AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ja
September 17, 2009 - October 04, 2009
installation.
On the Continental, it is the only place that you will get an accurate flow, as
they use a return line from the servo to the tank.
Another thing that Flowscan recommends beside the lines being straight, is to mount
the transducer with the wires pointing up.
I have installed them with a 90 degree fitting on the out side and it has worked
fine.
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263498#263498
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display 14+
volts. Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane Power alternator
on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24 Amps. Initial Amp spike is
up to 45 just after start as battery recharges, but volts average 13.5
with occasional spike to 13.7.
Should the PP alternator be putting out more? Is it adjustable?
Stan Sutterfield
> Under what conditions? With the engine running and the
> alternator supporting all the ship's electrical loads,
> one would expect 14.2 to 14.6 volts on the bus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Well PP sits at 13.7V continuously (as shown on the Dynon EMS..Then one day
I measured the actual battery voltage and it was over 14V...So I took the
highly technal path and chose to ignore it..:). But it is a curiosity I'd l
ike to get to the bottom of one day.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage
In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display 14+ volt
s. Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane Power alternator
on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24 Amps. Initial Amp spike is
up to 45 just after start as battery recharges, but volts average 13.5 with
occasional spike to 13.7.
Should the PP alternator be putting out more? Is it adjustable?
Stan Sutterfield
> Under what conditions? With the engine running and the
> alternator supporting all the ship's electrical loads,
> one would expect 14.2 to 14.6 volts on the bus.
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:27 AM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
>In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display
>14+ volts. Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane
>Power alternator on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24
>Amps. Initial Amp spike is up to 45 just after start as battery
>recharges, but volts average 13.5 with occasional spike to 13.7.
>Should the PP alternator be putting out more?
Yes . . . and it MAY be . . .
> Is it adjustable?
I don't think so. Plane Power starts with
a suitable IR alternator core and simply
modifies it to bring the field supply lead
to the outside world so that OV protection
and pilot operated switches have ABSOLUTE,
LOW-ENERGY control over alternator operations.
Internal regulators for alternators are
modern integrated circuits. Its EASY to trim
their regulation set-points for the design
goal value during manufacture. 14.2 to 14.6
volts has been the benchmark window for
as long as I can remember. I'm not aware
of any example of user adjustable, internal
regulators.
Let's eliminate potential sources of uncertainty.
First, make sure that the voltmeter you're
citing agrees with other voltmeters to within
0.1 volts. Check it against a Fluke instrument
if you can. Know too that the regulator senses
voltage at the b-lead terminal . . . so it's
possible that system loads combined with system
wiring resistance between b-lead and your voltmeter's
sense point may be accounting for your observation.
GROUND systems can contribute to a voltage drop
too.
Do a voltage measurement right at the b-lead
terminal reference to the alternator's case
ground. The alternator may be performing as
advertised with the voltage being tossed off
in installation errors.
Check with Plane Power. Ask them what their
design-goal set-point value is. Just because
I've never seen a 13.8v regulator doesn't mean
they don't exist.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | mc3423 Overvoltage Crowbar Sensing Circuit |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: mc3423 Overvoltage Crowbar Sensing Circuit |
| From: | "pmather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
I don't know why my original message didn't get through but what I wrote was:
Pending availability of AEC9004 has anyone looked at implementing the
crowbar in the interim circuit with a mc3423?
One chip, three resistors and an SCR, total cost approximately $4. Any
catches I'm missing?
best regards
Peter
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263551#263551
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mc3423 Overvoltage Crowbar Sensing Circuit |
At 12:11 PM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>I don't know why my original message didn't get through but what I wrote was:
>
>Pending availability of AEC9004 has anyone looked at implementing the
>crowbar in the interim circuit with a mc3423?
>One chip, three resistors and an SCR, total cost approximately $4. Any
>catches I'm missing?
The AEC9004 is not an SCR based crow-bar protection
module. The AEC9003 (AEC), OVM-14 (B&C), and CbOVM-14
(AEC) modules are still in production in one form
or another . . .
The 3423 is a well thought out device that would
nicely emulate the functionality of the AEC/B&C crowbar
OV protection modules.
It features a constant current source charging
a clamped dV/dT capacitor to set a "window" of tolerance
for short duration transients. I did an implementation
of the same configuration with dual comparators
a few years after we offered the first OV crowbar
design to Beech. The MC3423 came along some years
later to offer a one-chip implementation of the
idea. As long as our supply of trigger-diodes
holds out, the design we offer will continue with
the minimum-parts-count approach.
It's a slick chip. However, I note that Digikey
has no stock on the DIP8 package it and appears to
offer the SOIC 8 package with only 11 pieces in
stock at .93/ea each right now. Allied has DIP8
chips on hand at .71/ea.
Other folks may have DIP8 packages on hand. If this
chip is going the way that many others do, the
alternatives will be to revisit the dual-comparator
approach I cited earlier. I can supply a schematic
for the design if anyone wants it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | One-Wire Alternator Conversion |
9/17/2009
Below web page posted for your information:
http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-09_howto_alternator.asp
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I think this answers a question I had about PP alternators, which is are th
e regulators linear like B&C?- I gather they are not but still wondering
if it is really that important. Nobody seems to be having trouble with nois
e from them.=0ATim Andres=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroe
lectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:04:43 AM
=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage=0A=0AAt 10:27 AM 9/17/2009,
you wrote:=0A=0AIn the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should
display 14+ volts.- Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane
Power alternator on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24 Amps.- I
nitial Amp spike is up to 45 just after start as battery recharges, but vol
ts average 13.5 with occasional spike to 13.7.=0A>Should the PP alternator
be putting out more?=0A- Yes . . . and it MAY be . . .=0A=0A=0A- Is it
adjustable?=0A- I don't think so. Plane Power starts with=0A- a suitabl
e IR alternator core and simply=0A- modifies it to bring the field supply
lead=0A- to the outside world so that OV protection=0A- and pilot oper
ated switches have ABSOLUTE,=0A- LOW-ENERGY control over alternator opera
tions.=0A=0A- Internal regulators for alternators are=0A- modern integr
ated circuits. Its EASY to trim=0A- their regulation set-points for the d
esign=0A- goal value during manufacture. 14.2 to 14.6=0A- volts has bee
n the benchmark window for=0A- as long as I can remember. I'm not aware
=0A- of any example of user adjustable, internal=0A- regulators.=0A=0A
- Let's eliminate potential sources of uncertainty.=0A- First, make sur
e that the voltmeter you're=0A- citing agrees with other voltmeters to wi
thin=0A- 0.1 volts. Check it against a Fluke instrument=0A- if you can.
Know too that the regulator senses=0A- voltage at the b-lead terminal .
. . so it's=0A- possible that system loads combined with system=0A- wir
ing resistance between b-lead and your voltmeter's=0A- sense point may be
accounting for your observation.=0A- GROUND systems can contribute to a
voltage drop=0A- too.=0A=0A- Do a voltage measurement right at the b-le
ad=0A- terminal reference to the alternator's case=0A- ground. The alte
rnator may be performing as=0A- advertised with the voltage being tossed
off=0A- in installation errors.=0A=0A- Check with Plane Power. Ask them
what their=0A- design-goal set-point value is. Just because=0A- I've n
ever seen a 13.8v regulator doesn't mean=0A- they don't exist.=0A=0A=0A
------ Bob . . .=0A=0A------- -------------------
--------------------=0A------ ( . . .- a long habit of not th
inking-- )=0A------ ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
)=0A------ ( appearance of being right . . .------
)=0A------ (----------------
---------------------- )=0A-
----- (----------------- -Thoma
s Paine 1776-- )=0A------- --------------------------------
===================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Plane power offers a number of different alternators, including PMA'd
versions for certified aircraft, that clearly require the original
external regulator. Their experimental versions are the internally
regulated models. So you can have pretty much which flavor pleases you.
Tim Andres wrote:
> I think this answers a question I had about PP alternators, which is are
> the regulators linear like B&C? I gather they are not but still
> wondering if it is really that important. Nobody seems to be having
> trouble with noise from them.
> Tim Andres
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:04:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage
>
> At 10:27 AM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
>> In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display 14+
>> volts. Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane Power
>> alternator on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24 Amps.
>> Initial Amp spike is up to 45 just after start as battery recharges,
>> but volts average 13.5 with occasional spike to 13.7.
>> Should the PP alternator be putting out more?
>
> Yes . . . and it MAY be . . .
>
>> Is it adjustable?
>
> I don't think so. Plane Power starts with
> a suitable IR alternator core and simply
> modifies it to bring the field supply lead
> to the outside world so that OV protection
> and pilot operated switches have ABSOLUTE,
> LOW-ENERGY control over alternator operations.
>
> Internal regulators for alternators are
> modern integrated circuits. Its EASY to trim
> their regulation set-points for the design
> goal value during manufacture. 14.2 to 14.6
> volts has been the benchmark window for
> as long as I can remember. I'm not aware
> of any example of user adjustable, internal
> regulators.
>
> Let's eliminate potential sources of uncertainty.
> First, make sure that the voltmeter you're
> citing agrees with other voltmeters to within
> 0.1 volts. Check it against a Fluke instrument
> if you can. Know too that the regulator senses
> voltage at the b-lead terminal . . . so it's
> possible that system loads combined with system
> wiring resistance between b-lead and your voltmeter's
> sense point may be accounting for your observation.
> GROUND systems can contribute to a voltage drop
> too.
>
> Do a voltage measurement right at the b-lead
> terminal reference to the alternator's case
> ground. The alternator may be performing as
> advertised with the voltage being tossed off
> in installation errors.
>
> Check with Plane Power. Ask them what their
> design-goal set-point value is. Just because
> I've never seen a 13.8v regulator doesn't mean
> they don't exist.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li========
> ========== *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Thanks but the question is are the PPregulators linear or switchers?
----- Original Message ----
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:56:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage
Plane power offers a number of different alternators, including PMA'd versions
for certified aircraft, that clearly require the original external regulator.
Their experimental versions are the internally regulated models. So you can have
pretty much which flavor pleases you.
Tim Andres wrote:
> I think this answers a question I had about PP alternators, which is are the
regulators linear like B&C? I gather they are not but still wondering if it is
really that important. Nobody seems to be having trouble with noise from them.
> Tim Andres
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:04:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage
>
> At 10:27 AM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
>> In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display 14+ volts.
Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane Power alternator on, and
normal electrical loads of about 22-24 Amps. Initial Amp spike is up to 45
just after start as battery recharges, but volts average 13.5 with occasional
spike to 13.7.
>> Should the PP alternator be putting out more?
>
> Yes . . . and it MAY be . . .
>
>> Is it adjustable?
>
> I don't think so. Plane Power starts with
> a suitable IR alternator core and simply
> modifies it to bring the field supply lead
> to the outside world so that OV protection
> and pilot operated switches have ABSOLUTE,
> LOW-ENERGY control over alternator operations.
>
> Internal regulators for alternators are
> modern integrated circuits. Its EASY to trim
> their regulation set-points for the design
> goal value during manufacture. 14.2 to 14.6
> volts has been the benchmark window for
> as long as I can remember. I'm not aware
> of any example of user adjustable, internal
> regulators.
>
> Let's eliminate potential sources of uncertainty.
> First, make sure that the voltmeter you're
> citing agrees with other voltmeters to within
> 0.1 volts. Check it against a Fluke instrument
> if you can. Know too that the regulator senses
> voltage at the b-lead terminal . . . so it's
> possible that system loads combined with system
> wiring resistance between b-lead and your voltmeter's
> sense point may be accounting for your observation.
> GROUND systems can contribute to a voltage drop
> too.
>
> Do a voltage measurement right at the b-lead
> terminal reference to the alternator's case
> ground. The alternator may be performing as
> advertised with the voltage being tossed off
> in installation errors.
>
> Check with Plane Power. Ask them what their
> design-goal set-point value is. Just because
> I've never seen a 13.8v regulator doesn't mean
> they don't exist.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li======== ========== *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 07:49 PM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks but the question is are the PP regulators linear or switchers?
If they're internal, then they are duty-cycle switched.
External can be either but linears are very rare. Probably
less than 5% of the total market. As it turns out, all
the excitement we had about 20 years ago for noise
reduction by "going linear" was not well founded in
physics. There's no reason for switchers . . . especially
those that are built in . . . to be significant noise
sources.
Moral: don't shy away from switchers 'cause they're
"quieter" . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Hi everybody.
First post on Matronics forum :D
I'm working on complete restoration of a long-EZ. The next step is the the wiring...
I was unable to find the wiring diagram of the bendix King KX125. I will
be very happy with the complete installation manual.
Many thanks for your help.
Overtorque
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263704#263704
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
With reference to the bus voltage discussion below:
I have a B&C 55 amp alternator with a generic Ford regulator. The Ford
regulator is bench adjustable and I had it set to 14.2 volts. My
voltage sensing set up measures system voltage from the endurance bus
and, under normal conditions, reads a steady 13.7 volts. Under normal
(main bus) operation, the endurance bus gets its power via the main
bus through a diode resulting in a measurable voltage drop. Switching
to the endurance bus, power is provided directly to the endurance bus
from the battery contactor and the voltage then reads a steady 14.2
volts. I can detect no change in avionics and instruments performance
regardless of the bus used.
In the situation cited below, system voltage may read low depending on
where in the system the voltage is measured.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Anton
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bus Voltage
At 10:27 AM 9/17/2009, you wrote:
> In the comment below, Bob said that the bus (main?) should display
> 14+ volts. Mine displays 13.5 with the engine running, 60A Plane
> Power alternator on, and normal electrical loads of about 22-24
> Amps. Initial Amp spike is up to 45 just after start as battery
> recharges, but volts average 13.5 with occasional spike to 13.7.
> Should the PP alternator be putting out more?
Yes . . . and it MAY be . . .
> Is it adjustable?
I don't think so. Plane Power starts with
a suitable IR alternator core and simply
modifies it to bring the field supply lead
to the outside world so that OV protection
and pilot operated switches have ABSOLUTE,
LOW-ENERGY control over alternator operations.
Internal regulators for alternators are
modern integrated circuits. Its EASY to trim
their regulation set-points for the design
goal value during manufacture. 14.2 to 14.6
volts has been the benchmark window for
as long as I can remember. I'm not aware
of any example of user adjustable, internal
regulators.
Let's eliminate potential sources of uncertainty.
First, make sure that the voltmeter you're
citing agrees with other voltmeters to within
0.1 volts. Check it against a Fluke instrument
if you can. Know too that the regulator senses
voltage at the b-lead terminal . . . so it's
possible that system loads combined with system
wiring resistance between b-lead and your voltmeter's
sense point may be accounting for your observation.
GROUND systems can contribute to a voltage drop
too.
Do a voltage measurement right at the b-lead
terminal reference to the alternator's case
ground. The alternator may be performing as
advertised with the voltage being tossed off
in installation errors.
Check with Plane Power. Ask them what their
design-goal set-point value is. Just because
I've never seen a 13.8v regulator doesn't mean
they don't exist.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
At 11:42 AM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi everybody.
>
>First post on Matronics forum :D
>I'm working on complete restoration of a long-EZ. The next step is
>the the wiring... I was unable to find the wiring diagram of the
>bendix King KX125. I will be very happy with the complete installation manual.
The only thing I have in my library is the pinout
guide. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KX125a.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Cleveland Wheels and Brakes |
After listening to the praise for replacing the original Cleveland
brakes with the Grove system for my Long EZ, I'm getting close to really
needing them so finally decided to replace the Clevelands that I have.
I now have some nice, shiny new Groves sitting here right now. They'll
probably help a lot on the 3200 foot runway at Canandaigua when I get
around to flying my Long EZ.
So, I removed the Clevelands (that I've never used except as a stand for
the Long EZ while I walked it around the hangar and my garage) and am
selling the nearly new, never flown and never used over walking speed,
Cleveland wheels and brakes.
I wanted to offer it to the forums and groups I belong to first, before
I put them on Barnstormers...and/or eBay...so I've put the pictures and
all the information about them on my website:
www.agelesswings.com/ClevelandWheelsAndBrakes.htm
Have a look, and if you would like them, or know someone who does, send
me an email...the web page and the pictures there should answer any
question you may have.
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ (painting the belly of the fuselage)
Hangar 29, Airport
Canandaigua, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Thank you Bob, it is a first help, but not enough regarding my poor level in electricity.
:D
If someone has this doc... please, do not hesitate!
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263716#263716
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Hi again, just received the documentation...
Thank you all for your help!
OT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263717#263717
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Smart Start wire size |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I bought the Smart Start module from TCW and was just getting around to looking
at the wire diagram and harness. All of the Aeroelectric diagrams show a 7 amp
protected 20 AWG wire going to the start switch then on to the post on the
start relay.
The Smart Start module gets power from the main buss via 2 amp breaker or fuse and the wires in the entire harness are only 22 AWG. (http://tcwtech.com/Smartstart.htm) Wire diagram is at the link.
So two wires connect to the start switch and go into the module and one wire goes
to the small terminal on the start relay. Is the 22 AWG wire and 2 amp breaker
too small. I can't see what determines wire size for this application.
Since only 2 amps can flow into the module then the 22 AWG wire to the start
relay is protected but what complication might there be with this setup. I guess
I need to go back and read "the book" for the ump-teenth time! Thanks for
any help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263752#263752
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z12 and IR Main Alt |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Without getting into the debate of IR vs Ext regulation, can a IR alternator be
used in the Z12 system? Will the EXT regulator for the SD20 play nice with the
IR of the main Alt? I have a buddy who has flown his RV8 for years, he is
a EE major and loves the IR alternators. I respect his opinion and for cost sake
I want to use the IR alternator, but I am designing my system with the Z12
diagram. My concern is will the SD20 regulator function properly with this,
my guess is it will since it is just looking at the buss voltage to tell itself
to start putting out power. Thanks for any help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263757#263757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:36 AM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>With reference to the bus voltage discussion below:
>
>I have a B&C 55 amp alternator with a generic Ford regulator. The
>Ford regulator is bench adjustable and I had it set to 14.2 volts.
>My voltage sensing set up measures system voltage from the endurance
>bus and, under normal conditions, reads a steady 13.7 volts. Under
>normal (main bus) operation, the endurance bus gets its power via
>the main bus through a diode resulting in a measurable voltage drop.
>Switching to the endurance bus, power is provided directly to the
>endurance bus from the battery contactor and the voltage then reads
>a steady 14.2 volts. I can detect no change in avionics and
>instruments performance regardless of the bus used.
Those readings are "as expected" and conform to design
goals.
>In the situation cited below, system voltage may read low depending
>on where in the system the voltage is measured.
Agreed.
Once the energy leaves the alternator, the ONLY thing
that can contribute to voltage drops is wire sizing
versus loads on those wires . . . and (to a lesser extent)
resistances that pile up in the sum-total of pressure
joints. If the battery is measuring 14.2 to 14.6 then
the alternator is doing it's job and the battery gets
100% topped off. Wire between the alternator and battery
is always "fat" wires. After that, any unacceptable losses
in available voltage MUST be from errors of design or
installation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
At 01:44 PM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi again, just received the documentation...
>
>Thank you all for your help!
What format? If it's a scanned .pdf file, I'd
like to have a copy to add to the website library.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Smart Start wire size |
The main current carrying wires for the smartstart module are the power
input and the output to the contactor. The other wires to the start switch
and interlock switch (if used) are signal level only. The start contactor
will require a peak current of about 3.5 amps, this presents no issue for
22 awg wire as the voltage drop over 10-15 feet of wire at this current
level is negligible. Since the start contactor operation is such a short
duration and is not a continuous duty load the fusing may be reduced below
that of the continuous rating. The SmartStart module itself can handle
contactor currents of up to 10 amps peak. You may certainly raise the
fuse rating if you wish to 5 amps without bumping into any issues as
permitted by 43.13. However, we have found a 2 amp fuse is sufficient.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
www.tcwtech.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Smart Start wire size
>
> I bought the Smart Start module from TCW and was just getting around to
> looking at the wire diagram and harness. All of the Aeroelectric diagrams
> show a 7 amp protected 20 AWG wire going to the start switch then on to
> the post on the start relay.
>
> The Smart Start module gets power from the main buss via 2 amp breaker or
> fuse and the wires in the entire harness are only 22 AWG.
> (http://tcwtech.com/Smartstart.htm) Wire diagram is at the link.
>
> So two wires connect to the start switch and go into the module and one
> wire goes to the small terminal on the start relay. Is the 22 AWG wire
> and 2 amp breaker too small. I can't see what determines wire size for
> this application. Since only 2 amps can flow into the module then the 22
> AWG wire to the start relay is protected but what complication might there
> be with this setup. I guess I need to go back and read "the book" for the
> ump-teenth time! Thanks for any help.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263752#263752
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z12 and IR Main Alt |
At 08:04 PM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Without getting into the debate of IR vs Ext regulation, can a IR
>alternator be used in the Z12 system?
Sure . . .
> Will the EXT regulator for the SD20 play nice with the IR of the main Alt?
They never have to play together. One works or the
other works. Not both.
> I have a buddy who has flown his RV8 for years, he is a EE major
> and loves the IR alternators. I respect his opinion and for cost
> sake I want to use the IR alternator, but I am designing my system
> with the Z12 diagram. My concern is will the SD20 regulator
> function properly with this, my guess is it will since it is just
> looking at the buss voltage to tell itself to start putting out power.
You are correct. But consider too that IF the
reason your main alternator is down is
due to an OV condition and there's no
automatic and effective means for taking
it off line . . . having a standby alternator
may be a moot point.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Stan,
A good test is to compare the bus voltage with light loads to the bus
voltage with heavy loads. If there is a big difference, then there is a
lot of resistance in the circuit, possibly from too small wire or from
bad connections.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Not aviation related... Electronic though. :) |
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
Bob,
I am looking for some direction on how to build a battery pack that will
help power my video camera longer. I am certain that I can find what I
need but looking for some direction or guidance to get it right.
I have a camcorder that uses a power pack that converts from wall outlet
to a 9.6 volt 0.8a output. The symbol has a solid line on top and three
dots on the bottom which I assume to me DC voltage.
Currently the battery in the camera will last about 60-75 minutes and I
would like to try to double that capacity. I was thinking that I should
be able to pull together a battery holder of 4 D cell batteries and
reduce the voltage and amperage to get what I would need. I am not
correct in that thinking?
Currently the camera has a lithium Ion battery that holds that charge.
I appreciate any direction you can give.
Thanks
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Not aviation related... Electronic though. :) |
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
My apologies to the list. I didn't send that correctly...
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffery J. Morgan
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:53 PM
Subject: Not aviation related... Electronic though. :)
Bob,
I am looking for some direction on how to build a battery pack that will
help power my video camera longer. I am certain that I can find what I
need but looking for some direction or guidance to get it right.
I have a camcorder that uses a power pack that converts from wall outlet
to a 9.6 volt 0.8a output. The symbol has a solid line on top and three
dots on the bottom which I assume to me DC voltage.
Currently the battery in the camera will last about 60-75 minutes and I
would like to try to double that capacity. I was thinking that I should
be able to pull together a battery holder of 4 D cell batteries and
reduce the voltage and amperage to get what I would need. I am not
correct in that thinking?
Currently the camera has a lithium Ion battery that holds that charge.
I appreciate any direction you can give.
Thanks
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
| From: | Guillaume BONNAUD <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob
Please, find attached the manual installation for KX125 (pdf )
Your site is very helpful! Thank you very much!
Guillaume
2009/9/19 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 01:44 PM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi again, just received the documentation...
>>
>> Thank you all for your help!
>>
>
> What format? If it's a scanned .pdf file, I'd
> like to have a copy to add to the website library.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Not aviation related... Electronic though. |
:)
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Jeff, 4 D cells is 4.8 volts long term, you'll need twice that many to get
9.6. Why not go to one of the battery suppliers and see if there is a larger
capacity unit that fits your camera and gives the use time you want. $time$
thing and no worries about charging, connecting, weight, etc.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeffery J. Morgan <
jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> wrote:
> jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com>
>
> My apologies to the list. I didn't send that correctly...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffery J. Morgan
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:53 PM
> To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: Not aviation related... Electronic though. :)
>
> Bob,
>
> I am looking for some direction on how to build a battery pack that will
> help power my video camera longer. I am certain that I can find what I
> need but looking for some direction or guidance to get it right.
>
> I have a camcorder that uses a power pack that converts from wall outlet
> to a 9.6 volt 0.8a output. The symbol has a solid line on top and three
> dots on the bottom which I assume to me DC voltage.
>
> Currently the battery in the camera will last about 60-75 minutes and I
> would like to try to double that capacity. I was thinking that I should
> be able to pull together a battery holder of 4 D cell batteries and
> reduce the voltage and amperage to get what I would need. I am not
> correct in that thinking?
>
> Currently the camera has a lithium Ion battery that holds that charge.
>
> I appreciate any direction you can give.
>
> Thanks
> Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Smart Start wire size |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation, I was going to email you over the weekend so you would
have my message in you inbox on Monday, lucky for me you watch this forum.
I was confused and could not figure out why the small wire would be OK as I stated
AEC Z-diagrams all show 20 AWG with 7 amp protection. The Van's diagram
calls out 18 AWG wire. I suppose they like the larger gage wire for its durability.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263804#263804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Smart Start wire size |
At 07:32 PM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>I bought the Smart Start module from TCW and was just getting around
>to looking at the wire diagram and harness. All of the Aeroelectric
>diagrams show a 7 amp protected 20 AWG wire going to the start
>switch then on to the post on the start relay.
>
>The Smart Start module gets power from the main buss via 2 amp
>breaker or fuse and the wires in the entire harness are only 22 AWG.
>(http://tcwtech.com/Smartstart.htm) Wire diagram is at the link.
>
>So two wires connect to the start switch and go into the module and
>one wire goes to the small terminal on the start relay. Is the 22
>AWG wire and 2 amp breaker too small. I can't see what determines
>wire size for this application. Since only 2 amps can flow into
>the module then the 22 AWG wire to the start relay is protected but
>what complication might there be with this setup. I guess I need to
>go back and read "the book" for the ump-teenth time! Thanks for any help.
Wire per the manufacturer's instructions . . . but
write to them and ask what to do about it if
the starter contactor draws 5A. Most intermittent
duty contactors require about that much. Their
instructions seem to allude to a potential for damage
to their product if the thing is used to control
a modern, engagement/contactor solenoid like
B&C, Skytec or similar automotive adaptations.
