AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jb
October 04, 2009 - October 21, 2009
>
>- 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.
Okay
>- 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)
Hmmmm . . . must be a REALLY easy-to-prop engine . . .
>- 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.
Okay
>- Rearranged the ground buses to match a pusher
>configuration rather than the tractor configuration.
Okay
>- 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.
Can't comment on this without having understood/crafted
the system . . .
>- Replaced the regulator shown on Z11 with the one existent on the aircraft.
good
>- Added a stand alone low-voltage indicator as the existent
>regulator (to my knowledge) does not support the feature.
always good
>- Replaced the ANL with one sized to the existent alternator.
okay . . . recall too that ANLs are VERY robust . . .
you can go as small as ANL30 with plenty of headroom
for 50A alternator.
>- Replaced the shunt with one sized to match the existent Ampmeter.
You have a 50A alternator?
>- 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.)
. . . you can always download the latest Appendix
Z from the websit along with the change-pages from
the last revision. It's easy to keep your book up to
date.
>- 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).
Re-read the explanation for an E-bus in Appendix
Z notes and chapter 17 on reliability. The E-bus
is for maximizing a limited resource (battery energy
stored) during alternator-out operations. It's also
a plan-B during battery contactor failure. Highly
recommended.
>- Removed the Battery Bus as I have nothing that would attach to it.
Okay
>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 :-)
Your e-bus should supply power to goodies especially
useful for continued flight to airport of intended
destination without an alternator. This usually amounts
to a handful of electro-whizzies for a battery only
endurance that exceeds hours of fuel aboard
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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").
>- Removed the Battery Bus as I have nothing that would attach to it.
Correction, how about the electronic ignition. It has
its own power switch and is an excellent candidate
for battery bus power. If you got bad smells in
the cockpit you can power down the whole electrical
system without reducing engine support. Fuel pump
might run from battery bus too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Mitchell" <rmitch1(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | 24V Heated Pitot |
On the data plate it says 24V? You didn't really mean 14V?
Bob Mitchell
L-320
-----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 21:47
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Hi Bill,
Just curious: Why have you wired SW01 and SW02 to disconnect both the alternator
and battery at the same time instead of using the progressive transfer scheme
in most of the Z diagrams?
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266525#266525
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
In spite of my best efforts to avoid thread drift ...
All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at all
times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the Dynon EFIS
requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude information.
*Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn an inadvertent
icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider flying
needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
I'm 100% positive an AN 5812 12V heated pitot operating with a 12V
electrical system will provide enough heat in an RV at RV altitudes and
airspeeds. I'm not sure a 24V heater running on 12V will. It might,
but I won't be performing a "careful study of ice accretion
characteristics under worst case conditions". I just want to swap this
24V model with someone (perhaps a Lancair builder?) who could use it and
has an equivalent 12V model lying around.
We both agree: I'm not going to be changing the heating element :-)
Anyone want to trade?
--
Joe
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> 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: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook up a
GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version the
attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS speed.
(Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you that before
the pitot comes live.
Werner
>
> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at all
> times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the Dynon EFIS
> requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude information.
> *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn an inadvertent
> icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider flying
> needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
Ignorance perhaps. I remember considering the 'progressive transfer'
thing which I believe is specific and internal to the switch. Then I
went ahead and selected some lit rockers with the basic functions needed
(I thought). I may or may not have them documented correctly in the
diagram.
Do I have a problem here?
Bill
rckol wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Just curious: Why have you wired SW01 and SW02 to disconnect both the alternator
and battery at the same time instead of using the progressive transfer scheme
in most of the Z diagrams?
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266525#266525
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
>> 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.
Which figure are you referring to? I think I've
had a fusible link coming right off the feedpoint
of a fuse-block since day-one . . .
>I'm going to add 2 fusible links (22AWG based) to the circuit and
>take the power directly from the power feeds.
Okay . . .
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 11:22 PM 10/4/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>Just curious: Why have you wired SW01 and SW02 to disconnect both
>the alternator and battery at the same time instead of using the
>progressive transfer scheme in most of the Z diagrams?
Many moons ago, before I located progressive
transfer switches from Carling to emulate the
split-rocker, the Z-figures suggested that battery
and alternator be brought ON and OFF together with
a 2-3 switch. Even if you choose to use fuse blocks,
the crowbar ov protection system called for an
alternator field breaker which doubled as a means
by which the alternator could be disabled for battery
only, ground maintenance operations or disabled
in flight if the regulator or alternator became
unruly.
There's no foundation in physics for not bringing
the alternator and battery on and off together for
normal operating conditions.
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: 24V Heated Pitot |
At 12:48 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>In spite of my best efforts to avoid thread drift ...
The "drift" wasn't intended to persuade or dissuade
you of anything. It's a prophylactic measure to
ward off misunderstanding by some of 1799 other
readers who might believe that serious discussions
about heated-pitot tubes on single-engine aircraft
is a worthy topic for their attention as well. I
and others on the list will be pleased to help you
achieve your design goals. But the charter for
this List is to seek useful perspective of any
design goal based on physics, experience and
understanding.
>All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at
>all times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the
>Dynon EFIS requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude
>information. *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn
>an inadvertent icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider
>flying needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
It's not possible to quantify "reliable".
The prudent FMEA calls for crafting a
Plan-B based on your Dynon system failing
for what ever reason. We know that you're a
careful pilot and will stay out of weather
conditions that would put you at risk.
So how does one handle an airplane
if the airspeed readings are unreliable?
It CAN become unreliable for a host of reasons
not related to ice on the pitot tube.
How about attitude and power control? Can
you stall your airplane without putting the
nose above the horizon? How difficult is
it to avoid over-speed?
How about a wing leveler that uses it's own
data sources? It's a much better needle-ball
aviator than people and if you give it GPS
course data, a damned good navigator too.
It doesn't need a pitot-static system and
leaves you free to concentrate on speed
and altitude issues.
One of my favorite teaching activities while
doing check rides with prospective renters at
1K1 was to show them how to keep their head
out of the cockpit in our busy traffic area
with lots of no-radio airplanes. It's good that one
has the skills to nail that airspeed, runway
centerline and cross the fence on target every time.
It's equally good to skillfully execute a short
approach from the downwind leg with high airspeeds
and maneuvers that would have your instructor
frowning if not yelling at you. It's the
unusual flight maneuvers that can be safely
conducted by staying WELL INSIDE the machine's
controllability envelope. That same skills and
understanding would do well by you if you
discovered that some bit of instrumentation
was broken for what ever reason. Skill and
understanding are a better substitute for
non-quantified "reliability" upon any single
piece of instrumentation.
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: 24V Heated Pitot |
At 01:12 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook
>up a GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version
>the attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS
>speed. (Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you
>that before the pitot comes live.
Aha! A Plan-C . . . good show.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Which figure are you referring to? I think I've
> had a fusible link coming right off the feedpoint
> of a fuse-block since day-one . . .
>
Figure Z-14... I'm looking at the Adobe version since I un-installed
Turbocad awhile ago. The 5amp breaker is directly connected to Main
Power Distribution Bus and the Aux Bus
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z14N1.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Bob and the group:
Quotes from previous exchange between me (>) and Bob (additional indent):
> ** >- 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)
>
> Hmmmm . . . must be a REALLY easy-to-prop engine . . .
> **
Probably not. At least that's not what I'm assuming. I just won't be
priming it with an *electric* primer.
> ** >- 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.
>
> Can't comment on this without having understood/crafted
> the system . . .
> **
In case you were interested in following up, I've attached my detailed
schematics. They don't (yet) reflect the intended change to pull the
regulator power though a fuse-link instead of a 20A fuse. If it's too
much to want to wade though that's fine (I often feel that way about it
too).
> ** >- Replaced the ANL with one sized to the existent alternator.
>
> okay . . . recall too that ANLs are VERY robust . . .
> you can go as small as ANL30 with plenty of headroom
> for 50A alternator.
>
> **
I believe my alternator is a 40A but I haven't yet pulled it off and had
a shop test it. The smallest B&C had when I ordered was 40A so I went
with that...
> ** >- Replaced the shunt with one sized to match the existent Ampmeter.
>
> You have a 50A alternator?
>
> **
I went with the 50A shunt only to match the range on the ammeter. At
some point I expect I will pull both the Ammeter and shunt and ebay them
as a pair so I figured it made sense for them to match... I should send
you a picture of my original shunt. It was home made (presumably by the
original builder) via wire, a large brass cotter pin, solder and
heat-shrink. It was within 10% but I wouldn't have wanted to overload it!
> ** Re-read the explanation for an E-bus in Appendix
> Z notes and chapter 17 on reliability. The E-bus
> is for maximizing a limited resource (battery energy
> stored) during alternator-out operations. It's also
> a plan-B during battery contactor failure. Highly
> recommended.
>
> **
Ok. Just re-read the section in Appendix Z (fresh download), will
re-read chapter 17 when I get back to the hangar (and my book). Once I
finish that, I need to refresh my load analysis and anticipated battery
size (including a fresh weight and balance which will be a while). It's
pretty typical with LongEZs (esp. with a starter which I no longer have)
to need nose ballast and this is often accomplished with an oversized
battery. Not sure where mine will come in as I don't trust the last
recorded weight and balance.
And from your other follow-up email:
> ** >- Removed the Battery Bus as I have nothing that would attach to it.
>
> Correction, how about the electronic ignition. It has
> its own power switch and is an excellent candidate
> for battery bus power. If you got bad smells in
> the cockpit you can power down the whole electrical
> system without reducing engine support. Fuel pump
> might run from battery bus too.
> **
Hmmm, Given your suggestion above, I'm now considering using a
fuse-link from the always hot side of the contactor (my current "battery
bus" such as it is...) to the electronic ignition. This leads to an
interesting dilemma. The manual for my electronic ignition calls out a
15A fuse protecting 18AWG wire. I presume the seemingly excess fuse
size is to provide headroom for surge or pulse current. IF that is the
case, I would think a fuse-link appropriately sized for 18AWG wire (i.e.
22AWG) would be appropriate protection (and better than a 15A fuse).
Your thoughts?
I like the idea of keeping redundant sources of ignition if I have a
contactor failure. However, if I decide to also put the fuel pump on
the battery bus, then I could either use another fuse-link for it (a
24AWG link seems appropriate) off the always hot side of the contactor
or actually use a real fuse block battery bus for both the elec.
ignition and fuel pump.
OR (I don't think I need both approaches...)
I could just put in the alternate feed path to the endurance bus (which,
in my case, is the only bus with manual load shedding). It seems like I
could use the 16AWG fuse-link (as on Z12) as the protection for the
(proposed by me) panel-mounted switch/breaker for the alternate feed.
However, this would required me to either find an isolation diode
capable of my full electrical load (inc. lights). And, of course,
requires that I also install the regulator feed fuse link to the
switched output of my contactor (as I previously pondered) rather than
downstream of the diode. Or, I need to bite the bullet and implement
both a main bus and endurance bus (per Z11) so your AEC9001 would be
enough to handle the endurance bus loads.
Given that I haven't yet re-read chapter 17 or refreshed my load
analysis, this may change. But as of now, I think the approach that
best meets current objectives is to use fuse-links for the elect.
ignition and possibly the fuel pump (not sure how I feel about the fuel
pump switch being hot when the master switch is off. I guess I feel ok
if I clearly indicate that on the labeling) from the always hot side of
the contactor. And to not implement the endurance bus approach until I
enter the "enhancement" project down the road.
Best regards and thanks again for your input,
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
**
**
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SD-8 Installation Item |
I installed my SD-8 and then questioned whether the output line from the
relay to the bus was in fact correct.
I ran the line from the relay to the Master Bus (satisfies the simple B
& C drawing).
The questions: 1. Given my All electric Z-13/8 installation (dual EE
ignition) + backup battery, is it wiser to run the supply lead to the
Essential Bus rather than the Master Bus? 2. If I do that will the SD-8
still get remaining charge to the batteries?
Assumptions: Under use of the backup alternator (for whatever reason),
the majority of the primary bus items would be turned off prior to
flipping the switch on the SD-8.
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Battery capacity testing |
I fly a Mooney M20F which has a Concorde RG battery installed
(RG-35AXC). Concorde (as well as Bob, of course) recommend periodic
capacity testing--after 2 years, and every year thereafter.
The procedure called for in Concorde's ICA
(http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/IFCA1.pdf, page 8) is to load
the battery at the 1-hour rate (33 amps, in my case), and see how long
it takes for the voltage to drop below 10 volts. If that takes less
than 51 minutes (85% of 1 hour) on a fully-charged battery, it is to
be replaced.
So the question is, how can I uniformly (and, ideally, inexpensively)
load the battery to 33 amps? I'd think that the loading would be
fairly critical to get a valid result. Of course, I could do the math
easily enough if the load were some other constant value (say, 30 or
35 amps), but I don't think I'd get a very good result with a load
that changed over time (like using a light bulb), since it'd be hard
to integrate that into total amp-hours.
I've looked at West Mountain Radio's CBA-III
(http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm), but to work for this
purpose it would also need their add-on amplifier accessory
(http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBAAmplifier.htm), bringing the
total cost to almost $900.
What other options are out there?
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Installation Item |
At 11:13 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>I installed my SD-8 and then questioned whether the output line from the
>relay to the bus was in fact correct.
>
>I ran the line from the relay to the Master Bus (satisfies the simple B
>& C drawing).
>
>The questions: 1. Given my All electric Z-13/8 installation (dual EE
>ignition) + backup battery, is it wiser to run the supply lead to the
>Essential Bus rather than the Master Bus? 2. If I do that will the SD-8
>still get remaining charge to the batteries?
>
>Assumptions: Under use of the backup alternator (for whatever reason),
>the majority of the primary bus items would be turned off prior to
>flipping the switch on the SD-8.
The SD8 as the ONLY alternator goes to the main bus.
An SD8 as a backup alternator goes to the battery
and e-bus loads are limited to 8A max. This lets
you fly with unlimited endurance with the main bus
down and the battery contactor off.
Now you have 100% of energy stored in battery
available for approach to landing by turning the
battery master back on.
B&C's recipe for success is for different dish.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
At 11:55 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>I fly a Mooney M20F which has a Concorde RG battery installed
>(RG-35AXC). Concorde (as well as Bob, of course) recommend periodic
>capacity testing--after 2 years, and every year thereafter.
>
>I've looked at West Mountain Radio's CBA-III
>(http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm), but to work for this
>purpose it would also need their add-on amplifier accessory
>(http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBAAmplifier.htm), bringing the
>total cost to almost $900.
Yeah . . . lots of overkill if YOUR are interested
in endurance AS INSTALLED in YOUR airplane with YOUR
choice of equipment items operational.
The "approved" testing protocols come from a bunch
of bureaucrats who decided some years ago that
EVERYBODY's airplane should be configured and
maintained to get on the ground in 30 minutes
or less after engine driven power goes away.
How about this? YOU decide what your
alternator-out endurance target is. Wouldn't
you feel better about 1 hour? How about two
hours? Next make up a list of electro-whizzies
you plan to leave ON (and those you can't turn
off) after the LV warning light comes on.
During some CAVU cross country, deliberately
put your airplane into a failed alternator
condition and start your stop-watch. 11 volts
is a better battery depleted target. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/28AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
Note that by the time a 12 lead-acid battery
drops to 11.0 volts, the curve is VERY steep
and 10.0 volts is not far behind.
When your battery drops to 11.0 volts, note
the time it took to get down to that value.
Did that meet your design goal for battery only
endurance?
No? (1) replace battery. (2) revise electrical
load for alternator out operations or (3)
revise endurance design goals. Or some combination
of the 3.
I think it's much better that the owner/operator
craft, test and maintain personally generated
endurance goals. Your chances of understanding
and operating your airplane with confidence is
greatly improved.
After 11.0V is achieved, turn the alternator
back on. Turn on maximum number of electro-whizzies
for 10 minutes or so to mitigate the initial
inrush of battery recharge currents. After 10
minutes, reduce to minimum required for completing
the flight. If you have a battery maintainer to
hook to you battery in the hangar, it's always
a good thing whether or not you just tested
the battery.
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 |
>> Which figure are you referring to? I think I've
>> had a fusible link coming right off the feedpoint
>> of a fuse-block since day-one . . .
>Figure Z-14... I'm looking at the Adobe version since I un-installed
>Turbocad awhile ago. The 5amp breaker is directly connected to Main
>Power Distribution Bus and the Aux Bus
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z14N1.pdf
Aha! That's an all CB airplane . . . so yes, the breaker goes
right to the bus along with ALL OTHER BREAKERS. If you use
a fuse block, then specialized feeder treatment for the
alternator field breaker is indicated.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
OK, I just got lost. I looked at note 4 of appendix z and read the
comments...
Z-13 shows fusible link and circuit breaker for alt fld between main power
bus and master switch.
Z-14 has just circuit breaker for alt fld between main power bus and master
switch.
Z-19 has just fusible link for alt fld between main power bus and master
switch (circuit breaker is on other side of main power switch).
I don't understand the reason for the distinctions and how the fusible link
helps a fuse in the fuse block. Especially z-14 vs. z-13 and z-19.
Thanks,
Tom Hanaway
Also working on an rv-10
-----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, October 05, 2009 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution
>> Which figure are you referring to? I think I've
>> had a fusible link coming right off the feedpoint
>> of a fuse-block since day-one . . .
>Figure Z-14... I'm looking at the Adobe version since I un-installed
>Turbocad awhile ago. The 5amp breaker is directly connected to Main
>Power Distribution Bus and the Aux Bus
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z14N1.pdf
Aha! That's an all CB airplane . . . so yes, the breaker goes
right to the bus along with ALL OTHER BREAKERS. If you use
a fuse block, then specialized feeder treatment for the
alternator field breaker is indicated.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
Thank you, Werner. I /do/ have that version of software installed with
a GPS connected. I /have/ seen the warning message pop up (mostly on
landing roll -- rather disconcerting) and it does give me additional
comfort but as in all things involving proprietary (closed to scrutiny)
software and sketchy specifications, I'm not sure if that replaces the
need for a heated pitot tube in my application.
Maybe I'll call Dynon and ask.
Best,
Joe
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook up a
> GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version the
> attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS speed.
> (Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you that before
> the pitot comes live.
>
> Werner
>>
>> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at all
>> times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the Dynon EFIS
>> requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude information.
>> *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn an inadvertent
>> icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider flying
>> needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
At 10:43 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>Bob and the group:
>
>>**
>In case you were interested in following up, I've attached my
>detailed schematics.
I printed out your set of drawings on nice big
11 x 17 sheets with every intention of doing
a well considered review . . . but hit the
brick wall with the interstate/county road/
cow-path wiring diagram. These are exceedingly
difficult to read for useful operational and
FMEA information. The drawings for Cessna,
Beechcraft, King Radio, AND the 'Connection
were done that way for good reasons.
Sorry I can't be of more service . . .
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... |
>>*
>Hmmm, Given your suggestion above, I'm now considering using a
>fuse-link from the always hot side of the contactor (my current
>"battery bus" such as it is...) to the electronic ignition. This
>leads to an interesting dilemma. The manual for my electronic
>ignition calls out a 15A fuse protecting 18AWG wire. I presume the
>seemingly excess fuse size is to provide headroom for surge or pulse
>current. IF that is the case, I would think a fuse-link
>appropriately sized for 18AWG wire (i.e. 22AWG) would be appropriate
>protection (and better than a 15A fuse).
>Your thoughts?
Let's not scatter fusible links around for any
applications other than the slots suggested in
the z-figures. How much current does your electronic
ignition really draw? I'd be amazed if it were greater
than 3A under worst case conditions. 3A is a TON
of ignition energy.
>I like the idea of keeping redundant sources of ignition if I have a
>contactor failure.
You have a magneto. That's your redundant ignition.
The goal now is to supply a max-reliabilty, never
turned off supply for the electronic system. The
battery bus is the most stable, all-conditions source
of electrical energy.
> However, if I decide to also put the fuel pump on the battery
> bus, then I could either use another fuse-link for it (a 24AWG link
> seems appropriate) off the always hot side of the contactor or
> actually use a real fuse block battery bus for both the elec.
> ignition and fuel pump.
No, ordinary fuses are just fine.
>I could just put in the alternate feed path to the endurance bus
>(which, in my case, is the only bus with manual load shedding). It
>seems like I could use the 16AWG fuse-link (as on Z12) as the
>protection for the (proposed by me) panel-mounted switch/breaker for
>the alternate feed.
Why not wire it per the Z-figures?
>Given that I haven't yet re-read chapter 17 or refreshed my load
>analysis, this may change. But as of now, I think the approach that
>best meets current objectives is to use fuse-links for the elect.
>ignition and possibly the fuel pump (not sure how I feel about the
>fuel pump switch being hot when the master switch is off.
If your magneto switch is left ON after the battery
is OFF, it's hot too. This is what check lists are
for.
Keep in mind that the z-figures are, in some cases,
20+ years old. They've been combed and sifted for
"gotchas" while optimizing the failure mode effects
analysis with the minimum parts count.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
Thanks, Bob. So how would I meet my design goal of reliable *attitude*
information with a Dynon EFIS during inadvertent flight into icing
conditions? (For sake of discussion, I'll quantify reliable as pitch
within 2 degrees of true, an MTBF of 2000 hours, and an indication of
failure when it happens (no insidious failures). Roll I don't care as
much about as I can maintain wings level with an electric turn coordinator.)
My plan for dealing with failure of the EFIS is to fly
needle-ball-and-airspeed using a TC, standby altimeter, and standby
airspeed indicator. But that's not a workable plan if combined with a
simultaneous failure of the pitot system due to icing and the standby
airspeed indicator is inop too. Hence my requirement for a heated pitot.
While a wing-leveler autopilot is a good thing, I would also need a
pitch-axis autopilot and both autopilots would need to be independent of
the Dynon EFIS. Alas, there goes the (relatively) inexpensive Dynon
pitch and roll autopilot options. Other solutions would be more
expen$ive, heavier, and require more panel space.
So why not a heated pitot to make "plan A" more robust and "plan B"
(standby instruments) possible?
--
Joe
Long-EZ flying
RV-8A building (wings)
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 12:48 AM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> In spite of my best efforts to avoid thread drift ...
>
> The "drift" wasn't intended to persuade or dissuade
> you of anything. It's a prophylactic measure to
> ward off misunderstanding by some of 1799 other
> readers who might believe that serious discussions
> about heated-pitot tubes on single-engine aircraft
> is a worthy topic for their attention as well. I
> and others on the list will be pleased to help you
> achieve your design goals. But the charter for
> this List is to seek useful perspective of any
> design goal based on physics, experience and
> understanding.
>
>> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at all
>> times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the Dynon EFIS
>> requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude information.
>> *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn an inadvertent
>> icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider flying
>> needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
>
> It's not possible to quantify "reliable".
> The prudent FMEA calls for crafting a
> Plan-B based on your Dynon system failing
> for what ever reason. We know that you're a
> careful pilot and will stay out of weather
> conditions that would put you at risk.
> So how does one handle an airplane
> if the airspeed readings are unreliable?
>
> It CAN become unreliable for a host of reasons
> not related to ice on the pitot tube.
> How about attitude and power control? Can
> you stall your airplane without putting the
> nose above the horizon? How difficult is
> it to avoid over-speed?
