transmissions from the
> aircraft.
> Changing the direction of the aircraft sometimes helps.
>
>> This is one of Ed King's earliest crystal synthesized radios
>> that came out about 1975 as I recall. Have you checked to see
>> if this radio still qualifies under tightened frequency
>> accuracy and receiver bandwidth requirements were levied for
>> 8.33 Khz channel spacing?
>
> The radio is 25KHz spacing, according to the little brochure that suffices
> as the operation manual.
>
>> Also, check performance at the top end of the comm frequency range with
>> a remotely located hand held for weak signal. See if the problem is
>> frequency sensitive.
>
> Ground is 118.40, Tower is 120.10 and the ATIS is 125.67.
> I haven't tried anything at the top end, but hopefully will get a chance
> to do so this week when I check the antenna cables and antenna by patching
> in a handheld.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitot heaters . . . warn or not, that IS the question |
Good Afternoon All,
The following passage was in a message to which 'Lectric Bob responded, but
I was not able to discern the author.
"Incidentally...I believe that the primary causative factor was the
crew's decision (or non-decision??) to continue their planned flight
path despite the fact that it went directly through a monster
thunderstorm. The thing that is open to conjecture is the sequence
of events after that."
I wish to respectfully disagree.
Staying out of severe weather is always a good idea, but airplanes have
been flying successfully through such extreme storms as long as we have been
flying IFR. As long as the crew has adequate instrumentation and the
requisite skills to use it the airplane will hang together. Back before we had
as
much deviation capability, airplanes were accidentally flown through
extreme hurricanes and even tornados. Some of the airplanes needed serious repair
following those excursions, but they did bring their payload safely back
to mother earth.
It is certainly wise to avoid those conditions, but the airplane will
handle it adequately even though it may be damaged and the passengers most
assuredly would not have a very pleasant ride.
I think you will find an effort by the applicable certification entities
to blame the crew for flight where they should not have been, but I think the
true story is that the crew either did not have the required
instrumentation available to them or that they were not properly trained in the
use of
what was available.
Blaming the weather is a cop out to avoid design or training
responsibility.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
LL22
Downers Grove, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Check this out |
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> I will confess to a strong possibility of prejudice based on my own
> experience growing up on a farm, but I don't understand the use of the word
> "orthogonal" in this context.
Orthogonal. The phenomena don't lie along the same line, although they
do cross. Being on a farm doesn't really drive inventiveness or the
tinkerer spirit; however, being on a farm often means that you need
more than you have.
I wouldn't buy my son a car when he turned 16. I could have, but I
wouldn't. Made him go buy what he could afford with money he earned
himself. Turned out to be a clunker (go figure). He drove it a year
before burning the clutch out and then letting it sit for several months
while he slowly figured out that he could fix it or walk. My son is
probably the only one in his graduating class that can pull an engine to
replace a clutch.
The boy still couldn't slop a hog, but he is much closer than before to
the attitude that would get his feet muddy.
> I understand and agree that growing up poor is
> a strong motivation to do things for ones self. I did run across an
> interesting book that I think is on the very subject Bob was talking about.
> I downloaded and read the free sample on my Kindle and will probably buy and
> read the book. As an aside, I have discovered the book reviews on Amazon.com
> to be a fascinating source of discovery. It's a little like wandering
> through a library and sampling books, but all from your own computer and
> with in many cases dozens of thoughtful reviews of the book. This particular
> book is SHOP CLASS AS SOULCRAFT by Matthew B. Crawford. I think Bob in
> particular would find it pertinent to his ideas. The link to the book is:
> http://tinyurl.com/nrybq5
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Check this out
>
>
>
> Terry Watson wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>> My suggestion about a very large contributing factor to this problem is
>>
> that
>
>> so few of us are raised on a farm or ranch anymore. Any farm kid learns
>>
> that
>
>> if something needs doing, you need to be able to do it; when something
>> breaks, you need to be able to fix it. To eat, you need to plant seeds and
>> assure their growth, or to be willing to slaughter an animal you have
>>
> known
>
>> all its life. I don't know how you translate this into an urban lifestyle
>> where we may be many layers away from the source of what we want or need,
>> but it's a great loss if we can't do it. Maybe it's just teaching kids the
>> joy of working with their head AND their hands at the same time, or the
>> satisfaction of playing with or living in or riding in or flying in
>> something they built with their own hands.
>>
>>
> Nawh, living on a farm is orthogonal. A child just has to grow up
> without being handed everything he wants. He has to learn to WANT
> things. Then he has to learn that things can be had from one's own hands.
>
> I grew up poor. Not Ethiopian starvation poor, but if I wanted a
> bicycle I had to learn to build it from spare parts that I got from
> castaways. I learned to build a bicycle from castaways. I'm no longer
> poor by any reasonable definition, but I still can't afford a certified
> airplane. If I want one, I have to learn to build it myself. We'll see
> in a year or so what sort of student I am.
>
>
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Check this out |
S. Ramirez wrote:
>
> What this says, Rick, is that once our business experts and leaders
> realize that a great country cannot be great without manufacturing,
> they will attempt to restart manufacturing, but we wont have
> qualified machinists and other similar craftsman/tradesmen to do it.
> We will have to import this technology and expertise, thus creating a
> whole new problem. Its too bad that our present leaders were and are
> trained in MBA schools to maximize this quarters bottom line and not
> tomorrows.
>
> Simon Ramirez
>
> Copyright 2009
>
Well, for the most part, those craftsmen were imported the first time.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Check this out |
What this says, Rick, is that once our business experts and leaders
realize that a great country cannot be great without manufacturing,
they will attempt to restart manufacturing, but we won't have
qualified machinists and other similar craftsman/tradesmen to do it.
We will have to import this technology and expertise, thus creating a
whole new problem. It's too bad that our present leaders were and are
trained in MBA schools to maximize this quarter's bottom line and not
tomorrow's.
Well, for the most part, those craftsmen were imported the first time.
Yes . . . but so were the consumers, entrepreneurs, science,
manufacturing resources and individuals with creativity. It
was communication (letters, books, news, ships) with the
outside world that provided conduits of both information
and willing/capable souls who perceived an opportunity.
Wherein opportunity meant freedom of interference in the
conduct of free-market bargains and protection of liberty.
The older I get, the more I've come to realize that
the most important ideas were embodied in the schools
courses for which I had the least interest - history.
This is largely because my teachers idea of useful
historical knowledge consisted of remembering what
people did what to whom and when. I understand now that
the history of ideas is critical to success. It is
insufficient to school the student in the specialties,
hand them a room full of tools and expect a spontaneous
flow of value-added activity.
Folks like Kelly Johnson, Chas. Kettering, David
Packard, John Fluke, et. als. were not just sharp
dudes with an idea. They knew the history of their
sphere of ideas. It's gong to be a much more difficult
than to simply import warm bodies with the technical
skills. Unless we re-create the environment under
which our mentors germinated, grew and prospered, it
won't matter how many techno-wiennies, or stone masons
we import.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | music input to intercom |
From: | "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> |
I finished the wiring harness for my PS 1000II, hooked it up and the intercom and
radio both seem to work good. The music input...not so good. When I plugged
in my Walkman (I know, I know, but my wife just gave it to me for my birthday,
it isn't being changed soon!) even with everything turned all the way up, I
could hardly hear the music. So I checked the circuit with the ohm meter between
music hi and music low and I get half a circuit - not a full short, just half.
I am using the shields for all the lo sides, connected them all together with
pigtails and then to ground at the intercom. Any ideas?