The question to ask them is whether or not they
can handle a 5A contactor and a system powered via
7A breaker/fuse through 20 AWG wire on pins 7 and 9.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Not aviation related... Electronic though. |
:)
Jeff,
Rick makes a good suggestion. But assuming that a more robust battery
is not available, an external battery pack is an option. An array of
4 ni-cad cells comes across the starting line at about 1.25 volts per
cell so an array of 8 would get you 10 volts. Alkaline cells start out
a bit hotter at 1.5 volts per cell so you only need 7 cells to get 10.5
volts as a starting point.
What the energy rating of your existing battery pak?
The camera will be pretty tolerant of input voltage fed through it's
external power jack. Unless the 'wall wart' power supply is internally
REGULATED, then the 9.6v value is a nominal number and the camera will
probably perform over a range of 8 to 12 volts or something like that.
I used to run external 4-paks of d-alkalines on my Vivitar 283 flash guns.
This gave me enough energy to do a 4-hour shoot without concerns
for battery replacement. Further, the low impedance of the d-cells gave very
fast recycle time on the flash gun, not unlike the recycle time I got
with freshly charged ni-cads. The batty box hung off my belt and plugged
into the flash-gun's external power jack through a coil-cord.
For your application, you might consider an 8-pak of C-nicads like
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=SY123T-ND
These offer 3,000 mAh of capacity. If you want more, there are some
D-cells (harder to find) that will go up to 4,000 or more.
These have solder tabs and will assemble into a pack that is MUCH
more reliably connected than the spring-loaded battery boxes for
individual cells. You could bring a lead-wire out at the center-tap.
To charge this pack, a simple 120 vac line cord that feeds a series
connection of 1N4007 diode and 7-15W light bulb will emulate a 40-100 mA
constant current charter that takes awhile to recharge the cells but
won't seriously over-charge them.
Is this a portable application or running in a vehicle? You could
craft a 9.6 v REGULATED adapter to run the camera from a vehicle's
electrical system.
Alternatively, you can go with a 7-pak of D-alkaline cells and
throw them away when used up. This will offer MORE capacity than
a rechargeable pak of the same size, somewhat less expensive to
build. But after you've gone thorough 10-15 sets of alkaline cells,
you've expended the cash for one set of ni-cads. Of course, you don't have
the hassles of waiting for a ni-cad pack to recharge either. Your
ultimate choice needs to fit design goals.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Not aviation related... Electronic though. :) |
| From: | "edleg" <ed_legault(at)yahoo.com> |
Instead of building, how about checking for bigger capacity batteries. I have used
larger capacity batteries from eaglecool dot com for my JVC digital video
recorders. They have worked well and the company has stood behind their warranties
ok.
On the other hand, I have built external battery packs for my camera flash equipment
(Vivitar and Nikon) by using sealed gel cell off-the-shelf 6v batteries
(4+ amphour)with custom built/modified (by me) power cables. But when you get
into voltages like 7.2 or 9.6, etc. you could build external packs using "D" 1.2v
rechargeable batteries in series as long as you can figure out a way to build/buy
a power cable.
-Ed-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263838#263838
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Joe,
Thanks for your comment.
I have taken notice of the voltage during light and heaviest loads and it
remains steady at 13.5. The light loading was about 3 Amps and heavy was
about 32A (everything on).
So, I'll take readings as Bob suggested and see what I find.
Stan
Stan,
A good test is to compare the bus voltage with light loads to the bus
voltage with heavy loads. If there is a big difference, then there is a
lot of resistance in the circuit, possibly from too small wire or from
bad connections.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Not aviation related... Electronic though. |
:)
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Rick makes a good suggestion. But assuming that a more robust battery
> is not available, an external battery pack is an option. An array of
> 4 ni-cad cells comes across the starting line at about 1.25 volts per
> cell so an array of 8 would get you 10 volts. Alkaline cells start out
> a bit hotter at 1.5 volts per cell so you only need 7 cells to get 10.5
> volts as a starting point.
>
> What the energy rating of your existing battery pak?
>
> The camera will be pretty tolerant of input voltage fed through it's
> external power jack. Unless the 'wall wart' power supply is internally
> REGULATED, then the 9.6v value is a nominal number and the camera will
> probably perform over a range of 8 to 12 volts or something like that.
>
> I used to run external 4-paks of d-alkalines on my Vivitar 283 flash
> guns.
> This gave me enough energy to do a 4-hour shoot without concerns
> for battery replacement. Further, the low impedance of the d-cells
> gave very
> fast recycle time on the flash gun, not unlike the recycle time I got
> with freshly charged ni-cads. The batty box hung off my belt and plugged
> into the flash-gun's external power jack through a coil-cord.
>
> For your application, you might consider an 8-pak of C-nicads like
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=SY123T-ND
>
>
> These offer 3,000 mAh of capacity. If you want more, there are some
> D-cells (harder to find) that will go up to 4,000 or more.
>
> These have solder tabs and will assemble into a pack that is MUCH
> more reliably connected than the spring-loaded battery boxes for
> individual cells. You could bring a lead-wire out at the center-tap.
> To charge this pack, a simple 120 vac line cord that feeds a series
> connection of 1N4007 diode and 7-15W light bulb will emulate a 40-100 mA
> constant current charter that takes awhile to recharge the cells but
> won't seriously over-charge them.
>
> Is this a portable application or running in a vehicle? You could
> craft a 9.6 v REGULATED adapter to run the camera from a vehicle's
> electrical system.
>
> Alternatively, you can go with a 7-pak of D-alkaline cells and
> throw them away when used up. This will offer MORE capacity than
> a rechargeable pak of the same size, somewhat less expensive to
> build. But after you've gone thorough 10-15 sets of alkaline cells,
> you've expended the cash for one set of ni-cads. Of course, you don't
> have
> the hassles of waiting for a ni-cad pack to recharge either. Your
> ultimate choice needs to fit design goals.
>
>
> Bob . . .
I like finding similar products from higher volume (ie: lower cost) markets.
http://www.batteryjunction.com/9-6-pk.html
Used something similar in an old handheld radio to replace dead nicads &
had to pack most of the case with cardboard/foam to stabilize the
smaller batteries. Also had about twice the capacity.
Charlie
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com> |
For anyone interested in this sort of thing=2C here is some information on
test standards.
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/photo/Flash/flash.html
Deems Herring
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.=0A
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator mod article |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Hi - I just wanted to make sure you saw the DIY alternator article, from one
of the Quickie guys - Lynn French. I don't know if Lynn is on this, or not.
http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-09_howto_alternator.asp
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | Alkaline vs. Lithium |
I was at my hangar taking alkaline batteries out of all of my battery
powered tools. I had one Ray-O-Vac AA alkaline battery leaking, and I
cleaned up the mess with baking soda. Most of the batteries were installed
between 2002 and 2006 except for the digital torque wrench and digital
airplane scale. Those batteries were relatively new.
Some of these tools cost a lot of money, and I don't want to damage them.
Therefore, I would like to get an opinion on whether I should migrate to
lithium AA and 9V batteries. Is lithium technology safer than alkaline
technology? I was at Home Depot today and saw two Duracell 9V lithium
batteries in a pack for $7. That's $3.50 per battery, which brings it very
close to the price of an alkaline battery. Even if it were X2 or X3,
lithium batteries have a greater shelf life and higher energy density, so
maybe they are cost effective at those greater prices. Has Bob or anyone
else done a cost analysis on these two technologies to see how lithium
stands against alkaline? I'd like to migrate to lithium just for its safety
factor - if it doesn't leak or catch on fire in normal usage, but cost
effectiveness would be a bonus.
Simon Ramirez
Copyright 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Z12 and IR Main Alt |
My system on an RV-10 is very close to what you describe; a Plane Power
60 amp main IR alternator and a B&C 20 amp standby with B&C external
linear regulator. System is wired very close to Z-12 and is working
fine.
Dick Sipp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rvg8tor
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z12 and IR Main Alt
Without getting into the debate of IR vs Ext regulation, can a IR
alternator be used in the Z12 system? Will the EXT regulator for the
SD20 play nice with the IR of the main Alt? I have a buddy who has
flown his RV8 for years, he is a EE major and loves the IR alternators.
I respect his opinion and for cost sake I want to use the IR alternator,
but I am designing my system with the Z12 diagram. My concern is will
the SD20 regulator function properly with this, my guess is it will
since it is just looking at the buss voltage to tell itself to start
putting out power. Thanks for any help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263757#263757
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fixed connector on the Transponder Mounting Tray |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Where can I get the connector that fits onto the mounting tray [fixed onto the
tray with a circlip] between the KT 76A transponder BNC and the aerial BNC connector
[joins these two].Any part numbers???? Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263931#263931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Kitplanes article on solar power |
Hi guys
I am a Kitplanes subscriber, but I don't know my subscriber number,
therefore I cannot access Kitplanes back issues. I will get my web access
when I receive my next issue.
Meanwhile, I need to consult one particular article, which is Jim Weir's
article about solar power battery charging, which was published in the
January 2007 Kitplanes issue.
Can somebody of you who is (or was) a Kitplanes subscriber, please scan that
article, or access the web at kitplanes.com and get the pdf, and send it to
my email address.
Thanks in advance
Carlos Trigo
Portugal
RV-9A (90% done and 90% still to go)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P-mag Internal Power Test |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I am getting my wiring started and have a question on how some of you with P-Mags
wired your systems. There are two tests for th P-Mag as I understand things.
One is just like a traditional magneto check, you turn off (ground the p-lead)
and check for mag drop. The other check for a P-Mag is to turn off the
12v power to the P-Mag to check that the internal alternator keeps the magneto
running. The check of the internal alternator does not seem like something that
needs to be check each flight. I am considering just pulling the CB for each
P-Mag to make this check rather than wiring a switch to serve this purpose.
What have others done with regard to this, I don't want to use a switched breaker,
I will just add the switch if it is required. My thinking is to just pull
the breaker. We pull breaker on the B-767 at the end of each flight to turn
some equipment off while the plane sits between flights, so I don't think there
is an issue of waring out a breaker. Thanks for any pointers.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263999#263999
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Internal Power Test |
I used a normally-closed single-pole single-throw (momentarily opens against
spring) switch in series with the PMag 12V circuit breaker. That said - it
is YOUR plane and if YOU want it a certain way (and the inspector doesn't
object) - that's your choice (and risk). :-)
Got the switch from Mouser.
Dave L.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mag Internal Power Test
>
> I am getting my wiring started and have a question on how some of you
> with P-Mags wired your systems. There are two tests for th P-Mag as I
> understand things. One is just like a traditional magneto check, you turn
> off (ground the p-lead) and check for mag drop. The other check for a
> P-Mag is to turn off the 12v power to the P-Mag to check that the internal
> alternator keeps the magneto running. The check of the internal
> alternator does not seem like something that needs to be check each
> flight. I am considering just pulling the CB for each P-Mag to make this
> check rather than wiring a switch to serve this purpose.
>
> What have others done with regard to this, I don't want to use a switched
> breaker, I will just add the switch if it is required. My thinking is to
> just pull the breaker. We pull breaker on the B-767 at the end of each
> flight to turn some equipment off while the plane sits between flights, so
> I don't think there is an issue of waring out a breaker. Thanks for any
> pointers.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263999#263999
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mod article |
At 05:00 PM 9/19/2009, you wrote:
>Hi - I just wanted to make sure you saw the DIY alternator article,
>from one of the Quickie guys - Lynn French. I don't know if Lynn is
>on this, or not.
>
><http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-09_howto_alternator.asp>http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-09_howto_alternator.asp
>
>Sam
Thanks for the heads-up on this Sam. I've archived it
in a .pdf file and will mirror it to the website at the
next update.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed connector on the Transponder Mounting Tray |
At 02:01 AM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>Where can I get the connector that fits onto the mounting tray
>[fixed onto the tray with a circlip] between the KT 76A transponder
>BNC and the aerial BNC connector [joins these two].Any part numbers???? Cheers
This puppy has been around for many years. The tray
side is a Ted 9-30-10. There's a number of them on
Ebay right now.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed connector on the Transponder Mounting Tray |
At 02:01 AM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>Where can I get the connector that fits onto the mounting tray
>[fixed onto the tray with a
>circlip] between the KT 76A transponder BNC and the aerial BNC
>connector [joins these two]
>.Any part numbers???? Cheers
I forgot that I'd fielded this question
some time back and posted pictures at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Internal Power Test |
At 03:45 PM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am getting my wiring started and have a question on how some of
>you with P-Mags wired your systems. There are two tests for th
>P-Mag as I understand things. One is just like a traditional
>magneto check, you turn off (ground the p-lead) and check for mag
>drop. The other check for a P-Mag is to turn off the 12v power to
>the P-Mag to check that the internal alternator keeps the magneto
>running. The check of the internal alternator does not seem like
>something that needs to be check each flight. I am considering just
>pulling the CB for each P-Mag to make this check rather than wiring
>a switch to serve this purpose.
>
>What have others done with regard to this, I don't want to use a
>switched breaker, I will just add the switch if it is required. My
>thinking is to just pull the breaker. We pull breaker on the B-767
>at the end of each flight to turn some equipment off while the plane
>sits between flights, so I don't think there is an issue of waring
>out a breaker. Thanks for any pointers.
What you've proposed is consistent with Emagair's
recommendations. In fact, Figure Z13/8 was crafted
with a similar philosophy.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
Note that with ship's power taken through
a fuse from the main bus, the internal power
source integrity can be verified occasionally
by checking engine operations on the p-mag while
the main bus is down. Easy to do under comfortable
conditions and only occasionally.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fixed connector on the Transponder Mounting Tray |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 02:01 AM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Where can I get the connector that fits onto the mounting tray
> > [fixed onto the tray with a
> > circlip] between the KT 76A transponder BNC and the aerial BNC
> > connector [joins these two]
> >
> >
>
>
> > .Any part numbers???? Cheers
> >
> >
>
> I forgot that I'd fielded this question
> some time back and posted pictures at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
How does a BNC connector hook up with these connectors, like the end on a TED aerial???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264081#264081
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KY97A wiring diagram and TERRA TRT250 |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Good morning all,
I noticed the power of the forum... and now, I need 2 others installation manuel:
VHF KY97A
Transponder TERRA TRT 250
Thank you very much if you can send theses docs
OT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264083#264083
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Internal Power Test |
Hi Mike,
Here is some additional info. I got from Emagair directly last year when researching
the units. I personally have wired up according to Z13, with two switches
for each unit, p-lead and power. I don't have CBs for the circuits, rather fuses.
Regards, Andrew.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: info(at)emagair.com [mailto:info(at)emagair.com]
Sent: 09 May 2008 16:57
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Andrew:
When an ignition is first powered up it has to wake up, load the operating code,
track engine position, determine when the next spark even needs to happen, and
finally trigger that spark event. If you power up while the engine is running
all this has to happen very quickly. Since P models make their own power
(as long as the engine is running), you cannot shut down the processor. You
can turn both the p-lead and the 12 supply OFF and it will still be "awake" doing
its business as usual, waiting to resume firing as soon as the p-lead is ungrounded.
With E models, however, you can power them OFF when running, and the
ignition (truly) will go dark - still no problem. Powering the E model OFF
is not the issue. It's when you 1) power an E model ON (while the engine is
running) and 2) with the p-lead ungrounded that you are asking it to instantaneously
wake up and start firing as described above. The condition can be avoided
(if encountered) by making sure the p-lead is grounded (OFF) before powering
(12 volt) ON an E model ignition while the engine is running.
Even so, if this happens, we aren't predicting disaster. It will probably resume
operation just fine, but there is no reason to do it in the first place - that's
all.
I don't recall any customers (yet) in Ireland - congratulations, you'll be number
1.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
2014 Greg Street Box 112
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 444-5310
From: Butler, Andrew [mailto:andrew.butler(at)nuigalway.ie]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Thanks very much Brad.
What is the logic behind not switching off power to an E-MAG while the
engine is running? I am assuming that switching off power is okay, that it is
switching power back on while the engine is turning that is the problem. What
exactly is the event sequence associated with switching on power while the engine
is turning that is problematic?
Why is it problematic to turn power on while the P-MAG is live i.e ungrounded?
I am not installing a rotary key switch, rather an individual power switch for
each ignition. It appears that I will need a two position switch that allows me
to control access to power and ground individually.
Cheers, Andrew.
RV71700
Galway, Ireland.
From: info(at)emagair.com [mailto:info(at)emagair.com]
Sent: 08 May 2008 17:07
Subject: RE: Startup Checks
Hi Andrew:
Thanks for considering us for your project.
The ignition check for E-MAG ignitions is very similar to that of magnetos. You'll
do your regular L/R (p-lead) check to make sure both ignitions operate.
The only difference is that for each P model ignition you have installed (one
or both) you'll add one additional sequence. While switched to the individual
P model(s), simply turn OFF the 12 volt power that feeds that ignition for a
few seconds to verify the engine continues to run. If the engine runs, the internal
alternator is operating. If the engine quits, the alternator is not working.
The engine speed should be 1000 rpm or greater when you do this check.
There is no need to do this test with an E model as they don't have an alternator.
The L/R test is a p-lead (ON/OFF) test applicable to both E and P models.
The 12 power (ON/OFF) test is applicable to P models only, and we discourage
doing it with E models, so the FAQ you refer to is not in conflict with the pre-flight
ignition tests.
The Installation and Operating Guide also has some recommendations on starting
with our equipment - see Downloads page on our web site.
Don't hesitate to call or drop us a note if you have any other questions.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
2014 Greg Street Box 112
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 444-5310
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, 21 September, 2009 2:11:36 AM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag Internal Power Test
At 03:45 PM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am getting my wiring started and have a question on how some of
>you with P-Mags wired your systems. There are two tests for th
>P-Mag as I understand things. One is just like a traditional
>magneto check, you turn off (ground the p-lead) and check for mag
>drop. The other check for a P-Mag is to turn off the 12v power to
>the P-Mag to check that the internal alternator keeps the magneto
>running. The check of the internal alternator does not seem like
>something that needs to be check each flight. I am considering just
>pulling the CB for each P-Mag to make this check rather than wiring
>a switch to serve this purpose.
>
>What have others done with regard to this, I don't want to use a
>switched breaker, I will just add the switch if it is required. My
>thinking is to just pull the breaker. We pull breaker on the B-767
>at the end of each flight to turn some equipment off while the plane
>sits between flights, so I don't think there is an issue of waring
>out a breaker. Thanks for any pointers.
What you've proposed is consistent with Emagair's
recommendations. In fact, Figure Z13/8 was crafted
with a similar philosophy.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
Note that with ship's power taken through
a fuse from the main bus, the internal power
source integrity can be verified occasionally
by checking engine operations on the p-mag while
the main bus is down. Easy to do under comfortable
conditions and only occasionally.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luigit(at)freemail.it |
| Subject: | Flightcom headset |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitplanes article on solar power |
Carlos,
Try this link: http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/pdfs/0107-6566.pdf
Jim Weir's website: http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/contact_us.html
I will send an email to you with a scanned copy of the schematic.
Joe
Michigan USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Internal Power Test |
At 06:47 AM 9/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>Here is some additional info. I got from Emagair directly last year
>when researching the units. I personally have wired up according to
>Z13, with two switches for each unit, p-lead and power. I don't have
>CBs for the circuits, rather fuses.
>
>Regards, Andrew.
Thanks for that expansion Andrew. I had a similar
dissertation from the guys at Emagair but couldn't
lay my hands on it last night.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Battery Dual Alternator Grounding |
| From: | "dsyvert" <dsyvert(at)aol.com> |
I have two #2 AWG cables running from the back of my RV-10 to the firewall. My
question is if I put in two batteries and two alternators, where do I ground each
one. Van's plans show the grounding at the behind the baggage bulk head. Could
both batteries be grounded there to a common ground? I intended to use the
second cable as a ground from the battery to the firewall, but Van's shows it
to be grounded to the battery box.
Sorry if this has already been addressed
dsyvert
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264118#264118
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed connector on the Transponder Mounting |
Tray
>How does a BNC connector hook up with these connectors, like the end
>on a TED aerial???
>
These connectors accept a prepared end of the antenna's
feed-line coax. They are solder joints for both the
center conductor and shield.
If you want to break that feedline with a connector
adjacent to the radio, then the segment that comes
off the slip-connector is simply shortened to a pigtail
of the desired length which is then terminated in a
cable-female . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Coax/BNC_Cable_Female_2.jpg
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom headset |
At 07:58 AM 9/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>Not usual for me this kind of assistance.
>
>Thank you Becky and thank you Flightcom.
>
>A very good headset and an excellent service.
>
>Luigi
Your observations agree with my own. The few times
I've had occasion to communicate with Flightcom,
their willingness to share has been exemplary . . .
and I'm not even a customer!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Grounding |
At 09:20 AM 9/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>I have two #2 AWG cables running from the back of my RV-10 to the
>firewall. My question is if I put in two batteries and two
>alternators, where do I ground each one. Van's plans show the
>grounding at the behind the baggage bulk head. Could both batteries
>be grounded there to a common ground? I intended to use the second
>cable as a ground from the battery to the firewall, but Van's shows
>it to be grounded to the battery box.
Independent grounds to structure will be
consistent with design goals for elimination
of single points of failure. See . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Battery_Install_OBrien_2.jpg
do this for EACH battery. Also, 4AWG welding cable
jumpers from battery(+) to contactor and battery(-)
to ground are a good idea to minimize mechanical
stress on terminals.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Joe,
I took careful notice of the bus voltage yesterday as I loaded up the bus
and you've brought up a good point. At an 8 amp load, the bus voltage was
13.5. At 29 amps it dropped to 13.2 and stayed there until I reduced the
load. So, I must have too small a wire from the alternator to the bus.
I'll consider changing it.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
Joe,
Thanks for your comment.
I have taken notice of the voltage during light and heaviest loads and it
remains steady at 13.5. The light loading was about 3 Amps and heavy was
about 32A (everything on).
So, I'll take readings as Bob suggested and see what I find.
Stan
Stan,
A good test is to compare the bus voltage with light loads to the bus
voltage with heavy loads. If there is a big difference, then there is a
lot of resistance in the circuit, possibly from too small wire or from
bad connections.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's gauges |
At 12:46 PM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
>In 420 house over three plus years a number of Van's gauges have
>failed (fuel quantity, volts, amps, oil pressure). Now I must
>install the third volt meter. I like the look of Van's gauges and
>the fact that they match, but don't like the failure rate. What
>have your experiences been?
>
>Pete in Clearwater
>RV-6 - Reserve Grand Champion, S 'n F 2006 and other awards
>
>----------
Peter,
Sorry to hear about this . . . I've got a Van's ammeter
on the bench which I disassembled to look at. Hand-
assembled, thru-hole components (not necessarily
a 'bad' thing, especially in TC aviation!). However,
the ammeter proved to be exceptionally vulnerable
to radio-frequency fields (hand held).
It's a line-item on my things-to-do list to see what
sort of filter/shielding would reduce the effects to
acceptable levels.
My discovery raises a perplexing question . . .
How much of the technology and design goals for
the ammeter are common to the rest of the product
line? Of course, my question only goes to system
integration . . . a question which is moot if the
critters have an unacceptable failure rate.
Your question is the first I've heard of it. I'd
be pleased to have updates from the rest of List
membership.
P.S. Sorry we didn't get together while attending
to Dr. Dee at the convention last winter. It was
an interesting and opportunity-packed event. I don't
think we got out of the hotel more than a half dozen
trips to local eateries!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter for Hand held devices |
At 08:11 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>I think that I do need one; I am using a cigarette lighter type connection
>to power an Ipod power supply. When I connect this to the Ipod no noise is
>heard, but when I connect the Ipod to the radio/ intercom system I
>immediately get a high pitched noise in the earphones.
Okay, 'high pitched' is not alternator noise. It
MIGHT be an artifact of the dc/dc converter in your
ipod power adapter. Try first to power the Ipod internally
without the adapter. Does the noise go away? Try powering
the adapter fromits own 12 battery pack NOT connected to the a/c
in any way. A couple of el-cheeso 6v lantern batteries in
series a good diagnostic supply.
> I separated the
>power and signal leads and the noise stayed. I moved the power supply of
>the cigarette/ Ipod charger directly to the battery and the noise stayed. I
>will still try a twisted pair on the power supply to the radio/intercom but
>it seems to me that the noise is generated by the Ipod charger so I thought
>that a filter might do the trick. Perhaps even a ferrite bead on the
>positive in to the radio will work.
>
>The only other thing that I can think of is that the loop formed by the
>plug->Ipod charger->Ipod audio out->radio/intercom is somehow causing the
>problem; but how does one get rid of that loop- its intrinsic to the music
>input?
It's most likely to be a ground loop issue which will be
re-enforced or denied by the above experiments.
In any case, it's almost a certainty that filtering
is not solution for root cause.
We may have to incorporate an isolation transformer
where audio from your Ipod goes to one winding and
audio to the ship's system is taken from the other
winding. See:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103994
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter for Hand held devices |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Just for information of those on the list, I recently had a faulty 12V
charger on an AV8OR. The manufacturer willingly changed it. The
symptoms were more your conventional white noise type static, like a
very weak radio signal - there when charging the AV8OR, gone when not.
It interfered with radio reception in the car and in the aircraft. I'm
not proposing it as the cause of the IPOD problem below, just a useful
data point. Faulty chargers do indeed seem capable of generating
interference but not, in my case, a high pitched noise.
Ian Brown
Bromont, Quebec
> >The only other thing that I can think of is that the loop formed by the
> >plug->Ipod charger->Ipod audio out->radio/intercom is somehow causing the
> >problem; but how does one get rid of that loop- its intrinsic to the music
> >input?
>
> It's most likely to be a ground loop issue which will be
> re-enforced or denied by the above experiments.
>
> In any case, it's almost a certainty that filtering
> is not solution for root cause.
>
> We may have to incorporate an isolation transformer
> where audio from your Ipod goes to one winding and
> audio to the ship's system is taken from the other
> winding. See:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Danielson <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
I also used Van's Gauges.
I had trouble with the ammeter also. Never did get it to work quite right.
It worked OK until you transmitted.
The oil pressure gauge only worked when the engine oil was cold. After the
temperature climbed to normal temps, the pressure would drop to 20 of 30 ps
i, sometimes to 0.
The rest of my Vans gauges (fuel quant, fuel pressure, tachometer, volt met
er, manifold pressure) worked great after 300 hrs.
John Danielson
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Van's gauges
At 12:46 PM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
In 420 house over three plus years a number of Van's gauges have failed (fu
el quantity, volts, amps, oil pressure). Now I must install the third volt
meter. I like the look of Van's gauges and the fact that they match, but
don't like the failure rate. What have your experiences been?