>
> How about a wing leveler that uses it's own
> data sources? It's a much better needle-ball
> aviator than people and if you give it GPS
> course data, a damned good navigator too.
> It doesn't need a pitot-static system and
> leaves you free to concentrate on speed
> and altitude issues.
>
> One of my favorite teaching activities while
> doing check rides with prospective renters at
> 1K1 was to show them how to keep their head
> out of the cockpit in our busy traffic area
> with lots of no-radio airplanes. It's good that one
> has the skills to nail that airspeed, runway
> centerline and cross the fence on target every time.
>
> It's equally good to skillfully execute a short
> approach from the downwind leg with high airspeeds
> and maneuvers that would have your instructor
> frowning if not yelling at you. It's the
> unusual flight maneuvers that can be safely
> conducted by staying WELL INSIDE the machine's
> controllability envelope. That same skills and
> understanding would do well by you if you
> discovered that some bit of instrumentation
> was broken for what ever reason. Skill and
> understanding are a better substitute for
> non-quantified "reliability" upon any single
> piece of instrumentation.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
I know you want Bob's response but let me see if I can share my new
found knowledge regarding the Z13 vs. the Z14.
The Z13 "Main Distribution Bus" is a fuse panel, that is, only fuses are
used for circuit protection. Because you need a breaker for the Crowbar
OV Protect module, a fusible link is used to protect the wire that runs
to the breaker. You don't want to connect the breaker to a fuse because
the fuse will blow before the breaker breaks. The fusible link will
blow slowly and allow the breaker to function as it must for the Crowbar
module to work.
The Z14 "Main Distribution Bus" is a regular bus bar with breakers
attached. In that case there is no wire running to a breaker to
protect. The breaker required for the OV Protection in the LR3
controller is simply attached directly to the bus bar which is the "Main
Distribution Bus".
Makes sense to me now!
Bill
Tom Hanaway wrote:
>
> OK, I just got lost. I looked at note 4 of appendix z and read the
> comments...
>
> Z-13 shows fusible link _and _circuit breaker for alt fld between main
> power bus and master switch.
>
> Z-14 has _just_ circuit breaker for alt fld between main power bus and
> master switch.
>
> Z-19 has _just_ fusible link for alt fld between main power bus and
> master switch (circuit breaker is on other side of main power switch).
>
> I don't understand the reason for the distinctions and how the fusible
> link helps a fuse in the fuse block. Especially z-14 vs. z-13 and z-19.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Hanaway
>
> Also working on an rv-10
>
> -----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, October 05, 2009 1:42 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Which figure are you referring to? I think I've
>
> >> had a fusible link coming right off the feedpoint
>
> >> of a fuse-block since day-one . . .
>
> >Figure Z-14... I'm looking at the Adobe version since I un-installed
>
> >Turbocad awhile ago. The 5amp breaker is directly connected to Main
>
> >Power Distribution Bus and the Aux Bus
>
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z14N1.pdf
>
>
>
> Aha! That's an all CB airplane . . . so yes, the breaker goes
>
> right to the bus along with ALL OTHER BREAKERS. If you use
>
> a fuse block, then specialized feeder treatment for the
>
> alternator field breaker is indicated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>
> ( )
>
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I suspect Dynon might wash their hands of the whole thing by saying
something like "the use of our pitot or display for the primary instrument
for flight in icing condition is not recommended."
I'll be interested in hearing back what they say..
Matt-
>
> Thank you, Werner. I /do/ have that version of software installed with
> a GPS connected. I /have/ seen the warning message pop up (mostly on
> landing roll -- rather disconcerting) and it does give me additional
> comfort but as in all things involving proprietary (closed to scrutiny)
> software and sketchy specifications, I'm not sure if that replaces the
> need for a heated pitot tube in my application.
>
> Maybe I'll call Dynon and ask.
>
> Best,
> Joe
>
>
> Werner Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook up a
>> GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version the
>> attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS speed.
>> (Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you that before
>> the pitot comes live.
>>
>> Werner
>>>
>>> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at all
>>> times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the Dynon EFIS
>>> requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude information.
>>> *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn an inadvertent
>>> icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider flying
>>> needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an emergency).
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | high temp. tie wraps. |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that can be
used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get these things?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Look at steinair.com.
Jim Berry
RV10
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266689#266689
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Watons's RV-10 power distribution |
At 01:43 PM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>OK, I just got lost. I looked at note 4 of appendix z and read the
>comments...
>Z-13 shows fusible link and circuit breaker for alt fld between main
>power bus and master switch.
Yes, Z-13 is a fuse-block bus, it COULD be a Circuit Breaker
bus in which case it would look more like Z-14
>Z-14 has just circuit breaker for alt fld between main power bus and
>master switch.
. . . which IS a circuit breaker bus system.
>Z-19 has just fusible link for alt fld between main power bus and
>master switch (circuit breaker is on other side of main power switch).
>I don't understand the reason for the distinctions and how the
>fusible link helps a fuse in the fuse block. Especially z-14 vs.
>z-13 and z-19.
Z-19 is also a fuse block system which means that it's
impractical to use one of the block-mounted fuses to
protect the extended feed-line to a crowbar tripped field
breaker. Hence the fusible link upstream of the 5A breaker.
It doesn't matter WHERE the breaker is along that pathway.
Bottom line is that no link is needed when the field supply
breaker ties directly to the bus with other breakers. When
fuse blocks are used, the EXTENSION of the bus to a remotely
mounted breaker gets ROBUST protection in the form of a fusible
link.
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: 24V Heated Pitot |
At 02:34 PM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks, Bob. So how would I meet my design goal of reliable
>*attitude* information with a Dynon EFIS during inadvertent flight
>into icing conditions?
> (For sake of discussion, I'll quantify reliable as pitch within 2
> degrees of true, an MTBF of 2000 hours, and an indication of
> failure when it happens (no insidious failures). Roll I don't care
> as much about as I can maintain wings level with an electric turn coordinator.)
GPS aided wing leveler would do it for you. I think
TruTrak has a version that adds the turning rate
indicator on the panel.
>My plan for dealing with failure of the EFIS is to fly
>needle-ball-and-airspeed using a TC, standby altimeter, and standby
>airspeed indicator. But that's not a workable plan if combined with
>a simultaneous failure of the pitot system due to icing and the
>standby airspeed indicator is inop too. Hence my requirement for a
>heated pitot.
It's not hard to find ice free locations for good
static pressure data. Which is the foundation for
pitch management. Further if altitude change rate
is zero, then actual IAS is not terribly important
data for flight safety. GPS ground speed and course
readings and/or compass will get you the recommended
180 degree turn to exit icing.
>While a wing-leveler autopilot is a good thing, I would also need a
>pitch-axis autopilot and both autopilots would need to be
>independent of the Dynon EFIS. Alas, there goes the (relatively)
>inexpensive Dynon pitch and roll autopilot options. Other solutions
>would be more expen$ive, heavier, and require more panel space.
???? How much time do you expect to spend out of
sight of the ground in this airplane? How much of that
will be in the dark? If you're willing to fly needle-
ball-and-airspeed as a backup for electronics, then
needle-ball-altitude-VSI-and-gps data are excellent
expansions of that capability without adding weight,
expense or taxation of panel space. The wing
leveler with GPS augmentation is a HUGE reduction
in workload while you deal with matters of pitch,
power and navigation.
What is your personal modus operandi for dealing
with the first perceptions of icing? If it's even
a possibility, do you have a flashlight or leading
edge ice light that will let you watch the place
where ice is likely to be seen first?
>So why not a heated pitot to make "plan A" more robust and "plan B"
>(standby instruments) possible?
Because by the time you get icing severe enough to
put pitot data at risk, the next level puts
the airplane at risk. If your modus operandi calls
for ASAP exit from icing conditions at first
detection, then pitot heat is superfluous. This because
your FMEA and Plan-B using other equipment already
on board is quite robust even without airspeed data.
If pitot heat offers ANY encouragement for pushing
on to "see how much worse it gets" then I'll suggest
it's more a hazard than help.
I cringe when overhearing a C210 pilot talking to
his hangar mates about the windshield patch,
hot prop, boots and pitot tube heater, "Man, I
can take this bird anywhere!" I prefer to (1) go
flight into known icing cert or (2) get the hell out
fast. The risks for anything in between are
higher and perhaps incalculable. JUST heating
the pitot tube is a very tiny reduction in
risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
At 04:15 PM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>I understand that there are high temperature
>tolerant tie wraps that can be used under the
>cowling. Can some one tell me where to get these things?
They are Tefzel tie wraps. About $2 each.
Consider Dacron string ties. Works good, lasts
a long time and is really cheap.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.org> |
| Subject: | high temp. tie wraps. |
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page206.html is one source.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
RV-9A QB-SA
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
thomas sargent
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.
I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that can
be used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get these
things?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
I do love the Mcmaster hardware store.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#harsh-environment-wire-ties/=3xmqb5
JIm Timoney
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:15 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.
I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that can be used
under the cowling.? Can some one tell me where to get these things?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
thomas sargent wrote:
> I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that
> can be used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get
> these things?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
Unless you're putting them where they are exposed to the radiant heat of
the exhaust pipes, just about any UV resistant ones will work ok (at
least in my experience).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaylen Lerohl" <lerohl(at)gctel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
Terminaltown is another source:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page206.html
Gaylen Lerohl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.
>
>
> thomas sargent wrote:
>> I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that can
>> be used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get these
>> things?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
>
> Unless you're putting them where they are exposed to the radiant heat of
> the exhaust pipes, just about any UV resistant ones will work ok (at least
> in my experience).
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> During some CAVU cross country, deliberately
> put your airplane into a failed alternator
> condition and start your stop-watch. 11 volts
Well, I've inadvertently done this (and due to the lack of active
low-voltage warning, since rectified, didn't realize it), and I lasted
about 3 hours before the GNS-430 shut down. Not realizing that the
alternator was inop, I was running ordinary daytime equipment.
Interestingly, it was my altitude encoder that was first to go (got a
number of calls from ATC that they weren't picking up my Mode C
readout). After that, the display on my engine monitor (instrument
itself kept working, but the display was dark). The KX-155 lasted the
longest before going dark.
Given my ordinary daytime system load of 10-12 amps, the battery would
have to be very far gone indeed before it would give me less than an
hour, and even 2 hours would only be about 2/3 of its rated capacity
(well below the point where I should, according to the manufacturer,
discard the battery).
With normal daytime loads, and the battery at full capacity, empirical
observation and calculations agree that I get about 3 hours. At 85%
capacity, the point where the ICAs specify battery replacement, that
would leave 2.5 hours. I'm not going to have "duration of fuel aboard"
as my battery life (and never will on the Mooney without shedding _lots_
of load--fuel capacity is 6-7 hours), but that would give plenty of time
to land. Now that I have the flashing red light for low voltage, I'll
know about a problem right away, too.
What all this doesn't tell me is the health of the battery on an ongoing
basis. I'd think there should be a better way to test this than
repeatedly failing the alternator in flight.
- --
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFKyqduyQGUivXxtkERAkiZAJoDhyImplMMbkqLsjATGa0WKPhehQCggb9U
HKxRHF41VQs7mPWmFVYvX3I
=WonS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
Hi Joe,
I think it is down to your mission profile, I would avoid icing
condition at all if possible but might go through a thin layer of
stratus occasional, I did test the GPS assist in flight (hooking of the
pitot line) and it worked quite well (stable attitude reference all the
time). However I have the Dynon heated pitot with AoA installed as well
(had a 5812 before). I had some thin layer of rim ice skimming under a
stratus layer some times but I try to avoid these conditions as without
de-icing on my plane/prop I feel not safe enough. A friend of mine even
hooked two Dynons on different pitots in order to have redundancy.
Again your mission will dictate what you want I would say.
br Werner
Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> Thank you, Werner. I /do/ have that version of software installed
> with a GPS connected. I /have/ seen the warning message pop up
> (mostly on landing roll -- rather disconcerting) and it does give me
> additional comfort but as in all things involving proprietary (closed
> to scrutiny) software and sketchy specifications, I'm not sure if that
> replaces the need for a heated pitot tube in my application.
>
> Maybe I'll call Dynon and ask.
>
> Best,
> Joe
>
>
> Werner Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook
>> up a GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version
>> the attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS
>> speed. (Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you
>> that before the pitot comes live.
>>
>> Werner
>>>
>>> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at
>>> all times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the
>>> Dynon EFIS requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude
>>> information. *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn
>>> an inadvertent icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider
>>> flying needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an
>>> emergency).
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | high temp. tie wraps. |
10/6/2009
Hello Tom, Note that the PEEK ty wraps are rated to + 500 degrees F and the
Tefzel ty wraps are rated to + 302 deg F.
Also note how horrendously expensive the PEEK tys are compared to the Tefzel
tys.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#harsh-environment-wire-ties/=3xvkp5
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=================================================
Subject: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.
From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that can be
used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get these things?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
Caution.........Unless it is a very early M20F, the gear and possibly
the flaps are electrically operated. I would not recommend running the
battery low enough to force lowering the gear by the emergency
extension. Seems like this would be an issue for all retractables that
use electric power for gear operation.
Or are you suggesting staying airborne while you reactivate the
alternator field and giving it some time to recharge the battery? Seems
like that would abuse the battery with high charging rates.
Perhaps testing by monitoring voltage and time, 30 min. with a
conservative volts cutoff(12.0?), whichever comes first might be safer,
at least for a first try.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> I fly a Mooney M20F which has a Concorde RG battery installed
>> (RG-35AXC). Concorde (as well as Bob, of course) recommend periodic
>> capacity testing--after 2 years, and every year thereafter.
> Yeah . . . lots of overkill if YOUR are interested
> in endurance AS INSTALLED in YOUR airplane with YOUR
> choice of equipment items operational.
> How about this? YOU decide what your
> alternator-out endurance target is. Wouldn't
> you feel better about 1 hour? How about two
> hours? Next make up a list of electro-whizzies
> you plan to leave ON (and those you can't turn
> off) after the LV warning light comes on.
>
> During some CAVU cross country, deliberately
> put your airplane into a failed alternator
> condition and start your stop-watch. 11 volts
> is a better battery depleted target. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/28AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
>
> Note that by the time a 12 lead-acid battery
> drops to 11.0 volts, the curve is VERY steep
> and 10.0 volts is not far behind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
Stein Air is another good source:
http://www.steinair.com/cableties.htm
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:15 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> I understand that there are high temperature tolerant tie wraps that
> can be used under the cowling. Can some one tell me where to get
> these things?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Battery capacity testing |
What all this doesn't tell me is the health of the battery on an ongoing
basis. I'd think there should be a better way to test this than
repeatedly failing the alternator in flight.
Dan,
Catastrophic battery failure is rare. If you do this test one or two times
a year it will give you a good on-going test of the general battery health.
If you want to do a more quantitative test of your battery capacity then I
would suggest that you use the procedure documented on Bob N's website.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
Quoting Kelly McMullen :
> Caution.........Unless it is a very early M20F, the gear and
> possibly the flaps are electrically operated. I would not recommend
> running
In my case, the plane has manual gear and flaps. That said, I think
Bob's recommendation was to reengage the alternator and let it charge
for a bit before landing.
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
If you don't mind sticking to the lower strength 4" ones (which I've
found to be sufficient for most things, though I sometimes double them
in length) you can get Tefzel ties from http://www.cabletiesandmore.com/
for 15 cents each in packages of 100.
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: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Electrical Architecture for review... |
Bob said:
> **These are exceedingly difficult to read**
Surprisingly enough, they work well for me but then they are much closer
to what I'm used to than the book format. I appreciate your efforts
none-the-less. I'll reformat extracts into your preferred format (as I
did with the "architecture drawing") when offering things for you and
the group to review in the future.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about (2-10) master switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Is the 2-10 master switch a MAKE-BEFORE-BREAK switch? If yes and a standard DP3T
switch was substituted, is it likely that the master contactor would drop out
during the split second that the switch is moved from "alternator & battery"
position to "battery only" position?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266802#266802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Crazy Transducer readings |
Folks,
My Fuel Flow Transducer has about 150 hrs on it hooked up to GRT Efis/EIS
4000. Worked great then took turns reading either zero or correctly. The
other day, bounced between zero and 30+GPH. Faulty transducer? EIS? Wiring?
Whatcha think?
Yes, I will call GRT, but thought I'd get feedback here first...
Thanks all,
Jerry Cochran
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David M <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crazy Transducer readings |
foam or air in fuel lines?
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> My Fuel Flow Transducer has about 150 hrs on it hooked up to GRT
> Efis/EIS 4000. Worked great then took turns reading either zero or
> correctly. The other day, bounced between zero and 30+GPH. Faulty
> transducer? EIS? Wiring? Whatcha think?
>
> Yes, I will call GRT, but thought I'd get feedback here first...
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Crazy Transducer readings |
| From: | "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> |
Where is it mounted in the fuel system? What type of fuel system do you
have?
There might be some turbulence in the fuel line that's causing an
inaccurate reading.
Phil
From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com [mailto:Jerry2DT(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crazy Transducer readings
Folks,
My Fuel Flow Transducer has about 150 hrs on it hooked up to GRT
Efis/EIS 4000. Worked great then took turns reading either zero or
correctly. The other day, bounced between zero and 30+GPH. Faulty
transducer? EIS? Wiring? Whatcha think?
Yes, I will call GRT, but thought I'd get feedback here first...
Thanks all,
Jerry Cochran
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
To 'lectric Bob:
On your Z-9 drawing, the ground/shield for the AEC 9024-10 LED LV Warn Annunciator
light is connected to the +14 volt terminal. Is that correct?
Have you published the details regarding the AEC 9024 module various functions?
I am particularly interested in the use as an aux battery management module.
Gordon Smith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266868#266868
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
Ah, now I see the source of the confusion -- a typo that I made. Larry
MacDonald Emailed me about it too but we didn't figure it out until you
posted, Bob. Thanks.
Yes, the data plate says it's a 24V model. And I'd like to trade it for
a 12V model. Somehow I had 14V on my mind :-(
--
Joe
Robert Mitchell wrote:
>
> On the data plate it says 24V? You didn't really mean 14V?
> Bob Mitchell
> L-320
>
> -----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 21:47
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> 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: | "Lynn Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 24V Heated Pitot |
It is possible to get pitot tube icing without getting structural icing. I
have had this happen on several occasions', so you are justified in your
concerns.
Lynn A. Riggs
BH 656 Kit 22
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner
Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 24V Heated Pitot
Hi Joe,
I think it is down to your mission profile, I would avoid icing
condition at all if possible but might go through a thin layer of
stratus occasional, I did test the GPS assist in flight (hooking of the
pitot line) and it worked quite well (stable attitude reference all the
time). However I have the Dynon heated pitot with AoA installed as well
(had a 5812 before). I had some thin layer of rim ice skimming under a
stratus layer some times but I try to avoid these conditions as without
de-icing on my plane/prop I feel not safe enough. A friend of mine even
hooked two Dynons on different pitots in order to have redundancy.
Again your mission will dictate what you want I would say.
br Werner
Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> Thank you, Werner. I /do/ have that version of software installed
> with a GPS connected. I /have/ seen the warning message pop up
> (mostly on landing roll -- rather disconcerting) and it does give me
> additional comfort but as in all things involving proprietary (closed
> to scrutiny) software and sketchy specifications, I'm not sure if that
> replaces the need for a heated pitot tube in my application.
>
> Maybe I'll call Dynon and ask.
>
> Best,
> Joe
>
>
> Werner Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe, get yourself the newest 5.1.1 version of the software and hook
>> up a GPS that will give you additional comfort as with that version
>> the attitude is, in case of dyn. press. lost backed up with GPS
>> speed. (Interesting to see on takeoff roll when a message tells you
>> that before the pitot comes live.
>>
>> Werner
>>>
>>> All I want to do is have a reliable source of dynamic pressure at
>>> all times. It's not a secret but neither is it well known: the
>>> Dynon EFIS requires a working pitot system for reliable attitude
>>> information. *Attitude*. Not just airspeed. I don't want to turn
>>> an inadvertent icing encounter into an emergency (and I consider
>>> flying needle-ball-and-airspeed with failed airspeed in IMC an
>>> emergency).
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How is this battery lug crimp |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I am making my fat wire connections with #4 welding cable. I found these lugs
at the West Marine store. I used a swagging tool to make the crimp. It seems
plenty strong. This was a test piece and was only about 6 in long. I put the
lug in the vice and pulled on the cable and I pulled the insulation off. I
then put the wire in the vice and pulled the lug for all I was worth and it held.
Any reason this type of crimp would not work.
These lugs seem to be better sized for the #4 welding cable. My welding supply
guy does have a tool that you put the wire and lug into and you whack it with
a hammer to make the crimp. The only lug the welding guy carries are copper
colored and I though those would be too soft and corrode too much. Hopefully
the picture is loaded correctly. It shows the tool as well as the crimp, or swag
I guess in this case.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266890#266890
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/small_swag_631.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How is this battery lug crimp |
Yep...the link to the picture came through fine...
Hmmm...interesting application ..using a cable thimble swager for a
crimper...but being able to keep it from pulling off is only one of the
goals of crimping.
I wonder how gas tight it will be with those "ears" on the sides. A
regular crimper compresses the lug all the way around and doesn't leave
any areas where the crimp changes direction, like the ears do where they
meet the wire. I'm wondering if this might be a location where air,
water, air borne chemicals, etc. can get in and start corrosion,
increasing the resistance...
Any visible gaps where the ears meet the wire? And if not, is it tight
enough there to prevent infiltration of gases or liquids?
Using the correct tool for the job is always a better idea! You can
always borrow a crimper if you don't have one.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rvg8tor wrote:
>
> I am making my fat wire connections with #4 welding cable. I found these lugs
at the West Marine store. I used a swagging tool to make the crimp. It seems
plenty strong. This was a test piece and was only about 6 in long. I put
the lug in the vice and pulled on the cable and I pulled the insulation off.
I then put the wire in the vice and pulled the lug for all I was worth and it
held. Any reason this type of crimp would not work.
>
> These lugs seem to be better sized for the #4 welding cable. My welding supply
guy does have a tool that you put the wire and lug into and you whack it with
a hammer to make the crimp. The only lug the welding guy carries are copper
colored and I though those would be too soft and corrode too much. Hopefully
the picture is loaded correctly. It shows the tool as well as the crimp, or
swag I guess in this case.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266890#266890
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/small_swag_631.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)covad.net> |
| Subject: | high temp. tie wraps. |
What ever happened to the whitish tiewraps with the metal insert "tooth"?
Seems these were available surplus......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Klemptner <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 10/05/09 |
roelectric.com>=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.=0A
=0A=0AAt 04:15 PM 10/5/2009, you wrote:=0A>I understand that there are high
temperature =0A>tolerant tie wraps that can be used under the =0A>cowling.