--------
Don McIntosh
Kitfox Series 7 under construction
Jabiru 3300
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257079#257079
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
It's voodoo I tell you . I just switched on the A210 and the bloody intercom is
working just fine now.Looks like it just needed a rest. Maybe it got a fright
as I was just about to start cutting wires and installing a separate intercom
[403] so thanks for all your help. cheers Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257086#257086
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Check this out |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, S. Ramirez wrote:
>> What this says, Rick, is that once our business experts and leaders
snip
>> that our present leaders were and are trained in MBA schools to maximize
>> this quarters bottom line and not tomorrows.
>
> How about instead of smacking around Joe CEO that we modify our
> country's business environment ? You know, like reducing corporate
> taxation since our country has the highest corporate tax rate in the
Our corporate tax rate encourages companies to make capital expenditures
instead of report large profits. Businesses are quite able to decide
whether they report a profit or not. They often give raises or bonuses
which count as expenses against profits, adjusting the tax bill down.
This leads to another noteworthy statistic - America CEO's are very highly
compensated.. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that the tax rate is only
part of the picture..
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: music input to intercom |
You have a stereo source feeding a monophonic input, so you need to combine
the L and R channel outputs of your Walkman into the single channel input.
Usually, a couple of resistors connected together will take care of this
(150 ohms will work). It's best to use a stereo jack and wire the resistors
to the back of it. One resistor to L, one to R and connect the free ends
together to the mono input of the intercom (using the appropriate cable).
Good Luck
Vern Little
www.vx-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:41 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: music input to intercom
>
>
> I finished the wiring harness for my PS 1000II, hooked it up and the
> intercom and radio both seem to work good. The music input...not so good.
> When I plugged in my Walkman (I know, I know, but my wife just gave it to
> me for my birthday, it isn't being changed soon!) even with everything
> turned all the way up, I could hardly hear the music. So I checked the
> circuit with the ohm meter between music hi and music low and I get half a
> circuit - not a full short, just half. I am using the shields for all the
> lo sides, connected them all together with pigtails and then to ground at
> the intercom. Any ideas?
>
> --------
> Don McIntosh
> Kitfox Series 7 under construction
> Jabiru 3300
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257079#257079
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
From: | "icrashrc" <icrashrc(at)aol.com> |
Bob,
Thanks, I'll get one of your over voltage modules on order. Any idea if the Rotax
charging system output voltage is adjustable?
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257095#257095
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Subject: | Voltage drop puzzle |
Hello All,
I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my project.
I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from the SD-8 during
normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit to tell me that
the relay is engaged.
While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage (the order
of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb being very
dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through 1N5400 diode that
is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the relay itself contribute
to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a circle around the bulb in
question. The circuit is installed as shown.
Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required when I
flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Firewall Forward
Galway Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "sonex293" <sonex293(at)gmail.com> |
I think you are on the right track by using a second radio connected into the aircraft's
antenna cable to compare reception and transmission. And even better
with a handheld, since you are also isolating the power side of things. Hang
in there, you'll get the problem worked out!
jpx(at)Qenesis.com wrote:
>
> I haven't tried anything at the top end, but hopefully will get a chance
> to do so this week when I check the antenna cables and antenna by patching
> in a handheld.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
--------
Michael Crowder
Jabiru 3300A w/ Hyd Lifters
AeroCarb w/ #3 needle
Sonex N293SX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257118#257118
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
> Hello All,
>
> I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my
> project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from
> the SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit
> to tell me that the relay is engaged.
>
> While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage
> (the order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb
> being very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through
> 1N5400 diode that is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the
> relay itself contribute to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a
> circle around the bulb in question. The circuit is installed as shown.
>
> Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required
> when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew Butler,
> RV7 EI-EEO
> Firewall Forward
> Galway Ireland.
As drawn, you have the bulb in series with the coil - a voltage divider.
This probably isn't a very good thing as the series resistance of the bulb
is reducing the current through the coil which will reduce the turn-on
margin on the relay. If the bus voltage drops, you might not be able to
get the relay to close. Once closed, it will probably stay there until
the controlling switch is opened - which is fine.
It seems like it's not a good idea to insert anything in the circuit to
the coil. If you wanted to monitor the position of the switch you could
select a double pole (DPST) switch to control the relay and wire the lamp
through the extra pole.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
Having just stared at it a while, I realise that I need to take the unreliable
bulb out of the circuit. Any suggestions on how I could wire one in to tell me
whether or not the circuit is live?
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009 1:16:11 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hello All,
I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my project.
I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from the SD-8 during
normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit to tell me that
the relay is engaged.
While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage (the order
of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb being very
dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through 1N5400 diode that
is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the relay itself contribute
to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a circle around the bulb in
question. The circuit is installed as shown.
Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required when I
flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Firewall Forward
Galway Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Voltage drop puzzle |
Hi there,
I think that the voltage drop through the relay is the problem. Maybe
change the aux power switch to a 2 pole one (a 2-3) and then wire the second
pole with a 'clean' 12V from the 'upstream' side of the relay - say from the
same terminal as where the yellow wire of the OV crowbar goes to; then
through the switch and via the light to ground.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: 11 August 2009 02:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hello All,
I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my
project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from the
SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit to
tell me that the relay is engaged.
While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage (the
order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb being
very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through 1N5400
diode that is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the relay
itself contribute to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a circle
around the bulb in question. The circuit is installed as shown.
Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required
when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Firewall Forward
Galway Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
Thanks Matt. My own bulb went off in my head while thinking on it a bit more and
figured just that about the DPST switch.
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009 2:50:42 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
> Hello All,
>
> I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my
> project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from
> the SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit
> to tell me that the relay is engaged.
>
> While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage
> (the order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb
> being very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through
> 1N5400 diode that is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the
> relay itself contribute to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a
> circle around the bulb in question. The circuit is installed as shown.
>
> Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required
> when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew Butler,
> RV7 EI-EEO
> Firewall Forward
> Galway Ireland.
As drawn, you have the bulb in series with the coil - a voltage divider.
This probably isn't a very good thing as the series resistance of the bulb
is reducing the current through the coil which will reduce the turn-on
margin on the relay. If the bus voltage drops, you might not be able to
get the relay to close. Once closed, it will probably stay there until
the controlling switch is opened - which is fine.
It seems like it's not a good idea to insert anything in the circuit to
the coil. If you wanted to monitor the position of the switch you could
select a double pole (DPST) switch to control the relay and wire the lamp
through the extra pole.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Voltage drop puzzle |
Matt wrote: << If you wanted to monitor the position of the switch you
could
select a double pole (DPST) switch to control the relay and wire the lamp
through the extra pole. >>
It would be a weak design goal to know the position of the switch. A better
goal would be to know the position of the relay. A still better goal would
be to know the function the relay controled was working. Lectric Bob has
presented an inexpensive and elegant solution to the best design goal here.
In a recent thread with the subject: Pitot heaters . . . warn or not, that
IS the question, bob posted his solution on the web at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Failure_Detection_and_Annunciation.pdf
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
At 02:35 AM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks, I'll get one of your over voltage modules on order. Any idea
>if the Rotax charging system output voltage is adjustable?
I don't believe it is. I'd like to find the time
someday to craft a really modern rectifier/regulator
that contains built in OV protection and adjustable
regulation set point. I've got too many irons in
the fire . . .
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> |
>
>
>
>
>You know, aviation is a way for me to escape politics and have fun. Can we
>please get off this now. Nobody has ever had their mind changed by a
>politics thread on the Internet.
>
>Let's get back to electrical issues in our planes and leave this other stuff
>for the talk shows.