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6 - Reserve Grand Champion, S 'n F 2006 and other awards
________________________________
Peter,
Sorry to hear about this . . . I've got a Van's ammeter
on the bench which I disassembled to look at. Hand-
assembled, thru-hole components (not necessarily
a 'bad' thing, especially in TC aviation!). However,
the ammeter proved to be exceptionally vulnerable
to radio-frequency fields (hand held).
It's a line-item on my things-to-do list to see what
sort of filter/shielding would reduce the effects to
acceptable levels.
My discovery raises a perplexing question . . .
How much of the technology and design goals for
the ammeter are common to the rest of the product
line? Of course, my question only goes to system
integration . . . a question which is moot if the
critters have an unacceptable failure rate.
Your question is the first I've heard of it. I'd
be pleased to have updates from the rest of List
membership.
P.S. Sorry we didn't get together while attending
to Dr. Dee at the convention last winter. It was
an interesting and opportunity-packed event. I don't
think we got out of the hotel more than a half dozen
trips to local eateries!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
I have completed some excellent Unusual Attitude training in a Cap-10 which
included loops, rolls and spins and will soon complete additional aerobatic
training. Then I would like to try some of these aerobatics maneuvers in
my RV-6. However, I am a little concern that the gyro tumbling and/or G
forces of aerobatics may hurt my instruments. I have an AI, HSI and S-TEC
autopilot all containing electric gyros and would hate to damage them. What has
been your experience with aerobatics and instrument damage? Should I be
concerned about this?
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6, Day/night IFR, Reserve Grand Champion S 'n F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
Good Evening Peter,
As Always, It All Depends!
Your S-Tec uses the canted gyro in the Turn Coordinator for it's sensing
device. That gyro will not be harmed by aerobatics. The attitude and heading
gyros MAY be damaged! There are many different designs and your best bet is
to check with the manufacturer of your instrumentation. Some of the newer
instruments are suitable for aerobatic use. There were some fully aerobatic
artificial horizons built about fifty years ago, but the pitch indication
was just the opposite of what is standard today. There are a few older
gyros that allow the gyros to be caged, but that is not a real good idea. It
can keep the gyro from banging the stops, but the bearings will still incur
abnormal wear.
The best bet is to have a removable gyro panel to be used when not flying
aerobatics. A few of the professional aerobatic pilots have made such a set
up to save wear and tear during violent aerobatic flight.
One more comment if you don't mind.
The turn Coordinator (as is used by S-Tec for sensing) is an abominable
instrument in that it never tells the truth. For use during aerobatics, I much
prefer a standard old fashioned Turn needle combined with an inclinometer
Ball. The classic needle and ball. It is the most reliable directional
instrument you can buy and it can be used for spin recovery as well as
unusual attitude recovery. A turn coordinator can provide confusing and
counterproductive indications during a spin recovery. However, neither the T&B
nor
the TC will be damaged by doing such maneuvers.
Many of the modern glass panels use solid state "gyros" that are not
damaged by aerobatics, but some will lose proper sensing.
Any help at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 9/21/2009 9:22:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterHunt1(at)aol.com writes:
I have completed some excellent Unusual Attitude training in a Cap-10
which included loops, rolls and spins and will soon complete additional
aerobatic training. Then I would like to try some of these aerobatics maneuvers
in my RV-6. However, I am a little concern that the gyro tumbling and/or G
forces of aerobatics may hurt my instruments. I have an AI, HSI and S-TEC
autopilot all containing electric gyros and would hate to damage them.
What has been your experience with aerobatics and instrument damage? Should I
be concerned about this?
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6, Day/night IFR, Reserve Grand Champion S 'n F
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter for Hand held devices |
At 04:18 PM 9/21/2009, you wrote:
>Just for information of those on the list, I recently had a faulty
>12V charger on an AV8OR. The manufacturer willingly changed
>it. The symptoms were more your conventional white noise type
>static, like a very weak radio signal - there when charging the
>AV8OR, gone when not. It interfered with radio reception in the
>car and in the aircraft. I'm not proposing it as the cause of the
>IPOD problem below, just a useful data point. Faulty chargers do
>indeed seem capable of generating interference but not, in my case,
>a high pitched noise.
The modern DC/DC converter technology has become smaller
and more efficient as the components became available to
operate at high and higher frequencies. The DC to DC
converters that we used in the Cessna Nav/Com 300 in 1965
ran at about 1 Khz . . . and had relatively benign
RF interference potential. That little nugget of electronics
that exists in the cigar lighter plug on your ipod or cell
phone charger probably operates at 1000 to 2000 times higher
frequency. These guys are much more likely to become
noise emitters in the AM radio band. I've had
several devices that I had to throw away and substitute
another brand.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Transmit problem on both comm radios. |
Hi all:
Maybe you can help with my transmit problems. I have a UPS Aviation
Technologies (now Garmin AT) radio stack with SL-30 Nav Comm, GX-65
GPS/Comm, SL-70 transponder and SL-10MS audio panel (actually a PS-6000 with
UPS AT nameplate). I checked out everything according to the installation
manuals while the airplane was sitting on the ramp and the engine NOT
running. Now that I've been flying a lot, I'm getting a crackling in the
sidetone and when I look at the "TX" light on the radio it's flickering as
if someone were pulsing the press-to-talk switch 4-5 times per second, even
though I'm holding the PTT down tight. This happens on both radios and
people in the pattern say I'm breaking up and garbled. I've tried several
things looking for a solution, they are:
1) Turn down the MIC gains on both radios (in steps, a little at a time,
over several flights). In the end I had them turned down so much I couldn't
get a side tone in the earphones and suspect no-one could hear me at all.
2) I tried a couple different headsets (inexpensive non ANR types,
Sigtronics and Pilot Avionics units, both around 15 years old but well taken
care of and worked just fine in the Cessnas I used to rent). No joy.
3) I tried both headsets with and without foam muffs over the microphones.
No difference that I could tell with or without the muffs.
4) Placed ferrite beads over both coax lines running to the transmit
antennas (about 3/4 of the way down to the antennas, don't have access to
the base of the antennas right now, but will when I remove the floor panels
for annual inspection). No help!
5) Shut off the field in my B&C LR-60 alternator (with external regulator)
to operate on battery only. No change (I'm using forest of ground tabs ala
AEC philosophy and I'm NOT getting alternator noise in the reception of
either radio so I didn't expect this to help but it was easy to test).
6)Since I used fine (24 gauge 5 condutor MAC servo cable, no shielding) wire
to take the PTT signal from the PTT on the control stick to the pilots mic
jack, I thought maybe that was causing a problem so I tried using the
passengers PTT (wired with 22 ga shielded tefzel) instead of the pilots. No
change.
7) The audio panel has a built in fail-safe feature that routes the PTT and
mic/earphone signals direct to the number 1 NAV/COM in the event of audio
panel failure. I shut off the audio panel and tried that. The NAV/COMM TX
light comes on but still flickers and is crackly so it's not that. I of
course could not test the #2 radio this way but would expect it to be the
same.
Transmit antenna location is under the belly of the airplane (all metal
RV-6A). Two Comant bent whips about 40 inches apart just aft of the wing
spar.
The GPS portion of the GX-60 and VOR/ILS portion of the SL-30 work just
fine. Comm reception on both radios is loud and clear (at least I can hear
people in the pattern even if I can't talk to them).
When I originally ran through the installation checkout I left the settings
on the radios at the factory recommended (transmit worked fine so I left the
settings alone) and have been making changes to the Mic gains only. These
are computer controlled radios so I'm wondering if I need to adjust any
other parameters such as squelch (no pots to control squelch like the old
days) after making the Mic gain adjustments. Could the two be somehow
related through logic in the computer program that runs the radios?
I'm really stumped, any suggestions? Any UPS AT radio stack users have this
problem? How did you fix it? Should I run through the installation checkout
with the engine running so as to have more noise impinging on the microphone
while making adjustments? Don't like the idea of head down in the cockpit
with engine running but I can tie down the airplane while doing the checks
(I'm talking ground running here not trying to make adjustments in flight)!
Thanks for the help.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Flying and tweeking.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter for Hand held devices |
Thanks Bob,
That does make sense; I had isolated it to the dc/dc converter in the same
manner that you suggest here- by powering the device internally. I knew
that it wasn't alternator noise since I was running off the a/c battery
only. I then found out that the same noise has presented itself on another
installation that I did, so it couldn't be installation specific. There the
owner simply let the Ipod charge up and then disconnected it from the system
and played the music into the audio system using the Ipod internal battery.
I'll try and get an isolation transformer here and see what effect that has;
it is simply a transformer with a 1:1 winding ratio?
Jay
-----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: 21 September 2009 10:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Filter for Hand held devices
At 08:11 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>I think that I do need one; I am using a cigarette lighter type connection
>to power an Ipod power supply. When I connect this to the Ipod no noise is
>heard, but when I connect the Ipod to the radio/ intercom system I
>immediately get a high pitched noise in the earphones.
Okay, 'high pitched' is not alternator noise. It
MIGHT be an artifact of the dc/dc converter in your
ipod power adapter. Try first to power the Ipod internally
without the adapter. Does the noise go away? Try powering
the adapter fromits own 12 battery pack NOT connected to the a/c
in any way. A couple of el-cheeso 6v lantern batteries in
series a good diagnostic supply.
> I separated the
>power and signal leads and the noise stayed. I moved the power supply of
>the cigarette/ Ipod charger directly to the battery and the noise stayed.
I
>will still try a twisted pair on the power supply to the radio/intercom but
>it seems to me that the noise is generated by the Ipod charger so I thought
>that a filter might do the trick. Perhaps even a ferrite bead on the
>positive in to the radio will work.
>
>The only other thing that I can think of is that the loop formed by the
>plug->Ipod charger->Ipod audio out->radio/intercom is somehow causing the
>problem; but how does one get rid of that loop- its intrinsic to the music
>input?
It's most likely to be a ground loop issue which will be
re-enforced or denied by the above experiments.
In any case, it's almost a certainty that filtering
is not solution for root cause.
We may have to incorporate an isolation transformer
where audio from your Ipod goes to one winding and
audio to the ship's system is taken from the other
winding. See:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103994
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter for Hand held devices |
Duh.. scratch that question- its says exactly that on the Radio Shack page;
just noticed now...
I'll provide some feedback when I get the transformer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: 22 September 2009 08:06 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Filter for Hand held devices
Thanks Bob,
That does make sense; I had isolated it to the dc/dc converter in the same
manner that you suggest here- by powering the device internally. I knew
that it wasn't alternator noise since I was running off the a/c battery
only. I then found out that the same noise has presented itself on another
installation that I did, so it couldn't be installation specific. There the
owner simply let the Ipod charge up and then disconnected it from the system
and played the music into the audio system using the Ipod internal battery.
I'll try and get an isolation transformer here and see what effect that has;
it is simply a transformer with a 1:1 winding ratio?
Jay
-----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: 21 September 2009 10:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Filter for Hand held devices
At 08:11 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>I think that I do need one; I am using a cigarette lighter type connection
>to power an Ipod power supply. When I connect this to the Ipod no noise is
>heard, but when I connect the Ipod to the radio/ intercom system I
>immediately get a high pitched noise in the earphones.
Okay, 'high pitched' is not alternator noise. It
MIGHT be an artifact of the dc/dc converter in your
ipod power adapter. Try first to power the Ipod internally
without the adapter. Does the noise go away? Try powering
the adapter fromits own 12 battery pack NOT connected to the a/c
in any way. A couple of el-cheeso 6v lantern batteries in
series a good diagnostic supply.
> I separated the
>power and signal leads and the noise stayed. I moved the power supply of
>the cigarette/ Ipod charger directly to the battery and the noise stayed.
I
>will still try a twisted pair on the power supply to the radio/intercom but
>it seems to me that the noise is generated by the Ipod charger so I thought
>that a filter might do the trick. Perhaps even a ferrite bead on the
>positive in to the radio will work.
>
>The only other thing that I can think of is that the loop formed by the
>plug->Ipod charger->Ipod audio out->radio/intercom is somehow causing the
>problem; but how does one get rid of that loop- its intrinsic to the music
>input?
It's most likely to be a ground loop issue which will be
re-enforced or denied by the above experiments.
In any case, it's almost a certainty that filtering
is not solution for root cause.
We may have to incorporate an isolation transformer
where audio from your Ipod goes to one winding and
audio to the ship's system is taken from the other
winding. See:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103994
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Bob or somebody -
Please verify (or debunk) what I perceive is happening with the readings
from my shunt.
Background:
RV-8A
Two busses - main (operates everything normally) and standby (operates
essentials if alt + main fail)
One alternator, two batteries - one fore (main batt - main bus + engine
start) & one aft (stby bus - no start)
HE device on wire from alternator to main batt (HE device and main batt
located aft of firewall)
Shunt on standby batt located aft of rear baggage. Battery power is wired
to shunt. Shunt is wired to contactor. Contactor is wired to standby
bus. So, all electrons pass from battery through shunt to contactor to bus.
When I turn on only standby batt contactor, the shunt load indicates about
2A (contactor resistance plus operation of engine monitor).
After engine start and the alternator is carrying the load and the batts
have recharged, I occasionally get a negative amp indication on the shunt
(most of the time the shunt indicates 1 amp - probably contactor).
Question:
Can I assume that when the standby battery is being charged the shunt will
indicate negative amps?
If not, what might cause a negative load indication on the shunt?
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
Absolutely you should..Having said that the RV is a relatively gentle areob
atic airplane. Then again you have an IFR airplane..You really need your in
struments.
One option is to plan an upgrade to a Dynon D100 and a trutrack A/P..These
units are aerobatic proof..ask me how I know...:)
Oh and the RV 7 will spin inverted..:)
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PeterHunt1(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:20 PM
nics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aerobatics and Instrument Damage
I have completed some excellent Unusual Attitude training in a Cap-10 which
included loops, rolls and spins and will soon complete additional aerobati
c training. Then I would like to try some of these aerobatics maneuvers in
my RV-6. However, I am a little concern that the gyro tumbling and/or G f
orces of aerobatics may hurt my instruments. I have an AI, HSI and S-TEC a
utopilot all containing electric gyros and would hate to damage them. What
has been your experience with aerobatics and instrument damage? Should I
be concerned about this?
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6, Day/night IFR, Reserve Grand Champion S 'n F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Readings |
>
>Question:
>Can I assume that when the standby battery is being charged the
>shunt will indicate negative amps?
>If not, what might cause a negative load indication on the shunt?
Without seeing power distribution diagram, I can't
be real sure that I have an accurate mental image
of your system's configuration. However, some general
rules apply to battery ammeters . . .
Depending on polarity of connections to the current
sensor (in this case it's not a 'shunt'), the polarity
of current readings will indicate either a charge (bus
voltage above 13v) or a discharge (bus voltage
below 13v). Your narrative seems to indicate that your
battery current display is positive sign when the
battery is being discharged; alternator(s) off.
It follows then that when the alternator(s) lift the
bus voltage to nominal set points, the battery will
be recharged and the sign of battery current will
reverse . . . in this case be (-).
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Smart Start wire size |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I received an email from Bob Newman at TCW, although they have had no issues with
the system the discussion on this board made them double check the the fuse
requirements and after consulting with some starter contact manufacturers they
have upped the fuse requirement to a 5 amps. The on-line version of the manual
is updated. It seems a 3 amp fuse would be fine but since the wire size will
accommodate the 5 amp fuse they are making the change to 5 amps.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264423#264423
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Bare with me I am learning! My system will follow Z12, but it does not list a
AWG for the connection form the battery relay to the main buss and from the main
bus to the E-buss. Some of the drawings show a 6 AWG from the battery relay
to the main bus, but the wire diagram from Van's calls out a 8 AWG. So this
got me to thinking how do I determine the size wire that will go here. I understand
wires sizing to individual components but how does one figure a wire feeding
a bus? Do I take the numbers from my load analysis (only continuous loads)
and use that to size the wire? Does the same theory apply for the wire connecting
the main bus to the E-buss through the diode?
Lastly due to panel space my main buss is going to be in two rows, how do I make
the interconnection between the two, bolt a strip of buss bar material between
the buss that holds the CBs. should I connect the two rows of breakers at
both ends giving a redundant path to the second row. To be clear my main buss
is 2 rows of breakers and the E-buss is one row, for 3 rows total. Thanks for
the help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264438#264438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
| From: | "pmather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
Can anyone tell me why my message sent from outlook are coming through blank? This
one sent viam the web forum.
Any message was:
Hi all
I'm building some PIC based circuits to provide some monitoring on my
aircraft including interfacing a HMC6343 compass module (very expensive!)
and wanted views on the best practice way to derive a clean 5V and 3.3V
supply from the aircraft power.
My current approach is as follows:
1 amp fuse - reverse polarity protection diodes - transorb and 4700uF
capacitor across power/GND inside the diodes. Isolating DC-DC convertor (e.g
TRACO TEL 3-2011) which gives 5V out from 10-30V in - MCP1700 low dropout
linear regulator to get 3.3V from the 5V rail (very low power required at
3.3V).
This is very much a one off so I'm not too worried about cost (especially
compared to the compass module) but want something simple, secure, and
reliable.
Thanks
Peter
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264465#264465
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
I'm building an all electric RV and am also concerned about the gyros. Could the
solution be as simple as installing a switch (or 2 switches ;-) )to power
down the gyros when doing aerobatics? I agree it's better to take them out of
the airplane, but that's not an option for me.
Clear skies,
-Tom
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264470#264470
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
Not a good idea for mechanical gyros, they might be damaged more if they
do not spin then the other way round.
Werner (all electric including instruments)
tomcostanza wrote:
>
> I'm building an all electric RV and am also concerned about the gyros. Could
the solution be as simple as installing a switch (or 2 switches ;-) )to power
down the gyros when doing aerobatics? I agree it's better to take them out
of the airplane, but that's not an option for me.
>
> Clear skies,
> -Tom
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264470#264470
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and Instrument Damage |
Good Morning Tom,
Great Question! Wish I knew the answer.
Once again, I think I would check with the manufacturer.
However, as a point of reference, our answer fifty years ago when most
gyros had a caging capability was to turn off the air before the flight and
cage the gyros. That seemed to be a good solution at the time. The caging
lifted the gyros off the stops, held them securely, and prevented banging of
the gimbals. By shutting off the air, the gyroscopic forces were eliminated.
Some of the instrument gurus of the day told us that the bearings and axles
were still subjected to loads for which they were not designed.
The good thing about those days was that we could buy high quality WWII
surplus AN flight instruments at a fraction of their cost of manufacture.
As I said earlier, the TC and T&B (S-Tec autopilots use a TC as a sensor.}
can handle any and all aerobatics comfortably No problem there at all.
They are not harmed by aerobatics, but Attitude and Directional Gyros can
be.
If you use a Bendix/King KG 102A compass system, aerobatics will damage it
rapidly.
My WAG for the electric Attitude and Directional Gyros is that if you turn
them off before the flight so that the gyros are not spinning and restrain
yourself to a maximum of two or three G smooth aerobatics (No snap
maneuvers), the instruments will not be harmed.
As Always, It All depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 9/23/2009 5:30:55 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "tomcostanza"
I'm building an all electric RV and am also concerned about the gyros.
Could the solution be as simple as installing a switch (or 2 switches ;-)
)to power down the gyros when doing aerobatics? I agree it's better to take
them out of the airplane, but that's not an option for me.
Clear skies,
-Tom
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264470#264470
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
Hi Peter,
There was some recent discussion on this list regarding the 'blank emails'
topic. I think the common problem was that AVG anti-virus was used. If you
google for 'AVG anti-virus blank emails' you'll find various threads. Here are
a
couple of threads that may help you:
http://www.zimbra.com/forums/zimbra-connector-outlook/7386-blank-email-body-anti-virus.html
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-23-0.html?forumID=101&threadID=272602&messageID=2581442
Regards,
/\/elson
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, pmather wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me why my message sent from outlook are coming through blank?
This one sent viam the web forum.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264465#264465
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
You need to select "Plain Text" as your default for sending messages.
The mail you sent has some bad HTML code and it shows up as blank
unless you select "Raw Source" (if your email program allows that.)
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Sep 23, 2009, at 2:12 AM, pmather wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me why my message sent from outlook are coming
> through blank? This one sent viam the web forum.
>
> Any message was:
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm building some PIC based circuits to provide some monitoring on my
> aircraft including interfacing a HMC6343 compass module (very
> expensive!)
> and wanted views on the best practice way to derive a clean 5V and
> 3.3V
> supply from the aircraft power.
>
> My current approach is as follows:
>
> 1 amp fuse - reverse polarity protection diodes - transorb and 4700uF
> capacitor across power/GND inside the diodes. Isolating DC-DC
> convertor (e.g
> TRACO TEL 3-2011) which gives 5V out from 10-30V in - MCP1700 low
> dropout
> linear regulator to get 3.3V from the 5V rail (very low power
> required at
> 3.3V).
>
> This is very much a one off so I'm not too worried about cost
> (especially
> compared to the compass module) but want something simple, secure, and
> reliable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264465#264465
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
| From: | "pmather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
Steve, David
Thanks for the info on the emails. I was already using plain text so it is clearly
AVG that causes the problems.
However, back to the real subject of the email?
Best regards
Peter
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264526#264526
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 5V from aircraft power - best practice? |
>
>My current approach is as follows:
>
>1 amp fuse - reverse polarity protection diodes - transorb and 4700uF
>capacitor across power/GND inside the diodes. Isolating DC-DC convertor (e.g
>TRACO TEL 3-2011) which gives 5V out from 10-30V in - MCP1700 low dropout
>linear regulator to get 3.3V from the 5V rail (very low power required at
>3.3V).
What you've proposed will be fine.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob wrote: Okay, 'high pitched' is not alternator noise. It
MIGHT be an artifact of the dc/dc converter in your
ipod power adapter.
I have an identical issue with my SANSA mp3 player. When the screen backlight times
out [user setting to 20 sec] the squeal stops. Apparently, the backlighting
frequency is horrible for our ears. I pick this up over the plane audio, my
car and stand alone ear buds. After 20 seconds, no squeal.
Some units are set to remain lit if on external power, so the squeal never stops.
Can the screen setting be changed on his iPOD to a shorter time?
John in a Glasiar II FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What size wire? |
At 09:41 PM 9/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bare with me I am learning! My system will follow Z12, but it does
>not list a AWG for the connection form the battery relay to the main
>buss and from the main bus to the E-buss. Some of the drawings show
>a 6 AWG from the battery relay to the main bus, but the wire diagram
>from Van's calls out a 8 AWG. So this got me to thinking how do I
>determine the size wire that will go here. I understand wires
>sizing to individual components but how does one figure a wire feeding a bus?
As a general rule, fat wires that do not carry starter
currents are picked to carry alternator currents. Many
builders using 4AWG fat wires for battery installations
near the engine simply use 4AWG for the altenrator b-lead
and main bus too. But if your alternator is 60A or smaller,
6AWG is fine for these two slots.
Size the main-bus/e-bus jumper according to e-bus loads.
Same philosophy for the e-bus alternate feed path from
the battery bus.
>Lastly due to panel space my main buss is going to be in two rows,
>how do I make the interconnection between the two, bolt a strip of
>buss bar material between the buss that holds the CBs. should I
>connect the two rows of breakers at both ends giving a redundant
>path to the second row. To be clear my main buss is 2 rows of
>breakers and the E-buss is one row, for 3 rows total. Thanks for the help.
Here's how Beech does it . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_0.jpg
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: strobe lights |
At 12:48 PM 9/19/2009, you wrote:
>For anyone interested in this sort of thing, here is some
>information on test standards.
><http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/photo/Flash/flash.html>http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/photo/Flash/flash.html
thank you sir. I've downloaded to my reference library
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Loop posibilities |
In my Lancair, I have two Odessey batteries and the - terminals are
wired as follows:
1. 4ga cable from A bat to B bat and from there to starter ground.
2. 10ga cable from A Bat to B Bat and from there to ground buss
forward of the panel. This ground buss is
electrically isolated from the rest of the airframe as it is mounted
on glass.
I can demonstrate continuity between the ground buss and any point on
the instrument panel and avionics stack as well as any of the control
cables which penetrate the firewall and attach to the engine. This
would seem to be made possible by the ground path from the batteries
directly to the starter ground point. From a ground loop point of
view, is this anything to be concerned about? Given all the cables
which attach to the engine and pass through the firewall to the panel,
I don't see how it would be possible to isolate the starter ground
cable path to the panel. Maybe this is a non issue and I should just
get on with building.
All comments appreciated. :-)
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Loop posibilities |
In my Lancair, I have two Odessey batteries and the - terminals are
wired as follows:
1. 4ga cable from A bat to B bat and from there to starter ground.
2. 10ga cable from A Bat to B Bat and from there to ground buss
forward of the panel. This ground buss is
electrically isolated from the rest of the airframe as it is mounted
on glass.
I can demonstrate continuity between the ground buss and any point on
the instrument panel and avionics stack as well as any of the control
cables which penetrate the firewall and attach to the engine. This
would seem to be made possible by the ground path from the batteries
directly to the starter ground point. From a ground loop point of
view, is this anything to be concerned about? Given all the cables
which attach to the engine and pass through the firewall to the panel,
I don't see how it would be possible to isolate the starter ground
cable path to the panel. Maybe this is a non issue and I should just
get on with building.
All comments appreciated. :-)
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
My van's kit came with MS 2 awg cable for big wires, but the stuff is too stiff
for my application, I have very short runs from my battery to the contactor.
I know welding cable can be used, a friend found some "200 amp inverter cable"
at Harbor Freight that he is using in his airplane. Does anyone know if this
is the same stuff as welding cable. The connections I want to use this flexible
cable for are all behind the firewall, I will use the mil spec stuff to run
power forward to the starter. Thanks for any help with this.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264699#264699
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I don't know about the Harbor Freight stuff, but when I was looking for
welding cable, I did find a variety of quality in insulation. Some had an
inner jacket, which I took to be a better quality, and some had not.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM, rvg8tor wrote:
>
> My van's kit came with MS 2 awg cable for big wires, but the stuff is too
> stiff for my application, I have very short runs from my battery to the
> contactor. I know welding cable can be used, a friend found some "200 amp
> inverter cable" at Harbor Freight that he is using in his airplane. Does
> anyone know if this is the same stuff as welding cable. The connections I
> want to use this flexible cable for are all behind the firewall, I will use
> the mil spec stuff to run power forward to the starter. Thanks for any help
> with this.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264699#264699
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 10:19 AM 9/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>My van's kit came with MS 2 awg cable for big wires, but the stuff
>is too stiff for my application, I have very short runs from my
>battery to the contactor. I know welding cable can be used, a
>friend found some "200 amp inverter cable" at Harbor Freight that he
>is using in his airplane. Does anyone know if this is the same
>stuff as welding cable. The connections I want to use this flexible
>cable for are all behind the firewall, I will use the mil spec stuff
>to run power forward to the starter. Thanks for any help with this.