- Can some one tell me where to get these things?=0A=0A- They are Tefze
l tie wraps. About $2 each.=0A=0A- Consider Dacron string ties. Works goo
d, lasts=0A- a long time and is really cheap.=0A=0A=0A------
- Bob . . .=0A=0A=0A=0AI second the string ties!=0AI rewired a-North Am
erican T-6 a while ago and cussed the 50+ year old string ties while gettin
g the original wires out, even the string ties firewall forward! The string
ties seem to be completely immune to heat, oil, fuel and all the rest of t
he environmental factors that kill wire ties.=0A=0AI rarely use tie wraps a
nymore...have even learned to use string ties through inspection holes usin
g forceps-=0A-Scott A Klemptner=0Abmwr606 on Yahoo IM=0A=0AIgnore those
sparks, I meant to do that!=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: high temp. tie wraps. |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
what about wire lacing? it is almost free and only a little time consuming.
bob noffs
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Rob Mokry wrote:
>
>
> What ever happened to the whitish tiewraps with the metal insert "tooth"?
> Seems these were available surplus......
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | high temp. tie wraps. |
Rob;
Still available.
I believe you're referring to the T&B brand Ty-RapT. Thomas and Betts was
the originator of the tie wrap in 1958 and their original design featured
this metal locking tang, or tooth. See
http://www.tnb.com/ps/pubint/index.cgi?a=cbrands
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-
> list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Mokry
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Subject: AeroElectric-List: high temp. tie wraps.
>
>
>
>
> What ever happened to the whitish tiewraps with the metal insert "tooth"?
> Seems these were available surplus......
>
>
> _-
> =================================================
> =========
> _-
> =================================================
> =========
> _-
> =================================================
> =========
> _-
> =================================================
> =========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging HDI lamps |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
[quote="Bob McC"]Interesting Dan, that seems to support Eric, and yet LoPresti
says their
5000 hour warranty is not affected. Go figure. Each to his own, I guess, and
so the differing opinions each survive. Eric's arguments make sense, yet two
manufacturers actually producing the product can't agree with each other.
Bob McC
> --
The new pulsing Lopresti PowerPulse is the same unit made by http://seatoneng.com/ or http://www.maxpulsemaxdim.com/comparisons.htm is a pretty cool compact form factor, I have to admit, I would use it for Incandescent or Halogen lamps. It is a GREAT product.
However, its built in warm up is NOT suitable for HID IF you are concerned about
ballast and bulb life. Its bulb warm up is not sufficient for HID because the
warm up time is much too short (~5 seconds) and most of the pulsing speeds are
too slow to be OK for HID bulbs.
XeVision was the first (4+ years ago) to offer Pulsing specifically designed for
the requirements of HID, after much discussion with the HID bulb manufacturers
about bulb operating requirements for long life (ARC plasma behavior and electrodes).
We make our own ballasts but these quality HID bulbs are ONLY made
by Philips or Osram (Sylvania).
The unit Lopresti is offering has only a 5 second warm up, OK for incandescent
or LED (not needed), but NOT good for HID.
HID requires the bulb arc plasma reach steady state or very close to it before
pulsing should start if one cares about HID system life. Anything less than 20
seconds of continuous warm up time is too short and will significantly affect
HID bulb life. Slow pulsing is also harmful, 60 ppm (1 Hz) per channel (120 ppm
both channels "wig-wag") is the approximate optimal speed considering both
bulb life and visual effectiveness for HID. Short warm up and / or slow pulsing
allows the plasma to cool off too much in pulsing operation, requiring very
much higher starting voltages to restrike the ARC, thus accelerating erosion of
the electrodes.
Once the HID bulb is warmed up, 20-30 seconds (sufficient) or more, if pulsing
is fast enough, the on pulse is long enough and the off period short enough the
plasma can stay hot enough to again sustain a low voltage arc (~85 VAC) as it
does in steady state without resorting to a high voltage restrike 25+ KV for
each pulse.
The Lopresti unit offers 44 ppm (22 ppm each channel) and 88 ppm (44 ppm each channel),
these are for both channels combined. Only the 120 ppm their fastest
rate (60 ppm each channel) is suitable for HID.
Note: XeVision has a Patent Pending regarding warm-up technology for HID (filed
over 4 years ago). The Patent office has granted our Patent about 1 month ago
and the final paperwork has been submitted for issuance from the US Patent office.
The original XePulse I and the about to be released XePulse II are covered
by this Patent. The XePulse II is about 20% of the size of the original unit
and the new unit includes additional patentable enhancements to insure maximum
HID system life while in pulsing operation.
Philips and Osram (the only quality D1S) bulb makers in the world. both claim a
Tc of either 2500 or 3000 hours. This bulb statistic means that only 63% of the
bulbs will still function (on/off) after that amount of run time in the lab.
Lopresti has used and still uses these 2 brands of D1S HID bulbs and yet still
claims a 5000 hour warranty ????
Without a proper arc chamber warm up Philips and Osram claim the bulb is only good
for about 20,000 starts. That is only 6 hours of continuous pulsing if it
is not in the plasma (steady state) instead of excited Xenon only as during the
initial starting. Depending on how someone operates their pulsing system, pulsing
while "cold" the warmup to steady state can be extended to over 5 minutes
which wears the electrodes at an accelerated rate. Once the arc gap gets large
enough and 105-110 VAC (max steady state bulb voltage) cannot sustain the arc
the bulbs life has ended. When a bulb is new it takes about 85 VAC and 0.4
amp (35 watt) (0.6 amp for 50 watts) to sustain the arc once warmed up. When the
bulb is cold it takes more power to keep the arc going. During this early phase
of bulb operation it can take 2X to 3X the power to the bulb to keep it "lit".
This extended overpowering to 70-90 watts is hard on the bulb this is the
bulb operation phase to be avoided for HID pulsing. Hot restriking after less
than a second of cool down (more than 30 seconds) it takes as much as 25,000
Volts to restart.
Every other company (6) which offers a pulsing system indicates 30 seconds to 1
minute steady on before pulsing should start (flip the switch) for HID.
The HID bulb manufacturers all agree that a close to steady state power to the
arc is mandatory for good bulb life and the higher the pulsing frequency the better
(that works well visibly). Hot restarting takes much more power if the bulb
is allowed to cool for more than 1/2 second. If pulsing only occurs while
the plasma state is well established (after 20-30 secs) then the power required
to re establish the arc is almost the same as to keep it "lit". Its all about
the impedance within the arc and under what conditions is it easiest on the
bulb and ballast to re establish the arc. Its all about adequately warming the
arc chamber up and keeping the off time between pulses short and the on time
of the pulses long.
I guess its their engineers (facts) "opinions" (Philips and Osram) vs Lopresti
sales team opinions. I think I'll stick with them, after all they are the bulb
experts.
The power being put into the bulb/ballast system can easily be monitored with an
amp probe on the cable to the bulb on an oscilloscope to see how the power varies
between operating the bulb these 2 different ways, "cold /cool" pulsing
or "hot" (warmed up) "steady state" pulsing.
One of Lopresti's people told me that their HID warm up was "instantaneous" Those
guys are miracle workers and can defy the laws of Physics.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267064#267064
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How is this battery lug crimp |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
Harley,
Thanks I kind of knew it would not work well, I got impatient knowing I would have
to wait for the proper lugs int he mail and thought these might work with
the tool I had, definitely not the right tool for the job. Oh well I guess I
will try the solder technique. I should have the parts in a couple days.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267065#267065
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging HDI lamps |
>LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light.
>This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Yes, but I wonder, how do the LEDs do as a recognition light, compared to a
landing light?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How is this battery lug crimp |
| From: | Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Why don't you just solder your crimp and have the best of both worlds? Gas
tight and mechanically strong. Just a thought.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:39 PM, rvg8tor wrote:
>
> Harley,
>
> Thanks I kind of knew it would not work well, I got impatient knowing I
> would have to wait for the proper lugs int he mail and thought these might
> work with the tool I had, definitely not the right tool for the job. Oh
> well I guess I will try the solder technique. I should have the parts in a
> couple days.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267065#267065
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging HDI lamps |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
rgf(at)dcn.org wrote:
>
> > LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light.
> > This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but I wonder, how do the LEDs do as a recognition light, compared to a
> landing light?
They do great at night, not nearly so good in the daytime. LED's do not reach out
very far.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267108#267108
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
At 07:32 AM 10/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Caution.........Unless it is a very early M20F, the gear and
>possibly the flaps are electrically operated. I would not recommend
>running the battery low enough to force lowering the gear by the
>emergency extension. Seems like this would be an issue for all
>retractables that use electric power for gear operation.
I suggested that such testing be accomplished
under very low risk conditions at altitude.
As soon as the alternator is back on line, there
will be enough snort to operate the devices you
mentioned just from the alternator's output . . .
and a few minutes later, the battery will have
stored up enough to operate flaps and/or gear.
If your battery is in really good shape and still
above 11.0 volts when 20-20 minutes out, it's probably
a good idea to terminate the experiment and pay
attention to pilot business. Conducted with prudence,
this is a low-priority, low-risk experiment that
will produce a very accurate assessment of your
battery's ability to perform to YOUR design goals.
>Or are you suggesting staying airborne while you reactivate the
>alternator field and giving it some time to recharge the battery?
>Seems like that would abuse the battery with high charging rates.
The battery is subject to no more stresses than
situations where you've jump started your car
because the headlights were left on. Would the
battery last longer had it never been subjected
to the deep discharge event? Arguably yes . . . but
by so small a value as to be difficult to measure
and totally insignificant to your operational perceptions.
But it's not an undue stress on the ship's accessories.
They are all qualified to perform to nameplate ratings
when the airplane was awarded a type certificate.
>Perhaps testing by monitoring voltage and time, 30 min. with a
>conservative volts cutoff(12.0?), whichever comes first might be
>safer, at least for a first try.
So what does the cutoff of 12.0 volts tell you?
This experiment is not unlike a test in which
the whole class gets A's. Warm fuzzies abound but
you acquire no quantitative data on class knowledge.
The ideal test is just rigorous enough that nobody
gets 100%. You'll then have a top-to-bottom measure
of both individual and aggregate knowledge.
The total depletion test for measuring the total
contained energy is still the simplest and most
accurate means by which we can evaluate a battery's
ability to perform to design goals.
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: Question about (2-10) master switch |
At 11:28 AM 10/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Is the 2-10 master switch a MAKE-BEFORE-BREAK switch? If yes and a
>standard DP3T switch was substituted, is it likely that the master
>contactor would drop out during the split second that the switch is
>moved from "alternator & battery" position to "battery only" position?
The progressive transfers are exactly as described. Every
motion of the handle to another position moves only one
switch.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:31 PM 10/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>To 'lectric Bob:
>On your Z-9 drawing, the ground/shield for the AEC 9024-10 LED LV
>Warn Annunciator light is connected to the +14 volt terminal. Is that correct?
Hmmm . . . yeah, need to fix several errors on the drawing.
In the case you cited, the lead leads are reversed. The
miniature LED annunciator fixtures we're building use
shielded wire as a mechanical expedient for assembly
but the shield will not always be "ground".
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Mini-LED_Fixture.jpg
>Have you published the details regarding the AEC 9024 module various
>functions? I am particularly interested in the use as an aux
>battery management module.
Yes, see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024_NOTES.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024_DIAGRAM.pdf
In the aux battery management mode, operation is
the same as for the now discontinued AEC9005
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.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: How is this battery lug crimp |
At 06:40 AM 10/7/2009, you wrote:
>Yep...the link to the picture came through fine...
>
>Hmmm...interesting application ..using a cable thimble swager for a
>crimper...but being able to keep it from pulling off is only one of
>the goals of crimping.
>
>I wonder how gas tight it will be with those "ears" on the sides. A
>regular crimper compresses the lug all the way around and doesn't
>leave any areas where the crimp changes direction, like the ears do
>where they meet the wire. I'm wondering if this might be a location
>where air, water, air borne chemicals, etc. can get in and start
>corrosion, increasing the resistance...
>
>Any visible gaps where the ears meet the wire? And if not, is it
>tight enough there to prevent infiltration of gases or liquids?
>
>Using the correct tool for the job is always a better idea! You can
>always borrow a crimper if you don't have one.
Agreed. Just because the mash looks adequate and it
"seems strong enough" does not speak definitively
to crimp integrity. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
In particular, check the cross-sectioned micrographs of
the wire-grip sections.
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: high temp. tie wraps. |
At 08:19 AM 10/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>What ever happened to the whitish tiewraps with the metal insert "tooth"?
>Seems these were available surplus......
They're still around. Thomas-Betts likes that retention
technology.
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 08:50 AM 10/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob said:
>>**These are exceedingly difficult to read**
>Surprisingly enough, they work well for me but then they are much
>closer to what I'm used to than the book format. I appreciate your
>efforts none-the-less. I'll reformat extracts into your preferred
>format (as I did with the "architecture drawing") when offering
>things for you and the group to review in the future.
Don't redraw them on my account. I'm only saying that
the thought processes needed for analyzing functionality
and doing a failure mode effects analysis requires rapid
and definitive observation of electron pathways. The
road-map technique is find for manufacturing but still
impedes operational understanding.
Ultimately, you're the one who needs to work and live
with this project for the foreseeable future. By all
means, use what ever documentation techniques offer
you the greatest comfort.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
At 09:11 PM 10/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>What all this doesn't tell me is the health of the battery on an ongoing
>basis. I'd think there should be a better way to test this than
>repeatedly failing the alternator in flight.
If you want to use test equipment on the ground,
the simplest and least expensive system I've seen
looks like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
Adjust the number and size of lamps to product an
initial discharge current in the same neighborhood
as your anticipated alternator-out loads. This
obviously doesn't go to the 85%-replacement-benchmark.
Instead, it gives you a rough handle on performance
to your endurance goals.
Of course, you've already discovered that knowing
battery capacity is not terribly useful if you
don't have timely notification of alternator
failure. Sounds like you've got a handle on it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Battery capacity testing |
>
>Caution.........Unless it is a very early M20F, the gear and
>possibly the flaps are electrically operated. I would not recommend
>running the battery low enough to force lowering the gear by the
>emergency extension. Seems like this would be an issue for all
>retractables that use electric power for gear operation.
I suggested that such testing be accomplished
under very low risk conditions at altitude.
As soon as the alternator is back on line, there
will be enough snort to operate the devices you
mentioned just from the alternator's output . . .
and a few minutes later, the battery will have
stored up enough to operate flaps and/or gear.
If your battery is in really good shape and still
above 11.0 volts when 20-20 minutes out, it's probably
a good idea to terminate the experiment and pay
attention to pilot business. Conducted with prudence,
this is a low-priority, low-risk experiment that
will produce a very accurate assessment of your
battery's ability to perform to YOUR design goals.
>Or are you suggesting staying airborne while you reactivate the
>alternator field and giving it some time to recharge the battery?
>Seems like that would abuse the battery with high charging rates.
The battery is subject to no more stresses than
situations where you've jump started your car
because the headlights were left on. Would the
battery last longer had it never been subjected
to the deep discharge event? Arguably yes . . . but
by so small a value as to be difficult to measure
and totally insignificant to your operational perceptions.
But it's not an undue stress on the ship's accessories.
They are all qualified to perform to nameplate ratings
when the airplane was awarded a type certificate.
>Perhaps testing by monitoring voltage and time, 30 min. with a
>conservative volts cutoff(12.0?), whichever comes first might be
>safer, at least for a first try.
So what does the cutoff of 12.0 volts tell you?
This experiment is not unlike a test in which
the whole class gets A's. Warm fuzzies abound but
you acquire no quantitative data on class knowledge.
The ideal test is just rigorous enough that nobody
gets 100%. You'll then have a top-to-bottom measure
of both individual and aggregate knowledge.
The total depletion test for measuring the total
contained energy is still the simplest and most
accurate means by which we can evaluate a battery's
ability to perform to design goals.
Bob . . .
One further **** CAUTION **** Be very careful doing this test on
your "ALL ELECTRIC AIRPLANE" (ONE HAVING BATTERY OPERATED ELECTRONIC
IGNITION) You may, unintentionally, end up in a glider.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
I was particularly interested in seeing Figure 2,3,4 & 5 referenced in this article: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024_NOTES.pdf. Perhaps these figures have not yet been posted to this article?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267134#267134
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
voice comments as you wish.
Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
your choice.
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
It will take only an instant of your time!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:25 PM 10/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I was particularly interested in seeing Figure 2,3,4 & 5
>referenced in this article:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024_NOTES.pdf.
>
> Perhaps these figures have not yet been posted to this article?
The instructions/installation manual for the 9024 series
products hasn't been written yet. The "notes" section
is a preliminary look at performance while Z-9 is
a preliminary look at applications to be described
in the figures you asked about. Z-9 shows the 9024
installed as Contactor Power Management, Low Voltage
Warning, and Over Voltage Protection.
The Aux Battery Management application is not shown
in Z-9 but if one wanted to add a small battery for
the purpose of supporting only the ignition system,
the forth application could be shown as well. If fact,
Figure Z-9 may be part of the finished instructions
document just to give a real-life set of examples
about how the critter can be used.
The documents published are preliminary and will be
replaced by one written and illustrated in the style
of the earlier Aux Battery Management module
described here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf
The single device will perform any of the four
functions which are installer selected by clipping
out program selection jumpers.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Not the right place to petition for the endorsement of your political views
Bill.
Rick Girard
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
> bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote
> for
> Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
> voice comments as you wish.
> Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
> your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
> 60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
> We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
> Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
> pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
> on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
> your choice.
>
> http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
>
>
> PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
> It will take only an instant of your time!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Updated Elect Arch for group review |
Greetings All,
Thanks to all who took the time to review the last one. I've reviewed
all of the related comments that were posted and updated my Architecture
diagram. As before all comments and suggestions are welcome. I am
particularly interested in help identifying any faults which are not
adequately mitigated.
By the way, if you don't see any significant un-mitigated faults, it
would be nice to hear that too! :-)
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: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
Ralph,
I can assure you they do very well!
I have the Precise Flight HIDs (non-pulsing for the reasons listed by
"dblumel") and Whelen LED "landing lights" for taxi and recognition. LEDs,
including Whelens, are not yet suitable as landing lights, but they are superb
as taxi and recognition lights.
I have both HID and LED lights in my wingtips and they are super. Precise
Flight is coming out with 50W and 70W HID units - I have the 35W.
You can see them on my web site at _http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm_
(http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm) - scroll down to September.
Regards,
Stan Sutterfield
>LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light.
>This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Yes, but I wonder, how do the LEDs do as a recognition light, compared to a
landing light?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
For safety you need to know the minimum excitation voltage for your
specific alternator. Otherwise you could easily drop the battery voltage
to a point where turning on the alternator field would get you exactly
zero output. IIRC for some of the older alternators that value isn't
much below 11.0.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> So what does the cutoff of 12.0 volts tell you?
> This experiment is not unlike a test in which
> the whole class gets A's. Warm fuzzies abound but
> you acquire no quantitative data on class knowledge.
> The ideal test is just rigorous enough that nobody
> gets 100%. You'll then have a top-to-bottom measure
> of both individual and aggregate knowledge.
>
> The total depletion test for measuring the total
> contained energy is still the simplest and most
> accurate means by which we can evaluate a battery's
> ability to perform to design goals.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
At 10:10 PM 10/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>For safety you need to know the minimum excitation voltage for your
>specific alternator. Otherwise you could easily drop the battery
>voltage to a point where turning on the alternator field would get
>you exactly zero output. IIRC for some of the older alternators that
>value isn't much below 11.0.
Not true. All the externally regulated alternators
for which I've designed regulators will come on line
with less than 1 volt of b-terminal voltage. Everything
else will light up with 2 volts. Some alternators
spun at over 10KRPM on the front of a Lycoming will
self-excite. The gear driven 100A machines on Barons
and Bonanzas will also self-excite.
If you can get the battery contactor to close (about
5 volts) then your alternator will come on line.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
1) Is this anything to do with the aims of this list
2) The point of this vote: is -
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
>
>
> I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote
> for
> Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote
> and
> voice comments as you wish.
> Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any
> of
> your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing
> that
> 60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
> We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
> Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now.
> Please
> pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
> on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
> your choice.
>
> http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
>
>
> PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
> It will take only an instant of your time!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Sorry Bill, as controversial as I'll get is, I prefer canards over RVs. The rest
I'll leave for less civil forums.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
voice comments as you wish.
Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
your choice.
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
It will take only an instant of your time!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LED Landing/Taxi lights |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Can anyone explain how an LED has "reach" problems? Since the light
doesn't know when to stop, I assume this is either about light output
(lumens) or focusing, which is nothing to do with the LED's themselves.
I imagine that it's a lot harder to focus LED's with a parabolic
reflector when the light origin is not exactly a point source,
especially when using multiples.
I just bought some domestic GU10 light bulbs that have a single LED
outputting 200 lumens. That's about half of a 35W halogen so they're
getting there.
Ian Brown, Bromont, QC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
In fairness to Bill, who has yet to respond in person, this may be politically
motivated SPAM generated by malicious software i.e a virus of some kind, that
has compromised his bellsouth eMail address list in some way.
Regards, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Sent: Friday, 9 October, 2009 12:41:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: vote
Sorry Bill, as controversial as I'll get is, I prefer canards over RVs. The rest
I'll leave for less civil forums.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
voice comments as you wish.
Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
your choice.
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
It will take only an instant of your time!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
Nope, not spam.
I just don't care for the direction our nation is going at the moment and I
feel the only way we can affect that is by the use of our vote. If you want
to vote either way, go ahead.
If you don't want to vote, just delete the msg.
Some folks have responded to my personal address. Some positive, some
negative, that is fine with me.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: vote
-->
In fairness to Bill, who has yet to respond in person, this may be
politically motivated SPAM generated by malicious software i.e a virus of
some kind, that has compromised his bellsouth eMail address list in some
way.
Regards, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Sent: Friday, 9 October, 2009 12:41:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: vote
-->
Sorry Bill, as controversial as I'll get is, I prefer canards over RVs. The
rest I'll leave for less civil forums.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
-->
I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
voice comments as you wish.
Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
your choice.
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
It will take only an instant of your time!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
I don't post a lot, but I lurk. I agree with most that this is not the place for
political discourse, however In our world today alerting people of things that
might affect our world may be important. If it is not important to you it
only take 10 sec to delete and go on with your day. If you think it is important
do something about it, delete the message and go about your day. May take
60 secs. We are in a time when many of our freedoms (like this open forum) may
be in jeopardy. Keep those electrons flowing
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: JOHN TIPTON <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Sent: Fri, October 9, 2009 1:03:39 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: vote
1) Is this anything to do with the aims of this list
2) The point of this vote: is -
John
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
>
> I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
> Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
> voice comments as you wish.
> Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
> your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
> 60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
> We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
> Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
> pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
> on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
> your choice.
>
> http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
>
>
>
> PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
> It will take only an instant of your time!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Good point. I have been getting spammed with Viagra adds -- which appear to have
been sent from my own email address!
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Butler
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: vote
In fairness to Bill, who has yet to respond in person, this may be politically
motivated SPAM generated by malicious software i.e a virus of some kind, that
has compromised his bellsouth eMail address list in some way.
Regards, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Sent: Friday, 9 October, 2009 12:41:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: vote
Sorry Bill, as controversial as I'll get is, I prefer canards over RVs. The rest
I'll leave for less civil forums.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: vote
I normally do not send messages like this, but CNN is conducting a vote for
Israel vs. Palestine. Please respond immediately to this shocking vote and
voice comments as you wish.
Please login to this site vote and forward this important message to any of
your friends and colleagues. Apparently CNN is pushing a poll showing that
60% vs. 40% of Americans favor Palestine over Israel in the war in Gaza..