There's a difference between "politics" and observation,
study, discussion and observation of conditions that have
a direct influence upon our ability to "escape politics
and have fun". This is a good example of why we should
be wary of "thread creep" in the subject line of our
discussions. I'm sure no one on the List wants you to
stumble into discussions that do not align with your personal
participation goals for the List.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
Thanks Jay,
What about if using the 2-3 switch I connected the light to the live terminal on
the capacitor? That would allow me to test the relay in pre-flight by engaging
the switch (and checking for illumination) while also allowing me to monitor
that I have flipped the switch during flight........
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009 3:25:39 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hi there,
I think that the voltage drop through the relay is the problem. Maybe
change the aux power switch to a 2 pole one (a 2-3) and then wire the second
pole with a 'clean' 12V from the 'upstream' side of the relay - say from the
same terminal as where the yellow wire of the OV crowbar goes to; then
through the switch and via the light to ground.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: 11 August 2009 02:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hello All,
I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my
project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from the
SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit to
tell me that the relay is engaged.
While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage (the
order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb being
very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through 1N5400
diode that is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the relay
itself contribute to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a circle
around the bulb in question. The circuit is installed as shown.
Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required
when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Firewall Forward
Galway Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
At 07:16 AM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on
>my project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the
>feed from the SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb
>in this circuit to tell me that the relay is engaged.
>
>While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower
>voltage (the order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to
>this by the bulb being very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should
>have a drop through 1N5400 diode that is in the circuit, but surely
>not that much? Does the relay itself contribute to the drop aswell?
>Attached is the diagram with a circle around the bulb in question.
>The circuit is installed as shown.
>
>Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as
>required when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
I'm surprised that the relay still pulls in but
that's a function of bulb size. As others have noted
you have the bulb wired incorrectly for the purpose
of showing that the relay is "closed". Wired as shown,
it only says that the relay coil has some current flowing
through it . . . but does not speak to actual connection
(or functionality) of the alternator.
Further, for you lamp to function as a "relay energized"
notification, the bulb needs to be in PARALLEL with the
relay coil, not series.
May I suggest that your active notification of low voltage
is a much better way to report condition of the WHOLE alternator
system? The fact that you KNOW the relay is energized
is not very informative. There are lots of things that
could cause alternator output to be inadequate or
completely missing. The fact that bus voltage is too
low to avoid discharging the battery (13.0) is the
DEFINITIVE indicator of alternator performance.
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 06:59 AM 8/8/2009, you wrote:
>Is there a method to test an ignition coil and ECM? I thought the
>answer might lie with the electric gurus. Randy R.
Are there no instructions with the system? What
are the symptoms that lead you to believe that
testing is needed?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle |
switch starting
At 09:58 AM 8/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > I do have one big question that came up while I was copying the
> mag drawings from Z-20. The right mag is shown wired to the switch
> differently than the left. I don't know why it is shown like that.
>
>
>Mystery solved. Ian sent me a version "L" of Z-20, which shows the
>mag switch wires being identical. I looked through both the rev. 12
>and PPS on Bob's site and it showed "K" as the current version of
>the PDF. But then I went to the .dwg files and sure enough, there
>was version "L".
I don't have the older version on my laptop but
I would guess that while the two switches may have
be reversed in their connection, the system would
still have performed as advertised. The ignition
switch needs only to provide continuity to disable
the magneto when in the "IGNITION OFF" position.
Flipping the wires around on the switch wouldn't
make an operational difference.
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: | Voltage drop puzzle |
Hey there Andrew,
That would work fine- remember though that all you really are indicating is
that the pole on the switch is working :-) Hopefully the other pole is
working as well...
The LV monitoring that Bob describes is also a good idea- normally this is
part of the Z13/8 circuit and perhaps you plan to include it in any case.
On the Sling I used the MGL EFIS to monitor the voltage; you can set an
alarm that can also give you a digital output to switch something. If you
are using an EFIS perhaps it has similar features? If not I would use the
LV warning cct and light.
Another idea is to reverse the wiring for the S704-1 relay and use the
normally closed contact to illuminate a light when the relay is de-energised
(see the attached diagram); to my mind this also tells you that the dynamo
is producing a voltage when it's not in use.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: 11 August 2009 05:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Thanks Jay,
What about if using the 2-3 switch I connected the light to the live
terminal on the capacitor? That would allow me to test the relay in
pre-flight by engaging the switch (and checking for illumination) while also
allowing me to monitor that I have flipped the switch during flight........
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009 3:25:39 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hi there,
I think that the voltage drop through the relay is the problem. Maybe
change the aux power switch to a 2 pole one (a 2-3) and then wire the second
pole with a 'clean' 12V from the 'upstream' side of the relay - say from the
same terminal as where the yellow wire of the OV crowbar goes to; then
through the switch and via the light to ground.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: 11 August 2009 02:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Voltage drop puzzle
Hello All,
I have more or less finished my wiring. I have impelemented Z13/8 on my
project. I have a switch to engage the relay that isolates the feed from the
SD-8 during normal operations. I have installed a bulb in this circuit to
tell me that the relay is engaged.
While I have 12V plus on my main bus, I am getting a much lower voltage (the
order of 4 volts) through the bulb (I was alerted to this by the bulb being
very dim). Why is this? Sure enough I should have a drop through 1N5400
diode that is in the circuit, but surely not that much? Does the relay
itself contribute to the drop aswell? Attached is the diagram with a circle
around the bulb in question. The circuit is installed as shown.
Is this even a problem? The relay engages to the NO position as required
when I flip the switch (number 12) and stays there.
Best regards,
Andrew Butler,
RV7 EI-EEO
Firewall Forward
Galway Ireland.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Re: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and toggle |
switch starting
Bob, I think that you issued the newer version because in the older version
one switch earthed/ grounded the one magneto in the on position...
(in South Africa we tend to use the word 'earth' as opposed to 'ground'-
helps to explain why there is no electricity on the moon- 's because there's
no earth! :-) )
-----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: 11 August 2009 05:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Magneto Wiring with 2-50 switches and
toggle switch starting
At 09:58 AM 8/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > I do have one big question that came up while I was copying the
> mag drawings from Z-20. The right mag is shown wired to the switch
> differently than the left. I don't know why it is shown like that.
>
>
>Mystery solved. Ian sent me a version "L" of Z-20, which shows the
>mag switch wires being identical. I looked through both the rev. 12
>and PPS on Bob's site and it showed "K" as the current version of
>the PDF. But then I went to the .dwg files and sure enough, there
>was version "L".
I don't have the older version on my laptop but
I would guess that while the two switches may have
be reversed in their connection, the system would
still have performed as advertised. The ignition
switch needs only to provide continuity to disable
the magneto when in the "IGNITION OFF" position.
Flipping the wires around on the switch wouldn't
make an operational difference.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
Not criticizing your keen observation at all. Just lamenting where the
conversation went after that.
There are a million places to get people's opinions on Obama or the
government's tax policy. But there's only one place to get Bob Nuckholls'
excellent advice (and observations).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Check this out
-->
>
>
>
>
>You know, aviation is a way for me to escape politics and have fun. Can
>we please get off this now. Nobody has ever had their mind changed by a
>politics thread on the Internet.
>
>Let's get back to electrical issues in our planes and leave this other
>stuff for the talk shows.
There's a difference between "politics" and observation,
study, discussion and observation of conditions that have
a direct influence upon our ability to "escape politics
and have fun". This is a good example of why we should
be wary of "thread creep" in the subject line of our
discussions. I'm sure no one on the List wants you to
stumble into discussions that do not align with your personal
participation goals for the List.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
> Two suggestions. If possible, find another aircraft with same model
> radio, that you can swap yours into, and see how it performs.