No good way to know details of this product.
Welding cable is really inexpensive. Pick up
what you need at a local welding supply store.
Also, 2AWG is REALLY oversized for an RV with battery
on the firewall. If it were my airplane, 4AWG
welding cable would be used for all fat wires
that carry starter current.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I have an electronic supply store in my town so I went out to get the diodes that
go on the battery and start relays. I asked for the 1N5400, after looking
up in a book the guy gave me an NTE-5800. Near as I can tell from looking on-line
they are the same type of diode. Is there anything quality wiser or otherwise
I should be aware of when buying these things? They only cost .38 each,
so after ring terminals and some heat shrink I might have a buck into them,
not bad.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264814#264814
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 11:51 AM 9/24/2009, you wrote:
>I don't know about the Harbor Freight stuff, but when I was looking
>for welding cable, I did find a variety of quality in
>insulation. Some had an inner jacket, which I took to be a better
>quality, and some had not.
>
>Sam
Thanks for reminding me of that Sam. A guy
at a welding store told me that the two-layer
cable lasted longer in the field. Little nicks
in the outer jacket tended to propagate cracks
through to the strands when the cable was flexed/
stretched. By making it two layers, the gap
was a "crack stopper" while the inner layer
maintained environmental integrity.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/4AWG_Welding_Cable_1.jpg
It seems a logical explanation. Of course,
the cables in our airplanes don't get stretched
across gravel drives and run over by dump-trucks.
The Anchor brand welding cable illustrated above
has an HDPM outer jacket which is revered for
its flexibility and toughness. Here's an excerpt
from a wire catalog describing this insulation.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I found my local welding shop and bought some 4 AWG. Man this stuff is flexible,
I can't believe I was trying to wrestle with the mill spec stuff for those
short runs. It is not the double insulated stuff you showed in the picture but
it seem tough. it is labeled as "Heavy Duty Welding cable 600V -50 degrees C
to 105 degrees C. I will use a crimp on ring terminal, I have the tool from
ACS for this but should I solder the end before crimping, there are a lot of fine
wires in this cable. I will have to check the AEC Bible, I seem to remember
reading something on this subject.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264836#264836
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mounting BATT/START Relays |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
My battery will be just aft of the firewall so the battery relay will be mounted
on the aft side of the firewall, the start relay will be just opposite on the
forward side of the firewall. I see some who install plate nuts to mount these
relays individually, 4 nuts + 4 bolts+4 holes in the firewall. The holes
on the two relays work out so that one could just use 2 bolts and two normal nuts
(not anchor nuts) and mount the two relays through common holes in the firewall.
The only drawback I can see is that if one or the other needs to be replaced
then both you can't remove one without disturbing the other, this does not
seem like a big deal to me as they are fairly long lasting devices. Can anyone
see why my idea is a bad one? I though of heat transfer from the hot side
of the firewall, but bolts into nut plates would do that to some degree, and
all of the relays could be mounted forward of the firewall like many factory
airplanes have them.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264914#264914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diode numbers |
At 05:29 PM 9/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>I have an electronic supply store in my town so I went out to get
>the diodes that go on the battery and start relays. I asked for the
>1N5400, after looking up in a book the guy gave me an
>NTE-5800. Near as I can tell from looking on-line they are the same
>type of diode. Is there anything quality wiser or otherwise I
>should be aware of when buying these things? They only cost .38
>each, so after ring terminals and some heat shrink I might have a
>buck into them, not bad.
Of thousands of diode part numbers on the shelves,
the vast majority of the industry's needs can be
met by perhaps a few hundred . . . maybe less.
The spike catcher diodes don't even wake up
from a sound sleep when hit by the energy from
your contactor's magnetic field collapse. I
LIKE the 5400 series devices because they're
MECHANICALLY friendly for installation. Much
smaller diodes would be electrically adequate
but these dudes (and the NTE-5800 cousins)
are most adequate to the task.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
Mike,
Maybe a small thing, but I would crimp "before" I'd solder. Soldering
just seals the deal.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rvg8tor
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Welding cable
I found my local welding shop and bought some 4 AWG. Man this stuff is
flexible, I can't believe I was trying to wrestle with the mill spec
stuff for those short runs. It is not the double insulated stuff you
showed in the picture but it seem tough. it is labeled as "Heavy Duty
Welding cable 600V -50 degrees C to 105 degrees C. I will use a crimp
on ring terminal, I have the tool from ACS for this but should I solder
the end before crimping, there are a lot of fine wires in this cable. I
will have to check the AEC Bible, I seem to remember reading something
on this subject.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264836#264836
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 07:41 PM 9/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>I found my local welding shop and bought some 4 AWG. Man this stuff
>is flexible, I can't believe I was trying to wrestle with the mill
>spec stuff for those short runs.
NICE to work with . . .
> It is not the double insulated stuff you showed in the picture but
> it seem tough. it is labeled as "Heavy Duty Welding cable 600V -50
> degrees C to 105 degrees C.
Yup, it will be just fine . . .
> I will use a crimp on ring terminal, I have the tool from ACS for
> this but should I solder the end before crimping, there are a lot
> of fine wires in this cable. I will have to check the AEC Bible, I
> seem to remember reading something on this subject.
If your crimp tool produces the proper crush, then
crimping is as good as solder. The two processes
are essentially interchangeable. If you solder at
all, then crimping adds no value.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I am brain storming here while I work on my electrical system design (Z12). I wonder
why there is a switch for the Alt Field. From my reading on the forums internally
regulated alternators get their life shortened if one turns them on
under load, (they should be on before start until after start to get the most
life out of the alternator). The B&C alternator is externally regulated and can
handle the switching under load. But operationally there is no reason to switch
the alternator on and off, if you have an abnormal situation and need to turn
the alternator off you can do that just as easily with a circuit breaker as
you can with a switch. So why not leave the switch out of the loop and wire
the alternator field directly to circuit breaker so it is always on, in case of
alternator problem, pull circuit breaker. On less switch a few ounces and dollars
saved. So, am I missing something obvious here?
I have posted this on VAF, but thought since this forum is more on point I should
post it here.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264938#264938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting BATT/START Relays |
>The holes on the two relays work out so that one could just use 2
>bolts and two normal nuts (not anchor nuts) and mount the two relays
>through common holes in the firewall.
> The only drawback I can see is that if one or the other needs to
> be replaced then both you can't remove one without disturbing the
> other, this does not seem like a big deal to me as they are fairly
> long lasting devices. Can anyone see why my idea is a bad one?
The TC aircraft guys do things like this all the time . . .
> I though of heat transfer from the hot side of the firewall, but
> bolts into nut plates would do that to some degree, and all of the
> relays could be mounted forward of the firewall like many factory
> airplanes have them.
??? not sure of the rationale here. The
battery relay should be as close to the battery
as practical and certainly positioned so that
the battery(+) lead doesn't penetrate the firewall
before reaching the relay's fat terminal.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
At 10:22 AM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
I am brain storming here while I work on my electrical system design
(Z12). I wonder why there is a switch for the Alt Field. From my
reading on the forums internally regulated alternators get their life
shortened if one turns them on under load, (they should be on before
start until after start to get the most life out of the alternator).
Bob Nuckolls replies:
An urban (or perhaps hangar) legend. I've been
working with alternators and generators for 40+
years. There is no basis in physics to support
the legend. In fact, it has always been a design
goal of every TC aircraft electrical system to
offer any time, any conditions, positive ON/OFF
control of alternators and/or generators without
concern for degradation of performance or damage
to equipment.
The B&C alternator is externally regulated and can handle the
switching under load.
As can ALL other skillfully designed alternators. One
of the foundations upon which the hangar-myth was
built had to do with alternators ostensibly
wired per Z-24 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z24-Interim.pdf
. . . and apparently switched off (B-lead
broken) while the alternator was under load.
This started a hysterical kerfuffle about "turning
alternators on or off under load". Numerous
authors have posited the same hypothesis before.
However, the special case presented by a b-lead disconnect
contactor energized efforts by the in-experienced
and un-informed to stoke the fires anew and stir
the pot of misunderstanding.
I enjoyed a two-day tour of a LARGE scale alternator
remanufacturing operation about a year ago. Details
of this visit can be discovered at:
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/03_Alternator_12A1.pdf
During that visit I witnessed a demonstration
of a full load, max rpm, hot-alternator b-lead
disconnect that liberated kilojoules of energy
in the ensuing arc . . . 5 times in a row. The
flash of fire was so great that it was impossible
to photograph or record on video. Their chief engineer
asserted that all of their reman products (2800+
line items) were tested to the same design goals.
These alternators were demonstrably immune from
self-induced load dump damage.
But operationally there is no reason to switch the alternator on and
off, if you have an abnormal situation and need to turn the
alternator off you can do that just as easily with a circuit breaker
as you can with a switch.
Suppose you have two alternators like Z-12 or
Z-13? Is it not useful to test the two alternators
independently of each other irrespective of all
other conditions?
Suppose you have smoke in the cockpit? How
about an unruly regulator? Our brothers in
the TC aircraft world have adopted any-time,
any-conditions, ON/OFF control as a design
goal.
So why not leave the switch out of the loop and wire the alternator
field directly to circuit breaker so it is always on, in case of
alternator problem, pull circuit breaker. On less switch a few ounces
and dollars saved. So, am I missing something obvious here?
Perhaps not obvious . . . but certainly not
'secret'. Any student of contact physics for
things like relays, switches and CIRCUIT BREAKERS
will understand that depending on a breaker
like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Klixon_1.jpg
. . . to open the 100 volts plus, b-lead of a runaway
alternator is quite likely to experience a hundreds-of-
kilojoules arc in the gap of relatively slow moving
contacts that are guaranteed to produce a lot of smoke
in the cockpit. BREAKERS are not intended to serve
as commanding manual control devices. Breakers for
aircraft are designed to break faults of several
thousand amps at 32 VOLTS or less. See paragraph
4.7.14 of . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/5809G.pdf
Since the first generators (and then alternators) went
aboard an airplane, the pilot has been offered positive
control of those electrical energy sources by breaking the
FIELD lead. At no time did anyone consider the main power
output feeder protection to be a control device. In fact,
b-lead protection on TC aircraft isn't even on the panel . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/A36_Firewall_A.jpg
I have posted this on VAF, but thought since this forum is more on
point I should post it here.
Please post this reply to VAF. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
Thank you for the explanation, this really helps me understand the design better.
I did post your reply on the VAF for all to read. I think this will add to
everyones education.
So if I understand what your post, the gist is that there is potential for excess
voltage in some situations as to make a CB fail if used to cut the field to
the alternator. I have heard others say CBs are not meant to be switches, but
at my airline we routinely pull CB on certain items while the airplane sits
between flights for several hours. Things like the radar, TCAS, VSI indicator.
This use of the CB as a switch happens several times a day for each aircraft.
It this an accepted practice since these are low voltage items.
You have given me the data i was looking for, I now understand why the switch is
needed, it is due to potential high loads.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265058#265058
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
9/26/2009
Hello Mike and Bob, The recent exchange of postings between the two of you
on the subject of "Why have a switch on ALT Field?" has left me a bit
baffled.
Mike, your question dealt with shutting down an alternator by removing the
electrical source to its FIELD. Figure Z 12 was the starting point for your
question and presumably dealt with externally regulated alternators, but
then you threw in the red herring of shutting down internally regulated
alternators.
Bob, your answer appeared to deal extensively with shutting down an
internally regulated alternator by opening the B LEAD such as in Figure Z
24..
Mike, your response below indicated that you believed, as a result of Bob's
posting, that there was a huge amount of electricity flowing through the
wire to the alternator FIELD circuit in an externally regulated alternator
and that therefore a switch rather than a circuit breaker would be needed to
open that circuit.
"You have given me the data i was looking for, I now understand why the
switch is
needed, it is due to potential high loads."
It is my understanding that:
1) The alternator FIELD wire in an externally regulated alternator only
carries a few amps of electricity.
2) Opening this FIELD wire with either a CB or a switch while electricity is
flowing through this wire generates no huge electrical flow interruption
issue.
3) The alternator B LEAD (in either an internally regulated or externally
regulated alternator) can carry a significant amount of electricity and
interrupting this flow through the B LEAD by opening the B LEAD brings up
the issues that Bob dealt with extensively in his response.
Mike if you will check some of the Z diagrams (Z 9 as well as Z 12 for
example) you will see that there is both a CB and a switch that can
interrupt the electrical flow to the alternator FIELD of an externally
regulated alternator. And this is good. The CB provides the traditional
protection to that wiring and the switch makes it possible to turn on / off
the alternator FIELD as desired with no great concern regarding interrupting
huge amperage flow.
My airplane has both a CB and a switch (as do the Z figures) and the
externally regulated alternator FIELD gets turned off by the switch during
every engine shut down procedure while the engine is still running. Shortly
after the alternator is turned off by the FIELD switch the low voltage light
begins to flash telling me that that warning indication is working. I then
turn on my essential bus** and then turn off the battery master and the
radio master (yes I have one ##) to ensure that my Garmin 430W and my
transponder continue to operate off the battery which is now feeding the
avionics essential bus. The Garmin 430W and the transponder are essential
for me to return to my home field inside the Washington DC SFRA.
Please let me know if I have confused or clarified the issue raised by
Mike's original question.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: Yes I am aware that there are means of causing this to happen
automatically with a diode, but the guy who wired my panel did not do it
that way and I have been living very happily with what he provided because I
understand the system.
##PS: Again this was given to me (after I paid big money to have the panel
built), but I have access to the avionics that I need via an essential
avionics bus so I have been living very happily with what he provided
because I understand the system.
================================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Bob,
Thank you for the explanation, this really helps me understand the design
better.
I did post your reply on the VAF for all to read. I think this will add to
everyones education.
So if I understand what your post, the gist is that there is potential for
excess
voltage in some situations as to make a CB fail if used to cut the field to
the alternator. I have heard others say CBs are not meant to be switches,
but
at my airline we routinely pull CB on certain items while the airplane sits
between flights for several hours. Things like the radar, TCAS, VSI
indicator.
This use of the CB as a switch happens several times a day for each
aircraft.
It this an accepted practice since these are low voltage items.
You have given me the data i was looking for, I now understand why the
switch is
needed, it is due to potential high loads.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
Where can you find the anchor brand cable? Any weblinks/supply you can
point to.
Thanks
Chris
RV-10
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, September 24, 2009 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
At 11:51 AM 9/24/2009, you wrote:
I don't know about the Harbor Freight stuff, but when I was looking for
welding cable, I did find a variety of quality in insulation. Some had an
inner jacket, which I took to be a better quality, and some had not.
Sam
Thanks for reminding me of that Sam. A guy
at a welding store told me that the two-layer
cable lasted longer in the field. Little nicks
in the outer jacket tended to propagate cracks
through to the strands when the cable was flexed/
stretched. By making it two layers, the gap
was a "crack stopper" while the inner layer
maintained environmental integrity.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/4AWG_Welding_Cable_1.jpg
It seems a logical explanation. Of course,
the cables in our airplanes don't get stretched
across gravel drives and run over by dump-trucks.
The Anchor brand welding cable illustrated above
has an HDPM outer jacket which is revered for
its flexibility and toughness. Here's an excerpt
from a wire catalog describing this insulation.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
At 08:47 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
Bob,
Thank you for the explanation, this really helps me understand the
design better. I did post your reply on the VAF for all to read. I
think this will add to everyone's education.
So if I understand what your post, the gist is that there is
potential for excess voltage in some situations as to make a CB fail
if used to cut the field to the alternator.
That's not the bottom line . . .
We should start with some design goals in mind.
For all of my career in TC and OBAM aircraft,
I've embraced and designed systems that meet
traditional goals for any time, any conditions,
On-0ff control of the engine driven power source(s).
I have heard others say CBs are not meant to be switches, but at my
airline we routinely pull CB on certain items while the airplane sits
between flights for several hours. Things like the radar, TCAS, VSI
indicator. This use of the CB as a switch happens several times a
day for each aircraft. It this an accepted practice since these are
low voltage items.
This isn't about using breakers as switches, it's
about meeting the design goal cited above. The b-lead
breaker on an alternator COULD be used to disconnect
the alternator assuming (A) the alternator is under
control [producing 14 or so volts] and (B) the
breaker is on the panel and pullable [many TC aircraft
have push-only breakers]. The classical control philosophy
for engine driven power sources has been a SWITCH in
reach of the crew that offers control over the field
excitation . . . always a low current, easy-to-manage
task. This task COULD be managed by flipping a switch
-OR- pulling the field supply breaker . . . it's your
choice.
There are other legacy design goals . . . like automatic
and absolute control of the alternator in case of
a failed regulator in an OV runaway condition.
Figure Z-24 is but one of several recipes for success.
When Z-24 was combined with alternators NOT designed
and tested to withstand their own load-dumps that some
builders experienced alternator failures immediately
after turning them off while under load.
You have given me the data I was looking for, I now understand
why the switch is needed, it is due to potential high loads.
No . . . its about dependance on pulling
of a b-lead breaker for the purpose of taking
a runaway alternator off line. This is a shaky
design goal due to the fact that a failed alternator
can deliver 100-200 volts in a runaway condition.
Attempting to do this reliably with a 32-volt rated,
pullable breaker would very likely fail the breaker.
Further, pulling a b-lead breaker to mitigate an
ov condition puts human perception, decision, reaction
delays into the shutdown event. That's never been
embraced by the TC aircraft world that I'm aware
of.
The issues before us are (1) design goals for
control (2) design goals for automatic millisecond-
fast mitigation of an OV event. You can pull a
field breaker for (1) if you wish . . . but NOT
a b-lead breaker for (2).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:45 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
>Where can you find the anchor brand cable? Any weblinks/supply you
>can point to.
>Thanks
>Chris
>RV-10
A local welding supply store will offer Anchor or
a suitable equivalent. Some mention was made of
a "200A inverter cable" from Harbor Freight. While
these wires will probably have enough finely stranded
copper for the task, the question to be asked deals
with temperature characteristics and ruggedness of
the INSULATION. Welding cable produced to an ATSM
specification (as are most if not all American
products) will do the job for you . . .
I searched for Anchor outlets but without success
after 20 minutes or so . . . however, the storefront
where I purchased the pictured sample was offering
Anchor brand cable at the time I bought it. That
was several years ago.
Shop around locally first . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
My design goal is a system that is simple as possible but still meets capacity
and redundancy goals (glass IFR bird). Thankfully I found Z12 and this design
suits my need.
My assumption not mentioned by me so far, is that I will have an alternator that
will have a controllable filed with OV protection, be that with internal or
external regulation. I never thought of controlling the alternator with the "B"
lead. So just looking at the Z12 diagram I pondered whether I needed the switch
for the alternator field, I was looking for way to simplify where I could.
My CB panel will all be in easy reach by my right leg, the CB layout has 4 breakers
at the end of two rows to make then stand out from the rest, I also plan
to have them with colored collars, this would make finding them in the dark easy.
Two at the end of the top row are for the primary and standby alternator
fields. Two at the end of the next row control 12V power to the L/R P-mags respectfully.
Also the two rows are not the same length, this also allows for identification
in the dark. Top row is shorter, last two breakers are MAIN ALT
then STBY ALT, easy to remember easy to find.
I know a toggle switch will be faster to actuate than finding a breaker but not
by much. So would elimination of the switch change the design goal of Z12, would
I not still have a controllable engine driven power source? I guess from
what I have read so far the answer is no. Even though the switch will be used
very little, it is still required?
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265125#265125
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
OK, now here's one more vote for "confused". I thought the circuit
breaker was supposed to be rated at the output amperage of the
alternator because it's that current that one wants to limit. My 40A
circuit breaker would do nothing for me on the alternator field circuit.
As I understand it, the switch is on the alternator field low-current
12V line (called IGN on my alternator) and the circuit breaker protects
the output side (B lead). Mine is wired this way because it made
sense.
Ian Brown,
RV-9A, Bromont, QC
>
> 9/26/2009
>
> Hello Mike and Bob, The recent exchange of postings between the two of you
> on the subject of "Why have a switch on ALT Field?" has left me a bit
> baffled.
>
> Mike, your question dealt with shutting down an alternator by removing the
> electrical source to its FIELD. Figure Z 12 was the starting point for your
> question and presumably dealt with externally regulated alternators, but
> then you threw in the red herring of shutting down internally regulated
> alternators.
>
> Bob, your answer appeared to deal extensively with shutting down an
> internally regulated alternator by opening the B LEAD such as in Figure Z
> 24..
>
> Mike, your response below indicated that you believed, as a result of Bob's
> posting, that there was a huge amount of electricity flowing through the
> wire to the alternator FIELD circuit in an externally regulated alternator
> and that therefore a switch rather than a circuit breaker would be needed to
> open that circuit.
>
> "You have given me the data i was looking for, I now understand why the
> switch is
> needed, it is due to potential high loads."
>
> It is my understanding that:
>
> 1) The alternator FIELD wire in an externally regulated alternator only
> carries a few amps of electricity.
>
> 2) Opening this FIELD wire with either a CB or a switch while electricity is
> flowing through this wire generates no huge electrical flow interruption
> issue.
>
> 3) The alternator B LEAD (in either an internally regulated or externally
> regulated alternator) can carry a significant amount of electricity and
> interrupting this flow through the B LEAD by opening the B LEAD brings up
> the issues that Bob dealt with extensively in his response.
>
> Mike if you will check some of the Z diagrams (Z 9 as well as Z 12 for
> example) you will see that there is both a CB and a switch that can
> interrupt the electrical flow to the alternator FIELD of an externally
> regulated alternator. And this is good. The CB provides the traditional
> protection to that wiring and the switch makes it possible to turn on / off
> the alternator FIELD as desired with no great concern regarding interrupting
> huge amperage flow.
>
> My airplane has both a CB and a switch (as do the Z figures) and the
> externally regulated alternator FIELD gets turned off by the switch during
> every engine shut down procedure while the engine is still running. Shortly
> after the alternator is turned off by the FIELD switch the low voltage light
> begins to flash telling me that that warning indication is working. I then
> turn on my essential bus** and then turn off the battery master and the
> radio master (yes I have one ##) to ensure that my Garmin 430W and my
> transponder continue to operate off the battery which is now feeding the
> avionics essential bus. The Garmin 430W and the transponder are essential
> for me to return to my home field inside the Washington DC SFRA.
>
> Please let me know if I have confused or clarified the issue raised by
> Mike's original question.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
>
> **PS: Yes I am aware that there are means of causing this to happen
> automatically with a diode, but the guy who wired my panel did not do it
> that way and I have been living very happily with what he provided because I
> understand the system.
>
> ##PS: Again this was given to me (after I paid big money to have the panel
> built), but I have access to the avionics that I need via an essential
> avionics bus so I have been living very happily with what he provided
> because I understand the system.
>
> ================================================
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
> From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for the explanation, this really helps me understand the design
> better.
> I did post your reply on the VAF for all to read. I think this will add to
> everyones education.
>
> So if I understand what your post, the gist is that there is potential for
> excess
> voltage in some situations as to make a CB fail if used to cut the field to
> the alternator. I have heard others say CBs are not meant to be switches,
> but
> at my airline we routinely pull CB on certain items while the airplane sits
> between flights for several hours. Things like the radar, TCAS, VSI
> indicator.
> This use of the CB as a switch happens several times a day for each
> aircraft.
> It this an accepted practice since these are low voltage items.
>
> You have given me the data i was looking for, I now understand why the
> switch is
> needed, it is due to potential high loads.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
At 06:53 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
Please let me know if I have confused or clarified the issue raised
by Mike's original question.
Your words appear to paint a clear understanding . . .
The problem with this (and many threads of similar discussion
in the past) is the stirring of a LOT of simple-ideas (facts)
into one pot of ill-conceived stew (no definition of design
goals) and stirred over a hot fire ("don't do that or you're
gonna die") with the unbridled enthusiasm (mis-interpretation
of words).
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather
and understand knowledge."
Yup, you got that right. I notice that my response to Mike's
follow-up hasn't passed through the server yet . . . but
I hope it proves to be a useful clarification of how we . . .
(1) start with design goals . . .
(2) then craft an architecture that addresses design
goals while . . .
(3) eliminating single points of failure for extra ordinarily
useful electro-whizzies as revealed by skillfully
conducted FMEA.
(4) Study and understand the specs for ingredients that go
into recipes for success.
(5) Select style, quality and a minimized quantity of components
that go into the proposed recipe.
(6) Verify that the recipe meets design goals.
(7) Analyze subsequent failures to deduce root cause.
Wear out? Mis-application? Robustness? Quality?
Error of stating or conformance to design goals?
Other? Answers to these questions may prompt a program
review that goes all the way back to step (1).
When one makes a career of this process, you eventually
discover that it's a Mobius Loop which strives for archiving
a host of lessons-learned while improving upon the best we
know how to do. This is the essence of good design engineering
as I've come to understand it.
Its interesting but frustrating that there are so many
pitfalls that put the 7-step process at risk. We're
fortunate that until recently, loss of the entire
electrical system was unlikely to force an airplane
down.
Now that we've embraced performance advantages of modern
electronics to control engines, there's a pressing
need to craft an architecture with particular attention
to step (3). This is relatively easy to do if the
seven steps are dutifully observed . . . but it's
easy to be distracted from the process if
excited rhetoric borne out of misunderstanding
dominates the tenor of the discussion.
So while we "gather and understand knowledge" (become
designers) we must be ready to calmly defuse
excitement with lucid explanation of simple-ideas
and how they become ingredients that go into recipes
for success (become teachers).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I was at my local True-Value hardware store, this morning, and they had the
4AWG inner jacketed stuff. I didn't look for the brand name, though.
Sam
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:45 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>> Where can you find the anchor brand cable? Any weblinks/supply you can
>> point to.
>> Thanks
>> Chris
>> RV-10
>>
>
> A local welding supply store will offer Anchor or
> a suitable equivalent. Some mention was made of
> a "200A inverter cable" from Harbor Freight. While
> these wires will probably have enough finely stranded
> copper for the task, the question to be asked deals
> with temperature characteristics and ruggedness of
> the INSULATION. Welding cable produced to an ATSM
> specification (as are most if not all American
> products) will do the job for you . . .