We must respond with numbers and be heard! We must stand together.
Thousands of these emails are going out across the world right now. Please
pass this to all concerned. If you have not already done so, please click
on the link below and then simply click on the Israeli flag or the flag of
your choice.
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/gz/
PLEASE contact everyone you know to vote...
It will take only an instant of your time!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.org> |
> I just don't care for the direction our nation is going at the moment
So what? A majority didn't like the way the nation was headed for the last
8 years. You don't see us whining about it on a technical email list. I
asked you privately, I'll say it publically: keep the
political/religious/off-topic shit off the list. There are a thousand
concerns and ten thousand other forums to air those concerns. This email
list isn't one of them.
Ralph Finch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Yes, please. Thanks.
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
>
> I asked you privately, I'll say it publically: keep the
> political/religious/off-topic shit off the list. There are a thousand
> concerns and ten thousand other forums to air those concerns. This email
> list isn't one of them.
>
> Ralph Finch
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>
>1) Is this anything to do with the aims of this list
>2) The point of this vote: is -
Let's put it to bed folks . . .
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: LED Landing/Taxi lights |
At 07:17 AM 10/9/2009, you wrote:
>Can anyone explain how an LED has "reach" problems? Since the light
>doesn't know when to stop, I assume this is either about light
>output (lumens) or focusing, which is nothing to do with the LED's
>themselves. I imagine that it's a lot harder to focus LED's with a
>parabolic reflector when the light origin is not exactly a point
>source, especially when using multiples.
>
>I just bought some domestic GU10 light bulbs that have a single LED
>outputting 200 lumens. That's about half of a 35W halogen so
>they're getting there.
Astute observations sir. Hawker-Beech has been looking
at LED illumination products for years. During my tenure
there, every new hopeful supplier to walk in the door
offered a quantum jump in performance. I'm not sure what
the criteria at HBC was for deciding when the cost of
ownership justified the changeovers . . . but changeovers
were being planned for.
I bought a multi (60?) LED screw in assembly at Walmart
a few months back for about $10. My son told me he saw
a 3-led, eye-tormenting device there last night for about $50.
Those will be getting cheaper every day. Who can we thank for
all this?
For one, the folks who build, erect and program those obnoxious
bill-boards that are increasingly responsible for highway
hazard . . . their interest in billions of LEDs sets the
demands while the can-do entrepreneurs figure out a way
to meet those demands with ever improving performance and value.
So while I wince every time I get blasted in the face with
drivel intended to separate me from my money, I
remind myself that a byproduct of our physical and
intellectual sacrifice is technological and economic advancement.
LED exterior lighting products exist now which are entirely suited
to the design goals of many builders. The gap is rapidly closing.
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> |
So Bob I'm a little confused and late to follow this thread so I apologize
if it's been covered. I'm interested in the AUX batt managment/LOW voltage
module but dont see it on your site. I gather it's in develorment, when do
you expect it will be available?=0AThanks, Tim Andres=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls
.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thursd
ay, October 8, 2009 4:43:57 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Append
" =0A=0AAt 02:25 PM 10/8/2009, you wrote:=0A
donrsmith921(at)yahoo.com>=0A> =0A> I was particularly interested in seeing Fi
gure 2,3,4 & 5=0A> referenced in this article:=0A> =0A>- http://www.aeroe
lectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/9024_NOTES.pdf.=0A> =0A>- Perhaps these figu
res have not yet been posted to this article?=0A=0A- The instructions/ins
tallation manual for the 9024 series=0A- products hasn't been written yet
. The "notes" section=0A- is a preliminary look at performance while Z-9
is=0A- a preliminary look at applications to be described=0A- in the fi
gures you asked about. Z-9 shows- the 9024=0A- installed as Contactor P
ower Management, Low Voltage=0A- Warning, and Over Voltage Protection.=0A
=0A- The Aux Battery Management application is not shown=0A- in Z-9 but
if one wanted to add a small battery for=0A- the purpose of supporting o
nly the ignition system,=0A- the forth application could be shown as well
. If fact,=0A- Figure Z-9 may be part of the finished instructions=0A-
document just to give a real-life set of examples=0A- about how the critt
er can be used.=0A=0A- The documents published are preliminary and will b
e=0A- replaced by one written and illustrated in the style=0A- of the e
arlier Aux Battery Management module=0A- described here . . .=0A=0Ahttp:/
/www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf=0A=0A- The single de
vice will perform any of the four=0A- functions which are installer selec
ted by clipping=0A- out program selection jumpers.=0A=0A=0A- - - Bo
b . . .=0A=0A- - - - ---------------------------------------=0A-
- - ( . . .- a long habit of not thinking- )=0A- - - ( a thin
g wrong, gives it a superficial )=0A- - - ( appearance of being right
. . .- - - )=0A- - - (- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - )=0A- - - (- - - - -
- - - - -Thomas Paine 1776-- )=0A- - - - ----------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
[quote="Speedy11(at)aol.com"]Ralph,
I can assure you they do very well!
I have the Precise Flight HIDs (non-pulsing for the reasons listed by "dblumel")
and Whelen LED "landing lights" for taxi and recognition. LEDs, including
Whelens, are not yet suitable as landing lights, but they are superb as taxi
and recognition lights.
I have both HID and LED lights in my wingtips and they are super. Precise Flight
is coming out with 50W and 70W HID units - I have the 35W.
> [b]
XeVision developed and made available 50 watt HID in early 2005 and 75 watt HID
about 2 years ago for special applications.
Both the 50 and 75 watt HID from XeVision are used in the Eurocopter line of Helicopters
within their TC and as an upgrade.
Note: the industry std. is to rate this HID technology based on Watts output (to
the bulb), not using input to the ballasts as the rating. This is a common problem
with Asian made HID products and their wattage ratings.
The ONLY quality HID bulbs in the 35-75 watt range are made in Europe. The Asians
including Korea are a long way from matching the QC, life and performance provided
by Philips, Osram (Sylvania) and GE HID bulbs.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267258#267258
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
Well, my question is: are there LED lamps that are cheap enough and bright
enough now to serve as daytime recognition lamps? You all have fairly
convinced me not to wig-wag the HID lamp I am installing, but I'd still like
to wig-wag some sort of bright light.
Notes:
"Cheap", let's say $50 dollars for each LED assy so $100 total (both wings).
"Bright", let's say easily noticed wig-wagging from at least 2-3 miles away,
within a 20-30 deg angle from head-on.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
rgf(at)dcn.org wrote:
> Well, my question is: are there LED lamps that are cheap enough and bright
> enough now to serve as daytime recognition lamps? You all have fairly
> convinced me not to wig-wag the HID lamp I am installing, but I'd still like
> to wig-wag some sort of bright light.
>
> Notes:
> "Cheap", let's say $50 dollars for each LED assy so $100 total (both wings).
> "Bright", let's say easily noticed wig-wagging from at least 2-3 miles away,
> within a 20-30 deg angle from head-on.
>
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, California
> RV-9A QB-SA
For Daytime use I'd say no to that distance and angle requirement. For nighttime
effectiveness yes. But at that price point absolutely not. High Power LED emitters
to even start to accomplish your goal do not come cheap. High Power LED's
are relatively expensive.
Audi is charging a $5000 option for a new model with all LED front end. They (Audi)
will also use fans to manage the heat (back end) for the LED headlight portion.
Low and High beam. Audi V8 R8 2010
The primary reason AUDI is using LED is for front end design "artistic freedom",
not as a performance improvement over HID.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267267#267267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "j. davis" <jd(at)lawsonimaging.ca> |
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
>> I just don't care for the direction our nation is going at the moment
>
> So what? A majority didn't like the way the nation was headed for the last
> 8 years. You don't see us whining about it on a technical email list. I
> asked you privately, I'll say it publically: keep the
> political/religious/off-topic shit off the list. There are a thousand
> concerns and ten thousand other forums to air those concerns. This email
> list isn't one of them.
>
> Ralph Finch
>
>
Well said, Ralph!
>
>
>
>
>
--
Regards, J.
Sonex #325 C-FJNJ, Jabiru 3300a, Prince P-Tip, Aerocarb
restoring the Johnston Special
http://cleco.ca
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| J. Davis, M.Sc. | (computer science) |
| *NIX consulting, SysAdmin | email: jd at lawsonimaging.ca |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
and now... Deep Thought #27, by Jack Handy
I hope if dogs ever take over the world, and they chose a king, they don't
just go by size, because I bet there are some Chihuahuas with some good
ideas.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
| From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
Hi Bob,
It's an internally regulated alternator from Aero Sport Power in BC. It
switches off and ceases to charge when I remove the 12V "IGN" input. It
took me a while to get to the airport and check it.
Ian
>
> 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Why have a switch on ALT Field? |
At 12:28 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>It's an internally regulated alternator from Aero Sport Power in
>BC. It switches off and ceases to charge when I remove the 12V
>"IGN" input. It took me a while to get to the airport and check it.
Okay, the IGN input to your internally regulated alternator
is a simple, low-current "alternator-enable" signal that goes
to the regulator circuit. It is NOT the alternator's field
supply. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Internal_Regulator.jpg
This is why the IGN input doesn't need to be supplied/
protected by a very large source. A 1A fuse would be
fine. This figure also serves to illustrate the fact
that there are electronics DOWNSTREAM of the IGN input
signal that can mis-behave and give one reasons to
want the alternator off line.
Without having direct control over the field supply
circuit, other provisions are necessary if one's
design goals include any time, any conditions,
On/Off control of the alternator.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starter Cable and Engine Ground |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello :-)
In the Z diagrams that Ive seen, Bob shows wiring from the battery positive to
the master contactor, then to the starter contactor. Some people wire directly
from the battery positive terminal to the starter contactor instead, then to
the master contactor. This seems like it would provide more juice to the starter
and eliminate a short section of heavy cable. Is there a disadvantage to doing
this?
And I understand it is best to ground everything to a common ground block on the
firewall. Jabiru suggests grounding the starter case to the negative battery
terminal. I would instead run this starter ground to the firewall ground block.
Would this take the place of a separate engine block ground called out in the
Z diagrams? If not, then where on a Jabiru 3300 would I connect for this ground?
I would also have ground cable between the battery and firewall ground
block.
Attached are pics from the Jabiru manual and service bulletin.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267363#267363
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jabiru_starter_ground_787.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jabiru_starter_contactor_and_battery_904.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P-lead for the Tach |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
When wiring a tach that uses the p-lead for its signal, can you help me with:
1) would it be best to run new shielded wire from the mar to the tach vs trying
to tap the p-leads off the mag switch?
2) is 20 AWG shielded wire the recommended wire size for the p-lead (that is what
I see in your book)?
Thanks in advance,
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267371#267371
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Cable and Engine Ground |
At 02:16 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hello :-)
>
>In the Z diagrams that Ive seen, Bob shows
>wiring from the battery positive to the master
>contactor, then to the starter contactor. Some
>people wire directly from the battery positive
>terminal to the starter contactor instead, then
>to the master contactor. This seems like it
>would provide more juice to the starter and
>eliminate a short section of heavy cable. Is
>there a disadvantage to doing this?
If the starter contactor or starter switch
sticks, there's no way to shut down a runaway
starter.
>And I understand it is best to ground everything
>to a common ground block on the firewall. Jabiru
>suggests grounding the starter case to the
>negative battery terminal. I would instead run
>this starter ground to the firewall ground
>block. Would this take the place of a separate
>engine block ground called out in the Z
>diagrams? If not, then where on a Jabiru 3300
>would I connect for this ground? I would also
>have ground cable between the battery and firewall ground block.
The z-figures are a product of many years refinement
tailored to the single-engine light aircraft but are
not "carved in stone". What you propose would work.
One suitable conductor between the crankcase and central
point ground is sufficient.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Cable and Engine Ground |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> If the starter contactor or starter switch
> sticks, there's no way to shut down a runaway
> starter.
Doh! I knew it must have been something simple I'd overlooked.
> One suitable conductor between the crankcase and central
> point ground is sufficient.
Goodie!
Thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267405#267405
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-lead for the Tach |
At 03:13 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob:
>
>When wiring a tach that uses the p-lead for its signal, can you help me with:
>
>1) would it be best to run new shielded wire from the mar to the
>tach vs trying to tap the p-leads off the mag switch?
You can tap the signal at either end but at the mag switch
terminal end makes the most sense. Your installation instructions
for the tach may also recommend putting a resistor in series
with the signal lead at the switch so that a faulted wire
in the tach wont kill the mag.
>2) is 20 AWG shielded wire the recommended wire size for the p-lead
>(that is what I see in your book)?
20AWG or larger is the general rule for any wires that run
out to the engine nacelle . . . for mechanical robustness.
22AWG or even 24AWG would be electrically capable of controlling
mags . . . but I don't think I've ever seen them wired with less
than 20. Some older airplanes even had 18AWG.
22AWG shielded between the mag switch and tachometer will
be quite sufficient.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Control Stick Switches =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=93?= Best Practice? |
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
Given: RV A/C with airframe tied directly to battery ground (rear Batteries).
I am planning the following switch functions on the control stick: Trim (4 way),
Com PTT, Autopilot Control, and perhaps Com channel flip-flop and other functions.
All of these functions require a momentary pull to low (ground) to activate/toggle
a function. My original planning was to employ a single ground conductor
up the stick to the switches. This ground conductor would be tied, locally, to
A/C ground in the area of the stick.
After reviewing various Z figures it appears that a better practice would be to
bring the stick ground conductor to the Panel G3 (inside firewall) or the Avx
G5 (back side of panel). Which is preferred?
Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick switch functions?
Should the PTT be given special consideration and a separate ground path
with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
PS Engineering schematics show PTT wiring only from the mic jack (PTT from the
tip and low-ground from the barrel). Can the remote stick PTT be wired directly
from the Intercom, connecting to the respective PTT mic pin and mic low connection
at the Intercom? Should these conductors be shielded in this case?
Perhaps the bottom line might be:
1. 1 ground conductor for trim relay decks going to local ground.
2. 1 ground conductor for PTT going to Intercom or mic jack.
3. 1 ground conductor for the other toggle functions to Avx G5.
Overkill?
Gordon Smith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267450#267450
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob:
Assuming that you wish for us listers to query any possible typos in your documents
or figures: In Z15k2 grounding for Seaplane, is the diode between the Main
Bus and Endurance Bus shown in a reversed orientation?
Gordon Smith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267451#267451
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:20 AM 10/11/2009, you wrote:
>"gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com"
>
>Bob:
>Assuming that you wish for us listers to
>query any possible typos in your documents
>or figures: In Z15k2 grounding for
>Seaplane, is the diode between the Main Bus
>and Endurance Bus shown in a reversed orientation?
>Gordon Smith
No need to assume anything my friend. It's an earnest
and respectful request that folks help us evolve data
offered on aeroelectric.com into the best we know how
to do.
Yes, you're correct, the diode is reversed in that drawing.
I'll fix it ASAP. Thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switches =?iso-8859-1?Q?=93?= Best |
Practice?
At 09:18 AM 10/11/2009, you wrote:
Given: RV A/C with airframe tied directly to battery ground (rear Batteries).
I am planning the following switch functions on the control stick:
Trim (4 way), Com PTT, Autopilot Control, and perhaps Com channel
flip-flop and other functions.
All of these functions require a momentary pull to low (ground) to
activate/toggle a function. My original planning was to employ a
single ground conductor up the stick to the switches. This ground
conductor would be tied, locally, to A/C ground in the area of the stick.
After reviewing various Z figures it appears that a better practice
would be to bring the stick ground conductor to the Panel G3 (inside
firewall) or the Avx G5 (back side of panel). Which is preferred?
There's no "golden" recipe for success here. You
need to establish design goals (make a control stick
with lots of buttons control lots of things by pulling
a control line to ground).
Then do a failure mode effects analysis for the ways
that the control system might fail.
Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick
switch functions? Should the PTT be given special consideration and
a separate ground path with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
It's not a mater of "proper", it's a matter of criticality
for any single and then a combination of items in
the control system to be lost. If that single ground
breaks, what is the likely outcome of your flight?
Do you need to craft a specific plan-b for any of
those failures?
PS Engineering schematics show PTT wiring only from the mic jack (PTT
from the tip and low-ground from the barrel). Can the remote stick
PTT be wired directly from the Intercom, connecting to the respective
PTT mic pin and mic low connection at the Intercom? Should these
conductors be shielded in this case?
A twisted pair would be nice but shielding is
not necessary or beneficial.
Perhaps the bottom line might be:
1. 1 ground conductor for trim relay decks going to local ground.
2. 1 ground conductor for PTT going to Intercom or mic jack.
3. 1 ground conductor for the other toggle functions to Avx G5.
Overkill?
Can't answer that for you. If any failure deprived
you of any one or all of those features, how would
you deal with it? If subsequent arrival with the earth
is comfortable and sweat-free, then a single ground
would be fine. If not, then modify your planning
accordingly.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick Muller" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | B & C Alternator cooling |
Howdy All,
I recently bought a B & C alternator for my RV and am installing it to
replace the ole internally regulated automotive one. The old Auto type
alternator
required some fancy cooling work to bring blast air into the face of the
unit. Of course no part of the existing set up will work with the B & C
unit.
To anyone who has fitted on or knows anything about them, do you also have
to cool the B & CF unit??
I was hoping that with its internal cooling fan going the right way, it
would not
need fancy cooling shrouds etc. I posted a question to B & C but have had no
response from them as yet.
Mick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B & C Alternator cooling |
Which B&C unit are you installing----the SD-8 or SD-20? The SD-8 is
driven off the vacuum pump pad at the top right rear of Lycomings
accessory case and I think the SD-20 is also mounted there. They are
both PM units with external regulators provided. The SD-8 is happy
without any external cooling air provision. Don't "think" that is any
different for the SD-20.
Jim McCulley
===================================================================================
Mick Muller wrote:
>
>
> Howdy All,
> I recently bought a B & C alternator for my RV and am installing it to
> replace the ole internally regulated automotive one. The old Auto type
> alternator
> required some fancy cooling work to bring blast air into the face of the
> unit. Of course no part of the existing set up will work with the B & C
> unit.
> To anyone who has fitted on or knows anything about them, do you also
> have to cool the B & CF unit??
> I was hoping that with its internal cooling fan going the right way, it
> would not
> need fancy cooling shrouds etc. I posted a question to B & C but have
> had no response from them as yet.
> Mick
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
lectric Bob:
When you get to the point of building and selling your AEC 9024 module, will you
also be building and selling your AEC 9011 module?
Gordon Smith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267523#267523
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:17 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote:
>"gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com"
>
>lectric Bob:
>When you get to the point of building and
>selling your AEC 9024 module, will you also be
>building and selling your AEC 9011 module?
yes, all the "under development" products will hit the
catalog within a period of about 4-6 weeks. I'm still
semi-paralyzed in with the electronics shop facilities.
Our move to Medicine Lodge has been fraught with
potholes!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B & C Alternator cooling |
| From: | peter laurence <peterlaurence6(at)gmail.com> |
Mick,
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Mick Muller wrote:
> mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au>
>
> Howdy All,
> I recently bought a B & C alternator for my RV and am installing it to
> replace the ole internally regulated automotive one. The old Auto type
> alternator
> required some fancy cooling work to bring blast air into the face of the
> unit. Of course no part of the existing set up will work with the B & C
> unit.
> To anyone who has fitted on or knows anything about them, do you also have
> to cool the B & CF unit??
> I was hoping that with its internal cooling fan going the right way, it
> would not
> need fancy cooling shrouds etc. I posted a question to B & C but have had
> no response from them as yet.
> Mick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick Muller" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Alternator cooling |
Thanks Jim, its neither of those two - its the L60 belt driven alternator
that replaces the standard Auto alternator from the front of the engine..
I also have installed the SD-8 as a backup on the vacuum pad.
The documentation did not say anything about cooling for it either.
Mick
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B & C Alternator cooling
>
>
> Which B&C unit are you installing----the SD-8 or SD-20? The SD-8 is
> driven off the vacuum pump pad at the top right rear of Lycomings
> accessory case and I think the SD-20 is also mounted there. They are
> both PM units with external regulators provided. The SD-8 is happy
> without any external cooling air provision. Don't "think" that is any
> different for the SD-20.
>
> Jim McCulley
> ==================================================================================
>
>
> Mick Muller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Howdy All,
>> I recently bought a B & C alternator for my RV and am installing it to
>> replace the ole internally regulated automotive one. The old Auto type
>> alternator
>> required some fancy cooling work to bring blast air into the face of the
>> unit. Of course no part of the existing set up will work with the B & C
>> unit.
>> To anyone who has fitted on or knows anything about them, do you also
>> have to cool the B & CF unit??
>> I was hoping that with its internal cooling fan going the right way, it
>> would not
>> need fancy cooling shrouds etc. I posted a question to B & C but have
>> had no response from them as yet.
>> Mick
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactors ended
up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the contactors,
and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install
the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF protection.
Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to handle the back
EMF.
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are superior to
using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the information in the Tyco documents.
Both Eric and Tyco claim that bi-directional zeners have all the advantages
of protecting the switch without slowing down the contact separation speed,
which decreases contactor life.
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/P6KE36CA/?qs=E0mHVHmM7ubVknTkdnW39Q%3d%3d
http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors/SnapJack.pdf
One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional zeners. If
they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure mode that would create
a short, that could cause problems. I read somewhere that high voltage tends
to result in a short failure, but high amperage results in an open failure.
There's no circuit protection on these coils (except for the starter).
I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs. bi-directional
zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And how to size the bi-directional
zeners to minimize the chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
Mike Easley
Lancair Super ES
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
mikeeasley wrote:
>
> I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs.
> bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And
> how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the chance of a
> failure, especially a short failure.
What would happen if either were fail shorted due to high voltage?
You'll have a device with small gauge leads laying directly across the
terminals of a battery that should be capable of delivering upwards of
200A. In another context, we would call this a "fusible link". I
suspect that the failure mode due to high current will quickly follow
the short. If you're really worried, install the protection just like a
fusible link (inside a piece of fiberglass sleeve) and be done with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Control Stick Switches |
Hi Gordon-
> Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick
switch functions?
> Should the PTT be given special consideration and a separate ground path
> with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
I elected to run three grounds for my two control sticks. Two of those
grounds go through a progressive switch on the panel. The ON position has
all grounds connected and both sticks are fully functional. The
intermediate position disconnects the ground for all rear seat stick
functions, disabling the stick should there be tiny or otherwise
inappropriate fingers poking around. The OFF position also disables the
rear stick and additionally disables the front stick trim controls. This
provides protection from trim system runaway while leaving the PTT and
other front stick switches active. The progressive switch itself is
located near the throttle, along with the other switches I might like to
operate quickly with my non-flying hand.
I like this configuration, and just offer it up as food for thought. YMMV-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 06:20 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on
>contactors ended up with some digging on the diodes that we use
>across the coils of the contactors, and whether they're
>necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s and since they
>have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install the
>diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
EV200's have internal electronics that take care
of the mag-field collapse spike from the contactor's
coil.
> But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the
> back EMF protection.
>
>Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to
>handle the back EMF.