The owner of the aircraft is going to ask the avionics shop if they have
another we can test with. I am not hopeful.
> Check your antenna cable thoroughly, substitute another cable and
> antenna if possible.
The owner spent $1000 to have another antenna and cable installed on the
aircraft. All but the soldered on pigtail cable at the radio rack was
installed new. The pigtail was examined and a poor solder joint redone.
I plan to make a patch cable that we can use to connect a handheld right
to the jack in the radio rack to test all of it. Something is truly weird,
since connecting and disconnecting the antenna makes no difference at all
in the reception.
> turn coordinator or turn and bank are normally wired directly to main
> bus to be always powered.
Such as basic panel that there are no electrical devices like this in the
plane.
> I believe you said the radio was bench tested and found to be operational.
> If this is the case, then from your description of the problem, it appears
> that it is either the (1) antenna and/or cable, (2) power/ground wiring, or
> (3) mike/speaker wiring.
I am following up on the antenna cable first, since disconnecting it has no
effect at all, which seems very strange. We isolated the headset jacks at
the panel the other day without improvement. If we are unable to solve the
problem from the antenna side of it, it will probably be faster to just
rewire the plane than to try to follow all the old wires to see if they are
connected to the right place.
Thanks for everyone's suggestions.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You want another aircraft with the same model radio that works okay.
NOT to test his radio in your aircraft, but to test YOUR radio in his
airplane. Completely eliminates any install issues with your aircraft
and isolates on the radio itself. If behavior goes away in second
airplane, the problem is your install. If not, it is your radio.
Jeff Page wrote:
>
>> Two suggestions. If possible, find another aircraft with same model
>> radio, that you can swap yours into, and see how it performs.
>
> The owner of the aircraft is going to ask the avionics shop if they have
> another we can test with. I am not hopeful.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Hi Bobs
"Any idea f the Rotax charging system output
voltage is adjustable?'
"I don't believe it is."
I mentioned this in the past (Bob I think you said it has a
good chance of doing as advertised),I read a post in the Europa
newsgroup how one can increase setpoint on Ducati regulator (others as
well). I plan to do this as Ducati factory setpoint is lower thanI
would like for PC545 Odyssey.
Below is the post from Europa
newsgroup, havn't tried it yet though.
Ron Parigoris
"I also have that Ducati-thing on the other
alternator. Guess I have to
put a diode in series with its sense lead to
crank up the voltage
somewhat."
Good idea to increase setpoint if you can. Where
exactly would you put
diode in circuit? What value diode?
Most regulators have multiple 12 Volt connection
points. So does the
Ducati regulator. One of these 12 Volt points (the one labeled 'C') has
the sole purpose of measuring the voltage. You can connect this directly
to the adjacent connector (B, or R, which carries the actual output) as
is often done, so it measures its own output, but a more correct way is
to connect it directly to the battery, so that any voltage drop over the
feeder cable is corrected. Suppose you want to have a voltage over the
battery of 13.7 Volts, and the cables have a loss of 0.5 Volt, then
connected in this way the regulator will crank up the voltage until it
sees 13.7 Volts at the battery, i.e. it will output 14.2 Volts to
correct the voltage drop over the main cable. Ok, I guess almost nobody
does this as most people don't know about it. BTW, The regulator for the
SD20S alternator has a similar option.
You can however do more with this if you are creative. A standard diode,
like a 1N400x, has a forward voltage drop of about 0.6 / 0.7 Volts. So,
if you put this diode in series with the wire connected to the C, the
regulator will see 0.7 Volts less than the actual voltage. It will
therefor output more to correct for this condition. With other words,
the output will increase with 0.7 Volts.
The diode will not carry any significant current, any rating will
suffice. You could put multiple diodes in series if you want to have a
multiple of 0.7 Volts. A Skottky diode has a forward drop of about 0.2
Volts. You can also use a resistor divider to increase the output with
any value, but keep in mind that a resistor also divides the voltage
fluctuations while a diode is absolute, so using a resistor divider is
somewhat less stable. Another trick is to use a temperature sensitive
resistor, so the regulator will adjust the voltage according to the
temperature, something that is highly appreciated by the battery.
--
Frans Veldman
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> } I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common cause
> } of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft... unrealistic
> } expectations!
>
I think he suffers from an equipment or installation problem.
I have owned and flown several OBAM aircraft and they all have crystal clear reception
and transmission over a good distance.
Keep troubleshooting till it works as it should.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257272#257272
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim McBurney <jmcburney(at)pobox.com> |
Hi, Jeff,
Is the radio's rf connector making contact with the jack in the rack?
Hard to check, but rather important.
Blue skies and tailwinds to all
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
90% done 120% left
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Bob,
These fuel sensors are a great idea. I wish I had seen them while
building. I could have installed three of them in the wing root of each tank
-
one at "wing root full," one at "wing root half," and one at "wing root"
empty (maybe two gal remaining). They would have been easy to calibrate and
label on the panel. Then I would know exactly the fuel remaining at those
levels.
The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the AF-3400 EM
do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they still fluctuate
between full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full and fluctuate wildly when less
than full. Perhaps I've done something wrong in the calibration - I know
most errors are installation or operator errors - but, I tried to follow
the AF-3400 instructions accurately.
Anyway, I may try to retro fit the Gem sensors.
Stan Sutterfield
http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282
This is the no-brainer, dead-nuts accurate
low liquid lever sensing method I know of.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
At 11:41 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Bobs
>
>"Any idea f the Rotax charging system output voltage is adjustable?'
>
>"I don't believe it is."
>
>I mentioned this in the past (Bob I think you said it has a good
>chance of doing as advertised), I read a post in the Europa
>newsgroup how one can increase setpoint on Ducati regulator (others
>as well). I plan to do this as Ducati factory setpoint is lower than
>I would like for PC545 Odyssey.
>
>Below is the post from Europa newsgroup, havn't tried it yet though.
> A standard diode,
> like a 1N400x, has a forward voltage drop of about 0.6 / 0.7 Volts. So,
> if you put this diode in series with the wire connected to the C, the
> regulator will see 0.7 Volts less than the actual voltage. It will
> therefor output more to correct for this condition. With other words,
> the output will increase with 0.7 Volts.
That's a pretty standard work-around for boosting
the setpoint on an unadjustable regulator. This must
be applied with caution on some regulators. For example,
if the diode were used to jack up the voltage on an
regulator wound-field alternator, where field supply
and voltage sense wires share the path. Adding external
components in shared lines can contribute to or cause
regulation instability.
When it is known that the sense line current is low
(100 ma or less) then adding diodes or even series
resistors to adjust the setpoint upward is often quite
successful.
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: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
At 11:32 AM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>These fuel sensors are a great idea. I wish I had seen them while
>building. I could have installed three of them in the wing root of
>each tank - one at "wing root full," one at "wing root half," and
>one at "wing root" empty (maybe two gal remaining). They would have
>been easy to calibrate and label on the panel. Then I would know
>exactly the fuel remaining at those levels.
>The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the
>AF-3400 EM do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they still
>fluctuate between full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full and
>fluctuate wildly when less than full. Perhaps I've done something
>wrong in the calibration - I know most errors are installation or
>operator errors - but, I tried to follow the AF-3400 instructions accurately.
>Anyway, I may try to retro fit the Gem sensors.