>
> I searched for Anchor outlets but without success
> after 20 minutes or so . . . however, the storefront
> where I purchased the pictured sample was offering
> Anchor brand cable at the time I bought it. That
> was several years ago.
>
> Shop around locally first . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
Hi Bob,
West Marine carries ANCOR brand battery cable. I don't know if it's any good. Just
another piece of intel to muck things up.
Hal Benjamin
RV4 Long Island, NY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
> III"
>
> At 09:45 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
> >Where can you find the anchor brand cable? Any weblinks/supply
> you
> >can point to.
> >Thanks
> >Chris
> >RV-10
>
> A local welding supply store will offer Anchor or
> a suitable equivalent. Some mention was made of
> a "200A inverter cable" from Harbor Freight. While
> these wires will probably have enough finely stranded
> copper for the task, the question to be asked deals
> with temperature characteristics and ruggedness of
> the INSULATION. Welding cable produced to an ATSM
> specification (as are most if not all American
> products) will do the job for you . . .
>
> I searched for Anchor outlets but without success
> after 20 minutes or so . . . however, the storefront
> where I purchased the pictured sample was offering
> Anchor brand cable at the time I bought it. That
> was several years ago.
>
> Shop around locally first . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Hired wire-slingers |
>>##PS: Again this was given to me (after I paid big money to have the panel
>>built), but I have access to the avionics that I need via an essential
>>avionics bus so I have been living very happily with what he provided
>>because I understand the system.
The task of selecting a panel builder is two-fold. Unfortunately,
features that drive most buy-decisions are appearance (craftsmanship),
and experience (built a lot of panels). The the seven-step
process I described earlier goes to the MOST important component
of the buy-decision process . . . and is seldom offered by some
of the most skilled builders.
This is why the most successful airplane companies had
good engineers that teamed with equally good craftsmen
that were both free to continuously improve upon the
best we know how to do. I always had a excellent relationship
with the folks in the factory. I hold their skills
in high regard . . . I've worked on those lines too.
But corporate management is moving from self-serving
entrepreneurs to stockholder-serving bankers. Product
quality and capability is being wrenched from the
control of designers and craftsmen and replaced with
process and control dictates (ISO, FAR, EPA, etc).
The result is predictable and inevitable. The best
we know how to do is no longer represented by the
folks who understood and built airplanes most of us
learned to fly in. The best we know how to do is
now in your basements and garages.
Fortunately, there are many skilled craftsmen from
the TC aircraft world who are supporting OBAM aircraft
. . . but their skills and understanding as
designers are carry-overs from their experience
in the TC aircraft world. Great amounts of
money CAN buy great amounts of mediocre work product.
This is avoided when a team of artful designers AND craftsmen
filter the activity through the Seven Steps.
You are all program managers now . . . managers
who have to design, craft, do make-buy decisions and
ultimately climb into and fly the work product.
While "caveat emptor" was mostly applied to the exchange
of real estate, it's no less applicable here.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mounting BATT/START Relays |
9/26/2009
Hello Mike, You wrote: "........ this does not seem like a big deal to me as
they are fairly long lasting devices."**
I began my real plane aviation career as a US Navy airplane mechanic some 59
years ago. Since then I have spent thousands of hours working on airplanes,
acquired an A&P rating, a Master's Degree in Aeronautical Engineering, built
my own airplane, and flown several thousand hours.
I had plenty of opportunity during that time to confront many
maintainability issues. These issues come in many different forms, but one
of the most important ones is accessibility -- if you can't access a part
you can't fix it, adjust it, or replace it.
It is very easy in the early stages of building a homebuilt to significantly
underestimate the effort that will be required to access a part when the
airplane is completed.
I want you to envision your airplane completed and someone someday
attempting to remove and replace one of the contactors which is held in
place by through bolts also holding the other contactor in place on the
other side of the firewall. It will require a wrench simultaneously on both
the bolt head and the bolt nut. This means that two people will be required.
One of those persons must dive down under the instrument panel -- not always
an easy task (take it from an old man). What frequently happens when
building the airplane is that one is able to use both hands on the part
being worked on. When diving down under the instrument panel sometimes only
one hand can reach the part. Realize also that some fairly heavy guage wires
must be disconnected.
Then on reinstall both contactors must be in alignment for the holding bolts
to go through and wires must be reconnected.
Mounting the contactors with anchor nuts can turn this into a one man job
and reduce the time and effort significantly.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: I am aware locally of three that have failed just in the last few
years.
=============================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting BATT/START Relays
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
My battery will be just aft of the firewall so the battery relay will be
mounted
on the aft side of the firewall, the start relay will be just opposite on
the
forward side of the firewall. I see some who install plate nuts to mount
these
relays individually, 4 nuts + 4 bolts+4 holes in the firewall. The holes
on the two relays work out so that one could just use 2 bolts and two normal
nuts
(not anchor nuts) and mount the two relays through common holes in the
firewall.
The only drawback I can see is that if one or the other needs to be replaced
then both you can't remove one without disturbing the other, this does not
seem like a big deal to me as they are fairly long lasting devices. Can
anyone
see why my idea is a bad one? I though of heat transfer from the hot side
of the firewall, but bolts into nut plates would do that to some degree, and
all of the relays could be mounted forward of the firewall like many factory
airplanes have them.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 01:00 PM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>West Marine carries ANCOR brand battery cable. I don't know if it's
>any good. Just another piece of intel to muck things up.
>
Thanks for the heads-up. I checked a portion of
their offerings at:
http://tinyurl.com/ycmabhn
It's not clear to me that this is the same "Anchor"
cable company. The material illustrated has tinned
conductors while welding cable does not. Further,
their prices (before shipping I presume) are pretty
breathtaking. Higher than 22759 stuff from Aircraft
Spruce!
It seems that 'Anchor' is an exceedingly popular
name for various brands/businesses. Makes it
difficult to find 'the one' . . .
Here's one good hit
http://tinyurl.com/ydjdlr2
assuming you can use 500' of 4awg. This stuff
is about $1.50/ft before shipping. This is how
your welding supply store would buy it and sell
it for $2.25/ft or so . . .
It appears that the folks we're looking for
offer a huge selection of electric and wire-welding
parts and tools of which welding cable is only
a small fraction of their catalog. Given this
penetration into the welding supplies market,
it's quite likely that local stores will know
all about them.
If anyone finds the mother website for Anchor
brand welding products, I'd appreciate hearing
about it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mounting BATT/START Relays |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
BAKEROCB,
All very good points. I do try to look at future maintenance when I am building
my airplane. One of the reasons I am putting my battery just aft of the firewall
is I will have easy access to it via the front baggage area for charging
or jumping if it goes dead, it is also a more hospitable environment for the
battery.
I can get to both sides of the bolts holding the relays because the front baggage
door gives access. The only limiting factor I have now made for myself is
if the battery relay is the only thing I needed to replace then I would not have
to remove the cowl if I had used nut plates. My thought at this point is I
can always go that route in the future, for now I like the fact that I have two
less holes in the firewall. See my log for pictures of the completed installation,
done yesterday.
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=rvg8tor&project=403&category=0&log=88927&row=1
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265145#265145
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
Well I guess you see why I asked, I spent some time googling and didn't find
much whioch actually called out the epdm insulation. Guess I should have
mentioned that. I did find this place and I sent an email to ask what
brand it is they carry, hopefully they will respond Monday and I'll report
back. Its finding that EPDM insulation that seems tricky, I had some stuff
locally but it had a paper inner liner and I didn't find the outer stuff to
be very tough, it seemed easy to nick and penetrate.
http://www.wesbellwireandcable.com/Welding.html
-Chris
RV-10
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
At 01:00 PM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
West Marine carries ANCOR brand battery cable. I don't know if it's any
good. Just another piece of intel to muck things up.
Thanks for the heads-up. I checked a portion of
their offerings at:
http://tinyurl.com/ycmabhn
It's not clear to me that this is the same "Anchor"
cable company. The material illustrated has tinned
conductors while welding cable does not. Further,
their prices (before shipping I presume) are pretty
breathtaking. Higher than 22759 stuff from Aircraft
Spruce!
It seems that 'Anchor' is an exceedingly popular
name for various brands/businesses. Makes it
difficult to find 'the one' . . .
Here's one good hit
http://tinyurl.com/ydjdlr2
assuming you can use 500' of 4awg. This stuff
is about $1.50/ft before shipping. This is how
your welding supply store would buy it and sell
it for $2.25/ft or so . . .
It appears that the folks we're looking for
offer a huge selection of electric and wire-welding
parts and tools of which welding cable is only
a small fraction of their catalog. Given this
penetration into the welding supplies market,
it's quite likely that local stores will know
all about them.
If anyone finds the mother website for Anchor
brand welding products, I'd appreciate hearing
about it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
I know you are trying to help but, this last post does not seem to help me, it
actually confuses me. I respect your experience but I am not trying to design
an electrical system from scratch, much like I did not design my RV-8A from
scratch. I picked a plane from a good designer (Van's). While building I study
the plans and try to understand how the parts relate to be a better builder,
if I have a question I call builder assistance and I ask questions on the forum.
When it came to the electrical system, I went with a design from an expert in the
field, in studying the design I asked a simple question,
'why is the alternator field switch needed". There have been a lot of words written,
much of which my little brain doesn'tunderstand how it relates to the very
simple question. The possible answers I was expecting were:
1. It has always been done that way
2. It doesn't matter the non-switch method will work but has these limitations
(fill in the blanks)
3. You need the switch because if you don't have one it will cause XYZ.
Some of what you wrote I get but I really just need the simple short answer, not
a run down on design philosophy. Since you designed the systems I thought of
all people you could provide the best explanation. I thank you for attempting
to answer my questions, if nothing else you have convinced me not to deviate
from the Z diagram. I can't say that I understand fully why the alternator
field switch is a requirement other than to provide a convenient way to turn off
the field. I look forward to the simple answer if there is one.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265184#265184
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
Hi there Mike,
Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on your questions. The switch is used as
it switches a smaller current than would be required on the B-lead; thus you
can use a switch and not a contactor. By switching off the field you have
effectively switched off the alternator in its entirety, not just its
output.
Now its just a spinning mechanical device. If you switch the output (B
lead) then you have a live spinning device and if the fault is inside the
alternator then you're still feeding it...
Utilising the field to switch the alternator also allows you to fit in
overvoltage protection that will quickly detect and clear any overvoltage
fault that would fry all your avionics leaving you with a damaged alternator
AND no instruments (electrically powered ones in any case); whereas, if the
overvoltage fault is detected and cleared you can still run the instruments
on the battery.
If you have an internally regulated alternator then you need to switch the
output by using a contactor close to the alternator, because you cannot
access the field winding wire. Protecting the alternator by using a panel
mounted CB means that you lead a fat wire into the cockpit to the breaker in
your panel, which in turn means that there is a long bit of fat wire that is
unprotected- that long bit from the alternator to the CB. Personally I
don't like that.
If you use a contactor that is close to the source (alternator or battery)
then the only unprotected bit of fat wire is that bit between the source and
the contactor. A short bit of fat wire is unlikely to fault, or has a
higher reliability because it is short and mechanically robust. The closer
a contactor is to the voltage source the better your chances of removing the
power source from a fault.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvg8tor
Sent: 27 September 2009 09:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
Bob,
I know you are trying to help but, this last post does not seem to help me,
it actually confuses me. I respect your experience but I am not trying to
design an electrical system from scratch, much like I did not design my
RV-8A from scratch. I picked a plane from a good designer (Van's). While
building I study the plans and try to understand how the parts relate to be
a better builder, if I have a question I call builder assistance and I ask
questions on the forum.
When it came to the electrical system, I went with a design from an expert
in the field, in studying the design I asked a simple question,
'why is the alternator field switch needed". There have been a lot of words
written, much of which my little brain doesn'tunderstand how it relates to
the very simple question. The possible answers I was expecting were:
1. It has always been done that way
2. It doesn't matter the non-switch method will work but has these
limitations (fill in the blanks)
3. You need the switch because if you don't have one it will cause XYZ.
Some of what you wrote I get but I really just need the simple short answer,
not a run down on design philosophy. Since you designed the systems I
thought of all people you could provide the best explanation. I thank you
for attempting to answer my questions, if nothing else you have convinced me
not to deviate from the Z diagram. I can't say that I understand fully why
the alternator field switch is a requirement other than to provide a
convenient way to turn off the field. I look forward to the simple answer
if there is one.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265184#265184
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Mike,
Here is a response without embellishment.
You need the alternator field switch because there is no alternator field breaker
in Z-12. A fuse is used instead.
You could substitute a breaker for the fuse and use it instead of a switch, but
I wouldn't because:
1. You will be switching the field on and off at least once on every flight and
a normal breaker is not designed to be a robust switch.
2. You could use a "switch-breaker", but I have heard so many stories about these
having short life spans (at least the reasonably priced ones) that I would
not put one in my aircraft.
3. I don't think you will save any money or weight using a breaker instead of
the more reliable switch and fuse.
Regards
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265200#265200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
9/27/209
Hello Ian, Thanks for reading my post and responding. Please let me make an
attempt at reducing your confusion. You wrote:
1) "As I understand it, the switch is on the alternator field low-current
12V line (called IGN on my alternator) ........"
Can you both turn ON (activate) and turn OFF (deactivate) your alternator's
electrical output with this alternator field switch?** This is generally
considered a desireable design goal.
There are some internally regulated alternators that, once activated, draw
their field current from inside the alternator and it is not possible to
deactivate those alternator's electrical output by turning OFF an external
field switch. While this subject has been hotly debated several times on the
aeroelectric list it is generally considered that the feature of not being
able to shut down the alternator's electrical output with an external field
switch is an undesirable design goal.
2) "..........the circuit breaker protects the output side (B lead)."
The primary purpose of a CB or fuse in the B lead is to protect the wiring
in the B lead. This wiring normally goes from the positive terminal of the
battery to a main battery contactor and then onto the B output terminal of
the alternator. If this wiring should encounter a short to ground the
BATTERY could dump a huge amount of amperage into the wiring and cause a
fire. Therefore the primary purpose of the CB or fuse in the B lead wiring
is to protect the wiring from BATTERY electrical output.
But since there are alternators that could "run away" and not be shut down
by a switch in the circuit providing electricity to the alternator's field
some people who have those kinds of alternators look upon the CB in the B
lead as a means of cutting off the excess electrical flow from the
alternator.
Depending upon the manual pulling of a circuit breaker in the B lead as the
only means of terminating an over voltage situation or a "run away"
alternator is generally not considered a desirable design goal.
Does this help?
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: I'd be interested in knowing how your alternator field switch does
work and if you have an externally or internally regulated alternator?
======================================================
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
From: Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca>
OK, now here's one more vote for "confused". I thought the circuit
breaker was supposed to be rated at the output amperage of the
alternator because it's that current that one wants to limit. My 40A
circuit breaker would do nothing for me on the alternator field circuit.
As I understand it, the switch is on the alternator field low-current
12V line (called IGN on my alternator) and the circuit breaker protects
the output side (B lead). Mine is wired this way because it made
sense.
Ian Brown,
RV-9A, Bromont, QC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:22 PM 9/26/2009, you wrote:
>Well I guess you see why I asked, I spent some time googling and
>didn't find much whioch actually called out the epdm
>insulation. Guess I should have mentioned that. I did find
>this place and I sent an email to ask what brand it is they carry,
>hopefully they will respond Monday and I'll report back. Its
>finding that EPDM insulation that seems tricky, I had some stuff
>locally but it had a paper inner liner and I didn't find the outer
>stuff to be very tough, it seemed easy to nick and penetrate.
I looked at some wire in the junk box that
I think came from an installation kit for
an automotive super-sound system. The insulation
was decidedly plastic looking (shiny) and
also had a paper liner.
>
>
><http://www.wesbellwireandcable.com/Welding.html>http://www.wesbellwireandcable.com/Welding.html
Hey, good find on the web-source! Looks like
their prices are really good too. As you can
see from their offerings, there are MANY different
kinds of insulation . . . EPDM is not the magic
material, just one of many that would be
suitable. I didn't intend that one zero in
on EDPM in that manner. The fact that a reel
of wire (or a catalog page) cites EDPM says
that you KNOW what's being offered. That reel
of shiny stuff with unknown and/or questionable
insulation material MIGHT be okay. Without
identification or other qualification data
like materials or temperature ratings, it's
good to move on and consider other sources.
Looks like the WesBell folks are an excellent
source of wire suitable for use as fat wires
in your airplane.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | While on the topic of alternators |
I've had a number of private e-mails on the alternator
field switch thing. I want to thank those who have
joined the discussion with lucid and accurate offerings
of their own.
I recalled an article that was sent to me about spring
time of last year where the author attempted to explain
the simple-ideas upon which the battery/alternator power
system works in our airplanes. Seems that many folks on the
'net were citing this article as a valuable reference.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
Those who are interested in expanding their understanding
of what alternators do (and don't do) are encouraged
to review this piece wherein I've endeavored to screen
out the 'chunks' of misinformation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
This is the way I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The alternator output current does not need to be limited by a circuit
breaker because the alternator output is self-limiting. If one were to
add more loads to a fully loaded alternator, the voltage would drop,
thus limiting the current automatically. It is not desired to
unnecessarily run the alternator B lead into the cockpit. The B-lead
circuit breaker is not necessary, and adds weight, cost and complexity.
The purpose of an ANL fuse on the alternator output is not to protect
the alternator or to prevent it from producing more than its rated
current. The purpose of the ANL fuse is to protect the wires between
the battery and alternator from 400+ amps of battery current in the
event that the alternator shorts out, most likely from shorted diodes.
In the event that an over-voltage condition occurs (due to a faulty
regulator), an over-voltage module will short out the supply voltage
that goes to the alternator field. If that happens, an alternator-field
circuit breaker will trip, thus protecting the wires from excessive
current resulting from this short circuit.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
rckol wrote:
>
>
> 1. You will be switching the field on and off at least once on every flight and
a normal breaker is not designed to be a robust switch.
Why?? Is there a need to turn the alternator on/off separate from the
master if it is functioning correctly?
> 2. You could use a "switch-breaker", but I have heard so many stories about these
having short life spans (at least the reasonably priced ones) that I would
not put one in my aircraft.
The Klixon switch breakers in my Mooney are almost all OEM from 45
years/6000 hours ago. A couple have been replaced from springs getting weak.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
Jay,
Thank you so much. Spelling out what may be obvious or intuitive to
experienced hands is a great assistance to us neophyte electron herders.
Tony
Velocity SEFG 62% done, 78% to go
www.alejandra.net/velocity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:04 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
-->
Hi there Mike,
Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on your questions. The switch is used as
it switches a smaller current than would be required on the B-lead; thus you
can use a switch and not a contactor. By switching off the field you have
effectively switched off the alternator in its entirety, not just its
output. Now its just a spinning mechanical device. If you switch the output
(B
lead) then you have a live spinning device and if the fault is inside the
alternator then you're still feeding it... Utilising the field to switch the
alternator also allows you to fit in overvoltage protection that will
quickly detect and clear any overvoltage fault that would fry all your
avionics leaving you with a damaged alternator AND no instruments
(electrically powered ones in any case); whereas, if the overvoltage fault
is detected and cleared you can still run the instruments on the battery. If
you have an internally regulated alternator then you need to switch the
output by using a contactor close to the alternator, because you cannot
access the field winding wire. Protecting the alternator by using a panel
mounted CB means that you lead a fat wire into the cockpit to the breaker in
your panel, which in turn means that there is a long bit of fat wire that is
unprotected- that long bit from the alternator to the CB. Personally I
don't like that.
If you use a contactor that is close to the source (alternator or battery)
then the only unprotected bit of fat wire is that bit between the source and
the contactor. A short bit of fat wire is unlikely to fault, or has a
higher reliability because it is short and mechanically robust. The closer
a contactor is to the voltage source the better your chances of removing the
power source from a fault.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvg8tor
Sent: 27 September 2009 09:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
Bob,
I know you are trying to help but, this last post does not seem to help me,
it actually confuses me. I respect your experience but I am not trying to
design an electrical system from scratch, much like I did not design my
RV-8A from scratch. I picked a plane from a good designer (Van's). While
building I study the plans and try to understand how the parts relate to be
a better builder, if I have a question I call builder assistance and I ask
questions on the forum.
When it came to the electrical system, I went with a design from an expert
in the field, in studying the design I asked a simple question,
'why is the alternator field switch needed". There have been a lot of words
written, much of which my little brain doesn'tunderstand how it relates to
the very simple question. The possible answers I was expecting were:
1. It has always been done that way
2. It doesn't matter the non-switch method will work but has these
limitations (fill in the blanks) 3. You need the switch because if you
don't have one it will cause XYZ.
Some of what you wrote I get but I really just need the simple short answer,
not a run down on design philosophy. Since you designed the systems I
thought of all people you could provide the best explanation. I thank you
for attempting to answer my questions, if nothing else you have convinced me
not to deviate from the Z diagram. I can't say that I understand fully why
the alternator field switch is a requirement other than to provide a
convenient way to turn off the field. I look forward to the simple answer
if there is one.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265184#265184
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
At 09:58 AM 9/27/2009, you wrote:
>This is the way I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> The alternator output current does not need to be limited by a
> circuit breaker because the alternator output is self-limiting.
correct
> If one were to add more loads to a fully loaded alternator, the
> voltage would drop, thus limiting the current automatically.
yes
> It is not desired to unnecessarily run the alternator B lead into
> the cockpit.
yes
> The B-lead circuit breaker is not necessary, and adds weight,
> cost and complexity.
> The purpose of an ANL fuse on the alternator output is not to
> protect the alternator or to prevent it from producing more than
> its rated current. The purpose of the ANL fuse is to protect the
> wires between the battery and alternator from 400+ amps of battery
> current in the event that the alternator shorts out, most likely
> from shorted diodes.
Yup . . .
> In the event that an over-voltage condition occurs (due to a
> faulty regulator), an over-voltage module will short out the supply
> voltage that goes to the alternator field. If that happens, an
> alternator-field circuit breaker will trip, thus protecting the
> wires from excessive current resulting from this short circuit.
Yes . . . this is a property unique to the
crowbar philosophy for opening the alternator's
field supply after an ov condition is detected.
There are other designs that do not open the
field supply breaker . . . and can be considered
as a potential player in your design goals.
The reason that Z-figures featuring crowbar
ov protection -AND- fuseblocks have a field
supply breaker is to accommodate the crowbar
ov control philosophy. If non-crowbar shutdown
products are considered, then one could easily
supply alternator field through one of the
fuses and leave the circuit breaker out.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
Why?? Is there a need to turn the alternator on/off separate from
the master if it is functioning correctly?
Depends on your architecture. Does the MASTER control
the alternator too? Is the MASTER a progressive transfer
two-pole switch or classic "split rocker". Then indeed,
the alternator field breaker may never need to be touched.
But if the MASTER is a simple two-pole switch that controls
alternator and battery at the same time, then you could
use the field breaker to shut the alternator down for
battery-only ground-ops.
2. The Klixon switch breakers in my Mooney are almost all OEM from 45
years/6000 hours ago. A couple have been replaced from springs getting weak.
But the Potter-Brumfield W31 style breakers installed in
many other airplanes for about the same length of time
have been identified has having a safety of flight
failure mode that is prompting an AD to replace about
80,000 of the critters. Not all switch breakers are
alike. All are much more expensive than the fuse/switch
architecture featured in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
9/28/2009
Hello Again Mike, You wrote: "I look forward to the simple answer if there
is one."
Let's try this -- How do you intend to simulate or check the continued
functioning of essential for flight avionics items when you are airborne and
have a non functioning alternator because: the field wire broke,** the belt
broke, or whatever?
Here is my answer: At the end of each flight while the engine is still
running I turn off the alternator by means of its field switch and ensure
that:
A) The essential for flight avionics items (Garmin 430W and transponder) can
still function off an essential bus. (These items needed to return to my
home field inside the Washington DC SFRA.)
B) My low voltage warning system (a flashing light) is still functioning.
Discussion:
1) Why not perform check A above at the beginning of each flight before the
engine is started and the alternator is not yet putting out current?
Because: a) I do not have my Garmin 430W and transponder turned on prior to
or during engine start, and b) I don't want to put the electrical burden of
the Garmin 430W and transponder on the battery before engine start.
2) Why not perform check B above at the beginning of each flight before the
engine is started and the alternator is not yet putting out current? That
check is indeed accomplished as soon as the master battery contactor is
closed at the beginning of the flight. The B check at the end of the flight
is a duplication of the before flight B check and is just a system design
fall out in order to perform check A.
3) Why not just use pulling the alternator field CB as a means of turning
off the alternator at the end of each flight? I have not priced the cost
differential between replacing my fancy, internally illuminated, rocker
activated, alternator field switch and the alternator field CB, but I do
know this: a) The switch is designed to be switched on and off thousands of
times, the CB is not, and b) It will be much easier for me to replace the
switch than the CB.
So please let me know what you decide regarding whether or not you will
install the alternator field switch and what were the deciding factors in
that decision. Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: This happened to a friend of mine in his Beech Sierra just a few
months ago. He has no low voltage warning system other than looking at an
aftermarket automotive gadget voltmeter plugged into his cigarette
lighter -- not very visible. His first real warning was when his VHF comm
began to not work properly because the battery was becoming depleted. Soon
he had no electronic nav functions either.
He was on an IFR flight plan, but in VMC. He spotted a little podunk airport
and landed. A mechanic at the airport quickly diagnosed the problem,
repaired the wire, and my friend was on his way shortly. But what if he has
been in IMC? What if he had not spotted podunk airport? What if there was no
repair person or facility at podunk airport?
Using your word "convenient" do you think that he would have had a
convenient termination of that flight?
====================================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field?
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Bob,
I know you are trying to help but, this last post does not seem to help me,
it
actually confuses me. I respect your experience but I am not trying to
design
an electrical system from scratch, much like I did not design my RV-8A from
scratch. I picked a plane from a good designer (Van's). While building I
study
the plans and try to understand how the parts relate to be a better builder,
if I have a question I call builder assistance and I ask questions on the
forum.