>
><http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
>
>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
>
>Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are
>superior to using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the
>information in the Tyco documents. Both Eric and Tyco claim that
>bi-directional zeners have all the advantages of protecting the
>switch without slowing down the contact separation speed, which
>decreases contactor life.
Which is all demonstrable BS. Even the authors of the
Tyco documents correctly observe that "tight" coil
suppression of a plain diode causes contactor OPENING
DELAY and then incorrectly extend that observation
into a reduction of CONTACT SPREADING VELOCITY which
would indeed increase the duration of arcing during
opening.
Plain diodes have been used by the hundreds of
thousands on TC aircraft for over 40 years and
they are still meeting the design goals of the
system designers today. Further, papers like
those on the Tyco site speak to relay life
on the order of hundreds of thousands of cycles.
Their research into contact life vs. coil suppression
techniques will be based on laboratory
cycle testing (Hey Joe! Lookit here! That evil coil
suppression technique kicked our service life
in the head . . . instead of 110,000 cycles we
only got 95,000 cycles.)
The contactors in the average light plane
won't get 5,000 cycles over the LIFETIME
of the airplane.
Use what ever coil suppression technique
gives you warm fuzzies but know too that the least
expensive and simplest technique is fine.
>One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional
>zeners. If they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure
>mode that would create a short, that could cause problems.
What problem? Suppose your contactor fails to
close for any one of many other reasons? Are any of
these contactors used in a manner where failure
puts outcome of flight at risk? If so, you need to craft
a Plan-B to deal comfortably with that failure. May I suggest
that your worries about forestalling failure by
judicious selection of coil suppression is a
distraction. You should ASSUME that the contactor
will be unavailable to you at some time in the
future . . . now, what alternatives are in place
to deal with that failure? See chapter 17 of the
'Connection.
> I read somewhere that high voltage tends to result in a short
> failure, but high amperage results in an open failure. There's no
> circuit protection on these coils (except for the starter).
The ENERGY dissipated in ALL coil suppression
is very short duration (milliseconds per flight
cycle) and perhaps 1,000th the rated capability
of the device. They don't fail except for reasons
of manufacturing defect or installation error . . .
and particularly NOT from having selected the wrong
rating for the device. When a coil suppression device
is working, the VOLTAGE and CURRENT impressed upon
it is trivial compared to its ratings.
>
>I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes
>vs. bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both
>devices. And how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the
>chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
You're worrying waaaayyyy too much about it.
This topic has been discussed and many platinum
plated coil suppression techniques have been offered
up as the path to Nirvana. But when it gets down
to the physics of contactor and power relay
control, it's easy to demonstrate.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/7041DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_1n5400.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_2x18v_Transorbs.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_120_Ohm.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_with_Diode.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_without_Diode.jpg
These are but a few of dozens of traces recorded by
myself where we looked at drop-out-delay, contact
transition velocity, and contact bounce vs. various coil
suppression techniques (including simple placement
of a 120 ohm resistor across the coil!).
Bottom line is that anything you want to do will
be fine . . . make it easy on yourself and be wary
of pronouncements and dire warnings from folk who
not been there nor done that. Do a failure mode
effects analysis and craft architectures that offer
a Plan-B for ALL uncomfortable failures. The road
to comfortable termination of flight is not paved with
prophylactics AGAINST failure . . . rather a PLAN for
dealing comfortably with any failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator cooling |
At 02:25 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Jim, its neither of those two - its the L60 belt driven alternator
>that replaces the standard Auto alternator from the front of the engine..
>I also have installed the SD-8 as a backup on the vacuum pad.
>The documentation did not say anything about cooling for it either.
That's because there are no installations on the
front of a Lyc where cooling has been identified
as a critical or even questionable issue. Hence,
nothing in the instructions about cooling.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
Bob,
So I believe there's a decent argument to do nothing. If the spike is small, and
the switches are robust enough to handle far more than the spike, and the current
through the contactors is far below the contactor rating, and the number
of cycles of the switch and the contactor are far below the advertised life...
...then leaving off the diodes is a viable alternative.
Mike Easley
In a message dated 10/12/09 08:33:46 Mountain Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
writes:
At 06:20 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactors ended
up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the contactors,
and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install
the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
EV200's have internal electronics that take care
of the mag-field collapse spike from the contactor's
coil.
But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF protection.
Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to handle the back
EMF.
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are superior to
using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the information in the Tyco documents.
Both Eric and Tyco claim that bi-directional zeners have all the advantages
of protecting the switch without slowing down the contact separation speed,
which decreases contactor life.
Which is all demonstrable BS. Even the authors of the
Tyco documents correctly observe that "tight" coil
suppression of a plain diode causes contactor OPENING
DELAY and then incorrectly extend that observation
into a reduction of CONTACT SPREADING VELOCITY which
would indeed increase the duration of arcing during
opening.
Plain diodes have been used by the hundreds of
thousands on TC aircraft for over 40 years and
they are still meeting the design goals of the
system designers today. Further, papers like
those on the Tyco site speak to relay life
on the order of hundreds of thousands of cycles.
Their research into contact life vs. coil suppression
techniques will be based on laboratory
cycle testing (Hey Joe! Lookit here! That evil coil
suppression technique kicked our service life
in the head . . . instead of 110,000 cycles we
only got 95,000 cycles.)
The contactors in the average light plane
won't get 5,000 cycles over the LIFETIME
of the airplane.
Use what ever coil suppression technique
gives you warm fuzzies but know too that the least
expensive and simplest technique is fine.
One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional zeners. If
they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure mode that would create
a short, that could cause problems.
What problem? Suppose your contactor fails to
close for any one of many other reasons? Are any of
these contactors used in a manner where failure
puts outcome of flight at risk? If so, you need to craft
a Plan-B to deal comfortably with that failure. May I suggest
that your worries about forestalling failure by
judicious selection of coil suppression is a
distraction. You should ASSUME that the contactor
will be unavailable to you at some time in the
future . . . now, what alternatives are in place
to deal with that failure? See chapter 17 of the
'Connection.
I read somewhere that high voltage tends to result in a short failure, but high
amperage results in an open failure. There's no circuit protection on these
coils (except for the starter).
The ENERGY dissipated in ALL coil suppression
is very short duration (milliseconds per flight
cycle) and perhaps 1,000th the rated capability
of the device. They don't fail except for reasons
of manufacturing defect or installation error . . .
and particularly NOT from having selected the wrong
rating for the device. When a coil suppression device
is working, the VOLTAGE and CURRENT impressed upon
it is trivial compared to its ratings.
I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs. bi-directional
zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And how to size the bi-directional
zeners to minimize the chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
You're worrying waaaayyyy too much about it.
This topic has been discussed and many platinum
plated coil suppression techniques have been offered
up as the path to Nirvana. But when it gets down
to the physics of contactor and power relay
control, it's easy to demonstrate.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/7041DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_1n5400.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_2x18v_Transorbs.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_120_Ohm.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_with_Diode.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_without_Diode.jpg
These are but a few of dozens of traces recorded by
myself where we looked at drop-out-delay, contact
transition velocity, and contact bounce vs. various coil
suppression techniques (including simple placement
of a 120 ohm resistor across the coil!).
Bottom line is that anything you want to do will
be fine . . . make it easy on yourself and be wary
of pronouncements and dire warnings from folk who
not been there nor done that. Do a failure mode
effects analysis and craft architectures that offer
a Plan-B for ALL uncomfortable failures. The road
to comfortable termination of flight is not paved with
prophylactics AGAINST failure . . . rather a PLAN for
dealing comfortably with any failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Control Stick Switches |
Glenn,
I concur with the additional grounds save the space provided. In my Ray
Allen stick, they really only provide room for one solid ground to the
stick itself and little room for the remainder of the wires. My pet
peeve with RA is that lack of room. C'mon, just make that cap 1/4
thicker guys.
In defense of myself I made sure to add a circuit breaker to the panel
to drop the whole thing if it decides to try and kill me. I did the same
for the A/P which in my experience has also tried to kill me. If you can
kill it first, there's your safety margin. As grounds go, yes, I have
two separate grounds, one for pilot and co-pilot just to isolate good
grounds.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Control Stick Switches
Hi Gordon-
> Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick
switch functions?
> Should the PTT be given special consideration and a separate ground
path
> with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
I elected to run three grounds for my two control sticks. Two of those
grounds go through a progressive switch on the panel. The ON position
has
all grounds connected and both sticks are fully functional. The
intermediate position disconnects the ground for all rear seat stick
functions, disabling the stick should there be tiny or otherwise
inappropriate fingers poking around. The OFF position also disables the
rear stick and additionally disables the front stick trim controls.
This
provides protection from trim system runaway while leaving the PTT and
other front stick switches active. The progressive switch itself is
located near the throttle, along with the other switches I might like to
operate quickly with my non-flying hand.
I like this configuration, and just offer it up as food for thought.
YMMV-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 09:57 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>So I believe there's a decent argument to do nothing. If the spike is small,
"small" isn't very descriptive. While total energy
is measured in a handful of millijoules, the voltage of
the unsuppressed spike is hundreds of volts and does
produce observable erosion of starter push-buttons,
battery master switches and landing gear control
switches (hydraulic pump control contactors).
For years, no suppression was used in any automotive
contactor control until the two-stage, high-inrush
solenoid/contactor was developed for starters. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
> and the switches are robust enough to handle far more than the spike,
don't know what you mean by "robust". They are
32 volt DC devices for full ratings. The unrestrained
pulse from a contactor coil is on the order of 10x
that amount. I.e., arcing does occur with energy
limits bounded by the [I(squared)L/2] energy stored
on the coil.
> and the current through the contactors is far below the contactor rating,
current being switched by the contactor isn't
the big driver. We decided this after learning
that suppression of all types has no appreciable
effect on contact spreading velocity.
> and the number of cycles of the switch and the contactor are far
> below the advertised life...
yes, VERY much lower . . .
>
>...then leaving off the diodes is a viable alternative.
. . . and indeed, until the mid 60's this was
how contactors were treated in light aircraft
although industrial and military users of DC
contactors had been "taming the little tigers"
for years. But many starter contactors are
now offered with built in diodes. LOTS of
mil-spec relays are offered with built-in
coil suppression. Yeah, we could leave them
off, but why not put them on if they're
cheap, easy to get, and choice of technology
is not a significant decision?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Filter Capacitor Wiring |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I'm starting the actual wiring on my firewall for my Jab 3300. I have the B&C OVM
kit and there are a couple differences between the wiring diagram included
and the Z diagrams, namely Z20L, which is specific for the Jab regulator.
The B&C wiring diagram shipped to me is drawing no. 505-500. It shows the ground
lead from the regulator connected to the negative terminal on the capacitor.
A wire from the negative capacitor then goes to the ground block, being twisted
around the capacitor's positive output lead enroute.
The Z20L diagram shows the regulator ground going directly to ground and not to
the capacitor. There is a separate ground for the capacitor. No twisted wires.
I plan to mount my regulator FWF with the capacitor behind it on the cool side
of the firewall about a foot away, so wiring it either way would be easy for me.
I'm also curious about the twisted wires. The B&C diagram shows only the output
positive lead of the capacitor being twisted, and not the feed from the regulator.
Also, the B&C drawing version shipped to me has a note that mentions limiting the
distance between the capacitor and regulator to 6". This note is not found
in the pdf file of theirs I found on their site. I have already drilled the #40
pilot holes for the regulator that would put it about a foot away from the capacitor
before I read that note. I can without much problem shorten this distance
to about 6", but don't know if it's worth it.
Thanks!
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267597#267597
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z20l_196.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/504_500_rev_f_bandc_ovm_wiring_678.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
| From: | "Colyn Case" <colyncase(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob,
I agree with you about being prepared for any contactor to fail and not to be overly
concerned about that. A failure that results in not being able to operate
the contactor should not in itself be a hazard to flight.
However, a failure that results in smoke, although in other ways benign, is undesirable.
I would be interested in what happens to the coil circuit as a function
of the failure mode of the suppression device. If it fails open, so what,
you lost some suppression. If it fails closed I think you get a dead short
on the coil circuit, in other words the wire that goes to your starter key and
to ground.
On my airplane, I don't have that circuit fused, reasoning that the coil itself
is going to melt down before the wire does. but if you put a device in parallel
with the coil and it shorts, then depending on the characteristics of the
device you've got smoke in the cockpit.
So either you have to choose a device which you are pretty sure is going to fail
open, or you need to fuse that circuit, right? (I don't see a fuse shown in
the diagrams in the appendix).
Taking the devices:
resistor - likely fail open
diode - ?
zener diode - fail closed
snapjack - ?
thanks,
Colyn
--------
Colyn Case
colyncase(at)earthlink.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267603#267603
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Hmmm.
It is a bad idea to put such a situation anywhere!
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
-->
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that if
inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
| From: | peter laurence <peterlaurence6(at)gmail.com> |
My 2 cents--
Keep the stick simple and place the flap switch on the panel.
Peter
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
> if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Bradburry
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
>
>
>
> I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
> the
> flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
> I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
> pole
> switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
> control
> the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
> will have to be off.
> The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
> wire
> this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Bill B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Leonard" <buzzleo(at)graceba.net> |
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
"Without"
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Leonard
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
French for "without"
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> What does =93SANS=94 stand for?
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No
> problems.
> Peter
>
>
> SEL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Without - its French
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Leonard
Sent: 12 October 2009 22:40
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Latin or French: sans = without
Spanish: sin = without
Matt-
> What does "SANS" stand for?
>
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
>
> SEL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
sans = without
Steve Leonard wrote:
>
> What does SANS stand for?
>
> *Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No
> problems.*
>
> * Peter*
>
> /SEL/
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>What does "SANS" stand for?
>
>Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
> SEL
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
NO COOLING FAN!!
Jim Wickert
Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Quillin
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
I have my flap switch on the throttle and trim on the stick. Works great for
me
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 11:02:08 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
Hmmm.
It is a bad idea to put such a situation anywhere!
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
-->
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that if
inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Its french, mon ami
On 12/10/09 4:21 PM, "Jim Wickert" wrote:
> NO COOLING FAN!!
>
>
> Jim Wickert
> Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
> Tel 920-467-0219
> Cell 920-912-1014
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Qu
illin
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:27 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
>
> At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
> What does =B3SANS=B2 stand for?
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
> SEL
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
>
>
>
>
>
Franz Fux
Director of Operations
Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd.
Bell 2 Lodge
P.O. Box 1237
Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6
CANADA
Office Contact
T: (250) 558-7980
F: (250) 558-7981
http://www.lastfrontierheli.com
Lodge Contact
T: (250) 275-4770
F: (250) 275-4912
http://www.bell2lodge.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 01:00 PM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I agree with you about being prepared for any contactor to fail and
>not to be overly concerned about that. A failure that results in
>not being able to operate the contactor should not in itself be a
>hazard to flight.
>
>However, a failure that results in smoke, although in other ways
>benign, is undesirable.
The fact that you've identified a potential for smoke
suggests a point of concern in your failure mode
effects analysis . . .
> I would be interested in what happens to the coil circuit as a
> function of the failure mode of the suppression device. If it
> fails open, so what, you lost some suppression. If it fails closed
> I think you get a dead short on the coil circuit, in other words
> the wire that goes to your starter key and to ground.
Okay, now what?
>On my airplane, I don't have that circuit fused, reasoning that the
>coil itself is going to melt down before the wire does. but if you
>put a device in parallel with the coil and it shorts, then depending
>on the characteristics of the device you've got smoke in the cockpit.
We've never fused that circuit in a whole lot
of airplanes . . . generally, such prophylactics
are set aside when risks are perceived to be
insignificant . . . like 10 to the minus 6
failures per flight hour or better. Given a demonstrated
history that confirms that analysis then perhaps
we can benefit from lessons-learned shared our brethren
on the TC side of the house.
>So either you have to choose a device which you are pretty sure is
>going to fail open, or you need to fuse that circuit, right? (I
>don't see a fuse shown in the diagrams in the appendix).
Yup, you've read the schematics correctly. But if you
find that philosophy, suite of design goals and
demonstrated service histories uncomfortable,
please don't fly an airplane that offers you any
discomfort. Fuses are cheap.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
Snowmobilers Association of Novia Scotia=0A Henador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0AFrom: Steve Leonard <buzzleo(at)graceba.net>
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, October 12, 2009 5:40:0
9 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B =0A=0A=0AWhat does =9CSANS
=9D stand for?=0A =0ARunning one on a Velocity for 4 plus years san
==================0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | peter laurence <peterlaurence6(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Now that is funny.....
At 16:21 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>NO COOLING FAN!!
>
>Jim Wickert
>Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
>Tel 920-467-0219
>Cell 920-912-1014
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Capacitor Wiring |
>
>The Z20L diagram shows the regulator ground going directly to ground
>and not to the capacitor. There is a separate ground for the
>capacitor. No twisted wires.
You can spend a lot of no-value added time sifting
the differences between the various recipes for
success. The points of concern you've identified
are not ctitical.
>I plan to mount my regulator FWF with the capacitor behind it on the
>cool side of the firewall about a foot away, so wiring it either way
>would be easy for me.
take your pick
>I'm also curious about the twisted wires. The B&C diagram shows only
>the output positive lead of the capacitor being twisted, and not the
>feed from the regulator.
>
>Also, the B&C drawing version shipped to me has a note that mentions
>limiting the distance between the capacitor and regulator to 6".
>This note is not found in the pdf file of theirs I found on their
>site. I have already drilled the #40 pilot holes for the regulator
>that would put it about a foot away from the capacitor before I read
>that note. I can without much problem shorten this distance to about
>6", but don't know if it's worth it.
It will be fine the way you have it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Capacitor Wiring |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267699#267699
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Required Length of Fusible Links |
B&C sells fusible links that are intended to be 5-6" long. Do they have to be
that long? Do you need to allow any space around them for the heat when they
smoke? If you're protecting a #22 wire, do you go to #26 in the fusible link?
Thanks,
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A note on control stick switches:
Make sure they are environmentally sealed for the harshest jungle-like conditions
encountered under sweaty palms.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267735#267735
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob N., you are truly to be admired for the limitless energy you have put into
this subject. I don't know how you do it.
I sell "SnapJacks" bi-directional zeners for putting across the coils of relays,
inductors, and especially contactors--as recommended by Tyco, Potter and Brumfield,
Megavac, Kilovac, and virtually all other relay engineers who have ever
looked at the problem.
But hey, you could be right! One lone voice in the wilderness. I admire you.
"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to
one's self-esteem...."
-Thomas Szasz
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267737#267737
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
Howdy,
I recently subjected the Concord RG-25XC in our RV to an unscheduled
deep discharge test by way of leaving the E-buss switch on for a couple
of days on the ramp at West Yellowstone. We jump started the airplane
with a car, but as soon as the cables were removed, there was nothing on
the panel. Apparently the battery was so dead that the alternator didn't
kick in. I failed to notice if the alternator was running with the
jumper cables connected, but I think it must have been. All the normal
lights and gages were working prior to disconnection.
We called National Aircraft Parts Association and had them send over a
"snowmobile battery", a Yaesu 18ah sized like a PC680 and that got us
going. We hauled the dead Concorde RG-25XC home and I charged it up. I
did a capacity check on it with a West Mountain Radio CBA II tester down
to 10.5 volts, just as I do at annual, and it did pretty well. It
produced 28 ampere hours at a 4amp draw. Not bad for a 24AH battery!
When tested at the most recent annual inspection, it put out just over
30, so it may be slightly degraded, but still very good. We only need
about 16AH to be able to keep the electronic ignition and some of the
more important bits of avionics working 'till we run out of gas, so this
battery still has a ways to go before replacement. I'll save the 18AH
Yaesu for other uses.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
> The battery is subject to no more stresses than
> situations where you've jump started your car
> because the headlights were left on. Would the
> battery last longer had it never been subjected
> to the deep discharge event? Arguably yes . . . but
> by so small a value as to be difficult to measure
> and totally insignificant to your operational perceptions.
> But it's not an undue stress on the ship's accessories.
> They are all qualified to perform to nameplate ratings
> when the airplane was awarded a type certificate.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 08:56 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
Bob N., you are truly to be admired for the limitless energy you have put
into this subject. I don't know how you do it.
See philosophical snippet in my signature . . .
I sell "SnapJacks" bi-directional zeners for putting across the coils of
relays, inductors, and especially contactors--as recommended by Tyco,
Potter and Brumfield, Megavac, Kilovac, and virtually all other relay
engineers who have ever looked at the problem.
But hey, you could be right! One lone voice in the wilderness. I admire you.
Eric my friend. You've missed the point of this discussion
since day-one. This isn't about Bob N. or anyone else being
"right" or "wrong" . . . it's about understanding simple-ideas
and crafting a recipe for success conforming to design goals.
Yes, the folks at all the big houses have the opportunity
to know more about their products than anyone else. Certainly
there was a time that was true. Except for Microswitch, virtually
all of my requests for investigative assistance in a relay or
switch failure over the last 15 years produced a young, wet-behind-
the-ears visitor from the company who was probably a recent graduate.
He/she was assigned support on the legacy products. A sure
bet. No? The legacy products have decades of market history.
Nothing can go wrong . . . go wrong . . . go wrong. They had
never designed a thing, never conducted a failure analysis,
and had no customer or field service experience. They were
seldom accompanied by a learned mentor.
This sad condition is being repeated throughout a once
capable and competent community of suppliers to US
industry. I could have treated these experiences as
either a burden or opportunity. Given that the issues
were costing my employer $millions$, it was good that
I was willing and able to rise to the OPPORTUNITY to
observe, discover, learn and ultimately teach. More often
than not, my discoveries produced facts of performance
that the factory support folks didn't understand.
Further, it was NOT in their best interests to admit
that their capabilities were found lacking. Put yourself
in their shoes . . . you're right out of college. First
job with Mister Big Relays and Contactors, Inc. You
walk back into your office and tell your boss, "The
customer knows more about the product I understand
or was able to offer."
You (and others) have cited the writings by employees
of Mr. Big and (without understanding the significance
of their words) have parroted them back to support
some opinion. Further, you and others have evolved
products base on the same cursory citations.
I have endeavored to test, measure, observe, and
analyze the behaviors switches, relays and contactors
for the purpose of achieving understanding and
offering the best-I-know-how-to-do advice. For
quit a few years, I was well paid by my employers
to carry out such studies.
If you find my offerings lacking, how about offering your
own analysis of the repeatable experiments I've conducted
and/or the data collected therefrom? I'll have to
look back over our writings on this topic but I
can't recall that you have ever offered a data point
discovered by yourself backed up with documentation
on a repeatable experiment.
While I attempt to offer analysis and advice based
on demonstrable fact, you seem content to whack
me about the head and shoulders with Mr. Big's
technical papers that may contain errors of
fact or interpretation. It may be true that the
paper on small mil-spec relays is not directly
related to our discussions about large contactors
used on a OBAM light aircraft.
"One voice in the wilderness" ????? This isn't
a wilderness my friend. It's the universe. The whole
universe runs on physics. Each concept in physics
is a simple-idea. Combining those simple-ideas into
useful recipes for success is what skilled product
development is all about.