I'm sorry to hear that the capacity sensors are
not performing for you. I presume you've already
had discussions with the factory. These SHOULD be
pretty stable. There are design issues with respect
to variable dielectric constant of the fuel. But
this is a calibration error, not a dynamic level
sensing problem.
I've been fiddling with a processor based capacity
gaging amplifier for a TC application. Having a
micro-controller in the system opens a lot of interesting
doors including calibrating to the as-installed
sensor and tank combination and compensating for
temperature and dielectric constant as well.
Depending on what I learn with this program, I may
have a similarly agile capacity fuel gage amplifier
product to offer. However, even if our latest-n-greatest
gage makes it to production, it will still be augmented
with electro-optic, dip-sticks for absolute low-liquid
warning. I did the first such sensors to find their
way onto Beech products about 1980.
http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html
They've now been produced in dozens of configurations
and tens of thousands of fielded product. One of
my more prolific brainstorms.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
In my past life we used 3 fixed point ultrasonic sensors on the
bottom of the rocket tanks. It took 3 to overcome the slosh issues.
IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each time
fuel is added. It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has
to remember how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many
homebuilts use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
Paul
================
>At 11:32 AM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>>Bob,
>>These fuel sensors are a great idea. I wish I had seen them while
>>building. I could have installed three of them in the wing root of
>>each tank - one at "wing root full," one at "wing root half," and
>>one at "wing root" empty (maybe two gal remaining). They would
>>have been easy to calibrate and label on the panel. Then I would
>>know exactly the fuel remaining at those levels.
>>The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the
>>AF-3400 EM do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they
>>still fluctuate between full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full
>>and fluctuate wildly when less than full. Perhaps I've done
>>something wrong in the calibration - I know most errors are
>>installation or operator errors - but, I tried to follow the
>>AF-3400 instructions accurately.
>>Anyway, I may try to retro fit the Gem sensors.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that the capacity sensors are
> not performing for you. I presume you've already
> had discussions with the factory. These SHOULD be
> pretty stable. There are design issues with respect
> to variable dielectric constant of the fuel. But
> this is a calibration error, not a dynamic level
> sensing problem.
>
> I've been fiddling with a processor based capacity
> gaging amplifier for a TC application. Having a
> micro-controller in the system opens a lot of interesting
> doors including calibrating to the as-installed
> sensor and tank combination and compensating for
> temperature and dielectric constant as well.
>
> Depending on what I learn with this program, I may
> have a similarly agile capacity fuel gage amplifier
> product to offer. However, even if our latest-n-greatest
> gage makes it to production, it will still be augmented
> with electro-optic, dip-sticks for absolute low-liquid
> warning. I did the first such sensors to find their
> way onto Beech products about 1980.
>
>http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html
>
> They've now been produced in dozens of configurations
> and tens of thousands of fielded product. One of
> my more prolific brainstorms.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
I have the Princeton capacitance sensors in my Lancair. I have not yet
calbrated them, but I would be very shocked if the fuel slosh didn=92t
cause a
lot of errors. The sensors are about 6 feet long and must be no more
than
20 degrees off of horizontal. Fuel sloshing would move a great distance
up
and down the tubes. I have them in there because FAA says I need a fuel
guage. I will check the level visually before each flight and refill
when I
should be at =BC to =BD tank. Reguardless of what the fuel gage says!
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
At 11:32 AM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
These fuel sensors are a great idea. I wish I had seen them while
building.
I could have installed three of them in the wing root of each tank - one
at
"wing root full," one at "wing root half," and one at "wing root" empty
(maybe two gal remaining). They would have been easy to calibrate and
label
on the panel. Then I would know exactly the fuel remaining at those
levels.
The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the AF-3400
EM
do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they still fluctuate
between
full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full and fluctuate wildly when
less
than full. Perhaps I've done something wrong in the calibration - I
know
most errors are installation or operator errors - but, I tried to follow
the
AF-3400 instructions accurately.
Anyway, I may try to retro fit the Gem sensors.
I'm sorry to hear that the capacity sensors are
not performing for you. I presume you've already
had discussions with the factory. These SHOULD be
pretty stable. There are design issues with respect
to variable dielectric constant of the fuel. But
this is a calibration error, not a dynamic level
sensing problem.
I've been fiddling with a processor based capacity
gaging amplifier for a TC application. Having a
micro-controller in the system opens a lot of interesting
doors including calibrating to the as-installed
sensor and tank combination and compensating for
temperature and dielectric constant as well.
Depending on what I learn with this program, I may
have a similarly agile capacity fuel gage amplifier
product to offer. However, even if our latest-n-greatest
gage makes it to production, it will still be augmented
with electro-optic, dip-sticks for absolute low-liquid
warning. I did the first such sensors to find their
way onto Beech products about 1980.
http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html
They've now been produced in dozens of configurations
and tens of thousands of fielded product. One of
my more prolific brainstorms.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "viewers" <andyhelpdesk(at)guinea.cc> |
Trying to boot from USB
Using step by step info from
http://bambukawiki.net/index.php?title=Usb_boot
The question is add my USB boot stick as and additional option to OS choose text
menu at PC startup
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257381#257381
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and
electrically:
- A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and
out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't
include this.
- A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in
response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly
surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.
Regards,
Matt-
> I have the Princeton capacitance sensors in my Lancair. I have not yet
> calbrated them, but I would be very shocked if the fuel slosh didnt cause
> a
> lot of errors. The sensors are about 6 feet long and must be no more than
> 20 degrees off of horizontal. Fuel sloshing would move a great distance
> up
> and down the tubes. I have them in there because FAA says I need a fuel
> guage. I will check the level visually before each flight and refill when
> I
> should be at to tank. Reguardless of what the fuel gage says!
>
>
> Bill B
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
>
> At 11:32 AM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
> These fuel sensors are a great idea. I wish I had seen them while
> building.
> I could have installed three of them in the wing root of each tank - one
> at
> "wing root full," one at "wing root half," and one at "wing root" empty
> (maybe two gal remaining). They would have been easy to calibrate and
> label
> on the panel. Then I would know exactly the fuel remaining at those
> levels.
> The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the AF-3400 EM
> do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they still fluctuate
> between
> full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full and fluctuate wildly when less
> than full. Perhaps I've done something wrong in the calibration - I know
> most errors are installation or operator errors - but, I tried to follow
> the
> AF-3400 instructions accurately.
> Anyway, I may try to retro fit the Gem sensors.
>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that the capacity sensors are
> not performing for you. I presume you've already
> had discussions with the factory. These SHOULD be
> pretty stable. There are design issues with respect
> to variable dielectric constant of the fuel. But
> this is a calibration error, not a dynamic level
> sensing problem.
>
> I've been fiddling with a processor based capacity
> gaging amplifier for a TC application. Having a
> micro-controller in the system opens a lot of interesting
> doors including calibrating to the as-installed
> sensor and tank combination and compensating for
> temperature and dielectric constant as well.
>
> Depending on what I learn with this program, I may
> have a similarly agile capacity fuel gage amplifier
> product to offer. However, even if our latest-n-greatest
> gage makes it to production, it will still be augmented
> with electro-optic, dip-sticks for absolute low-liquid
> warning. I did the first such sensors to find their
> way onto Beech products about 1980.
>
> http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html
>
> They've now been produced in dozens of configurations
> and tens of thousands of fielded product. One of
> my more prolific brainstorms.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z schematics? |
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello :-)
I am in the process of making my schematic for a Jab 3300. If I go with a master
contactor, I may base it on Z-21 and if not, Z-20. While looking at these two,
I noticed there were different ways to wire the alternator OV disconnect relay.