When it came to the electrical system, I went with a design from an expert
in the
field, in studying the design I asked a simple question,
'why is the alternator field switch needed". There have been a lot of words
written,
much of which my little brain doesn'tunderstand how it relates to the very
simple question. The possible answers I was expecting were:
1. It has always been done that way
2. It doesn't matter the non-switch method will work but has these
limitations
(fill in the blanks)
3. You need the switch because if you don't have one it will cause XYZ.
Some of what you wrote I get but I really just need the simple short answer,
not
a run down on design philosophy. Since you designed the systems I thought
of
all people you could provide the best explanation. I thank you for
attempting
to answer my questions, if nothing else you have convinced me not to deviate
from the Z diagram. I can't say that I understand fully why the alternator
field switch is a requirement other than to provide a convenient way to turn
off
the field. I look forward to the simple answer if there is one.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Here's another data point:
http://www.cableyard.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=21&osCsid=0cc7974ccdf864c041a7cdd5357e601a
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265302#265302
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
>
>When it came to the electrical system, I went with a design from an
>expert in the
>field, in studying the design I asked a simple question,
>'why is the alternator field switch needed". There have been a lot
>of words written,
>much of which my little brain doesn'tunderstand how it relates to the very
>simple question.
I'm sorry if my words are too much for you.
When I wear my teacher-hat, the answers
I offer are intended to lead to understanding of
the foundation upon which the answer is based.
It's my belief that once understanding is
achieved, the student then becomes a teacher
on the same discussion. Perhaps I presume too
much . . . that everyone here on the List is
as enthusiastic about understanding as I . . .
> The possible answers I was expecting were:
>
>1. It has always been done that way
Okay, with my expert-hat on, that answer works
for me.
Fly comfortably my friend . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 08:56 AM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Here's another data point:
>
>http://www.cableyard.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=21&osCsid=0cc7974ccdf864c041a7cdd5357e601a
Another score from the 3-point line . . . thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
McMaster-Carr supplies welding cable in two insulation types at a reasonable price...
http://www.mcmaster.com/#welding-cable/=3tsvkp
Chris Stone
RV-*
>>Where can you find the anchor brand cable? Any weblinks/supply you
>>can point to.
>>Thanks
>>Chris
>>RV-10
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 605 TES/DOA" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
I'm sorry if my words are too much for you.
When I wear my teacher-hat, the answers
I offer are intended to lead to understanding of
the foundation upon which the answer is based.
It's my belief that once understanding is
achieved, the student then becomes a teacher
on the same discussion. Perhaps I presume too
much . . . that everyone here on the List is
as enthusiastic about understanding as I . . .
Keep at it Bob -
I generally need to be told more than once.
As for the presentation style, I learn more than electron herding here.
Too many of us can barely speak, much less write...
neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:36 AM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>McMaster-Carr supplies welding cable in two insulation types at a
>reasonable price...
>
>http://www.mcmaster.com/#welding-cable/=3tsvkp
Thanks! I should have thought about those guys.
I'm thinking about adding a page to the
website too link to the hot prospects . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
> I'm sorry if my words are too much for you.
> When I wear my teacher-hat, the answers
> I offer are intended to lead to understanding of
> the foundation upon which the answer is based.
> It's my belief that once understanding is
> achieved, the student then becomes a teacher
> on the same discussion. Perhaps I presume too
> much . . . that everyone here on the List is
> as enthusiastic about understanding as I . . .
Don't stop, Bob...that's the way I always try to explain things,
figuring that most people don't believe me or want to know the reason
why and need a more detailed explanation or an understanding for
themselves...that was from my working days as well, when I had to train
the mechanics after I had installed one of the new automated systems.
Of course they all usually fall asleep ...
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
> I'm thinking about adding a page to the
> website too link to the hot prospects . . .
Broke down and did it. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Sources.html
. . . as readers discover additional web
sources for other unique materials or tools
that belong on this list are encouraged to
let me know about them.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Bob N.
Please to not take my request for a simpler answer the wrong way, I am enthusiastic
about learning, I was just not getting it. When I was asked about teaching
as in instructor pilot in the Air Force, I always said what made a good instructor
was being able to give the same information many different ways until
the student got it. We all learn different ways and at a different pace. My
email to you was meant to communicate that I was not getting it, please tell me
a different way. In radio jargon "I did not copy say again".
To everyone on this thread, my knowledge of how the alternator and regulator and
field work has increased ten fold and that is what my ultimate goal was, I never
want to stop learning.
I will put in the field switch after all is said and done for the following reasons
not in any particular priority.
1. CBs don't' make good switches
2. Convenience
3. There might be something I did not get and don't want to add a switch later
4. It had always been done that way [Laughing]
Thank you again to all who posted I hope I am not the only one who gained from
this thread.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265358#265358
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
Ditto on that Bob!! I always go to McMaster and just as quickly forget I
did.
-Chris
-----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: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
At 09:36 AM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>McMaster-Carr supplies welding cable in two insulation types at a
>reasonable price...
>
>http://www.mcmaster.com/#welding-cable/=3tsvkp
Thanks! I should have thought about those guys.
I'm thinking about adding a page to the
website too link to the hot prospects . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Welding cable, cabbages and kings |
At 06:28 PM 9/28/2009, you wrote:
>
>Ditto on that Bob!! I always go to McMaster and just as quickly forget I
>did.
Just too many things for the ol' gray matter to keep
a grip on . . . but gee, McMaster-Carr? I used to
mail order from their 2+ inch thick mail order
catalog over 30 years ago. If they didn't have it
in that catalog you probably didn't need it!
I may be renewing an old acquaintance with
them. Out here in cow and buzzard country, everything
is 100 miles away . . . well not quite. We've got
one of those 10,000 sq ft Ace hardware stores
in Pratt that is VERY well stocked. They're only
30 miles away but with prices that are pretty
breathtaking. Would you believe $4.75 for a 2-foot
piece of valve stem packing? I need to find that
stash of bee's wax and graphite!
But if you gotta have it today, it's possible.
The stores here in M.L. are quite adequate to
routine needs and they too are willing to get stuff
in on "Wednesday's truck".
At the same time, I've got at least two dozen
projects on the to-do list at all times. If one needs
to pause while necessary goodies come in the mail,
or UPS there are always plenty of alternatives to keep
the moment productive.
It certainly changes the way you think about things.
Projects I was accustomed to finishing in a few hours after
spool-up might take several days here if I don't have
everything needed in 'inventory'.
In some ways I think it's a good thing. You get
to consider design goals and processes on a
wider horizon and more relaxed imperative. Folks
you work for are seldom upset if you have to order
in materials. It's a much more relaxed but no less
certain way of orchestrating one's priorities.
Overnight UPS out of Digikey works well to M.L. too
and at no greater expense than to Wichita
Total hands-on time for a project isn't much longer
but the challenge to craft expedient alternatives is
greater. Dad's shop was loaded with little jigs,
fixtures, mysterious bits and pieces that
had to have been the product of his expanded creative
horizons. I'm really enjoying the walk in his shoes.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
>
>To everyone on this thread, my knowledge of how the alternator and
>regulator and field work has increased ten fold and that is what my
>ultimate goal was, I never want to stop learning.
Great!
>I will put in the field switch after all is said and done for the
>following reasons not in any particular priority.
>
>1. CBs don't' make good switches
>2. Convenience
>3. There might be something I did not get and don't want to add a
>switch later
>4. It had always been done that way [Laughing]
All those things are true so even if the
explanations offered seem arcane, the
benefits for having the switch will be
secured.
>Thank you again to all who posted I hope I am not the only one who
>gained from this thread.
At last count, subscribers to this List numbered
over 1800. If you look at the posting stats on
Matronics, this list is one of the busiest on
Matt's service. I have to believe the goals
for sharing are being realized.
Thank you for participating.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob...
You've a great idea...
Electronics:
http://www.mouser.com/
Chris Stone
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>Sent: Sep 28, 2009 1:47 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
>
>
>>
>> I'm thinking about adding a page to the
>> website too link to the hot prospects . . .
>
> Broke down and did it. See:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Sources.html
>
> . . . as readers discover additional web
> sources for other unique materials or tools
> that belong on this list are encouraged to
> let me know about them.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:23 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob...
>
>You've a great idea...
>
>Electronics:
>
>http://www.mouser.com/
got it. thanks.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
To all:
I have some Carol #2 welding cable in stock. I also have some #4 black tin
coated extraflex. the marking on the cable : 4 AWG AWM 10070 105C 600V
E42481 VW-1 CSA AWM I A/B 105C 600V FT1 LL59358. I also have green with the
same specs.
This Material is in my stockroom and we currently do not have requirements.
I can sell this material for a dollar a foot. Contact me off list if you are
interested.
Regards
Ron Raby
www.advanceddesign.com
ronr(at)advanceddesign.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Welding cable
>
>
> At 08:23 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bob...
>>
>>You've a great idea...
>>
>>Electronics:
>>
>>http://www.mouser.com/
>
> got it. thanks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mounting BATT/START Relays |
| From: | John McMahon <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
Mike, How about using a piece of 'all thread rod' through the firewall with
a nut on each side of the firewall to secure it, then mount the contactors
with another nut. Now either contactor can be removed from one side
without disturbing the other.
My .02
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM, wrote:
>
> 9/26/2009
>
> Hello Mike, You wrote: "........ this does not seem like a big deal to me
> as they are fairly long lasting devices."**
>
>
> John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
| From: | John McMahon <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
Bob
For your Sources of Tools and Materials page, a good wire source, both
22759 and welding cable (red and black), we used Wiremasters and got
excellent prices on all our wire and service was excellent.
Our contact person was Deb Sullivan.
http://www.wiremasters.net/
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding cable |
At 12:34 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
>Bob
>
>For your Sources of Tools and Materials page, a good wire source,
>both 22759 and welding cable (red and black), we used Wiremasters
>and got excellent prices on all our wire and service was excellent.
>Our contact person was Deb Sullivan.
Good hit. It's been added to the page . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like it will
work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
solenoids relays etc.
Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
Thanks, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Hi Tim.
Go here: www.vx-aviation.com and follow the link near the top of the page
for the free schematic software, library and design example from my RV-9A.
Doesn't have everything but it's very easy to create symbols on the fly.
Thanks,
Vern Little
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
>
>
>
> Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like it
> will
> work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
> solenoids relays etc.
> Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
> Thanks, Tim Andres
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
I have used Visio a lot and re-drawn many of the symbols- I can let you have
my 'library page' if you'd like.
I use Visio a lot so I found it pretty useful to draw the schematics as
well.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Andres
Sent: 30 September 2009 06:38 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like it will
work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
solenoids relays etc.
Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
Thanks, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pestar" <peter(at)reivernet.com> |
jay(at)horriblehyde.com wrote:
> I have used Visio a lot and re-drawn many of the symbols- I can let you have
> my 'library page' if you'd like.
>
> I use Visio a lot so I found it pretty useful to draw the schematics as
> well.
>
> Jay
>
> --
If you are able to make available your library of Visio symbols that would be appreciated.
I have a Visio one off aircraft symbols that I got of the net that
I am happy to share (the file extension .VSS is not permitted for attachments)
- contact to email.
Regards
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
Building a French carbon fibre plane MCR-4S "www.dynaero.com"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265679#265679
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Hi there Peter,
I have sent what I have to you via your email address; you can also convert
the dwg files that Bob supplies, although I find that using them after
conversion is not easy. If anyone else wants what I have (not much..) then
mail me directly.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pestar
Sent: 30 September 2009 10:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Visio?
jay(at)horriblehyde.com wrote:
> I have used Visio a lot and re-drawn many of the symbols- I can let you
have
> my 'library page' if you'd like.
>
> I use Visio a lot so I found it pretty useful to draw the schematics as
> well.
>
> Jay
>
> --
If you are able to make available your library of Visio symbols that would
be appreciated. I have a Visio one off aircraft symbols that I got of the
net that I am happy to share (the file extension .VSS is not permitted for
attachments) - contact to email.
Regards
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
Building a French carbon fibre plane MCR-4S "www.dynaero.com"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265679#265679
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
Hi Tim,
Here's mine, all done in Visio.........
I started off by importing Bob's CAD drawings and then converting them. I then
went about "cleaning" up the less than perfect result and saving the individual
components as "groups". After that, drag and drop and copy and paste works a
charm in Visio.
Would you like a copy of the source?
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 05:37:41 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like it will
work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
solenoids relays etc.
Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
Thanks, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I'm using that product too and like it a lot. A belated Thanks Vern!
If anyone installs it and wants a sample, I'd be glad to share my
schematics. (but you have to have the SCH tool installed to view it)
Bill
Vern Little wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tim.
> Go here: www.vx-aviation.com and follow the link near the top of the
> page for the free schematic software, library and design example from
> my RV-9A. Doesn't have everything but it's very easy to create symbols
> on the fly.
>
> Thanks,
> Vern Little
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like
>> it will
>> work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
>> solenoids relays etc.
>> Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
>> Thanks, Tim Andres
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael W Stewart <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
My drawings all in visio here.
http://mstewart.net/super8/visio/S8Panelandwiringr1.vsd
or if you want to peruse the html version on a browser here.
http://mstewart.net/super8/visio/n687msvisio_files.htm
I keep the html version up so when Im on the raod with a problem, I can
access all my connector pin outs and things.
Enjoy,
Mike
From: "pestar" <peter(at)reivernet.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Date: 09/30/2009 04:38 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Visio?
Sent by: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
jay(at)horriblehyde.com wrote:
> I have used Visio a lot and re-drawn many of the symbols- I can let y
ou
have
> my 'library page' if you'd like.
>
> I use Visio a lot so I found it pretty useful to draw the schematics
as
> well.
>
> Jay
>
> --
If you are able to make available your library of Visio symbols that wo
uld
be appreciated. I have a Visio one off aircraft symbols that I got of
the
net that I am happy to share (the file extension .VSS is not permitted
for
attachments) - contact to email.
Regards
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
Building a French carbon fibre plane MCR-4S "www.dynaero.com"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265679#265679
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/08/2009 07:37 AM, Harley wrote:
> I think I did mention that in one of the emails I sent. In response
> to other concerns over the camera's diameter being too large to fit in
> a spark plug hole, I also mentioned that there is a 9 mm camera and
> extension available for the Ridgid unit, that might fit the HF one. I
> believe that smaller camera version was listed as having a shorter
> focal length.
Here is the 9.5mm camera for $107:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
You can also get the Rigid inspection camera unit here for $85,
which I think is the same thing as the HF unit:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31133.htm>
They also have a $49 version. I'm not sure what the differences are:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31128.htm>
fyi
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
They look identical to the borescope I bought from Harbor Freight a few
months ago. Excellent tool. Has a solid, firm feel to it, too. One ad
mentioned a 30 foot extension? Where can I find one of those?
Oh, the one I have allows the video head to be removed from the handheld
and can be moved some feet away from where the actual tool is working,
allowing others to see.
David M.
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2009 07:37 AM, Harley wrote:
>> I think I did mention that in one of the emails I sent. In response
>> to other concerns over the camera's diameter being too large to fit in
>> a spark plug hole, I also mentioned that there is a 9 mm camera and
>> extension available for the Ridgid unit, that might fit the HF one. I
>> believe that smaller camera version was listed as having a shorter
>> focal length.
>
> Here is the 9.5mm camera for $107:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> You can also get the Rigid inspection camera unit here for $85,
> which I think is the same thing as the HF unit:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31133.htm>
>
> They also have a $49 version. I'm not sure what the differences are:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31128.htm>
>
> fyi
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
DJ,
It appears that the $49 "version" isn't a less expensive camera but a 3' extension
cable for the $85 camera unit.
I'm considering ordering the basic camera and the 9.5mm camera head. Looks very
interesting.
Bob Borger
Europa XS, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S prop
On Wednesday, September 30, 2009, at 09:38AM, "Dj Merrill" wrote:
>
>On 07/08/2009 07:37 AM, Harley wrote:
>> I think I did mention that in one of the emails I sent. In response
>> to other concerns over the camera's diameter being too large to fit in
>> a spark plug hole, I also mentioned that there is a 9 mm camera and
>> extension available for the Ridgid unit, that might fit the HF one. I
>> believe that smaller camera version was listed as having a shorter
>> focal length.
>
> Here is the 9.5mm camera for $107:
><http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> You can also get the Rigid inspection camera unit here for $85,
>which I think is the same thing as the HF unit:
><http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31133.htm>
>
> They also have a $49 version. I'm not sure what the differences are:
><http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31128.htm>
>
>fyi
>
>-Dj
>
>--
>Dj Merrill - N1JOV
>Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
>Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
Ok, the difference between the $49 and $85 versions appears to be the
length of the cable. The $49 is 3 feet while the $85 is 6 feet,
according to the ads. Mine is 3 feet from HF. Heckuva bargain at $49.
David M.
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2009 07:37 AM, Harley wrote:
>> I think I did mention that in one of the emails I sent. In response
>> to other concerns over the camera's diameter being too large to fit in
>> a spark plug hole, I also mentioned that there is a 9 mm camera and
>> extension available for the Ridgid unit, that might fit the HF one. I
>> believe that smaller camera version was listed as having a shorter
>> focal length.
>
> Here is the 9.5mm camera for $107:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> You can also get the Rigid inspection camera unit here for $85,
> which I think is the same thing as the HF unit:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31133.htm>
>
> They also have a $49 version. I'm not sure what the differences are:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31128.htm>
>
> fyi
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
DJ (and others)...
Be careful that you know what you order from the website you linked below.
Cjeck out the next page:
www.reliablepaper.com/Ridgid_SeeSnake_micro_Inspection_Camera_s/6295.htm
It looks like they used a stock picture of the entire camera set for not
only the camera head, but each of the accessory options except the 9mm
camera.
If that's true, then even if you get the camera, you will still have to
buy the cable and the accessory kit separately...the $49 version appears
to be JUST the 3 foot cable extension. When you get done buying
everything you need, it'll be a bit more than the HF unit which is $139
right now, but goes on "sale" regularly for $99..
Having said that, the major difference between the Rigid unit and the
Harbor Freight one, is that the HF unit has a REMOVABLE screen that is
wireless. I was able to remove the screen, plug it in to my computer,
then walk out to the garage while recording what it was seeing into my
computer (it doesn't come with the software to do that, just an video
cable...I already had an video to digital converter and the software).
I tried using the HF unit with the screen attached several times, but
even for simple inspections, it was easier to detach it so I could
manipulate the camera without having to stand on my head to see the screen.
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2009 07:37 AM, Harley wrote:
>
>> I think I did mention that in one of the emails I sent. In response
>> to other concerns over the camera's diameter being too large to fit in
>> a spark plug hole, I also mentioned that there is a 9 mm camera and
>> extension available for the Ridgid unit, that might fit the HF one. I
>> believe that smaller camera version was listed as having a shorter
>> focal length.
>>
>
> Here is the 9.5mm camera for $107:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> You can also get the Rigid inspection camera unit here for $85,
> which I think is the same thing as the HF unit:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31133.htm>
>
> They also have a $49 version. I'm not sure what the differences are:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-31128.htm>
>
> fyi
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 09/30/2009 11:45 AM, Harley wrote:
> DJ (and others)...
>
> Be careful that you know what you order from the website you linked
> below.
> Cjeck out the next page:
> www.reliablepaper.com/Ridgid_SeeSnake_micro_Inspection_Camera_s/6295.htm
>
Thanks! I didn't catch that.
Looks like the camera unit itself is $76 at:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-26663.htm>
plus the 9.5mm camera and cable for $107 at:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
so it would cost around $183 in total for the smaller camera.
It is not clear whether you would also have to buy the accessory pack
(mirrors) separately for $17 at:
<http://www.reliablepaper.com/Hook_Magnet_and_Mirror_Attachment_Accessory_Pack_p/632-26668.htm>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
didn't someone get an inspection camers from harbor frt.? how did it work
out?
bob noffs
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2009 11:45 AM, Harley wrote:
> > DJ (and others)...
> >
> > Be careful that you know what you order from the website you linked
> > below.
> > Cjeck out the next page:
> > www.reliablepaper.com/Ridgid_SeeSnake_micro_Inspection_Camera_s/6295.htm
> >
>
> Thanks! I didn't catch that.
>
> Looks like the camera unit itself is $76 at:
> <
> http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-26663.htm
> >
>
> plus the 9.5mm camera and cable for $107 at:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> so it would cost around $183 in total for the smaller camera.
>
> It is not clear whether you would also have to buy the accessory pack
> (mirrors) separately for $17 at:
> <
> http://www.reliablepaper.com/Hook_Magnet_and_Mirror_Attachment_Accessory_Pack_p/632-26668.htm
> >
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
>
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV
> Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
bob noffs wrote:
> didn't someone get an inspection camers from harbor frt.? how did it
> work out?
> bob noffs
Yep, Bob...a whole bunch of us did.
You must have missed my previous email today on this topic, as I
mentioned a couple of uses I've put it to.
In addition to those (including recording the inspections directly into
my computer), I used it to repair a pocket door (like the doors on Star
Trek...slide into the wall) at a friends house that had jumped the track
INSIDE the pocket. I used the camera to look in along the top edge of
the door from the end and see which side it jumped off on, and what was
needed to get it back on the track...also used it to watch what I was
doing as I maneuvered it back on track. Without a camera like that, she
would have had to tear out the trim molding and then cut a hole in the
wall behind it just to see what the problem was, and then probably cut
another hole to adjust it.
As far as my Long EZ, so far, I've checked the hell hole to find tools
and small parts I've dropped in there...inspected the inside of the
strakes, both from inside the fuselage, and through the holes in the
strake used to tighten the wing mounting bolts, and just today found
some washers I had dropped into the nose when installing the electric
nose lift (the fuselage is currently upside down ...I used the magnet to
pick up the washers once I saw them lying between the nose block and the
forward edge of the back battery bulkhead ).
When I get the holes cut for the fuel tank filler, I'll be using it to
examine the inside of the tanks. It can also electrically flip and/or
rotate the image on the screen. Don't know if the others do that.
The HF camera has been worth every penny! You just have to remember that
with the camera it comes with, if you want a sharp focus, then what you
are viewing should be further away than 4 inches...that smaller 9mm
camera is advertised to have a shorter focal range if you want to see
something close, and pay the extra money for it.
As I mentioned earlier, the best part is being able to remove the
screen...then you don't have to twist around in weird positions to try
to look at it as you move the camera handle.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
I got one. Works great! I like it.
David M.
bob noffs wrote:
> didn't someone get an inspection camers from harbor frt.? how did it
> work out?
> bob noffs
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Dj Merrill > wrote:
>
> >
>
> On 09/30/2009 11:45 AM, Harley wrote:
> > DJ (and others)...
> >
> > Be careful that you know what you order from the website you linked
> > below.
> > Cjeck out the next page:
> >
> www.reliablepaper.com/Ridgid_SeeSnake_micro_Inspection_Camera_s/6295.htm
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Ridgid_SeeSnake_micro_Inspection_Camera_s/6295.htm>
> >
>
> Thanks! I didn't catch that.
>
> Looks like the camera unit itself is $76 at:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/SeeSnake_Micro_Inspection_Camera_p/632-26663.htm>
>
> plus the 9.5mm camera and cable for $107 at:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Imager_Head_and_Cable_p/632-30068.htm>
>
> so it would cost around $183 in total for the smaller camera.
>
> It is not clear whether you would also have to buy the accessory pack
> (mirrors) separately for $17 at:
> <http://www.reliablepaper.com/Hook_Magnet_and_Mirror_Attachment_Accessory_Pack_p/632-26668.htm>
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
>
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV
> Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
> ===========
> rch & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> ="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"
> target="_blank"========
> http://forums.mle, List Admin.
> ====
>
>
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
One of my best uses is looking inside the cylinders, via the spark plug
openings.
David M.
Harley wrote:
> bob noffs wrote:
>> didn't someone get an inspection camers from harbor frt.? how did it
>> work out?
>> bob noffs
> Yep, Bob...a whole bunch of us did.
>
> You must have missed my previous email today on this topic, as I
> mentioned a couple of uses I've put it to.
>
> In addition to those (including recording the inspections directly into
> my computer), I used it to repair a pocket door (like the doors on Star
> Trek...slide into the wall) at a friends house that had jumped the track
> INSIDE the pocket. I used the camera to look in along the top edge of
> the door from the end and see which side it jumped off on, and what was
> needed to get it back on the track...also used it to watch what I was
> doing as I maneuvered it back on track. Without a camera like that, she
> would have had to tear out the trim molding and then cut a hole in the
> wall behind it just to see what the problem was, and then probably cut
> another hole to adjust it.
>
> As far as my Long EZ, so far, I've checked the hell hole to find tools
><<>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Inspection camera |
One of my best uses is looking inside the cylinders, via the spark plug
openings.
David M.
Is it small enough to enter a spark plug hole?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Inspection camera |
And with the HF model you can focus inside the cylinder okay with a 4" or so
minimum focus distance?
Can you look back at the valves?
And what does it look like the wireless range might be?
I think someone said it came with a cable to allow you to record the video
on the computer. Have you tried this?
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David M
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inspection camera
One of my best uses is looking inside the cylinders, via the spark plug
openings.
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Davis <ffdavis(at)earthlink.net> |
Greetings Bob et al.,
On another list someone posted that he "spiked" his radio when he
inadvertently turned his master switch off and immediately turned it
back on. He did not say what the engine rpm was at when this happened.
He said the radio was protected only by a circuit breaker that did not
open. The radio required service which included the replacement of a
resistor. He also said he planned on adding a fuse to the radio circuit.
I don't understand how the stated actions would result in the damage
cited. Any insight would be appreciated.
Regards,
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Work in process . . . |
Like the 'Connection, the website is always "in process".
I've been working on a new index for the posted articles
and slowly coming out broken/missing links . . . time permitting.
I've activated the new index at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles.html
. . . a heads-up on any detected errors would be welcome.
It's still got a way to go but I think the new organization
will make it much easier to browse the work product for
topics of interest.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Greetings all,
I've attached an electrical architecture (in Bob's drawing style) for
your review. It's for the Longeze I'm restoring. I'm doing the
restoration in multiple stages. Although it had ~1000 Hrs. on it when I
obtained it, it's been grounded since I received it. The attached
architecture is intended to be more robust and fault tolerant than what
was there (which I'm sure it is...) and certainly not worse in that
regard than a TC aircraft (though not as good as a design with an
essential bus).
Down the road a bit, I intend to replace the vacuum system and
associated instruments with electric, plus a backup alternator and an
architecture with an essential bus.
I would appreciate comments on the architecture and, specifically, on
any unmitigated faults (especially those that would not be acceptable in
a TC aircraft).
The aircraft is VFR only.
Thanks in advance,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
THeoretically you could look at the valves with the mirror but I haven't
done that.
As to range, I've had it contact stuff and it was almost in focus.
Range for the wireless part is a few feet inside the house if there's a
wall between you and maybe 25 or 30 feet outside. So range varies.
It does have a video out port so getting it into a computer is a snap.
David M.
Allen Fulmer wrote:
>
> And with the HF model you can focus inside the cylinder okay with a 4" or so
> minimum focus distance?