I've not said that the latest-greatest spike suppression
techniques do not perform as advertised. What I have
said is that these products are being marketed based
on FEAR of loss of RELIABILITY. I have endeavored to
deflect worries about reliability by encouraging
confidence in failure tolerant design. Confidence
built on understanding that applying the latest-
and-greatest will produce no observable benefit for
the applications we're developing. If you have
a vision about how simple-ideas can be more effectively
used, let's talk about it. If you find any error of
interpretation of the data I've gathered and posted,
nobody would be more pleased to know about it than I.
Please don't remake this into a Friday night wrestling
exhibition between between myself and Mr. Big's
writers . . . or anyone else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
| From: | "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com> |
TYCO's document at http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
says, "It is the velocity of the armature that is most affected by coil suppression.
If the suppressor provides a conducting path, thus allowing the stored energy
in the relay's magnetic circuit to decay slowly, the armature motion will
be retarded and the armature may even temporarily reverse direction."
TYCO's document seemed credible until the above paragraph. How can a relay start
to drop out, then reverse direction? Where does the power come from to do
this? Using a diode for arc suppression, the relay will start to drop out when
the voltage decays to some point less than 12 volts. In order for the relay
to reverse direction, the voltage will have to increase. But how could it increase?
The voltage has already decayed to the point where the relay drops out,
and the diode is still shorting out what little energy is left. It is common
knowledge that a relay requires a higher voltage to pull in than to drop out.
TYCO is suggesting the impossible. Making that ridiculous statement makes
one question the validity of the whole document. The table showing the drop
out times of various suppression devices does not make it clear exactly what time
interval was measured. Was it the interval from when power to the coil was
first shut off to the time that the contacts were fully opened? If so, that
time is irrelevant to arcing of the relay contacts. The only time interval of
concern is from when the relay contacts first start to open until they are open
far enough to quench the arc. The important thing is, how much longer do
relay contacts arc when using diode compared to using a zener? And is that time
difference significant in our application?
I agree with Bob. The TYCO article is BS.
Mike Easley and Colyn Case are concerned about the arc-suppression diode shorting
out across the main contactor. A 22awg wire can be used from the contactor
fat terminal to the coil terminal, then a 18awg from the other side of the coil
into the cockpit. In case of an unlikely short, the 22awg wire will burn open
first, keeping smoke on the engine side of the firewall.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267757#267757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Required Length of Fusible Links |
At 08:12 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
>B&C sells fusible links that are intended to be 5-6" long. Do they
>have to be that long? Do you need to allow any space around them
>for the heat when they smoke? If you're protecting a #22 wire, do
>you go to #26 in the fusible link?
Fusible links should not be used to generally replace
fuses or circuit breakers. They are used only when
a ROBUST feeder protection is needed. These might
be properly called Micro-ANL current limiters.
If you're considering an application other than
one illustrated in the Z-figures, let's
discus it here on the List.
6" is a good length for meeting the thermal
model that controls the fusing event. You
COVER them in a material capable of containing
the fusing event. Hence the fiberglas/silcone
jacket in the B&C kit. #26 wire is too fragile
to be practical for a/c wiring. #24 is marginal
but okay in applications illustrated.
I've often thought I should not have introduced
the fusible link to the OBAM aircraft community
but then, it's just a collection of simple-ideas
with specific but LIMITED applicability to our
design goals. Let's not start scattering these
guys around the airplane. If you need an isolated,
single strand not conveniently protected by
a fuse at the bus, then consider an in-line
fuse holder.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuse_Holders/ifh-2.jpg
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Absolutely agree with that one Bruce! A co-policy I have is
that all control moving circuits should have breakers, not
fuses, because you want them pull-able.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
> if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Bradburry
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
>
>
>
> I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
> the
> flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
> I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
> pole
> switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
> control
> the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
> will have to be off.
> The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
> wire
> this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Bill B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Battery Capacity Testing |
For what it is worth, here are my battery endurance procedure
experiences.
For the first and second annual condition inspections of my RV-6A, I
decided to follow the procedure of replacing my 17/18 AH RG battery
rather than do an endurance check. The battery had cost only $50 and I
treated it as expendable.
Meanwhile, after the second condition inspection, I conducted
experiments on the replaced battery. Based on measured current draw of
the avionics and instruments that I considered necessary in the event of
an alternator failure I used automobile lights in parallel to simulate a
load equivalent to the expected current drain.. I confirmed the current
drawn with that load. Then I monitored the voltage and the time until
the battery reached 11 volts. It turned out that with a current of about
9 amps, I had 1.5 hours endurance on a battery that had been used for a
year. This pretty much agreed with the published endurance curves for
that battery.
For the third condition inspection, I decided to test the year-old
battery in place in the aircraft. To accomplish this, I switched on the
"endurance" bus, turned on the avionics and instruments that I
considered essential after alternator failure. I then monitored voltage,
the avionics and time. The result was similar to the earlier simulation
with the auto lamps: the avionics went out at about 1.5 hours.
Since this test was over in an hour and a half, only a voltmeter and
clock were needed to gather data and the battery was re-charged in a
reasonable time via my external power jack. This convinced me that the
battery could be used until the next condition inspection.
Should anyone wonder during the second year about the battery endurance,
the test could be conducted at any time with the expenditure of a couple
of hours.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Flap Switch Location |
The gentleman who built my wonderful Glasair II put the flap switch next to the
throttle.
While keeping my hand on the throttle in the pattern, I can readily activate the
flap up/down with my thumb. Otherwise, it is offset enough to not be in the
way.
The 3-axis trim is on the stick, and this is plenty to adjust with my left hand,
especially on base and short final.
Bottom line: I agree with the previous post; keep the flap off of the stick.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Flap Switch Location |
Yep, that's where I put mine also.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Markey
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap Switch Location
The gentleman who built my wonderful Glasair II put the flap switch next
to the throttle.
While keeping my hand on the throttle in the pattern, I can readily
activate the flap up/down with my thumb. Otherwise, it is offset enough
to not be in the way.
The 3-axis trim is on the stick, and this is plenty to adjust with my
left hand, especially on base and short final.
Bottom line: I agree with the previous post; keep the flap off of the
stick.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Tim, I realize that I've followed the same policy in my fuse-centric
panel. Or at least I think I have.... So to compare notes:
I have 4 pull-able/reset-able breakers in my panel:
- (2) for the 2 B&C alternator controllers for proper operation of the
crow bar OV protection
- (1) for my flaps with FPS
- (1) for my AP
The rest are all fuses on a 2 bus Z-14
I didn't have a policy per se, but my thinking for the 2 latter fuses was:
- the flap motor could be overpowered by extension at high speeds - so a
reset-able capability is desirable since it is a control surface
- The pull-able breaker gives me an emergency off switch for the autopilot
I should add that I have the Safety Trim system which has a trim shut
off and other safety related functions.
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree with that one Bruce! A co-policy I have is
> that all control moving circuits should have breakers, not
> fuses, because you want them pull-able.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
> Bruce Gray wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
>> if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
>>
>> Bruce
>> www.Glasair.org
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>> Bradburry
>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
>> the
>> flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
>> I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
>> pole
>> switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
>> control
>> the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
>> will have to be off.
>> The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
>> wire
>> this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Bill B
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs.
bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And
how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the chance of a
failure, especially a short failure.
What would happen if either were fail shorted due to high voltage?
Excellent question . . . and the answer goes directly
to countless studies and adjustment of design goals
for the purpose of producing an ACCEPTABLE reliability
factor (generally stated in failures per flight hour).
Any time we can deduce that the failure rate is better
than 1 in 10 to the minus 6 failures per flight hour
(i.e. 1,000,000 flight hours per failure), the guys
who worry about such things relax a lot.
Now, does such a determination say that all components
under study will last 1,000,000 hours? No, the
testing and calculations tell us that the AVERAGE
failure rate for a large population of identical
components is 1,000,000 hours per failure or better.
If you have a device fail in 500,000 hours, then
other components of that population will have to
do better than 1,000,000 hours for the average to
hold.
Experience shows us that robust and otherwise new
components which fall victim to errors of manufacturing
process will fail early (infant mortality) . . . especially
if operated at or just above extreme stress ratings
for that device. This process is called "screening"
and is the basis for Mil-Std-883 qualified components
favored in critical military and space programs. The
screening process is designed to precipitate infant
mortality failures.
Even then, some folks paid to worry will sandbag their
design goals by telling suppliers to DE-RATE their
already screened 883 components by some factor. Resistors
will be de-rated to 1/2 power. Capacitors operated at
1/2 rated voltage, etc. etc.
I've smiled when reading the purchase specs driven
by such worries. Virtually every product failure
over which I was given direction turned out to be
an error in design or process, not a failure of component
to meet requirements for which it was properly designed
and qualified. It seems like the guy turning the wrenches
is still the riskiest ingredient in the recipe. So let's
potential for stress induced failure of a diode across the
coil of a contactor. See:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/1N/1N4001.pdf
For the most part, we're building 14v airplanes with
a sprinkling of 28v. Okay, a 50v rated diode will have
a 2x headroom in a 28v airplane, 3.5x in a 14v airplane.
For a few cents more, one COULD install a 600V rated diode.
Man, talk about de-rating!
On the conduction side of the study, the typical 1A
diode (1N400x series) is designed and qualified to
conduct 1A at a max voltage drop of 1.1 volts. Okay,
this is 1.1 watts of heat being dumped out in that
diminutive glass or plastic package. Now, we never
SEE that 1.1 volts under our anticipated usage.
But let's take worst case.
CAPACITORS charge to some voltage will deliver that
SAME voltage at potentially HIGH current during
the discharge cycle. INDUCTORS charged to some current
will deliver that SAME current at potentially HIGH
voltage during their discharge cycle.
Now, here's an el-cheeso battery contactor running
coil current of .6 to 1.0 amps. When the circuit
is broken, we can expect a PULSE of current at no
more than 1.0 amps. Further, the duration of that
current is on the order of 200 milliseconds ramping
down from 1.0 amps to zero. Let's assume an AVERAGE
of 0.5 Amps over 200 milliseconds with a maximum
voltage drop of 1.1 volts. Hmmm . . . that's a worst
case value of 110 milljoules of energy over 0.2 seconds
dumped into a device DESIGNED to dissipate 1100 millijoules
of energy every second for an indefinite period of time.
May I suggest that this too is an exceedingly conservative
de-rating philosophy?
So while we're discussing potential failure modes
for becoming either shorted or open, let us not loose
our grip on probability of failure based on the expected
stresses versus stresses defined by the device's
design. Devices used for coil spike suppression are
VERY lightly taxed and therefore exceedingly low
failure rates.
Short answer is that "sizing" of these components
based on their electrical characteristics is a
exercise in no-value-added-worrying. I prefer to
size them for mechanical robustness as illustrated
many places in my writing and illustrating. The
beefier 1N5400 series devices are less likely to
be damaged by over-enthusiastic wrench turning.
Whether you use zeners-diode combos, bi-directional
Transorbs, resistors, diodes, etc will have no
observable effect on system reliability based on
ratings. But beating the little guys up with
wrench or hammer is another matter. The more
valid worry is not WHAT you use but HOW you
use it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re:Battery Capacity Testing |
Perhaps a dumb question about a small detail, but to conduct these
capacity
tests, how did you measure the time, were you one and a half hours
looking
at the voltmeter to see when it reached the 11V?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard
Dudley
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 13 de Outubro de 2009 18:36
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:Battery Capacity Testing
For what it is worth, here are my battery endurance procedure
experiences.
For the first and second annual condition inspections of my RV-6A, I
decided
to follow the procedure of replacing my 17/18 AH RG battery rather than
do
an endurance check. The battery had cost only $50 and I treated it as
expendable.
Meanwhile, after the second condition inspection, I conducted
experiments on
the replaced battery. Based on measured current draw of the avionics and
instruments that I considered necessary in the event of an alternator
failure I used automobile lights in parallel to simulate a load
equivalent
to the expected current drain.. I confirmed the current drawn with that
load. Then I monitored the voltage and the time until the battery
reached 11
volts. It turned out that with a current of about 9 amps, I had 1.5
hours
endurance on a battery that had been used for a year. This pretty much
agreed with the published endurance curves for that battery.
For the third condition inspection, I decided to test the year-old
battery
in place in the aircraft. To accomplish this, I switched on the
"endurance"
bus, turned on the avionics and instruments that I considered essential
after alternator failure. I then monitored voltage, the avionics and
time.
The result was similar to the earlier simulation with the auto lamps:
the
avionics went out at about 1.5 hours.
Since this test was over in an hour and a half, only a voltmeter and
clock
were needed to gather data and the battery was re-charged in a
reasonable
time via my external power jack. This convinced me that the battery
could be
used until the next condition inspection.
Should anyone wonder during the second year about the battery endurance,
the
test could be conducted at any time with the expenditure of a couple of
hours.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
My apology, Mr/Ms/Mrs dblumel. I meant no offense to XeVision. You make
an excellent product. In fact, I likely would have bought it at Sun n Fun
several years ago except that the guy working your booth was quite rude.
So, I went to the Precise Flight booth and found an opposite response. I
bought their product.
I don't know where Precise Flight buys their bulbs, but I do know they work
very well for my application (RV-8A). I do plan to upgrade to the 50 or
70W version. I do not work for Precise Flight nor have any working or
financial relationship with them.
My LED recognition lights can easily be seen 5 miles away, but they are
very directional. At that distance they have to pointed at you to be seen.
Within 1 mile, they can be seen about 30-40 degrees off center. If one
designs reflective material into the lamp assembly, the angle-off visibility
improves.
Stan Sutterfield
XeVision developed and made available 50 watt HID in early 2005 and 75
watt HID
about 2 years ago for special applications.
Both the 50 and 75 watt HID from XeVision are used in the Eurocopter line
of Helicopters
within their TC and as an upgrade.
Note: the industry std. is to rate this HID technology based on Watts
output (to
the bulb), not using input to the ballasts as the rating. This is a common
problem
with Asian made HID products and their wattage ratings.
The ONLY quality HID bulbs in the 35-75 watt range are made in Europe. The
Asians
including Korea are a long way from matching the QC, life and performance
provided
by Philips, Osram (Sylvania) and GE HID bulbs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
The EV200 is a different animal from the ubiquitous-coil/solenoid/contact
or. I did lots of
research on this. Notice the activation and latched current? Very small. Yo
u don't
need diodes. The EMF part, I'm-not sure about. The diode on the classic c
ontactor is
to suppress the voltage spike from the collapsing field, thus protecting th
e switch from arching and-reduced life and failure.
-
I don't recall the details, but the EV200 uses different mechanical geometr
y and electro-
magnetism activation and scheme that is more efficient, while maintaining r
idiculous power
specs.
-
I also looked at the cost v benefit. On a Lancair, cost no object, EV200 wh
y not. For the
average home built, even my RV7 the standard contactors are fine. Still the
price of the
EV200 has come way down; it's an attractive option now, especially for savi
ng weight. It
does not weigh a lot less it self versus a standard contactor, but it uses
about +0.50 amps
less to stay latched. For guys trying to fly day/night deluxe VFR with a li
ghter wight-30 or
40 amp alternator, every 0.50 amp counts.
-
These are my opinions. If you don't like them, request a refund for what yo
u paid for it.
-
Cheers.
-
-
>From: mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactor
s
>I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactor
s ended
>up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the con
tactors,
>and whether they're necessary.- We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
>and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to in
stall
>the diodes.- Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV20
0s.
>But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF pr
otection.=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
In a word - no.
LEDs are still relatively expensive - especially when the word airplane is
associated with it.
I was able to accomplish what you described, but at a cost of $600+
Prices are dropping, but not rapidly.
However, consider using 12v MR-16 bulbs. They are lightweight, cheap,
bright, easy to install, and readily available. The major drawback is heat.
They get VERY hot. You would need to ventilate them. They get much hotter
than LEDs, which themselves must be use heat sinks.
There are many types or MR-16s - some with IR lenses, some without, some
that let the IR out thru the reflector, some that send all IR out the front,
some that are blue tinted to give a blue light, 50w, 35w, 75w, spot,
flood, wide ... lots of variables.
Before buying the LEDs, I had settled on the 65W, 12 degree spot MR-16 bulb
with a plan to add a 12v computer fan to help cool it.
Stan Sutterfield
"Cheap", let's say $50 dollars for each LED assy so $100 total (both
wings).
"Bright", let's say easily noticed wig-wagging from at least 2-3 miles
away,
within a 20-30 deg angle from head-on.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
The Tyco EV200 has built-in back EMF suppression according to the engineer at Tyco
Kilovac. I didn't ask him what kind of suppression, but he confirmed that
it wasn't necessary to have any external suppression. The LEV series needs external
suppression. The EV series has a circuit that reduces coil amperage once
it closes also.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
In a message dated 10/13/09 13:27:27 Mountain Daylight Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
writes:
The EV200 is a different animal from the ubiquitous coil/solenoid/contactor. I
did lots of
research on this. Notice the activation and latched current? Very small. You don't
need diodes. The EMF part, I'm not sure about. The diode on the classic contactor
is
to suppress the voltage spike from the collapsing field, thus protecting the switch
from arching and reduced life and failure.
I don't recall the details, but the EV200 uses different mechanical geometry and
electro-
magnetism activation and scheme that is more efficient, while maintaining ridiculous
power
specs.
I also looked at the cost v benefit. On a Lancair, cost no object, EV200 why not.
For the
average home built, even my RV7 the standard contactors are fine. Still the price
of the
EV200 has come way down; it's an attractive option now, especially for saving weight.
It
does not weigh a lot less it self versus a standard contactor, but it uses about
+0.50 amps
less to stay latched. For guys trying to fly day/night deluxe VFR with a lighter
wight 30 or
40 amp alternator, every 0.50 amp counts.
These are my opinions. If you don't like them, request a refund for what you paid
for it.
Cheers.
>From: mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors
>I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactors ended
>up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the contactors,
>and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
>and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install
>the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
>But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 11:58 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>TYCO's document at
>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
>says, "It is the velocity of the armature that is most affected by
>coil suppression. If the suppressor provides a conducting path, thus
>allowing the stored energy in the relay's magnetic circuit to decay
>slowly, the armature motion will be retarded and the armature may
>even temporarily reverse direction."
>
>TYCO's document seemed credible until the above paragraph.
>I agree with Bob. The TYCO article is BS.
Very astute observations sir. And they
agree with my own . . . along with conditions
I measured on the bench. Drop-out
delay is strongly influenced by current
decay in the coil when the armature is
seated. Contact spreading velocity is a
function of BOTH coil current AND
the AIR-GAP in the magnetic path once the
armature becomes unseated. An air gap in
any magnetic pathway has a huge effect. Reverse
direction? Yeah, right.
So once you allow coil current to fall
just enough to unseat the armature, the rate
at which the armature accelerates is more
strongly influenced by the air-gap than
by decay in magnetic field. I WAS able to
detect perhaps 2 or 3% increase in spreading
velocity for "fancy" versus "hammer-n-tongs"
coil suppression . . . too small to be
significant terms of service life.
I also used a fast 'scope to observe differences
in arcing during the contact break without
and then with various coil suppression techniques.
Yes, there were differences. So small and so
variable that I couldn't hang my hat on coil
suppression as having any observable effect
on service life of the CONTACTORS and LARGE
RELAYS under investigation.
These simple-ideas can be observed and
combinational effects duplicated . . . as
well they should be. It's the repeatable
experiment that determines whether you
have a souffle, scrambled-eggs and cheese,
or garbage.
Your attention to detail sir is commendable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Battery Capacity Testing |
Hi Carlos,
The short answer is: yes. I used a stop watch function on my wristwatch.
In the first capacity tests with the dummy load of auto lamps, I checked
the voltage at convenient intervals like 10 minutes until it approched
11 volts because I was unsure what to expect. I even plotted the data.
When it started to change more rapidly I checked more often. From fully
charged, around 12.7 volts to near 11 volts, the change is very slow.
Near 11 volts, the decline is quite rapid.
After I knew better what to expect, during the actual tests in the plane
in the hangar, I just checked the voltage periodically and noted when
the avionics failed. It was part of my condition inspection tests so, I
had other things to do on the plane.
There are plenty of fancier automated ways to test without personally
monitoring. (Bob Nuckolls has published a timer that will count until
the battery voltage drops to a predetermined voltage.) However, I felt
that I could "squander" an hour and a half once a year looking at a
voltmeter and my watch, and even multitasking with other tasks I had in
the hangar.
Regards,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Trigo
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re:Battery Capacity Testing
Perhaps a dumb question about a small detail, but to conduct these
capacity tests, how did you measure the time, were you one and a half
hours looking at the voltmeter to see when it reached the 11V?
Carlos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Dudley
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 13 de Outubro de 2009 18:36
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:Battery Capacity Testing
For what it is worth, here are my battery endurance procedure
experiences.
For the first and second annual condition inspections of my RV-6A, I
decided to follow the procedure of replacing my 17/18 AH RG battery
rather than do an endurance check. The battery had cost only $50 and I
treated it as expendable.
Meanwhile, after the second condition inspection, I conducted
experiments on the replaced battery. Based on measured current draw of
the avionics and instruments that I considered necessary in the event of
an alternator failure I used automobile lights in parallel to simulate a
load equivalent to the expected current drain.. I confirmed the current
drawn with that load. Then I monitored the voltage and the time until
the battery reached 11 volts. It turned out that with a current of about
9 amps, I had 1.5 hours endurance on a battery that had been used for a
year. This pretty much agreed with the published endurance curves for
that battery.
For the third condition inspection, I decided to test the year-old
battery in place in the aircraft. To accomplish this, I switched on the
"endurance" bus, turned on the avionics and instruments that I
considered essential after alternator failure. I then monitored voltage,
the avionics and time. The result was similar to the earlier simulation
with the auto lamps: the avionics went out at about 1.5 hours.
Since this test was over in an hour and a half, only a voltmeter and
clock were needed to gather data and the battery was re-charged in a
reasonable time via my external power jack. This convinced me that the
battery could be used until the next condition inspection.
Should anyone wonder during the second year about the battery
endurance, the test could be conducted at any time with the expenditure
of a couple of hours.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matroni
cs.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity testing |
Ed and Richard,
Good job gentlemen! A fine thinker and craftsman of repeatable
experiments once opined:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express
it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning
of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced
to the state of Science." -Lord Kelvin-
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig-Wagging LED lamps |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
Stan, my name is Dan (Male).
Your comment is rather "interesting" in light of the fact that we have NEVER had
a booth at Sun N Fun, in fact we (nor I or any employee) have never even attended
Sun N Fun. So I am not sure how we could have been rude to you or anyone
else at "our booth".
Precise Fight uses Osram (Sylvania) brand D1S HID bulbs for their 35 watt applications.
This bulb is made in Germany.
Dan
[quote="Speedy11(at)aol.com"]My apology, Mr/Ms/Mrs dblumel. I meant no offense
to XeVision. You make an excellent product. In fact, I likely would have bought
it at Sun n Fun several years ago except that the guy working your booth
was quite rude. So, I went to the Precise Flight booth and found an opposite
response. I bought their product.
I don't know where Precise Flight buys their bulbs, but I do know they work very
well for my application (RV-8A). I do plan to upgrade to the 50 or 70W version.
I do not work for Precise Flight nor have any working or financial relationship
with them.
My LED recognition lights can easily be seen 5 miles away, but they are very
directional. At that distance they have to pointed at you to be seen. Within
1 mile, they can be seen about 30-40 degrees off center. If one designs reflective
material into the lamp assembly, the angle-off visibility improves.