And I found a 3rd way done in Z-16.
Below are listed my summaries of what the differences are. I'd like to understand
why they are done this way, what the pros and cons are, and if I've misunderstood
anything.
Z-16 (with a battery contactor) has one of the alternator leads connected to the
com of the alt disconnect relay and the other to the regulator. The N.O. lead
of the relay then goes to the regulator. So when the relay is closed, both leads
of the alternator go to the regulator. When the relay is open, still one
of the leads from the alternator is connected to the regulator. But because it's
AC, and the alternator is not grounded, there is no return path, thus no current
put out to the regulator.
Z-20 (without a battery contactor) has both alt leads going to the regulator first,
then to the N.O. pole of the alt relay. The crowbar OVM is connected to the
#4 pole of the master switch, as it is in Z-16.
Z-21(with a battery contactor) has both alternator leads going through the regulator,
as in Z-20, but then goes to the com pole of the alt disconnect relay.
The relay also has the crowbar OVM connected across its coil and not to the master
switch.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257434#257434
________________________________________________________________________________
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: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Luigi,
The pilot microphone must connect to Molex pin "J" for the transmitter to operate.
When switching to intercom, both microphones connect to "K"
It is possible to leave the pilot microphone also connected to "J" as well.
You might also check the pin "J" is connecting to the correct terminal on the 3-connection
microphone jack, and not the ptt connection instead.
The headset microphone must be amplified dynamic or amplified electret type. most
GA headsets are this type. Some have the amplifier inside the mic housing,
some have it inside the earcup.
Hope that helps.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257443#257443
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Re: Radio Noise |
> Is the radio's rf connector making contact with the jack in the rack?
> Hard to check, but rather important.
This is definitely a point we are suspicious of. Unfortunately, the
connector is rivetted to the frame, so we can't easily take it out to
either test it or replace it. We might have to though.
Yesterday we patched the handheld to the antenna connector in the rack
and it worked perfectly, so the antenna and all cabling is good.
We looked at the wiring to the connector at the back of the radio. Without
tracing every wire, things looked reasonable.
Curiously, there is a 10watt 4 ohm wirewound resistor connected from the
speaker output to ground. There is no speaker in the aircraft, only
headsets. It appeared like the connection to the radio was intermittent.
Does this radio really need a speaker load if no speaker is installed ?
Without it, could the amplifier section add a lot of noise ?
Yesterday we were distracted with a stuck mic problem. It turned out to
be a sticky switch. I was truly amazed at how patient the controller was
considering he was unable to talk to aircraft in the circuit for up to
30 seconds at a time. After it happened the third time, he politely
requested the aircraft head back to the hangar.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Voltage drop puzzle |
From: | "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
What is the purpose of the diode connected to the over voltage relay coil? It
appears that the intent is to raise the trip voltage by 0.7 volts, for instance
from 16 to 16.7 volts. If the purpose of the diode is for arc suppression,
then the diode should be connected in parallel with the coil, not in series.
Also, the 1A fuse inside of the red circle will blow before the 2A circuit breaker
will trip. The Fuse should be removed from the circuit.
After shutdown, leaving the Aux Power switch on will drain the battery.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257466#257466
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Matt Prather wrote:
>
> Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and
> electrically:
>
> - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and
> out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't
> include this.
>
> - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in
> response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly
> surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.
>
>
And the sensor should be located near the center of the tank putting it
in the middle of where the sloshing "see-saws".
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 |
Bill and Matt,
I, too, visually check the fuel quantity as always, but it is nice to have
some reasonably accurate indication of fuel quantity in the cockpit while
flying. My AF-3400EM records fuel flow, quantity used/remaining, etc., and
it is also a reference tool for decision making.
The Princeton sensors for the RV are very short and they fit vertically at
the wing root. So, the sloshing error should be minimized as compared to
the Lancair version. There is also a dampening built into the sensor
circuit to help eliminate the sloshing error. So, the sloshing error is largely
mitigated. The problem I've had is getting the Princeton sensors to send
consistent signals to the AF-3400 engine monitor. I calibrated the sensors
seven times by draining the tanks and adding measured 2 gallon increments
to each tank. After each addition, I let the fuel settle down before
taking the reading being sent to the engine monitor and entering the reading
into the engine monitor non-volatile memory. Above about 12 gallons, all
readings are the same because the fuel level is above the top of the sensor.
The problem I'm having is that the sensor is sending signals to the EM that
are up and down the scale. The EM is simply displaying the quantity it
recognizes in relation to the calibration entries. I am convinced the
problem lies with the Princeton sensors. Yes, I've talked to the manufacturer
and he says, "It should work. Try calibrating again."
The fuel sensors are mounted in the wing root and, thus, are difficult to
get to for removal and replacement. So, I'm not excited about pulling out
the current ones and replacing them - too much Pro-Seal.
I'm going to burn the tanks down some more and dip check the tanks and see
how the readings compare.
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and
electrically:
- A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and
out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't
include this.
Me too. Over the years I've seen both mechanical and
electrical approaches to slosh management. Long sensors
can be mounted inside a tube that has a tiny hole at
each end to restrict rate of flow into and out of the
tube. The sensor he described may already have such
restrictions.
On the single engine Cessna's about '64 we looked at
"lubricating" the pivots on the fuel gages (automotive
moving magnets driven by rheostats with swing-arm-floats)
with 30,000 centistoke silicone oil. The smallest droplet
of this oil injected to the pivot bearing attenuated
sloshing response to a very low value.
- A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in
response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly
surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.
Yeah, the one I'm working with now filters the slosh
in software. The guys are playing with several filtering
philosophies. The most attractive is a simple running
average of 200 readings taken 10 times a second.
The B52 had capacity fuel gages in it when I was
working on them in '61. They were vacuum tube amplifier
driven servo motors that kept an LRC bridge balanced.
The servo motor also drove a potentiometer that produced
the output signal for the panel instrument. I recall
the instructor stating that the servo motor was
deliberately designed to be slow. Full scale response
time was on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. Exceedingly
unresponsive to slosh.
Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical
swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3
with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from
which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems
were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately
readable was on the ground.
The first moves for embarking upon a new
design for a fuel gaging system is to get the HISTORY.
An excellent source are patents. Freepatentsonline.com is
but one of several libraries of ideas good, bad, and
ugly that go back over 100 years. I've looked at
hundreds of such patents on liquid level measurement.
There are no excuses these days for not meeting design
goals that move the best-we-know-how-to-do forward. There's
also no excuse for any system designed in the past 40
years not to provide a level of functionality commensurate
with what they cost.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Any chance of a bad ground or some other noise working its way into the
system? It doesn't sound like sloshing error, and maybe not a sensor
problem - though I don't know enough to rule that out. It also doesn't
sound like a calibration problem. I would stop calibrating as I don't
think it will fix the problem (until you fix the real problem). :)
Matt-
> Bill and Matt,
>
> I, too, visually check the fuel quantity as always, but it is nice to have
> some reasonably accurate indication of fuel quantity in the cockpit while
> flying. My AF-3400EM records fuel flow, quantity used/remaining, etc.,
> and
> it is also a reference tool for decision making.
>
> The Princeton sensors for the RV are very short and they fit vertically
> at
> the wing root. So, the sloshing error should be minimized as compared to
> the Lancair version. There is also a dampening built into the sensor
> circuit to help eliminate the sloshing error. So, the sloshing error is
> largely
> mitigated. The problem I've had is getting the Princeton sensors to send
> consistent signals to the AF-3400 engine monitor. I calibrated the
> sensors
> seven times by draining the tanks and adding measured 2 gallon increments
> to each tank. After each addition, I let the fuel settle down before
> taking the reading being sent to the engine monitor and entering the
> reading
> into the engine monitor non-volatile memory. Above about 12 gallons, all
> readings are the same because the fuel level is above the top of the
> sensor.