>
> Can you look back at the valves?
>
> And what does it look like the wireless range might be?
>
> I think someone said it came with a cable to allow you to record the video
> on the computer. Have you tried this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allen Fulmer
> RV7 wiring
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David M
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inspection camera
>
>
> One of my best uses is looking inside the cylinders, via the spark plug
> openings.
>
> David M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Cunningham <bencunninghamiii(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Wiring the LR3C-14 Warning light |
> I recently purchased the LR3C-14 for my RV7.
>
> My panel was constructed by Aerotronics and I have added a diagram
> below of the schematic for my annunciator lights.
>
> I have done a sketch below of how I would like to wire the LR3, with
> terminal 5 feeding the light through plug P-1-0, and terminal 3
> reading buss voltage downstream of the 2 amp breaker. Since the
> light was wired through a test switch, I wanted to run this setup by
> you to see if it looked OK to you.
Thanks,
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Nice and complete Andrew!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: 30 September 2009 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
Hi Tim,
Here's mine, all done in Visio.........
I started off by importing Bob's CAD drawings and then converting them. I
then went about "cleaning" up the less than perfect result and saving the
individual components as "groups". After that, drag and drop and copy and
paste works a charm in Visio.
Would you like a copy of the source?
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 05:37:41 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain,
Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like it will
work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
solenoids relays etc.
Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
Thanks, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Spiked" Radio |
| From: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Frank,
You don't specify the type of aircraft and radio which can make a big
difference. If the guy is considering adding a fuse then that suggests to me its
a homebuilt aircraft, raising the question of just how much care has been taken
to configure everything to best practice for the mission desired.
Some radios designed for the Ultralight / LSA markets are not TSO'd and not necessarily
able to withstand the conditions of electrical immunity spelled out in
DOD-160 or better.
In a proper installation with an adequate electrical system any TSO'd radio should
be OK with the conditions described. I would not expect a properly sized CB
to trip and definitely not hold my breath for a fuse do do anything.
I have owned a 1961 Cessna or 12 years and my CH701 for the last five, these have
been equipped with the same KY97a radio and I have never turned the radio off
before starting the plane or any of that stuff that basically wears out the
switches and volume controls. I can't think of a better way to test a radio than
the O-200 with the pull starter!
But I've seen a high proportion of the newer radios with warnings about requiring
an avionics master switch, large capacitor ( a problem in itself because that
will render the CB / fusing inadequate) and these are the radios that seem
to scramble their insides on a regular basis.
Not sure if that gives any insight into whats happened if it was my plane I'd be
retaining the CBs not adding fuses - the fact you can attempt to replace them
inflight is a danger in itself.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265815#265815
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
| From: | "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Allen Fulmer wrote:
> And with the HF model you can focus inside the cylinder okay with a 4" or so
> minimum focus distance?
>
> Can you look back at the valves?
>
> And what does it look like the wireless range might be?
>
> I think someone said it came with a cable to allow you to record the video
> on the computer. Have you tried this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allen Fulmer
> RV7 wiring
> What is the actual Diameter of the camera.Can't seem to find this dimension anywhere
on HF site or product info pdf.Will it fit in the 10mm spark plug hole
like the Jabiru 3300 Cheers
> --
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265824#265824
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
I'd like to add something to David's replies...
The camera head as supplied is too big to fit into the spark plug
hole...but just a touch too big. I didn't think of inserting the mirror
into the spark plug hole with the camera still outside...a possibility.
I just checked the mirror size, and it is only a very little bit smaller
than the camera...not sure that it would fit either.
The smaller, 9mm camera mentioned from another supplier may work, IF you
want to spend the extra $100 AND IF it works with the HF
camera...haven't heard from anyone on that yet, and haven't needed to
try it myself.
As far as the wireless range, the first day I had the HF camera (read
that while the batteries were still fresh ), I detached the display
from the camera head, connected the supplied video cable into my
computer's converter's analog video input plug, and started recording
the image using the Pinnacle Video capture program that came with the
video/digital converter.
I then walked the camera through the house, and outside to try to
determine the range. The computer is located in the west end bedroom
(now a "computer" room ) of my house, and I was able to go into the
middle of the garage attached to the east end of my house (~40 feet
away..through two rooms and down a 20 foot hall) before I lost the
signal, and outside about halfway down the front yard (also about 40
feet).
Just tried it again...same original batteries that I first installed in
it. Interesting results. I put the camera on my desk here in the
computer room and turned it on, then walked the display away until I
lost the signal.
The camera remained inside, here on my desk. I got as far as the garage
door (about 35 feet away) inside the house...but when I took it outside,
I was able to go across the street into the neighbor's yard before the
display shut down (it goes black when it can't receive a signal)...about
90 feet...with the camera inside my house! I did have to rotate to get
the best signal, a bit like locating a cell phone signal, but the image
was still very readable when I locked it in while in Tom's front
yard...and it's a dreary rainy day here.
Except for the handle color, the hard case and a couple of the
accessories, this unit is identical to the HF one: www.nteinc.com/wic
There is a video describing it (actually, a narrated slide show).
Looks to me like a lot of companies are seeing the advantage of this
camera and putting their own brand on it. If you google "wireless
inspection camera" you'll get dozens of different brand labels on the
same unit. But so far, from my search, HF is the lowest
cost...especially when it's on sale for $99 (it may be on sale at the
store as it was here, even though it didn't show a sale online).
And, I, for one, am pleased with it.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M wrote:
>
> THeoretically you could look at the valves with the mirror but I
> haven't done that.
> As to range, I've had it contact stuff and it was almost in focus.
> Range for the wireless part is a few feet inside the house if there's
> a wall between you and maybe 25 or 30 feet outside. So range varies.
> It does have a video out port so getting it into a computer is a snap.
>
> David M.
>
>
> Allen Fulmer wrote:
>>
>>
>> And with the HF model you can focus inside the cylinder okay with a
>> 4" or so
>> minimum focus distance?
>>
>> Can you look back at the valves?
>>
>> And what does it look like the wireless range might be?
>>
>> I think someone said it came with a cable to allow you to record the
>> video
>> on the computer. Have you tried this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Allen Fulmer
>> RV7 wiring
>>
>>
>> One of my best uses is looking inside the cylinders, via the spark
>> plug openings.
>>
>> David M.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | inspection camera |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
harley,
thanks for the info on your camera, bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
| From: | "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Steve,
Yes, the 20 amp fuse should be replaced. A 22awg fuselink will work.
Since your plane does not have a starter, you could use a relay instead of a contactor, perhaps one like this: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=255-1830-ND
A relay weighs less and will not use as much power.
You could buy two relays, one to replace the battery contactor and one to remotely
control power to the essential bus, thus having the ability to isolate all
electrical power on the engine side of the firewall.
Depending on how your main power bus is constructed, you might be able to cut it
in half and then connect the two halves with a diode, thus making an essential
bus. It would be relatively easy to add a switch and wire to complete the
essential bus circuit.
Dual alternators are not necessary for a VFR plane unless the engine is electrically
dependent and you fly long distances over hostile terrain.
Putting a diode between the load side of the battery contactor and main power
bus along with a circuit breaker from the battery to the bus defeats the purpose
of having a contactor, which is the ability to shut off electrical power at
the battery without bringing a large always-hot wire into the cockpit.
Yes, the ANL fuse protects the battery and wire against alternator short circuits.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265890#265890
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Bill,
To make Visio drawings viewable by everyone save them as .jpg files (Save
as, and then scroll nearly to the bottom of the menu).
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Mauledriver Watson
Sent: 30 September 2009 13:55
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
I'm using that product too and like it a lot. A belated Thanks Vern!
If anyone installs it and wants a sample, I'd be glad to share my
schematics. (but you have to have the SCH tool installed to view it)
Bill
Vern Little wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tim.
> Go here: www.vx-aviation.com and follow the link near the top of the
> page for the free schematic software, library and design example from
> my RV-9A. Doesn't have everything but it's very easy to create symbols
> on the fly.
>
> Thanks,
> Vern Little
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Visio?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried using Visio to draw their schematic? It looks like
>> it will
>> work but I'm not finding much in the way of automotive symbols i.e.
>> solenoids relays etc.
>> Can anyone recommend a free or cheap program for this?
>> Thanks, Tim Andres
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mason City, Iowa Aero-Electric seminar |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
Is this still on...?
Just wanted to make sure before I make travel/hotel plans.
Thanks,
Patrick
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265899#265899
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kesley Electric" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mason City, Iowa Aero-Electric seminar |
Hi Patrick,
I spoke with Bob Nuckolls this morning. Unfortunately, there were not
enough people registered to meet the minimum. Bob will be e-mailing those
who registered with the announcement sometime today.
I'm really disappointed that the response was not enough to meet the minimum
class size, as I was really looking forward to the class and the interaction
with other builders.
No reschedule date has been set at this time.
Regards,
Tom Barter
kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PatrickW
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mason City, Iowa Aero-Electric seminar
Is this still on...?
Just wanted to make sure before I make travel/hotel plans.
Thanks,
Patrick
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265899#265899
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:34:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Spiked" Radio |
At 12:16 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>Frank,
> You don't specify the type of aircraft and radio which can
> make a big difference. If the guy is considering adding a fuse then
> that suggests to me its a homebuilt aircraft, raising the question
> of just how much care has been taken to configure everything to
> best practice for the mission desired.
>
>
>Not sure if that gives any insight into whats happened if it was my
>plane I'd be retaining the CBs not adding fuses - the fact you can
>attempt to replace them inflight is a danger in itself.
Good answer sir. Couldn't have said it
better myself . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Odyssey PC310 battery pairings |
| From: | "mjhamm01" <marvhamm(at)aol.com> |
I am planning to use a small PC310 as a primary battery in a system
designed for 1 battery in a VFR only Rotax powered aircraft. Is it possible to
parallel a larger PC680 for occasions when I would want to extend my
reserve capacity time? Or should I plan to only use a second PC310
for such an application?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265999#265999
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey PC310 battery pairings |
At 12:44 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am planning to use a small PC310 as a primary battery in a system
>designed for 1 battery in a VFR only Rotax powered aircraft. Is it
>possible to parallel a larger PC680 for occasions when I would want
>to extend my
>reserve capacity time? Or should I plan to only use a second PC310
>for such an application?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf
It's okay to parallel batteries of two different sizes
and/or station in their service life.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | The HF Inspection camera again |
Once more, that little HF inspection camera has proved it's worth...
When I tried to turn the heat on in my car a few days ago, the heater
temperature couldn't be controlled. In fact, all I got was cold outside
air.
Googling online I found a couple of checks to determine the
reason...turns out it was a loose soldered connection on the temperature
control card...found it by using a programmed troubleshooting check I
found the instructions for online. Not mentioned in any Mazda
literature...including the shop manual! Hold in the radio "On" button,
and push the radio "Scan Up" button at the same time! It then displays
the temperature control setting in the radio display! Rotating the
control showed no change from 0. But I digress...
Had to remove the radio to get to that card, and in the process, lost
the radio's side mounting bolt down behind the dashboard, and behind the
center console and inside the edge of it's carpet. Where I could not get
my head to see it, let alone my hand to retrieve it...
After this weeks discussion, I immediately thought of the HF inspection
camera. It located the bolt within seconds, and then mounting the
magnet probe on the camera retrieved it as well!
Re-soldered the loose connections on the card (all three of them on the
temperature control potentiometer) and now the RX8 is toasty warm again!
Oh, and the programmed check displays 0 to 16 as I rotate the control!
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
>The camera head as supplied is too big to fit into the spark plug
>hole...but just a touch too big.
On my unit, I found the body of the camera to just match the plug hole dia.
However, there was a raised arrow cast on the side of the side of the body
that caused interference. After a little judicial use of a single edged
razor the arrow is now flush, yet discernable, and the camera now fits into
the hole.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)agelesswings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection camera |
When I checked it on my Lycoming O235, the camera did fit inside the
beginning of the spark plug hole, but the threads in the hole got in the
way from there on in...removing that little bit of plastic may have
helped, but I didn't do it figuring that I wouldn't be able to see
anything anyway since the camera would be pointing toward the crankcase
and not the valves and I wouldn't be able to bend the camera in the
short radius needed to look at the valves if it did get inside.
Maybe the smaller 9mm camera may be able to do that...
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
glen matejcek wrote:
>
>
>
>> The camera head as supplied is too big to fit into the spark plug
>> hole...but just a touch too big.
>>
>
> On my unit, I found the body of the camera to just match the plug hole dia.
> However, there was a raised arrow cast on the side of the side of the body
> that caused interference. After a little judicial use of a single edged
> razor the arrow is now flush, yet discernable, and the camera now fits into
> the hole.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
At 09:57 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>I've attached an electrical architecture (in Bob's drawing style)
>for your review. It's for the Longeze I'm restoring. I'm doing the
>restoration in multiple stages. Although it had ~1000 Hrs. on it
>when I obtained it, it's been grounded since I received it. The
>attached architecture is intended to be more robust and fault
>tolerant than what was there (which I'm sure it is...) and certainly
>not worse in that regard than a TC aircraft (though not as good as a
>design with an essential bus).
>
>Down the road a bit, I intend to replace the vacuum system and
>associated instruments with electric, plus a backup alternator and
>an architecture with an essential bus.
>
>I would appreciate comments on the architecture and, specifically,
>on any unmitigated faults (especially those that would not be
>acceptable in a TC aircraft).
>
>The aircraft is VFR only.
>
>Thanks in advance,
You appear to have a generic distribution system
and questions that go to departures from recommendations
offered in the Z-figures.
What was it about Z-11 as depicted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11M.pdf
or features depicted in other z-figures that
prompted the changes in direction?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Bob -
I'm a lurker on this site, but am in progress on a Pa22-20 project
(certified). How difficult would it be to use Z-11 in a certified
aircraft and get a 337 for that purpose? Has anyone done that
recently? Looks perfect for the project.
M. Haught
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:57 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I've attached an electrical architecture (in Bob's drawing style) for
>> your review. It's for the Longeze I'm restoring. I'm doing the
>> restoration in multiple stages. Although it had ~1000 Hrs. on it
>> when I obtained it, it's been grounded since I received it. The
>> attached architecture is intended to be more robust and fault
>> tolerant than what was there (which I'm sure it is...) and certainly
>> not worse in that regard than a TC aircraft (though not as good as a
>> design with an essential bus).
>>
>> Down the road a bit, I intend to replace the vacuum system and
>> associated instruments with electric, plus a backup alternator and an
>> architecture with an essential bus.
>>
>> I would appreciate comments on the architecture and, specifically, on
>> any unmitigated faults (especially those that would not be acceptable
>> in a TC aircraft).
>>
>> The aircraft is VFR only.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
> You appear to have a generic distribution system
> and questions that go to departures from recommendations
> offered in the Z-figures.
>
> What was it about Z-11 as depicted at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11M.pdf
>
> or features depicted in other z-figures that
> prompted the changes in direction?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
At 03:00 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
>Some confusion here perhaps. I'm not using Visio - rather I'm using
>the ExpressSCH product that Vern has linked to at his site. It does
>have a bitmap export function which I just tried and attached the results.
>Looks like that works ok.
You need fusible links upstream of your ov crowbar
breakers, NOT pluggable fuses in the fuse blocks.
You're missing a diode at the cross-feed contactor.
Where are your batteries mounted? 2AWG is too big
for forward mounted batteries. Suggest 4AWG.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-16 Alternator disconnect |
| From: | "Tucsonchris" <gallchrisa(at)qwest.net> |
I'm working off Z-16. Rev M. I have the Cessna type split master. For the sake
of argument, if I were to eliminate the Alternator OV disconnect relay, then would
I simply interrupt one of the yellow alt wires with my master in order to
take the Alternator off-line?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266085#266085
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What is the type of this pin? |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
who will be able to tell me what is the type of this connector? I found it in a
switch coming from a military aircraft. In order to give a new life to the switch,
I need to buy some pins....but I know nothing about it.
Thank you for your help
Overtorque.
PS: On the first pic, it is millimeter....
(http://img42.imageshack.us/i/dsc00979fq.jpg/) (http://g.imageshack.us/img42/dsc00979fq.jpg/1/)
(http://img245.imageshack.us/i/p1010327g.jpg/) (http://g.imageshack.us/img245/p1010327g.jpg/1/)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266089#266089
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What is the type of this pin? |
Wasn't able to get any of the images to load to see what you are referring to.
Tried going directly to the site too with no joy.
If it came from a military aircraft, there's a milspec for it and you should be
able to get replacements using the milspec number.....the trick then is determining
what the milspec is.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Overtorque <lezbnd(at)gmail.com>
>Sent: Oct 2, 2009 1:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: What is the type of this pin?
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>who will be able to tell me what is the type of this connector? I found it in
a switch coming from a military aircraft. In order to give a new life to the switch,
I need to buy some pins....but I know nothing about it.
>
>Thank you for your help
>
>Overtorque.
>
>PS: On the first pic, it is millimeter....
>
> (http://img42.imageshack.us/i/dsc00979fq.jpg/) (http://g.imageshack.us/img42/dsc00979fq.jpg/1/)
>
> (http://img245.imageshack.us/i/p1010327g.jpg/) (http://g.imageshack.us/img245/p1010327g.jpg/1/)
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266089#266089
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
Bob, thanks for giving this a review. I've responded below:
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> You need fusible links upstream of your ov crowbar
> breakers, NOT pluggable fuses in the fuse blocks.
My thinking was the fuse is just protecting the wire to the pullable
breaker. The wire is 16AWG and the fuse a 15amp. Then the breaker is a
5amp. But I think what you are telling me is that the fuse could defeat
the whole purpose of having the pullable breaker. And that either a
fusible link is needed to protect the wire or a direct connection to the
buss. Is that correct?
>
> You're missing a diode at the cross-feed contactor.
Yes, drawing fixed.
>
> Where are your batteries mounted? 2AWG is too big
> for forward mounted batteries. Suggest 4AWG.
It's an RV10 with both batteries in the rear. So I used 2AWG for the
run to the starter and for the interbattery connections. The other
battery has a (previously unmarked) 8AWG wire for the other run to the
front.
My analysis suggested that the 8AWG is enough for the 20amp Alt side of
the circuit even in a crossfeed situation.
Thanks again
Bill "finishing up the panel wiring" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: What is the type of this pin? |
Good Afternoon Overtorque,
I thought I would have an answer for you.
It looks very much like the pins used by Beechcraft to feed the ground and
power to their wedge type internal instrument lights. They are on the ends
which plug into group receptacles on the back of the panel.
I have some somewhere, but can't find them or the Beech part number. Been
trying for the last hour or so.
The bad thing is that they cost about ten bucks apiece when purchased from
Beechcraft. If I find the ones I have or can locate the Beech Part Number,
I will post it here. Meanwhile, maybe this will jog someone else's memory.
'Lectric Bob, do you remember them during your time at Beech?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/2/2009 12:45:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
lezbnd(at)gmail.com writes:
http://img42.imageshack.us/i/dsc00979fq.jpg/)
(http://g.imageshack.us/img42/dsc00979fq.jpg/1/)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
At 10:17 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob -
>
>I'm a lurker on this site, but am in progress on a Pa22-20 project
>(certified). How difficult would it be to use Z-11 in a certified
>aircraft and get a 337 for that purpose? Has anyone done that
>recently? Looks perfect for the project.
>M. Haught
I have often fantasized about taking a nice
ol' rag-wing piper and updating the electrical
system with something like Z-13/8, all
new lightweight hardware and an RG battery.
I'm aware of no projects flying where one
has successfully run the gauntlet for
permission to do a good thing to an ageing
aircraft. Several folks have proposed such
upgrades and have received tentative blessings
on things like the forest of tabs ground bus
and fuse blocks. But those systems have yet
to be completed and signed off for flight.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What is the type of this pin? |
At 12:42 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi All,
>
>who will be able to tell me what is the type of this connector? I
>found it in a switch coming from a military aircraft. In order to
>give a new life to the switch, I need to buy some pins....but I know
>nothing about it.
>
>Thank you for your help
A number of high-end manufacturers of switches
(and relays, etc) are offering very robust,
environmentally sealed devices that are
electrically terminated IWTS (integrated wire
termination system) by means of built-in sockets
having female pins.
The idea is not new. Patent 3717838 was issued
in 1973 on this topic. There are no doubt earlier
documents.
An exemplar product line is illustrated starting
on page A27 of
http://tinyurl.com/ya22ub8
I did a search of IWTS in this pdf file and found
a couple of switch lines offering that feature.
I believe there are probably few sizes and styles
of pins used across these product lines . . . but
pins, extraction tools and installation tools are
unique to the pins. I've not personally put my
hands on any of these but we used a goodly number
at Hawker-Beech.
I didn't see any references to mating pin numbers
in the EATON catalog. I did see a reference to M39029/1-101
pins for 20AWG wire for THAT particular part. You'll
need to check your existing pins against the dimensions
of similar pins (OR) get the part number of your
switch and see what its catalog listing calls out
for the mating pin.
These wont be easy to find in small quantities but
if you identify a part number, you can try
Aircraft and Commercial Enterprises in Derby
KS. They might have and be willing to supply you
a small quantity of pins.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
>My thinking was the fuse is just protecting the wire to the pullable
>breaker. The wire is 16AWG and the fuse a 15amp. Then the breaker
>is a 5amp. But I think what you are telling me is that the fuse
>could defeat the whole purpose of having the pullable breaker. And
>that either a fusible link is needed to protect the wire or a direct
>connection to the buss. Is that correct?
Fuses are so much faster than breakers that
you may pop a 15A fuse trying to open a 5A
breaker. There's a reason for the fusible
link depicted in the Z-figures.
>It's an RV10 with both batteries in the rear. So I used 2AWG for
>the run to the starter and for the interbattery connections. The
>other battery has a (previously unmarked) 8AWG wire for the other
>run to the front.
>My analysis suggested that the 8AWG is enough for the 20amp Alt side
>of the circuit even in a crossfeed situation.
Do you intend to load the aux battery for cranking?
If batteries are in the rear, then contactors are
in the rear and crossfeed contactor is on firewall
to give you a fat-terminal, power distribution point
at the cross-feed contactor.
Use 4AWG welding cable off each battery terminal
to contactors and ground. 2AWG for run forward to
the starter contactor.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What is the type of this pin? |
| From: | "Overtorque" <lezbnd(at)gmail.com> |
Hi all,
Thank you very much for these input.... I made myself the extraction tool. I have
to leave for the WE. Monday, I will take accurate size of the connector and
the brand (if I can find it) of the switch.
I wish a nice nice WE to all
Overtorque
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266215#266215
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Barrow <bobbarrow10(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z-14 alternator wire guage?? |
I have the latest revision of Z14 (REV N 7/14/09) which shows that the Main
Alternator (40 amp) has a 4 AWG B-lead. BUT the Aux Alternator (also 40 am
p) has a 10 AWG B-lead.
Is there any possible logic in this discrepancy.
My calculations indicate that for a standard Lycoming set-up with main alte
rnator at the front of the engine and the aux alternator on the rear of the
engine 10 AWG should be more than enough for the B-leads for both=2C provi
ding the battery is FWF.
Am I missing something here.
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox Find out how here=0A
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=823454
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 Alternator disconnect |
At 12:21 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>I'm working off Z-16. Rev M. I have the Cessna type split master.
>For the sake of argument, if I were to eliminate the Alternator OV
>disconnect relay, then would I simply interrupt one of the yellow
>alt wires with my master in order to take the Alternator off-line?
Yes, if you wanted to load the switch that heavily.
You wouldn't have OV protection either. Recommend
you keep the relay.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 alternator wire guage?? |
At 12:50 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>I have the latest revision of Z14 (REV N 7/14/09) which shows that
>the Main Alternator (40 amp) has a 4 AWG B-lead. BUT the Aux
>Alternator (also 40 amp) has a 10 AWG B-lead.
>
>Is there any possible logic in this discrepancy.
No, there were some artifacts of cut-n-paste that
didn't get combed out before the drawing was last
published. They've been corrected. The latest drawing
can be downloaded from the website.
>
>My calculations indicate that for a standard Lycoming set-up with
>main alternator at the front of the engine and the aux alternator on
>the rear of the engine 10 AWG should be more than enough for the
>B-leads for both, providing the battery is FWF.
>
>Am I missing something here.
I recommend 4AWG for all fat wires just because
you need to buy enough of it to take care of battery/
starter wiring. It's just handy to use the same
gage for all fat wires. I'd leave the Main alternator
at 4AWG and wire the Aux alternator for 20A as shown
on the corrected drawing.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot Wiring Connectors |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Curious if anyone had a solution for a connector problem. I sent off my
Velocity's sharkfin pitot for plating and when it came back, the two
wires to the heating elements were missing. The two wires had female
pin connectors which mate to the two male pins of the heating elements.
The female connector slides right over the male pins. By memory, the
pins are approx. 2-3/32nd inch in diameter and approximately 1/2" long.
I've seen similar pins on some other pitots, but have not been able to
find the connectors that I can attach termials ends to to hook up to the
plane wiring.
Anybody know of a source for female pin connectors that might work?
Chuck Jensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Change 4 to Appendix Z has been published to correct some
errors. Figure Z-9 for Corvair Engines was developed in
cooperation with William Wynne and several of his customers.
That figure has been added to the suite of architecture
drawings.
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Wiring Connectors |
At 11:16 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>Curious if anyone had a solution for a connector problem. I sent
>off my Velocity's sharkfin pitot for plating and when it came back,
>the two wires to the heating elements were missing. The two wires
>had female pin connectors which mate to the two male pins of the
>heating elements. The female connector slides right over the male
>pins. By memory, the pins are approx. 2-3/32nd inch in diameter and
>approximately 1/2" long. I've seen similar pins on some other
>pitots, but have not been able to find the connectors that I can
>attach termials ends to to hook up to the plane wiring.
>
>Anybody know of a source for female pin connectors that might work?
I've never seen a heated pitot tube that did not mate
the AN3113-1 connector. That doesn't mean that yours is
the same format . . . but I suspect it is.
The AN3115-1 is a pricey dude. ACS get about $60 for
it . . .
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/heatedptubes2.php
. . . and offer it under their own part number.
Others on the 'net get as much as $100 for it. I've
contemplated building these and even have a set of
drawings and a slitting saw to do the cross-cuts in
the receptacles. See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/AN3115_Pitot_Tube_Heater/
I built one set of pins way back when and they
would probably have worked well. After looking
at the hassles of tooling up a housing and considering
just how many connectors I might sell . . . well, let's
just say the blush was off the rose.