Stan Sutterfield
> XeVision developed and made available 50 watt HID in early 2005 and 75 watt
HID
> about 2 years ago for special applications.
>
> Both the 50 and 75 watt HID from XeVision are used in the Eurocopter line
of Helicopters
> within their TC and as an upgrade.
>
> Note: the industry std. is to rate this HID technology based on Watts output
(to
> the bulb), not using input to the ballasts as the rating. This is a common
problem
> with Asian made HID products and their wattage ratings.
>
> The ONLY quality HID bulbs in the 35-75 watt range are made in Europe. The
Asians
> including Korea are a long way from matching the QC, life and performance
provided
> by Philips, Osram (Sylvania) and GE HID bulbs.
>
> [b]
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267800#267800
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
That .50 amp savings was why I put one in my Aerovee powered Sonex
with a 20 amp alternator. I had already mounted a fine cheap one from
B&C but I had an opportunity to get one cheap and replace it.
"Scotty, I need more power"
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:24 PM, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> The EV200 is a different animal from the ubiquitous coil/solenoid/
> contactor. I did lots of
> research on this. Notice the activation and latched current? Very
> small. You don't
> need diodes. The EMF part, I'm not sure about. The diode on the
> classic contactor is
> to suppress the voltage spike from the collapsing field, thus
> protecting the switch from arching and reduced life and failure.
>
> I don't recall the details, but the EV200 uses different mechanical
> geometry and electro-
> magnetism activation and scheme that is more efficient, while
> maintaining ridiculous power
> specs.
>
> I also looked at the cost v benefit. On a Lancair, cost no object,
> EV200 why not. For the
> average home built, even my RV7 the standard contactors are fine.
> Still the price of the
> EV200 has come way down; it's an attractive option now, especially
> for saving weight. It
> does not weigh a lot less it self versus a standard contactor, but
> it uses about +0.50 amps
> less to stay latched. For guys trying to fly day/night deluxe VFR
> with a lighter wight 30 or
> 40 amp alternator, every 0.50 amp counts.
>
> These are my opinions. If you don't like them, request a refund for
> what you paid for it.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
> >From: mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for
> Contactors
>
> >I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on
> contactors ended
> >up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of
> the contactors,
> >and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac
> EV200s
> >and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's
> tougher to install
> >the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the
> EV200s.
> >But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back
> EMF protection.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Bill,
If you can do it, Jim's setup is ideal.
Stan Sutterfield
I have my flap switch on the throttle and trim on the stick. Works great
for
me
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Bill,
There is nothing wrong with or dangerous about putting your flap switch on
the control stick. However, one must use due diligence when activating a
switch on the stick when one has more than one switch on the stick. For
example, I have flap switch, trim switch and starter switch all on the top of
my stick. I also have PTT, AP disconnect and smoke on the stick.
However, I've flown fighters for years and I'm comfortable with HOTAS. It would
be easy to accidentally activate the flaps when reaching for the trim (I
disable my starter button with a switch when flying). If the flaps are
accidentally started down, you simply switch them back up immediately.
So, while it is not dangerous to have flaps (or any other switch) on the
stick, it might be prudent to put it on the panel or near the throttle if
you are a private pilot who trained in aircraft that used a panel mounted flap
switch. If you prefer to have switches on the stick, then wire it that
way.
I would tell you how I wired mine, but mine is unique and may not fit your
needs. Is there another builder nearby that can help?
If you can't find help, contact me directly (off the forum) and I'll talk
you through my installation.
Stan Sutterfield
My 2 cents--
Keep the stick simple and place the flap switch on the panel.
Peter
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
> if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Bradburry
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
>
>
>
> I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
> the
> flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
> I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
> pole
> switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
> control
> the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
> will have to be off.
> The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
> wire
> this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 2 Alternator Split System |
| From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
As I design my system, I have a question regarding which alternator to use to power
the main flight/nav instruments...I'm planning an IFR all electric panel.
I do plan to have back up instruments on the other buss.
I have the small B&C 20 amp gear driven alternator, and a 60 amp PP belt driven.
This will be going on an IO520.
I plan to run the busses, with an interconnect in the event of failure of one of
the alternators.
Which alternator should I plan to power the "more critical" buss?
Does it matter...?
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267842#267842
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
You can put a flap switch on the control stick and install an airspeed relay
like this
http://www.aircraftextras.com/RelaySpeedCont1.htm
which will give you accidental flap deployment protection.
I know that this is not the KIS way, but it is a way.
I'm not related to "aircraft extras", just an happy customer (although
didn't test it in flight yet)
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: quarta-feira, 14 de Outubro de 2009 1:45
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches
Bill,
There is nothing wrong with or dangerous about putting your flap switch on
the control stick. However, one must use due diligence when activating a
switch on the stick when one has more than one switch on the stick. For
example, I have flap switch, trim switch and starter switch all on the top
of my stick. I also have PTT, AP disconnect and smoke on the stick.
However, I've flown fighters for years and I'm comfortable with HOTAS. It
would be easy to accidentally activate the flaps when reaching for the trim
(I disable my starter button with a switch when flying). If the flaps are
accidentally started down, you simply switch them back up immediately.
So, while it is not dangerous to have flaps (or any other switch) on the
stick, it might be prudent to put it on the panel or near the throttle if
you are a private pilot who trained in aircraft that used a panel mounted
flap switch. If you prefer to have switches on the stick, then wire it that
way.
I would tell you how I wired mine, but mine is unique and may not fit your
needs. Is there another builder nearby that can help?
If you can't find help, contact me directly (off the forum) and I'll talk
you through my installation.
Stan Sutterfield
My 2 cents--
Keep the stick simple and place the flap switch on the panel.
Peter
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Bruce Gray wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Alternator Split System |
It's been awhile since I went through this thinking when I adopted Bob's
Z-14 design - split bus, dual alt, dual batt. But the conclusion I came
to 2 years ago (was it that long?) was that there are few if any failure
scenarios that would put you in a situation where your panel wouldn't
outlast your fuel. It was even challenging to come up with a scenario
where the aircraft couldn't be re-fueled and ferried to a repair station
(like home). The Z-14 can be a very robust system.
But I'll have to admit that I irrationally chose the Z-14 because I
liked its symmetry.
When I did my planning for 3 GRT HX's , G430W, SL30, GTX(Txpndr), TT AP,
PMX9000EX, and TT ADI for backup, I ended up with B&C 40 and 20 amp
Alts. It seemed to me that once you went to the Z-14, the size of the
Alts was entirely driven by the total load rather than any backup
(critical Alt) scenario. But I haven't thought that one thru in awhile
(rivet, rivet, sand).
Bill "dreaming of flying this dream ship sooner rather than later" Watson
RV-10
al38kit wrote:
>
> As I design my system, I have a question regarding which alternator to use to
power the main flight/nav instruments...I'm planning an IFR all electric panel.
I do plan to have back up instruments on the other buss.
>
> I have the small B&C 20 amp gear driven alternator, and a 60 amp PP belt driven.
This will be going on an IO520.
>
> I plan to run the busses, with an interconnect in the event of failure of one
of the alternators.
>
> Which alternator should I plan to power the "more critical" buss?
>
> Does it matter...?
>
> Al
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267842#267842
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Alternator Split System |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
I have this bus setup in my plane. If the 60A is on bus A and the 20A is on bus
B, then you have to plan your loads accordingly so that loads on each bus do
not exceed about 80% of the rated alternator capacity (just a rule of thumb).
The busses normally run totally independently of each other, and only tie together
if you have an alt fail on one of the busses, in which case you may need
to load shed.
Some avionics, like most newer EFIS, have dual power inputs, and you can feed these
off of both busses (the inputs are isolated from each other). In that case,
I recommend that bus A be set to about .3 volt higher than bus B so that the
power is drawn from the bigger alternator under normal conditions.
You can also install Comm1 on bus A and comm2 on Bus B, for example, just for
redundancy too.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267899#267899
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Alternator Split System |
At 09:16 PM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>As I design my system, I have a question regarding which alternator
>to use to power the main flight/nav instruments...I'm planning an
>IFR all electric panel. I do plan to have back up instruments on
>the other buss.
>
>I have the small B&C 20 amp gear driven alternator, and a 60 amp PP
>belt driven. This will be going on an IO520.
>
>I plan to run the busses, with an interconnect in the event of
>failure of one of the alternators.
>
>Which alternator should I plan to power the "more critical" buss?
>
>Does it matter...?
Hard to tell. An analogy to the framework of
your question might be, "I've got this
D8 caterpillar and a yard full of matching
implements . . . how should I use them?"
It depends . . . on whether your task is to
build a road up a rocky mountainside . . . or
to prepare your wife's flower beds for the
planting of pansies.
I've often reminded our bothers on the List
that electrical system failures of well qualified
hardware have not been high on the list of
really uncomfortable days in the cockpit. 99%
of all dark-n-stormy night stories that include
electrical system issues would not have
happened if the airplane had been fitted with
active notification of low voltage, a well
tended battery of known capacity, and a pilot
versed in Plan-B activities designed to deal
with alternator failure.
So the lucid answer to your question depends on
our understanding of your design goals. Why Z-14?
What was it about Z-18/8 or Z-12 that failed to
meet a perceived hazard to comfortable completion
of flight? You mention an IFR panel . . . which
doesn't help much. Every airplane I rent from
C-140 to A-36 has an "IFR Panel". Is it your
intent to spend a lot of time flying in unfriendly
environments like night time over rocks cloaked
in clouds? Z-20 is not well suited to a Lancair,
Z-14 is not suited to a Kitfox. The answer
to your question lies in a well considered
analysis of the airplane, mission, environment
and even perhaps your experience level and skills.
Z-14 was crafted as a means by which the most
demanding of flight environments and missions
could be accommodated. Z-14 is a STEP
UP from what you get in a Beechjet or a
King Air. Those airplanes have dual everything,
even dual autopilots. Interestingly enough
however, only ONE battery which demand continuous
closure of a cross-feed contactor and a much
more complicated procedure for dealing with
failures of major components.
So before we attempt to noodle through your Z-14
architecture, we need to know how Z-13/8, or
Z-12 failed to meet a requirement. Those systems
are lighter, lower cost of ownership, less
complicated and STILL offer system reliability
on a par with a Beechjet.
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: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
At 06:22 AM 10/14/2009, you wrote:
>You can put a flap switch on the control stick and install an
>airspeed relay like this
>
><http://www.aircraftextras.com/RelaySpeedCont1.htm>http://www.aircraftextras.com/RelaySpeedCont1.htm
>
>which will give you accidental flap deployment protection.
>I know that this is not the KIS way, but it is a way.
>
>I'm not related to "aircraft extras", just an happy customer
>(although didn't test it in flight yet)
Interesting. I would caution folks about urges
to add "bells and whistles" to their projects
"just because we can". The FARS began speaking to
the style, location and operation of flap and
landing gear handles very early on. Years of
experience with mis-operation of the simplest
of control systems drove the heavy duty thinkers
to advise (if not demand) standards that go
directly to reduction of accident due to error
(human factors) and/or failure (equipment
lacking robustness), or failure tolerance
(UN-elegant design).
The product cited in the link above is an interesting
discussion point. Diaphragm switches for low delta-
pressure (IAS sensors) are not very robust. Hardly
a device I could get qualified onto a TC aircraft
for the goal of "increased safety" . . .
Emacs!
The relay board in the picture uses "mash-em"
terminal strips not unlike those used in other
products offered to the OBAM aviation community
. . .
Emacs!
again . . . another technology that I would not even attempt
to qualify onto a TC aircraft. No gas tightness of electrical
connections, no support of wires adjacent to the stress-riser
at the connections.
I can only counsel caution when the siren call of "change"
is strong. It's prudent to understand the foundations
upon which the "status quo" exists. The elegant design
philosophy calls for lowest practical count of robust
parts and processes combined with an accommodation of
human frailties. What's the return on investment for replacing
simple, traditional flap and gear controls with new
whiz-bangs? Especially whiz-bangs that intended to make
add "convenience" to a 2-second action that happens 4x per
flight cycle? How does the proposed change improve or
degrade overall system reliability? What do the new whiz-
bangs offer in terms of risk for unintended operations?
Twice the parts count says you're twice as likely to
experience a failure-to-operate event.
May I further suggest that products like those illustrated
above do not move the state of our art in the right
direction?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Thanks Stan
It has worked great for 4 yrs. I also have the flip flop radio, auto pilot disconnect,
IDENT. and strobes on the stick buttons.
I have been happy with this arrangement.
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Speedy11(at)aol.com" <Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tue, October 13, 2009 5:47:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches
Bill,
If you can do it, Jim's setup is ideal.
Stan Sutterfield
I have
> my flap switch on the throttle and trim on the stick. Works great
> for
>me
>Jim
>
>James Robinson
>Glasair lll N79R
>Spanish
> Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
In my last reply I failed to mention a few things. Normally the throttle is full
forward from takeoff to nearing approach. The switch has to be pressed up
or down. Very difficult to inadvertently activate and if activated with the gear
up the gear warning horn would sound. If it failed it would not be a safety
of flight concern. No other electrical clutter needs be installed. I find
this no more complex or failure prone than a switch on the panel
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Speedy11(at)aol.com" <Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tue, October 13, 2009 5:47:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches
Bill,
If you can do it, Jim's setup is ideal.
Stan Sutterfield
I have
> my flap switch on the throttle and trim on the stick. Works great
> for
>me
>Jim
>
>James Robinson
>Glasair lll N79R
>Spanish
> Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Electronics International MVP-50 Display |
I'm currently struggling with a display issue. The MVP-50 has a
photocell which dims the display under low light conditions. With the
unit installed in the panel and audio fed to an unswitched input on
the PS Engineering PMA4000 audio panel, there is a distinct hum in the
headset when the display is fully dimmed. The hum gradually fades to
nothing with normal daylight conditions. The display can be set to dim
automatically or manually through an external dimmer pot and I hear
the same result either way. I called the folks at EI in Oregon and
with the phone held near the speaker in the cockpit, they were able to
hear the hum!
The initial suspect was a ground loop problem but this was ruled out
because when I removed the display and powered it up on the bench and
connected my headset directly to the audio output, I was able to
reproduce the same hum. Unfortunately, I don't have a scope to see
what I hear.
EI requested that I return the unit since they were convinced the
problem was internal to the display.
Now here's the weird part. Their techs were not able to duplicate what
I heard AND what they heard over the phone.
They say the display is operating normally and I got it back
yesterday. My first action was to set it back up on the bench and Low
and Behold, the hum is still there when the display is dimmed.
Any suggestions here would be most helpful since I'm beginning to
think that electrons behave differently on the west coast vs the east
coast!
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M. Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Electronics International MVP-50 Display |
I'm currently struggling with a display issue. The MVP-50 has a
photocell which dims the display under low light conditions. With the
unit installed in the panel and audio fed to an unswitched input on
the PS Engineering PMA4000 audio panel, there is a distinct hum in the
headset when the display is fully dimmed. The hum gradually fades to
nothing with normal daylight conditions. The display can be set to dim
automatically or manually through an external dimmer pot and I hear
the same result either way. I called the folks at EI in Oregon and
with the phone held near the speaker in the cockpit, they were able to
hear the hum!
The initial suspect was a ground loop problem but this was ruled out
because when I removed the display and powered it up on the bench and
connected my headset directly to the audio output, I was able to
reproduce the same hum. Unfortunately, I don't have a scope to see
what I hear.
EI requested that I return the unit since they were convinced the
problem was internal to the display.
Now here's the weird part. Their techs were not able to duplicate what
I heard AND what they heard over the phone.
They say the display is operating normally and I got it back
yesterday. My first action was to set it back up on the bench and Low
and Behold, the hum is still there when the display is dimmed.
Any suggestions here would be most helpful since I'm beginning to
think that electrons behave differently on the west coast vs the east
coast!
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International MVP-50 Display |
At 08:11 AM 10/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>Any suggestions here would be most helpful since I'm beginning to
>think that electrons behave differently on the west coast vs the east
>coast!
Until you identify the propagation mode, a solution
is not easy to deduce. It seems most likely that
the noise is conducted on the 14v supply lines.
Try operating either or both devices from separate
12v sources (preferably batteries) and see what
combination, if any eliminates the noise.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikeeasley <mikeeasley(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Bi-Directional Zener vs. Diode and Zener in Series |
for Coil Suppression
In the SnapJack literature, Eric shows the comparative merits of various forms
of coil suppression. One option is the diode and zener in series. Eric list
this option as "second best", showing the downside of having to get the polarity
right. I think I can overcome that!
I ran this question by the engineer at Kilovac Tyco, specifiying the Tyco LEV100
contactor in a 24-28V electrical system and his response was:
Use a 1N5406 or equivalent for the blocking diode, and a 1.5KE39A voltage suppressor
diode or equivalent for the clamping diode. Connect them common anode, and
connect the cathode of the blocking diode to the +24 Vdc line of the coil,
the cathode of the TVS diode to the coil return. Common clamping for a 28Vdc aircraft
system is -42V maximum, and most contactors rated to MIL-Specs have coil
suppression using a diode+zener diode combo. Bi-directional zeners are not
generally used due to concerns of higher overvoltages expected during lightning
strikes. The failure mode, you have to assume is the worst thing, which is a
short, but as I mentioned, this suppression method is pretty robust, and common
for this type of application. This will also give the best performance for
the contacts.
So is anyone willing to explain why the diode-zener diode is more robust than the
bi-directional zener (SnapJack) method?
I understand that you have the ability to control the ratings of each diode which
might be preferable to a bi-directional diode where you don't.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Bi-Directional Zener vs. Diode and Zener in Series |
for Coil Suppression
>
>So is anyone willing to explain why the diode-zener diode is more
>robust than the bi-directional zener (SnapJack) method?
Not sure why "robustness" is being questioned. If one
is addressing lightning issues (like we do on TC aircraft)
then it's a WHOLE NEW BALLGAME. It's not uncommon to select
transient management devices rated to stand off 600V tranisents
with a 100 ohm source impedance (6A short circuit). An that's
for INDIRECT effects of lightning. If your electrowhizzie's
wiring is at risk for direct strike . . . well.
Lightning strikes and load dumps are NOT spikes. These
are high-energy over-voltage events that are managed
with something much more than a sprinkling of diodes or
Transorbs of appropriate "ratings".
>
>I understand that you have the ability to control the ratings of
>each diode which might be preferable to a bi-directional diode where you don't.
I think I explained that electrical stresses placed on
the coil suppression device are limited in voltage to
ordinary levels experienced on the airplane's electrical
system. It's limited in current based on demands of
the energized relay or contactor coil. Total energy
is a time dependent function measured in ten of
milliseconds.
The short answer is that you're worrying about breaking
the handle on your sledge hammer while using it to
squash ants.
The "ratings" of all commonly used devices far exceed
the electrical stresses the device is expect to
accommodate. I.e., electrical ROBUSTNESS so tiny a
a concern, I find it more useful to select devices for
their mechanical ROBUSTNESS.
Please review the documents offered on aeroelectric.com that
speak to "spikes". 99.9% of what is considered common
knowledge about the existence and risks of "spikes"
is urban legend elevated to what ever level of concerns
will sell more/better prophylactics against electrical
gremlins and goblins.
I spent a lot of get-yer-hands-dirty time looking at the best
and the worst of electrical system events on aircraft.
There's a REASON that spike suppression in the Z-figures
is limited to a very few components using very simple
devices.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bell and Whistles |
Bob,
Are you also opposed to the flap positioning systems that are available to
set flaps to preselected positions? And opposed to the trim speed
adjustment devices that change the trim speed at a chosen airspeed?
Similar devices aren't used on certificated aircraft?
Stan Sutterfield
I would caution folks about urges
to add "bells and whistles" to their projects
"just because we can".
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International MVP-50 Display |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
Can you hear the noise while in cruise flight? As far as I can tell, many planes
have some sort of noise from strobes, autopilot servos, alternator whine, etc.
but once in flight the noise is really not bothersome.
So from a pragmatic perspective, if it's not bothering you in flight then maybe
it's acceptable.
Just another thought to ponder...
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268228#268228
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 605 TES/DOA" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Listers -
I'd like to repair a Van's MAP Gauge that has suffered an overheat. All the
resistors on the board except one appear to be 1/8-watt and in good
condition. The lone 1/4-watt resistor is marked R19 (from faulty memory).
It's damaged beyond my ability to read the stripes.
Anybody know the value of this resistor?
neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bells and Whistles |
At 07:57 PM 10/15/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>Are you also opposed to the flap positioning systems that are
>available to set flaps to preselected positions?
I am CAUTIOUS about any system that imparts motion
to flight control systems with motors.
> And opposed to the trim speed adjustment devices that change the
> trim speed at a chosen airspeed?
>Similar devices aren't used on certificated aircraft?
Sure, they're called autopilots.
I've been to OSH about 14 times in the past 24
years. Many starry-eyed entrepreneurs in the OBAM
aircraft market have offered a host of capabilities for
any number of "accessories". It was interesting
to consider the market potential for these products
and probability that the hopeful seller could bring
it to market.
One question I always asked was, "In what ways
can your device INCREASE risk for an unhappy day
in the cockpit?" Most were surprised. Some had
considered failures but virtually none had explored
the question to the breadth and depth dictated by
lessons-learned in the TC aircraft world.
My first opportunity to control motors driving
flight surfaces was to craft a servoed, multi-speed
trim speed controller for the 50 and 30 series Lears.
Fortunately, this was a relatively simple task because
the basic manual system already had control protocols
in place that required TWO failures in of a manually
operated system to occur before un-commanded motion
could take place. Further, any single failure was
to be detectable by a pre-flight/in-flight operable
warning system.
That experience laid the ground work for future
projects where failure mode effects analysis
was perfected to insure that no single event
of worse than 10 to the minus 6 failure rate
could cause un-commanded motion. Pre-flight
testable monitoring system were put in place
to detect and sometimes prevent other failures
from proceeding too far. Increasing levels
of automation (sometimes involving software)
increases the levels of concern exponentially.
When I read that my brothers in the OBAM aircraft
venue are adding what appears to be purely
convenience features to controls for motor driven
flight surfaces, some well worn flags go up in
my head. There are time proven methodologies for
conceiving, developing, prototyping, testing,
manufacturing, installing and maintaining such
systems.
I cannot "object" to the incorporation of such
devices . . . the builder's design goals are
their own. I'm only warning that what might appear
to be a "really neat" thing to do can offer
un-expected and perhaps hazardous increase in
risk. The first question I always ask: "What's
the value added for this new electro-whizzy.
Does the value added more than offset the
cost of a prudent development program?"
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FLIR EVS (was XeVision HIDs) |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
That does not deal with daytime collision avoidance at all.
Dan
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268267#268267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:51 PM 10/9/2009, you wrote:
>So Bob I'm a little confused and late to follow this thread so I
>apologize if it's been covered. I'm interested in the AUX batt
>managment/LOW voltage module but dont see it on your site. I gather
>it's in develorment, when do you expect it will be available?
Sorry, I thought you were asking about
the 9024, 4-function module that IS under
development and WILL offer those functions
among others.