>
> The problem I'm having is that the sensor is sending signals to the EM
> that
> are up and down the scale. The EM is simply displaying the quantity it
> recognizes in relation to the calibration entries. I am convinced the
> problem lies with the Princeton sensors. Yes, I've talked to the
> manufacturer
> and he says, "It should work. Try calibrating again."
>
> The fuel sensors are mounted in the wing root and, thus, are difficult to
> get to for removal and replacement. So, I'm not excited about pulling out
> the current ones and replacing them - too much Pro-Seal.
> I'm going to burn the tanks down some more and dip check the tanks and see
> how the readings compare.
>
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> calbrated them, but I would be very shocked if the fuel slosh didn=92t
> cause a
> lot of errors. The sensors are about 6 feet long and must be no more
> than
> 20 degrees off of horizontal. Fuel sloshing would move a great distance
> up
> and down the tubes. I have them in there because FAA says I need a fuel
> guage. I will check the level visually before each flight and refill
> when I
> should be at =BC to =BD tank. Reguardless of what the fuel gage says!>
>
> electrically:
>
> - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and
> out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't
> include this.
>
> - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in
> response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly
> surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
> IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
> design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
> simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
> gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
> time fuel is added.
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
> It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
> how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
> use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
>
>I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
>points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
>setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
>slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | Byron Janzen <thorps18(at)gmail.com> |
Here's the low fuel sensor I'm using.
http://www.pillarpointelectronics.com/
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:29 AM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
>
> alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
>
> How do you calibrate fuel qty using a 10 - 75 ohm sender unit with a 0 -90
> ohm fuel gauge? in other words what's the best why to get the gauges to read
> accurately near empty, which is more important then FULL. Thanks
>
>
> The floats-on-a-swing-arm senders are
> a legacy product from cars and other
> vehicles that go back a very long way.
>
> Making these things really accurate in more\
> than one place is a bit fussy.
>
> Years ago, we crafted an electronic signal
> conditioning board for the Bonanzas and Barons
> that allowed dead-on calibration of empty
> and full. All other readings across the scale
> simply fell where where the physics of the
> sender dictates. The physics of these devices
> are affected mildly by linearity of the wire
> wound sensor resistor (usually within 5% of
> true) but a whole lot by trigonometry of
> the swing arm and tank geometry.
>
> But as you've already recognized, the one
> level you really want to be accurate is
> the empty point. For this you can do some
> things with series calibration resistors
> and/or bending the float arm on the sender.
> This CAN be a tedious, trial-by-error activity.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd probably craft
> a microprocessor based signal conditioner
> that would allow me to take readings at 5%
> increments from empty to full and generate
> a lookup table that converts as-installed
> sender (transducer) readings into real
> numbers. The BEST way to watch full levels
> is with installation of a "dip stick" style
> sensor at the low fuel warning level (generally
> 1/4 to 1/3 tank). Consider devices like this:
>
> [image: Emacs!]
> One of these stuck through the tank wall at
> the warning level will light a lamp on the
> panel at the desired fuel quantity with
> no risk for drift of calibration. See:
>
> http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282
>
> This is the no-brainer, dead-nuts accurate
> low liquid lever sensing method I know of.
> Capacity fuel gages with processor augmentation
> are also easy to calibrate . . . but I think
> I could get by with no active fuel gaging
> other than a set of optical level detectors
> cited above.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
My EI FL-2CA fuel gauges come with the ability to select the "rate of
update" which solves one of the problems, but isn't the REAL problem
that one shouldn't be playing down in the "low fuel minefield" any way?
Why worry about how to tell exactly when you're going to run out of
fuel? I'd rather have really accurate gauges down to a quarter tank,
and then who cares, it's time to fill up.
An accurate stick with marks on it, and confidence in fuel consumption
rates, IMHO, are much more important than measuring fuel quantities near
empty, unless you have no access at all to a physical measurement of
fuel levels.
Ian Brown
Bromont, QC
>
>
> Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and
> electrically:
>
> - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and
> out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't
> include this.
>
> Me too. Over the years I've seen both mechanical and
> electrical approaches to slosh management. Long sensors
> can be mounted inside a tube that has a tiny hole at
> each end to restrict rate of flow into and out of the
> tube. The sensor he described may already have such
> restrictions.
>
> On the single engine Cessna's about '64 we looked at
> "lubricating" the pivots on the fuel gages (automotive
> moving magnets driven by rheostats with swing-arm-floats)
> with 30,000 centistoke silicone oil. The smallest droplet
> of this oil injected to the pivot bearing attenuated
> sloshing response to a very low value.
>
> - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in
> response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly
> surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.
>
> Yeah, the one I'm working with now filters the slosh
> in software. The guys are playing with several filtering
> philosophies. The most attractive is a simple running
> average of 200 readings taken 10 times a second.
>
> The B52 had capacity fuel gages in it when I was
> working on them in '61. They were vacuum tube amplifier
> driven servo motors that kept an LRC bridge balanced.
> The servo motor also drove a potentiometer that produced
> the output signal for the panel instrument. I recall
> the instructor stating that the servo motor was
> deliberately designed to be slow. Full scale response
> time was on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. Exceedingly
> unresponsive to slosh.
>
> Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical
> swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3
> with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from
> which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems
> were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately
> readable was on the ground.
>
> The first moves for embarking upon a new
> design for a fuel gaging system is to get the HISTORY.
> An excellent source are patents. Freepatentsonline.com is
> but one of several libraries of ideas good, bad, and
> ugly that go back over 100 years. I've looked at
> hundreds of such patents on liquid level measurement.
> There are no excuses these days for not meeting design
> goals that move the best-we-know-how-to-do forward. There's
> also no excuse for any system designed in the past 40
> years not to provide a level of functionality commensurate
> with what they cost.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical
> swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3
> with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from
> which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems
> were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately
> readable was on the ground.
Maybe that is one more thing Heinlein should have added to his list of
things a man should know how to do: tell how much fuel is in a tank by
how wildly the indicator is bouncing.
First rule: If you are so worried about the fuel remaining that you
need to know within a tenth of a gallon, you need to be punching the
"nearest" button on your GPS...not stretching your glide to the destination.
Second rule: If the guage is bouncing all over the place, you either
have fuel or the guage is broken. One of the first things we learned in
my high-school chemistry class was how to interpret a bouncing arm on a
triple-beam scale. If it bounced equally to both side of the center
mark, then it was balanced. With the fuel level indicator, if it is
bouncing around the top, proceed. If it bounces around the bottom,
punch "nearest" of call the fuel truck before launching.
Third rule: The FAA minimums are minimums, not a GOAL.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z |
schematics?
From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Here are the links to the schematics:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20K.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z21A.pdf
As far as I can tell, they are current with the exception of Z20K. There is an
L version of it that fixes the magneto wiring typo. But it's available only in
.dwg.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257505#257505
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot
with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be
at that spot at the appointed time.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad
for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a
T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel
was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go
around and not much more.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying
machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what
is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks
and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for
that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel.
If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when
flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel
gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of
twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each
trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about
five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day
up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on
the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the
landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with
four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that
a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same
thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed
for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Just my thoughts
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
> design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
> simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
> gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
> time fuel is added.