If it were my airplane, I would solder pigtails onto
the extended pins and install my own connectors on the
ends of the pigtails. Say "power pole" style connector
like those used on B&C PM alternators?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Pitot Wiring Connectors |
Say "power pole" style connector
like those used on B&C PM alternators?
Bob, I've done a quick search for "power pole". Can you supply a link to a
supplier?
Bevan
RV7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot Wiring Connectors |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the link. Yes, it looks like that connector would fit,
though it is different than what was on the pitot initiatlly, which
worked fine, but was apparently 'home made'. The photos show the
original connectors on the old pitot in which the element had gone bad.
The connectors just 'pop off'.
The old pitot wassilver-soldered and servicing was 'not possible', but I
had the good fortune to find a like Kolhsman pitot on ebay for $15; find
of the decade, which I sent off to have plated, but then the connecting
wires became lost.
If I'm unable to find the bare connectors, perhaps I'll have to dig down
into the green moldy stuff and cough up for the one shown in your link.
Chuck Jensen
-----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: Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot Wiring Connectors
At 11:16 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>Curious if anyone had a solution for a connector problem. I sent
>off my Velocity's sharkfin pitot for plating and when it came back,
>the two wires to the heating elements were missing. The two wires
>had female pin connectors which mate to the two male pins of the
>heating elements. The female connector slides right over the male
>pins. By memory, the pins are approx. 2-3/32nd inch in diameter and
>approximately 1/2" long. I've seen similar pins on some other
>pitots, but have not been able to find the connectors that I can
>attach termials ends to to hook up to the plane wiring.
>
>Anybody know of a source for female pin connectors that might work?
I've never seen a heated pitot tube that did not mate
the AN3113-1 connector. That doesn't mean that yours is
the same format . . . but I suspect it is.
The AN3115-1 is a pricey dude. ACS get about $60 for
it . . .
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/heatedptubes2.php
. . . and offer it under their own part number.
Others on the 'net get as much as $100 for it. I've
contemplated building these and even have a set of
drawings and a slitting saw to do the cross-cuts in
the receptacles. See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/AN3115_Pitot_Tube_Heater/
I built one set of pins way back when and they
would probably have worked well. After looking
at the hassles of tooling up a housing and considering
just how many connectors I might sell . . . well, let's
just say the blush was off the rose.
If it were my airplane, I would solder pigtails onto
the extended pins and install my own connectors on the
ends of the pigtails. Say "power pole" style connector
like those used on B&C PM alternators?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Cunningham <bencunninghamiii(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Wiring the LR3C-14 |
> I recently purchased the LR3C-14 voltage Reg. for my RV7.
>
> My panel was constructed by Aerotronics and I have added a diagram
> below of their schematic for my annunciator light circuit.
>
> I have added a sketch below of how I would like to wire the LR3,
> with terminal 5 feeding the low voltage light through plug P-1-0/6,
> and terminal 3 reading buss voltage downstream of the 2 amp breaker.
> Since the light would be wired through a test switch, I wanted to
> run this setup by everyone to see if it looked OK.
Thanks,
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Pitot Wiring Connectors |
Bevan -
Follow this link and find a table of Anderson PowerPole connectors at the
bottom right of page 79...
http://www.hamradio.com/web/newcat/hrocat5.pdf
neal
-----Original Message-----
Say "power pole" style connector
like those used on B&C PM alternators?
Bob, I've done a quick search for "power pole". Can you supply a link to a
supplier?
Bevan
RV7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Wiring Connectors |
Hi Chuck,
I may have a pitot connector that I don't need any longer. It will be
Monday before I can check to see what condition it's in. If it's OK
and will work for you, you are welcome to it.
Bob W.
"Chuck Jensen" wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the link. Yes, it looks like that connector would fit, though it
is different than what was on the pitot initiatlly, which worked fine, but was
apparently 'home made'. The photos show the original connectors on the old pitot
in which the element had gone bad. The connectors just 'pop off'.
>
> The old pitot wassilver-soldered and servicing was 'not possible', but I had
the good fortune to find a like Kolhsman pitot on ebay for $15; find of the decade,
which I sent off to have plated, but then the connecting wires became lost.
>
> If I'm unable to find the bare connectors, perhaps I'll have to dig down into
the green moldy stuff and cough up for the one shown in your link.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----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: Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:44 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot Wiring Connectors
>
>
>
> At 11:16 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
> >Curious if anyone had a solution for a connector problem. I sent
> >off my Velocity's sharkfin pitot for plating and when it came back,
> >the two wires to the heating elements were missing. The two wires
> >had female pin connectors which mate to the two male pins of the
> >heating elements. The female connector slides right over the male
> >pins. By memory, the pins are approx. 2-3/32nd inch in diameter and
> >approximately 1/2" long. I've seen similar pins on some other
> >pitots, but have not been able to find the connectors that I can
> >attach termials ends to to hook up to the plane wiring.
> >
> >Anybody know of a source for female pin connectors that might work?
>
> I've never seen a heated pitot tube that did not mate
> the AN3113-1 connector. That doesn't mean that yours is
> the same format . . . but I suspect it is.
>
> The AN3115-1 is a pricey dude. ACS get about $60 for
> it . . .
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/heatedptubes2.php
>
> . . . and offer it under their own part number.
>
> Others on the 'net get as much as $100 for it. I've
> contemplated building these and even have a set of
> drawings and a slitting saw to do the cross-cuts in
> the receptacles. See . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/AN3115_Pitot_Tube_Heater/
>
>
> I built one set of pins way back when and they
> would probably have worked well. After looking
> at the hassles of tooling up a housing and considering
> just how many connectors I might sell . . . well, let's
> just say the blush was off the rose.
>
> If it were my airplane, I would solder pigtails onto
> the extended pins and install my own connectors on the
> ends of the pigtails. Say "power pole" style connector
> like those used on B&C PM alternators?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Bob - Sent this earlier but did not get a reply. Thought I would send
it again.
M. Haught
Bob -
I'm a lurker on this site, but am in progress on a Pa22-20 project
(certified). How difficult would it be to use Z-11 in a certified
aircraft and get a 337 for that purpose? Has anyone done that
recently? Looks perfect for the project.
M. Haught
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:57 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I've attached an electrical architecture (in Bob's drawing style) for
>> your review. It's for the Longeze I'm restoring. I'm doing the
>> restoration in multiple stages. Although it had ~1000 Hrs. on it
>> when I obtained it, it's been grounded since I received it. The
>> attached architecture is intended to be more robust and fault
>> tolerant than what was there (which I'm sure it is...) and certainly
>> not worse in that regard than a TC aircraft (though not as good as a
>> design with an essential bus).
>>
>> Down the road a bit, I intend to replace the vacuum system and
>> associated instruments with electric, plus a backup alternator and an
>> architecture with an essential bus.
>>
>> I would appreciate comments on the architecture and, specifically, on
>> any unmitigated faults (especially those that would not be acceptable
>> in a TC aircraft).
>>
>> The aircraft is VFR only.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
> You appear to have a generic distribution system
> and questions that go to departures from recommendations
> offered in the Z-figures.
>
> What was it about Z-11 as depicted at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11M.pdf
>
> or features depicted in other z-figures that
> prompted the changes in direction?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot Wiring Connectors |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Hi, bob,
See what you have. I checked Neals suggestion and had seen if in a couple other
searches. It appears to be a tension loaded flat blade that is designed to
mate up with another flat blade. With both blades tensioned, the pressure is
enough to form a good connection between them. A blade to pin connection might
work, but that's certainly not the way it was intended.
Let me know and if works, we enter some high level negotiations for it. lol
Chuck Jensen
Diversified Technologies
2680 Westcott Blvd
Knoxville, TN 37931
Phn: 865-539-9000 x100
Cell: 865-406-9001
Fax: 865-539-9001
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
White
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot Wiring Connectors
Hi Chuck,
I may have a pitot connector that I don't need any longer. It will be
Monday before I can check to see what condition it's in. If it's OK
and will work for you, you are welcome to it.
Bob W.
"Chuck Jensen" wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the link. Yes, it looks like that connector would fit, though it
is different than what was on the pitot initiatlly, which worked fine, but was
apparently 'home made'. The photos show the original connectors on the old pitot
in which the element had gone bad. The connectors just 'pop off'.
>
> The old pitot wassilver-soldered and servicing was 'not possible', but I had
the good fortune to find a like Kolhsman pitot on ebay for $15; find of the decade,
which I sent off to have plated, but then the connecting wires became lost.
>
> If I'm unable to find the bare connectors, perhaps I'll have to dig down into
the green moldy stuff and cough up for the one shown in your link.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----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: Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:44 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot Wiring Connectors
>
>
>
> At 11:16 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
> >Curious if anyone had a solution for a connector problem. I sent
> >off my Velocity's sharkfin pitot for plating and when it came back,
> >the two wires to the heating elements were missing. The two wires
> >had female pin connectors which mate to the two male pins of the
> >heating elements. The female connector slides right over the male
> >pins. By memory, the pins are approx. 2-3/32nd inch in diameter and
> >approximately 1/2" long. I've seen similar pins on some other
> >pitots, but have not been able to find the connectors that I can
> >attach termials ends to to hook up to the plane wiring.
> >
> >Anybody know of a source for female pin connectors that might work?
>
> I've never seen a heated pitot tube that did not mate
> the AN3113-1 connector. That doesn't mean that yours is
> the same format . . . but I suspect it is.
>
> The AN3115-1 is a pricey dude. ACS get about $60 for
> it . . .
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/heatedptubes2.php
>
> . . . and offer it under their own part number.
>
> Others on the 'net get as much as $100 for it. I've
> contemplated building these and even have a set of
> drawings and a slitting saw to do the cross-cuts in
> the receptacles. See . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/AN3115_Pitot_Tube_Heater/
>
>
> I built one set of pins way back when and they
> would probably have worked well. After looking
> at the hassles of tooling up a housing and considering
> just how many connectors I might sell . . . well, let's
> just say the blush was off the rose.
>
> If it were my airplane, I would solder pigtails onto
> the extended pins and install my own connectors on the
> ends of the pigtails. Say "power pole" style connector
> like those used on B&C PM alternators?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 24V Heated Pitot |
I have a chromed AN 5812-1 14V heated pitot tube from Aero Instrument
Co. and need the exact equivalent in a 12V model. Anyone care to trade?
Anticipating some responses that lead to thread drift: I don't want to
change the heating element. And yes, it gets hot on 12V but not hot
enough to suit me. I rather just swap with someone who has a 12V model
and a 24V airplane.
Thanks,
Joe
Independence, OR
http://www.mail2600.com/position
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for taking a look at my architecture drawing. As to why it
differs from the recommendations in the Z-figures. Good question. I
hope my answers are as good (I have no inherent desire to be "different").
The project at hand is the "repair" of a LongEZ that already has 1000
hrs on it by the previous owners (mostly by the original builder). My
objective is to return the aircraft to what I consider flight-worthy
shape. "Return" might not be the right word here as there were many
details (electrical and otherwise) on the aircraft that have never been
in what I would consider (by my standards today) flight worthy, though
they may have been by some standards 30 years ago... And then put a
year or two of flying on it (day VFR) while I become opinionated about
what I want in it and what I don't. Then, the next project will be to
add the enhancements I think are appropriate. I'm expecting the desired
enhancements to include night & IFR support, eliminate the vacuum system
etc.
This project description flows down to the electrical subsystem as the
constraint to keep it as simple as possible to meet the objective (and,
specifically, avoid the temptation to grow the scope of the project).
One other bit of background that may be relevant to my particular
choices: Almost all of my flying since my license (1988) is in my
no-electrical system Taylorcraft. For day VFR missions, a total
electrical system failure, as long as the failure didn't make fire or
smoke, would not give me sweaty palms. I would, however, be mindful of
the loss of ignition redundancy and might choose to shorten the leg...
Note: All of my explanations below (many), are intended solely as
explanation and not a "defense". Although I believe I have thought
everything through, I might have missed stuff and I could easily have
misunderstood why some things were the way they were. PLEASE feel free
to express any disagreement. I am seeking out things that I still need
to fix.
Given the above, this is what I did relative to Z11 and why:
- Removed the starter and associated support. (As I also removed it
from the aircraft. I saved the parts as I might want to reinstall it
(more appropriately wired) later.
- Removed the primer (As I also removed it from the aircraft. This
might also be added back later in a more appropriately wired and plumbed
manner)
- Replaced the ignition switches with SPST as part of the removal of the
starter support features. If/when I re-install the starter I intend to
revisit the latest recommendations regarding connections here and
anticipate I will be replacing these with the progress transfers as
shown in Z11.
- Rearranged the ground buses to match a pusher configuration rather
than the tractor configuration.
- Redefined the avionics ground bus to be an audio ground bus. My
Nav/Com uses a differential audio path allowing separate audio/power
grounds. All the avionics power grounds, with the exception of the
low-power intercom return, terminate at the PNL Gnd bus. All audio
grounds (including the intercom power ground) terminate at the Audio Gnd
bus.
- Reduced the number of connections tying the PNL ground to the Audio
ground as it no longer carries any significant current.
- Replaced the regulator shown on Z11 with the one existent on the aircraft.
- Added a stand alone low-voltage indicator as the existent regulator
(to my knowledge) does not support the feature.
- Replaced the ANL with one sized to the existent alternator.
- Replaced the shunt with one sized to match the existent Ampmeter.
- Used a 20Amp blade fuse instead of a fuse-link for the regulator power
for reasons that are lost to history. I will be using the fuse-link
rather than 20A fuse approach. (I suspect that, back when I did this,
the recommendation for a fuse-link wasn't as obvious but who knows...
My book is years old.)
- Combined the endurance bus and main battery bus as the only items on
the main bus that have significant load are the position, landing, and
strobe lights and, if I end up with a (currently not shown) backup path
for the bus feed, the check list will list specific loads to drop (e.g.
turn off these lights) before enabling the backup power path.
- Removed the bus alternate feed as I haven't (yet) justified it as a
worthy exception to the project guidelines (repair, not enhance as this
stage).
- Removed the Battery Bus as I have nothing that would attach to it.
- Adjusted wire gauges as seemed appropriate for my actual loads.
- I put each engine instrument on it's own fuse as I couldn't think of a
good enough reason not to. It would have been the only exception to the
one-fuse-per-end device approach.
- I changed the "6 inches or less" to "24 inches or less" (turns out to
be about 18 inches at the longest) due to the LongEZ's configuration
constraints. The battery is in the nose. The contactor, shunt and ANL
current limiter (with the regulator mounted on the closest fuselage
side) are all mounted on the canard bulkhead (about as close as you can
get them to the battery but the required wire length is still longer
than 6 inches) and the fuse panel is on the right fuselage side between
the canard bulkhead and the panel. This is also about as close as you
can get it but is still requires wire lengths longer than 6 inches.
Fortunately, with a non-metal airframe, it's a little easier to ensure
appropriate protection for these runs.
- I changed the fuse values to match either that recommended by the
manufacturer of the end device, or, if not stated, to an appropriate
value less than or equal to that required to protect the wire.
Let me know if I missed any changes.
It occurs to me now that the cleanest way to add an alternate power path
(I don't like the approach I pondered on the schematic) may be to
(conceptually, relative to Z11) move everything except the regulator
power path from the main bus to the endurance bus (thus the main bus
effectively becomes the output contact on the contactor). And then
replace the battery bus and the alternate feed switch with a fuse-link
to a panel mounted breaker switch. (Ideally a fuse link appropriate for
7-10 Amps, assuming such a thing exists) My justification for the
breaker switch in this application that I want this resettable in flight
given that I will be required to manually load shed (i.e. turn off the
lights) and, if I neglect the check list and leave the lights on, I want
to have a reasonable recovery option.
I'm also still seriously considering leaving the alternate feed path off
until I revisit the electrical system during the "enhancement" project
to follow in a couple of years. For my current project, I think the
alternate feeds greatest value is, in the event of a contactor failure,
allowing my to keep my redundant source of ignition (but it also allows
me to keep my primary nav/com etc. which is also nice :-)
All comments welcome but I am particularly interested in discussion of
failure mode for which I don't have appropriate fault tolerance.
Thanks in advance,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
At 09:46 PM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>I have a chromed AN 5812-1 14V heated pitot tube from Aero
>Instrument Co. and need the exact equivalent in a 12V model. Anyone
>care to trade?
>
>Anticipating some responses that lead to thread drift: I don't want
>to change the heating element.
It's physically impossible to retrofit these devices. The
heating elements are stainless tubes about 12-15" long
with spiral wound segments tailored to deliver specific
amounts of heat to various portions of the tube assembly.
Emacs!
Here you can see the heater tube as it loops twice through
the labyrinth chamber and around the nose piece. I had to
cut the tube apart just to SEE the heater . . . replacing
it as a maintenance operation is not an option.
> And yes, it gets hot on 12V but not hot enough to suit me. I
> rather just swap with someone who has a 12V model and a 24V airplane.
What defines "hot enough to suit"? Know that the
crafting of a practical heated pitot tube involves
a careful study of ice accretion characteristics
under worst case conditions. The goal is to prevent
liquid ice (super-cooled water droplets) from becoming
solid ice on contact . . . this requires MUCH more energy
than that required to maintain the surface at above
freezing temperatures. As I alluded earlier, it's also
not a function of simply installing a heater . . . the
heater is a long, linear, un-even liberator of heat
crafted to the task.
Here's some data I took on an identical pitot tube in
flight (clear air).
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_tube_temps_at_altitude.pdf
The upper curve shows that while RAT was sometimes
below -35C, the pitot tube was over 100C in cruising
flight at 41K feet. An THIS was on a tube that was
being studied for potentially deficient ability to
avoid freezing under some conditions.
Heated pitot tubes have been installed on tens of
thousands of light aircraft not certified for flight
into know icing conditions. I wouldn't discourage
anyone from adding this feature to their airplane . . .
it just MIGHT save your bacon one day. But know
too that the icing conditions that would render your
airspeed (and perhaps static instruments) useless
are similarly destructive of the airplane's ability
to fly. But then, it might be interesting to know
how high you are and how fast you're going down . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
At 04:47 PM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob - Sent this earlier but did not get a reply. Thought I would
>send it again.
I found my reply in the out-box. Here it is again:
-------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:17 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob -
>
>I'm a lurker on this site, but am in progress on a Pa22-20 project
>(certified). How difficult would it be to use Z-11 in a certified
>aircraft and get a 337 for that purpose? Has anyone done that
>recently? Looks perfect for the project.
>M. Haught
I have often fantasized about taking a nice
ol' rag-wing piper and updating the electrical
system with something like Z-13/8, all
new lightweight hardware and an RG battery.
I'm aware of no projects flying where one
has successfully run the gauntlet for
permission to do a good thing to an ageing
aircraft. Several folks have proposed such
upgrades and have received tentative blessings
on things like the forest of tabs ground bus
and fuse blocks. But those systems have yet
to be completed and signed off for flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 24V Heated Pitot |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Joe,
As Bob said:
"The goal is to prevent liquid ice (super-cooled water droplets) from becoming
solid ice on contact . . . this requires MUCH more energy than that required to
maintain the surface at above freezing temperatures. As I alluded earlier, it's
also not a function of simply installing a heater . . . the heater is a long,
linear, un-even liberator of heat crafted to the task."
>From a qualitative perspective, it takes very little pitot heat to keep the pitot
clear of rime and clear icing that we occassionally bump into at the altitudes
that most GA flies. If we accidently run into SCD icing, we'll likely have
far bigger and faster problems, long before the pitot heating is overcome by
the super-cooled droplets. But, as always, each should do that that gives the
greatest level of comfort.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Joe
Dubner
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 24V Heated Pitot
I have a chromed AN 5812-1 14V heated pitot tube from Aero Instrument
Co. and need the exact equivalent in a 12V model. Anyone care to trade?
Anticipating some responses that lead to thread drift: I don't want to
change the heating element. And yes, it gets hot on 12V but not hot
enough to suit me. I rather just swap with someone who has a 12V model
and a 24V airplane.
Thanks,
Joe
Independence, OR
http://www.mail2600.com/position
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Well, I was afraid that was what you would say, as I had no seen any
discussion of such a project while I have been on here. I guess I'm
stuck with the original. Looking at my fuselage, the wiring harness is
intact and actually, all of the wiring looks really good with no frayed
covering or corrosion on the attachment points. But it will not support
much in the way of avionics, etc.
Thanks, Bob -
M. Haught
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 04:47 PM 10/3/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob - Sent this earlier but did not get a reply. Thought I would
>> send it again.
>
> I found my reply in the out-box. Here it is again:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> At 10:17 AM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob -
>>
>> I'm a lurker on this site, but am in progress on a Pa22-20 project
>> (certified). How difficult would it be to use Z-11 in a certified
>> aircraft and get a 337 for that purpose? Has anyone done that
>> recently? Looks perfect for the project.
>> M. Haught
>
> I have often fantasized about taking a nice
> ol' rag-wing piper and updating the electrical
> system with something like Z-13/8, all
> new lightweight hardware and an RG battery.
>
> I'm aware of no projects flying where one
> has successfully run the gauntlet for
> permission to do a good thing to an ageing
> aircraft. Several folks have proposed such
> upgrades and have received tentative blessings
> on things like the forest of tabs ground bus
> and fuse blocks. But those systems have yet
> to be completed and signed off for flight.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> My thinking was the fuse is just protecting the wire to the pullable
>> breaker. The wire is 16AWG and the fuse a 15amp. Then the breaker
>> is a 5amp. But I think what you are telling me is that the fuse
>> could defeat the whole purpose of having the pullable breaker. And
>> that either a fusible link is needed to protect the wire or a direct
>> connection to the buss. Is that correct?
> Fuses are so much faster than breakers that
> you may pop a 15A fuse trying to open a 5A
> breaker. There's a reason for the fusible
> link depicted in the Z-figures.
I must be back level on my printed out Z figs. The one I have has that
circuit connected directly to buss but in either case I get the point.
I'm going to add 2 fusible links (22AWG based) to the circuit and take
the power directly from the power feeds.
>> It's an RV10 with both batteries in the rear. So I used 2AWG for the
>> run to the starter and for the interbattery connections. The other
>> battery has a (previously unmarked) 8AWG wire for the other run to
>> the front.
>> My analysis suggested that the 8AWG is enough for the 20amp Alt side
>> of the circuit even in a crossfeed situation.
>
> Do you intend to load the aux battery for cranking?
> If batteries are in the rear, then contactors are
> in the rear and crossfeed contactor is on firewall
> to give you a fat-terminal, power distribution point
> at the cross-feed contactor.
>
> Use 4AWG welding cable off each battery terminal
> to contactors and ground. 2AWG for run forward to
> the starter contactor.
>
I did this a little different. I have all 3 contactors back with the
batteries. Then a 2AWG running forward for the starter circuit and fuse
board 1 with the majority of the load. Then a 8AWG line running forward
to the other fuse board. The batteries are twin PC680s (pic attached).
I can crank with both batteries or with 1. The plan is to generally
just use 1. All of this was done over a year ago so it's all installed
at this point.
- Why a Z14? In the end, I fell for the simple symmetry of the whole
thing over an E-bus solution. A bit irrational with some extra cost but
it's working for me so far. It is an all electric a/c with my dream IFR
panel (3 GRTs, G430w). No electronic ignition though.
One of the things I found myself doing when IFR in my Maule, is sitting
on the ramp getting a clearance, programming the G300XL, and more
recently watching the Nexrad on the G396. For example, a year after
Katrina I was sitting at the GA New Orlean's airport waiting to get past
a line of buildups. The FBO was operational but their weather terminal
was down so I spent 2 or 3 hours running out to the Maule checking the
396 for a hole and otherwise figuring out when and how to escape. I
started to worry about having enough juice to start (I've never figured
out what kind of time I would have in such a situation). Then when
things opened up a bit, I shut everything down because I was keeping to
the practice of not starting with the avionics online. Then I had to
load a plan and wait for the 396 to get it's Nexrad back. All the time
trying not to rush to get thru the hole.
Since then based on your writings, I've started turning on my Maule
avionics stack when needed, and keeping it on when starting. No
problems ever encountered of course. But the doc for the GRTs suggest
that it might reduce the life of the screeens if this is done
frequently, so...
Two things I wanted to have with my Z14.
1) I wanted the ability to run most of my stack without worrying about
having enough energy for the start. I've always found that time spent
on the ground prepping for an IFR flight, especially a single pilot
departure into IMC, can be the most valuable in the flight.
2) I wanted to feel totally comfortable running the stack during the
start - given the manufacturer's warning and a lifetime of perhaps
worrying about something I didn't need to. An un-rushed, guilt-free
panel setup before the start is a very nice thing to have.
And then I have this dual electric system that can put 2 batteries on
the starter if ever needed and can backup just about any electrical
failure without much concern. And I don't think I can get too much
weight back there in the battery compartment - the RV10 seems to benefit
from it.
Thanks for the review and the resources.
Bill "this thing is going to fly in 2010" Watson
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Good Afternoon Marvin,
I would never qualify as an expert on electrical systems, but I did
recently make a few changes which I feel are improvements to our 1955 PA-22-20.
I replaced every piece of wiring that could be reached without cutting the
aircraft's fabric covering with nice new Tefzel wiring of the appropriate
gauge. I replaced all of the original Circuit Breakers and most switches
with new production substitutes. I removed the original CB panel and replaced
it with a hunk of angle aluminum that extends left to right all the way
across the bottom of the instrument panel. I also made new busses for all
switches and CBs.
'Lectric Bob won't care for this next item, but I did add a radio master
switch to feed an electronics buss.
I performed all functions in accordance with AC 43.13-1B citing appropriate
paragraphs for documentation of suitability. All work was noted on a 337
and filed with the FAA. No local approval required as AC43.13-1B provides
adequate documentation for an IA to determine whether or not the installation
is in conformance with those provisions.
Our Pacer is now a very nice full WAAS equipped IFR platform!
Any help at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/4/2009 3:55:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
handainc(at)madisoncounty.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Marvin Haught
Well, I was afraid that was what you would say, as I had no seen any
discussion of such a project while I have been on here. I guess I'm
stuck with the original. Looking at my fuselage, the wiring harness is
intact and actually, all of the wiring looks really good with no frayed
covering or corrosion on the attachment points. But it will not support
much in the way of avionics, etc.
Thanks, Bob -
M. Haught
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
At 11:28 AM 10/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thanks for taking a look at my architecture drawing. As to why it
>differs from the recommendations in the Z-figures. Good
>question. I hope my answers are as good (I have no inherent desire
>to be "different").
September 17, 2009 - October 04, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ja