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- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AEC9011
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jul 31, 2009
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
Subject: Re: Crossfeed
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- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC9011
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AEC9011
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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?
Date: Aug 01, 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
From: dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com
Subject: Re: why not a Schottky rectifier for essential bus
diode?
Date: Aug 01, 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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?
Date: Aug 01, 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: Test - why are my posts empty?
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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?
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC9011
> >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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
From: "Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell" <lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Switch failures
Does anyone have a cross reference from B & C part numbers to Honeywell's part numbers? Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AEC9011
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Load Monitoring
From: "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com>
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AEC9011
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 01, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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>
Subject: Z-31A question
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 > _- > ============== > ============== > ============== > ============== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 02, 2009
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Firewall position of electrical components [RV-7A
-- Z-13/8]
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2009
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 > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Worlds first
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 ?
Date: Aug 04, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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 ?
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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 ?
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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 ?
Date: Aug 04, 2009
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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>
Subject: Com antenna
Date: Aug 04, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Com antenna
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Com antenna
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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 ?
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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 > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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- ) ------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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 > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
Subject: Silver plating
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2009
Just what I'm looking for.. Thanks! Brooks ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Check this out
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 06, 2009
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
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Radio noises
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Subject: Check this out
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Check this out
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Check this out
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Check this out
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 07, 2009
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2009
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>
Subject: Coil & ECM
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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>
Subject: Radio noises
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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.
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 08, 2009
> 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>
Subject: Radio noises
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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>
Subject: Check this out
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Check this out
Date: Aug 08, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 09, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 09, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2009
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
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
} 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
Date: Aug 10, 2009
----- 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
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
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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
Date: Aug 10, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
From: "sonex293" <sonex293(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: 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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Coil & ECM
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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>
Subject: Check this out
Date: Aug 11, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2009
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
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. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2009
> } 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
From: Jim McBurney <jmcburney(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Radio Noise
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
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Boot from USB
From: "viewers" <andyhelpdesk(at)guinea.cc>
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 12, 2009
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
Subject: Icom 200
Date: Aug 13, 2009
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Icom 200
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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.> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
> 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>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
>> 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
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
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