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
> It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
> how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
> use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
>
>I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
>points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
>setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
>slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | Dan Morrow <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net> |
> Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
> This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
> philosophy I think you are espousing.
>
> There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>
What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
alternate.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're
talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas
ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go
ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated
calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that
his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was
his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five
hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more
than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
> Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
> This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
> philosophy I think you are espousing.
>
> There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>
> To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too
> broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of
> flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that
> airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good
> enough for one full power go around and not much more.
>
> We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying
> machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel
> down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country
> flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with
> full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with
> less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of
> landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as
> confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not
> hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
>
> Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for
> each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more
> than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air
> conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel
> planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating
> system and the reliability of the landing estimate
>
> To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted
> with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have
> decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of
> us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry
> that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
>
> I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I
> land.
>
> Just my thoughts
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, Illinois
> LL22
>
> In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
> III"
>
>
> > IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An
> analog
> > design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use
> is a
> > simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge
> reads
> > gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated
> each
> > time fuel is added.
>
> This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
> feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
> have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
>
> Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
> of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
> were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
> their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
> this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
> fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
> the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
> at the destination airport can force delays or an
> alternate, etc.
>
> The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
> the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's
> willingness
> to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly
> comfortable.
> The prudent pilot never launches into an extended
> operation
> with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the
> tab,
> slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of
> take
> of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the
> fact
> that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
> aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
> calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
> a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
> "wall of variables" in flight planning.
>
> Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
> depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
> trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
> passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
> yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
> measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
> continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
> becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
> conditions pile onto your error budget.
>
> > It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to
> remember
> > how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many
> homebuilts
> > use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
> >
> >I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many
> cal
> >points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar.
> This
> >setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate
> due to
> >slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float
> mechanism.
>
> All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
> the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
> it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
> the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
> be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
> associated with KNOWING that number when there
> are other more restrictive conditions that you
> cannot know or predict with accuracy.
>
> This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
> a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
> with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
> advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
> how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
> planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
> fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
> of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
> of intended destination or not.
>
> There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
> with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
> guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
> fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
> centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
> takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
> You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
>
> Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day
> ===============================================
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ================================================ -
> List Contribution Web Site sp;
> ==================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Good Afternoon Dan,
The availability of alternate landing space is absolutely part of the
computations needed.
When we were flying the T-38, we had the salt runways of Muroc available.
When we were lifting air conditioners, there were alternate spots in the
parking lot in which we could land. Worst case, we could stay on the roof and
carry a gas of can up to the helicopter.
Evaluating the reliability of the landing site is as big a part of fuel
planning as is any other factor. Once again. proper planning is key.
There are times when I want four hours worth of fuel when I am on final
approach.
I do NOT like to make wild guesses as to what will be needed. I plan for
what is likely to happen. Both expected and variable conditions must be
considered.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
628 west 86th Street
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 8/13/2009 1:23:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Morrow
> Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
> This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
> philosophy I think you are espousing.
>
> There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>
What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
alternate.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Good Afternoon Old Ian,
If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine.
I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there
are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwards
were just such flights.
My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five
minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fuel to
get there
It All Depends!
That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have.
However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much
fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by
the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not
just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board.
You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your"
destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on the radio.
We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio
to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is
proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should always
be
aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your"
airspace.
The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the
other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency,
flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other
similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those
errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors,
I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only
that, but radios DO fail.
That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handle
what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the
conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have
at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three
to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actually
in my flying machine.
Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I want
to know how much there is and where it is located.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses!
In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
ixb(at)videotron.ca writes:
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're
talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten
minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go
ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls
on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio
reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight.
He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet,
while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes,
and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot
with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be
at that spot at the appointed time.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too
broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying
a
T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel
was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power
go around and not much more.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying
machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what
is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks
and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for
that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel.
If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when
flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel
gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of
twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each
trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about
five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per
day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on
the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the
landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with
four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided
that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same
thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed
for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I
land.
Just my thoughts
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
> design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
> simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
> gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
> time fuel is added.
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
> It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
> how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
> use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
>
>I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
>points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
>setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
>slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day
================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
================================================ - List Contribution Web
Site sp;
==================================================
____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
>> There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
>> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
>> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>>
>
> What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
> blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
> fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
> alternate.
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
Good Afternoon Roger,
And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always
land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your
normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:50:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger"
>> There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
>> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
>> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>>
>
> What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
> blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
> fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
> alternate.
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
At 12:30 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
Confidence is the key word. I recall one situation
where upon returning to ICT in a Skipper, I was asked
to run downwind and expect to follow three big fellows
already lined up for the one long runway opened. With
requisite spacing being observed, I trudged half way
out to Whitewater Ks while the big guys did their
thing. This probably added 12-15 minutes to my planned
flight time. If I had planned to land with 15 minutes
remaining . . .
Now, I did pass within a few miles of other runway
options on the extended downwind. Further, I could
have declared low fuel and no doubt would have been
given access to the concrete . . . along a good chewing
out by numerous folks on the ground.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too
broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure
of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that
airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good
enough for one full power go around and not much more.
But keep in mind my friend that we're not here to
offer advice and training to professional pilots.
Only a small percentage of our 1800 readers fly for
a living and many if not most are under 300 hour
pilots.
In the mean time, technology continues to march ahead
and it's now quite possible to have milliliter accuracy
for measured fuel, 10-yard accuracy for present
position, 1 foot/second accuracy for speed over the
ground. This DOES add up to a lot of capability if
used with training, experience, good judgement and
the calibration of all sources is good.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying
machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel
down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country
flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with
full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with
less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of
landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as
confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not
hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for
each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more
than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air
conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel
planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating
system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted
with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have
decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many
of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we
carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
Agreed . . . and Cole Hamels can probably put
a fast-ball through the strike zone 99% of the
time. But he does it for a living.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Not a thing wrong with that . . . particularly if that
data can be used with skill. My concern for the
technology explosion in flight instrumentation
is that new and/or relatively low utilization
pilots will come to depend on those things with
decisions made 400 miles away. However, when you're
30 miles out and no other good place to land, your
pre-departure planning skills get tested. The risks
for unanticipated or overlooked conditions can become
critical.
I don't fly because it's comfortable, convenient,
or even without some degree of stress. I fly because
it's fun and I'm willing to expend the $time$ and
emotional capital to enjoy the experience. I don't
do it for a living. There are lots of ways to have an
unhappy day in the airplane. Of all hazards to flight,
fuel starvation is the easiest to avoid yet it remains
the #1 reason for loss of power in flight. The idea
that I can launch in a GA light aircraft and DEPEND
weather AND access to runways controlled by others
is fraught with some uncertainty and risk.
One may argue that having accurate fuel data
can trigger an early termination of flight to
avoid the unhappy day . . . but it can also
be combined with other data to make a press-on
decision with an exponential rise in risk.
I'm the first to extol the capabilities of modern
electo-whizzies (especially the ones I designed!).
But unless we are flying for a living, I'll suggest
that Uncle Bert's "highway in the sky" and AGATE's
"push-button-auto-land" technology have limited future
in the airplanes we're building and the reasons
for which most of us fly. Carrying around 40-60
pounds of "fuel never used" has some operational
expense but it brings a huge reduction in risk
for the casual/recreational pilot. These folks
will have to suffer THEIR bad day in the cockpit
at the exercise of some other hazard.
Bob . . .
July 31, 2009 - August 13, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ix