The original 9005 ABMM has been discontinued
and converted to a DIY project. ECB layout
files for EXPRESS PCB along with an assembly
guide has been posted to.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Barrow <bobbarrow10(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto tacho signal |
I have a magneto serving my bottom plugs and LightSpeed EI serving my top p
lugs.
Because I wanted to be able to read engine speed at run-up with either the
magneto or EI turned off I installed a transducer that screws into the acce
ssory pad (where the mechanical tach sender would normally attach). This gi
ves me a tachometer signal at all times to send to the glass Engine Managem
ent system.
But now some-one is telling me that the magneto continues to provide a tach
o signal even when it is switched off. Is that true. Have I wasted my time
and money installing a tachometer transducer.
cheers Bob Barrow
_________________________________________________________________
Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox Find out how here
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=823454
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Thanks Bob, do you have a rough idea when it will be available? I'm hoping
to start the electrical this spring.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Appendix Z
At 12:51 PM 10/9/2009, you wrote:
>So Bob I'm a little confused and late to follow this thread so I
>apologize if it's been covered. I'm interested in the AUX batt
>managment/LOW voltage module but dont see it on your site. I gather
>it's in develorment, when do you expect it will be available?
Sorry, I thought you were asking about
the 9024, 4-function module that IS under
development and WILL offer those functions
among others.
The original 9005 ABMM has been discontinued
and converted to a DIY project. ECB layout
files for EXPRESS PCB along with an assembly
guide has been posted to.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:32:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
Bob,
Got the same setup and have an Electronics International tach which
looks at the signal from both ignitions and displays the one still
turned on during ignition checks. That way I can see the RPM drop on
both sides. Don't know who makes your glass, but you might want to check
with them and see if their device can do that, too. When we got the
plane, the tach only read the Lightspeed. The tach dropped to zero when
the Lightspeed was switched off. It wasn't optimal, but sorta got used
to not seeing the drop. I listened for it, instead. I eventually sent
the tach back to the factory and had it re-rigged to display both. If I
had to choose between the electronic ignition signal and the one from a
transducer plugged into the tach cable hole on the engine, I'd take the
electronic ignition - it's going to be more accurate.
I'm not sure what signal there is to sense while the mag is grounded.
With the P-lead grounded by the switch, the primary coil in the mag
doesn't get it's magnetic field suddenly collapsed when the points open
and doesn't induce a huge current into the secondary coil and thus
doesn't fire the plug. I think the signal the tach is looking for is
sudden drop in voltage on the P-lead as it is suddenly disconnected from
ground by the opening points. With the switch closed, everything that
the primary generates goes straight to ground and the lead from which
you would get your tach signal is also grounded.
To change the subject slightly, I've always wondered about having the
backup ignition be less reliable than the main. Sure, a magneto doesn't
need the electric system to keep working - until it quits working right,
anyway, like mine did yesterday. Did the 500hr inspection on it less
than a hundred hours ago and the brand new condenser took a crap and
took out the points. My next plane will have dual Lightspeeds. Ours
hasn't changed a degree in timing in the 6+ years we've been flying it.
Say that about a magneto.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Bob Barrow wrote:
> I have a magneto serving my bottom plugs and LightSpeed EI serving my
> top plugs.
>
> Because I wanted to be able to read engine speed at run-up with either
> the magneto or EI turned off I installed a transducer that screws into
> the accessory pad (where the mechanical tach sender would normally
> attach). This gives me a tachometer signal at all times to send to the
> glass Engine Management system.
>
> But now some-one is telling me that the magneto continues to provide a
> tacho signal even when it is switched off. Is that true. Have I wasted
> my time and money installing a tachometer transducer.
>
> cheers Bob Barrow
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find out how here Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox
> <http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=823454>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:39 PM 10/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob, do you have a rough idea when it will be available? I'm hoping
>to start the electrical this spring.
>Tim
Certainly this winter. I'm still moving, building benches
and shelves, sorting keep-it/sell-it stuff between two
households and sorta remodeling the Wichita house as
I go. Want to get my kids moved into it before Thanksgiving.
We're playing musical houses right now!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Magneto tacho signal |
Hi Bob B.,
I also have one LightSpeed electronic ignition and one magneto. I have
a Grand Rapids engine information system. I wired the engine
information system to accept either the RPM signal from the electronic
ignition or the RPM signal from the magneto, controlled by a toggle
switch*.
I never use the toggle switch and use the RPM signal from the electronic
ignition as the only input. As you said, that means my RPM goes to zero
when I briefly switch off the electronic ignition during the pretakeoff
runup . That has never been a problem for me because I rely on exhaust
gas temperature on each cylinder to confirm that all spark plugs powered
by each ignition system are firing. I believe that is a better method
than measuring the RPM drop on a single ignition system, which was
probably used before airplanes had EGT readings on each cylinder.
The electronic ignition has been 100% trouble free so far, but if it
failed in flight, I would lose my tachometer reading. I have enough
experience with my airplane by now that I don't think I'd have any
difficulty continuing flight to my planned destination without a
tachometer.
Best,
Dennis
Lancair Legacy, nearly 300 tach hours
*The Grand Rapids EIS must be configured correctly for the type of tach
signal that it receives. I configured mine for the signal produced by
the electronic ignition, which is different than the signal produced by
the magneto. So if I ever switched the toggle switch to display RPM
from the magneto, the actual number would be way off, but by a knowable
amount. In nearly 300 hours of flying, I've never actually used the
toggle switch to select RPM from the magneto and if I had it to do over
again, I would leave it out of my design. Higher parts count,
additional complexity, another point of failure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
At 02:05 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Got the same setup and have an Electronics International tach which
>looks at the signal from both ignitions and displays the one still
>turned on during ignition checks. That way I can see the RPM drop on
>both sides. Don't know who makes your glass, but you might want to
>check with them and see if their device can do that, too.
Good idea. I think most electronic/glass tachs
offer dual sensing capability.
> When we got the plane, the tach only read the Lightspeed. The tach
> dropped to zero when the Lightspeed was switched off. It wasn't
> optimal, but sorta got used to not seeing the drop. I listened for
> it, instead. I eventually sent the tach back to the factory and had
> it re-rigged to display both. If I had to choose between the
> electronic ignition signal and the one from a transducer plugged
> into the tach cable hole on the engine, I'd take the electronic
> ignition - it's going to be more accurate.
Actually, the "accuracy" of tachometer signals
is dead-on irrespective of technology. These
are integer pulse signals of so many pulses per
engine revolution and are not subject to errors
of calibration. Now, reading a p-lead offers some
challenges with respect to lots of short spikey
signals riding on the signal of interest but that's
a simple filtering issue that does not affect the
accuracy of the signal of interest.
>I'm not sure what signal there is to sense while the mag is grounded.
For a p-lead sense tach, this is right-on. Some models
of tachometer have a vent-plug in the side you can
replace with a hall or electro-magnetic transducer
that watches poles of the magneto's magnet fly by.
This sort of "mag pickoff" is functional whether or
not the magneto is operating.
>To change the subject slightly, I've always wondered about having
>the backup ignition be less reliable than the main. Sure, a magneto
>doesn't need the electric system to keep working - until it quits
>working right, anyway, like mine did yesterday. Did the 500hr
>inspection on it less than a hundred hours ago and the brand new
>condenser took a crap and took out the points. My next plane will
>have dual Lightspeeds. Ours hasn't changed a degree in timing in the
>6+ years we've been flying it. Say that about a magneto.
"Reliable" or "service-life"? Had this mag been
functioning as-expected for 500+ hrs? I'll suggest
there's value in making a distinction between
COMPONENT reliability/service-life and SYSTEM
reliability. System reliability is calculated
by plotting all critical failure modes on a
"reliability tree" and performing the math
that predicts probability of total loss of system
(the whole airplane) function when viewed through
the relatively narrow window of one flight cycle.
System reliability is enhanced when you have dual
sources for critical functionality . . . i.e. dual
ignition. The question to be pondered is, "what is
the liklihood that I loose BOTH systems in any one
tank full of gas?" I'll suggest further that
your experience with the magneto has been pretty
much on a par with the rest of the folks in the
industry. Changing it out would not mathematically
improve your system reliability.
With respect to "mag drop" . . .
The engine slows down slightly when deprived of
half of the sparks for ignition due to an apparent
retardation of spark. This happens because mags
are fixed timing to accommodate worst case
operations (sea level, full power). When you install
one or two electronic ignitions that watch
manifold pressure and appropriately advance the
spark, you don't get as pronounced (if any) mag
drop when shutting one ignition off. The the only
reason NOT to fly when presented with no (or
un-symmetrical) mag drop is to investigate a
"shift in timing". Such events suggest sloppy
work by the mechanic who last tightened the
mag attach hardware.
It's far more important to simply know that
each ignition source functions independently
of the other irrespective of how much the
tachometer reading changes for each condition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
>The electronic ignition has been 100% trouble free so far, but if it
>failed in flight, I would lose my tachometer reading. I have enough
>experience with my airplane by now that I don't think I'd have any
>difficulty continuing flight to my planned destination without a tachometer.
Aha! I think you could do it too. Our flight instructors
never gave us lessons in what was NECESSARY for low risk
flight, what was USEFUL for flight and what one could
do to cope loss of one or more instruments.
I used to have guys come to 1K1 to rent my airplanes
and when going for a get-acquainted ride with them,
it was not uncommon to have a prospective renter who's
eyes were glued to the instruments . . . or at least
spent very little time outside the cockpit.
One fellow was so concentrated on watching the needles
I borrowed one of our instructors set of block-out
patches and covered EVERYTHING on one of our
C-150's and invited him to go flying with me. I was
able to demonstrate comfortable operation of the airplane
without knowing what ANY of the numbers were. But
that operation was based on staying well inside
the airplane's limits by referencing things I had
explored about visual cues for pitch and power simply
based on where the throttle was and what the engine
sounded like and position of the nose with respect
to the horizon.
I got to go retrieve the company A36 when one of
our pilots left the airplane on the Dodge City
airport because the "tach had died". He didn't know
enough about the airplane to even check the tach
cable fittings (the one on the engine had come
loose). But even if we hadn't fixed the tach
before bringing the airplane home, it would have
been no big deal to fly it back with a dead tach.
One of the really nice things about the OBAM aviation
community is that builders are inherently more
knowledgeable about their airplanes but many
of us still drag a lot of the "padded cockpit"
environment with us. Airplanes don't crash
because a gage quit, airplanes crash because
the pilot lost his connection with the machine.
You can't loose something you never had.I would
encourage everyone, starting with their fly-off,
to explore flight operations with all manner of
degraded instrumentation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
Howdy,
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 02:05 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>
> "Reliable" or "service-life"? Had this mag been
> functioning as-expected for 500+ hrs? I'll suggest
> there's value in making a distinction between
> COMPONENT reliability/service-life and SYSTEM
> reliability. System reliability is calculated
> by plotting all critical failure modes on a
> "reliability tree" and performing the math
> that predicts probability of total loss of system
> (the whole airplane) function when viewed through
> the relatively narrow window of one flight cycle.
Reliable? Functioning as expected? Well, yes.... if it is expected to
foul plugs and deliver rough mag checks requiring more lean running at
high RPM to clear up before taking off. Granted, that doesn't happen
every time as we operate very lean on the ground to try and minimize
this kind of behavior. Requiring much more maintenance? I guess that's
expected, too. Cleaning and gapping plugs takes an inordinate amount of
time. All that lead that gets stuck down by the insulator doesn't come
out easily. I just buy new $3 plugs every year for the Lightspeed and
done (and the old ones are never lead fouled, anyway). The timing always
changes between annuals because of wear on the points and must be reset.
And no, it didn't work for 500hrs this time. At the 500hr inspection
(yet more maintenance not required on an electronic ignition), the wear
items (points, condenser, bearings, seals - none of which exist on the
crank sensor Lightspeed) were replaced and this was only about 80hrs
before failure. By the way, this is the Bendix mag. It's meant to be
rebuilt as many 500hr cycles as you want, unlike the throwaway Slick
mag. 80hrs is way too soon for problems to occur, yet sometimes they do.
>
> System reliability is enhanced when you have dual
> sources for critical functionality . . . i.e. dual
> ignition. The question to be pondered is, "what is
> the liklihood that I loose BOTH systems in any one
> tank full of gas?" I'll suggest further that
> your experience with the magneto has been pretty
> much on a par with the rest of the folks in the
> industry. Changing it out would not mathematically
> improve your system reliability.
Changing it out with another mag certainly wouldn't improve system
reliability. Comparing my experience with the magneto to my experience
with the electronic ignition, I think my system reliability would
improve, measurably, by replacing it with an EI. The EI never fouls
plugs, never (so far) requires unscheduled maintenance. The maintenance
that it does require, such as checking timing and replacing plugs at
annual, is quick, cheap and easy. I could even re-use the plugs. They're
always in great shape after a year and a couple hundred hours of use.
If the only reason to have 2 ignitions was for backup - maybe. The
problem is that these engines with big ass pistons really need 2
functional ignitions to get the flame spread over with before the moment
has passed to make useful power. The 25 degree BTDC timing (fairly
standard, although there are exceptions) is a compromise designed to
maintain a margin of safety from detonation at full power and sea level.
The EI fires at the same timing under those conditions. At high altitude
(read low manifold pressure), 25 degrees is way too late for best power
and there is no danger of detonation, so the EI advances to as much as
40 degrees BTDC. This puts the moment of maximum cylinder pressure at
the crank position of greatest leverage (about 19 degrees ATDC). The
magneto fires 15 degrees later than the EI and is not much help. The
role of the magneto under these conditions is truly as a backup system.
The EI also puts out a much hotter spark fired over a larger spark plug
gap. At lean mixtures especially, this ignites the mixture more
reliably. Klaus claims another 5% improvement in fuel economy with a
second EI. If much of your flying is in cruise, I'd think this is
probably about right. It'd probably take a while to pay for the new
ignition that way, though.
>
> With respect to "mag drop" . . .
>
> The engine slows down slightly when deprived of
> half of the sparks for ignition due to an apparent
> retardation of spark. This happens because mags
> are fixed timing to accommodate worst case
> operations (sea level, full power). When you install
> one or two electronic ignitions that watch
> manifold pressure and appropriately advance the
> spark, you don't get as pronounced (if any) mag
> drop when shutting one ignition off. The the only
> reason NOT to fly when presented with no (or
> un-symmetrical) mag drop is to investigate a
> "shift in timing". Such events suggest sloppy
> work by the mechanic who last tightened the
> mag attach hardware.
Asymmetrical mag drop is one thing. As you said, this is to be expected
with 2 different types of ignition. Rough running on one ignition is
something else and indicates fouled plugs or another, possibly worse,
failure. This is definitely a good reason not to fly until cleared up as
you are now down to one good ignition. This raises the odds that you'd
have 2 failures on 1 tank of gas to an unacceptable level.
>
> It's far more important to simply know that
> each ignition source functions independently
> of the other irrespective of how much the
> tachometer reading changes for each condition.
Hear, hear. Another thing is: the traditional mag check at 1600 or 1700
RPM and full rich doesn't really tell you much about the true condition
of the ignition system. My magneto passed this check, yet ran rough in
flight, causing me to return to the airport. Not an emergency, also not
at all comfortable. A more thorough check can be done at altitude,
leaned. This shows up problems you might not notice on the ground check.
Unfortunately, I didn't do this before landing on the prior flight.
Pax,
Ed
>
> Bob . . .
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
Well, there is something wrong, as I never have to touch my Bendix mags
in less than 400 hours, and then only to tweak the timing by a degree or
so. I don't need to burn off deposits at runup. I do routinely pull the
bottom plugs at annual and clean them...top plugs every other year, just
to get rid of the small amounts of lead. Your points should not wear
that fast. Either the condenser isn't right, allowing faster pitting, or
the cam isn't properly lubed allowing it to wear. 600-700 hours between
inspections for new points, etc. is what I have been getting with my
S200 series 4 cylinder mags. Sure, I would like variable timing, but the
total improvement with both ignitions optimized is only going to be
about 5%. Any claim for more is dreaming. You might consider having a
reputable magneto specialty shop go through that mag. There may be more
bearing or rotor wear allowing slop in the rotor, or something else wrong.
Ed Holyoke wrote:
the relatively narrow window of one flight cycle.
The timing always
> changes between annuals because of wear on the points and must be reset.
> And no, it didn't work for 500hrs this time. At the 500hr inspection
> (yet more maintenance not required on an electronic ignition), the wear
> items (points, condenser, bearings, seals - none of which exist on the
> crank sensor Lightspeed) were replaced and this was only about 80hrs
> before failure. By the way, this is the Bendix mag. It's meant to be
> rebuilt as many 500hr cycles as you want, unlike the throwaway Slick
> mag. 80hrs is way too soon for problems to occur, yet sometimes they do.
> If the only reason to have 2 ignitions was for backup - maybe. The
> problem is that these engines with big ass pistons really need 2
> functional ignitions to get the flame spread over with before the moment
> has passed to make useful power. The 25 degree BTDC timing (fairly
> standard, although there are exceptions) is a compromise designed to
> maintain a margin of safety from detonation at full power and sea level.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bells and Whistles |
Bob,
I understand and concur with your concern.
For example, I prefer manual flaps over electro-whizzy ones, but I can't
argue that there are many applications where powered flaps (electric or
hydraulic) are desirable. There are failure modes associated with powered
flaps that may cause potentially unsafe situations. However, those failure
modes are considered an acceptable risk when weighed against the convenience.
I have to then challenge you and suggest that having (as an example)
airspeed sensors that can disable powered flap activation when IAS is excessive
may be a convenience worth having despite it's potential failure modes.
That is not to say that said sensor need not be robust - I would assume that
robustness would be expected. I believe the application of such a sensor
to a perceived need could be worthwhile.
The Vertical Power concept takes this discussion to a new level. While I
prefer having manual activation of most of my switches and controls, the
Vertical Power ideas are certainly viable.
Experimental aviation is where many (if not most) advances in aviation
occur. I say lets continue to advance aviation by expanding ideas and
concepts - including new electro-whizzys. We don't have to stay with wing-warping
just because it resulted from a prudent development program. Although ...
maybe we need to consider it once again in today's environment. Hmmm ...
any experimental aviation nuts out there willing to rework the wing warp
idea?
Stan Sutterfield
The first question I always ask: "What's
the value added for this new electro-whizzy.
Does the value added more than offset the
cost of a prudent development program?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XeVision HIDs |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
If your car came with HID stock and you have not changed your bulbs to Chinese
bulbs, there is no way your car has 6000 or 6500K bulbs.
All cars come from the factory with 4200K bulbs. Your headlight projector may be
making it look bluer.
The highest DOT legal bulb color is 5000 to 5400K. These bulbs do not come in new
cars but are for replacement only to match an older aged bulb color that has
color shifted. Philips offers a 5000K, GE a 5100K and Osram a 5400K. Those are
the highest color bulbs legal in the USA for autos. All cars in the USA come
with 4200K bulbs.
The only TRUE 50 or 75 watt bulbs currently being made are about 4000K.
We have tested many of the Asian made (including Korea) bulbs, some TRY to handle
50 bulb watts but none do it very well. As for 70 or 75 watt, Only the Germans
have a track record or results with that bulb power level.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268377#268377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: XeVision HIDs |
Interesting info from a subject expert.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
PS - the 2000 TT was stock HID.
If your car came with HID stock and you have not changed your bulbs to
Chinese
bulbs, there is no way your car has 6000 or 6500K bulbs.
All cars come from the factory with 4200K bulbs. Your headlight projector
may be
making it look bluer.
The highest DOT legal bulb color is 5000 to 5400K. These bulbs do not come
in new
cars but are for replacement only to match an older aged bulb color that
has
color shifted. Philips offers a 5000K, GE a 5100K and Osram a 5400K. Those
are
the highest color bulbs legal in the USA for autos. All cars in the USA
come
with 4200K bulbs.
The only TRUE 50 or 75 watt bulbs currently being made are about 4000K.
We have tested many of the Asian made (including Korea) bulbs, some TRY to
handle
50 bulb watts but none do it very well. As for 70 or 75 watt, Only the
Germans
have a track record or results with that bulb power level.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto tacho signal |
Only the E/P-mag (afaik) continues to provide a tach signal with the
ignition switch turned off. A Slick or Bendix mag will stop producing
pulses when the ignition is turned off (unless a vent plug pick-up is
installed). I suspect you haven't wasted your money.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Barrow
Sent: 17 October 2009 02:17
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto tacho signal
I have a magneto serving my bottom plugs and LightSpeed EI serving my
top
plugs.
Because I wanted to be able to read engine speed at run-up with either
the
magneto or EI turned off I installed a transducer that screws into the
accessory pad (where the mechanical tach sender would normally attach).
This
gives me a tachometer signal at all times to send to the glass Engine
Management system.
But now some-one is telling me that the magneto continues to provide a
tacho
signal even when it is switched off. Is that true. Have I wasted my time
and
money installing a tachometer transducer.
cheers Bob Barrow
_____
Find out how here Use
<http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=823454> Messenger
in
your Hotmail inbox
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XeVision HIDs |
| From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
According to my research your cars has D2S bulbs. Most likely Philips but also
possibly Osram brand. If those are the original bulbs you should consider to replace
them. They are 9 years old and likely producing only ~70% of the original
lumens. That is unless you drive very little at night. after 2000 hours of
use you should consider to replace the bulbs. You will notice a difference but
your old ones will be at ~5000 K while new bulbs at 4200K.
Dan
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268438#268438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bells and Whistles |
At 09:14 PM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I understand and concur with your concern.
>For example, I prefer manual flaps over electro-whizzy ones, but I
>can't argue that there are many applications where powered flaps
>(electric or hydraulic) are desirable. There are failure modes
>associated with powered flaps that may cause potentially unsafe
>situations. However, those failure modes are considered an
>acceptable risk when weighed against the convenience.
>I have to then challenge you and suggest that having (as an example)
>airspeed sensors that can disable powered flap activation when IAS
>is excessive may be a convenience worth having despite it's
>potential failure modes. That is not to say that said sensor need
>not be robust - I would assume that robustness would be expected. I
>believe the application of such a sensor to a perceived need could
>be worthwhile.
>The Vertical Power concept takes this discussion to a new
>level. While I prefer having manual activation of most of my
>switches and controls, the Vertical Power ideas are certainly viable.
All the above is non-quantifiable and subject to
comparison with business models as a "viable"
product and failure modes as a "low risk" product.
I don't think I offered anything as a recommendation
to be challenged. I was only suggesting that when
it comes to automated systems there is an increased
risk of pilot inattention and dependence on that
automation. There is also a common-sense observation
that hooking motors to flight surfaces has a long
history of lessons-learned that the majority of
OBAM aviation enthusiasts are unaware of.
>Experimental aviation is where many (if not most) advances in
>aviation occur. I say lets continue to advance aviation by
>expanding ideas and concepts - including new electro-whizzys. We
>don't have to stay with wing-warping just because it resulted from a
>prudent development program. Although ... maybe we need to consider
>it once again in today's environment. Hmmm ... any experimental
>aviation nuts out there willing to rework the wing warp idea?
Not sure what this has to do with the conversation.
Indeed, the first time anything new is tried, the
investigator is an "amateur" at a particular
task. Experimental flight test USED to be the place
where new things were tried and developed before
loading those ideas to the production line. Reliability
is inversely proportional to parts count. Cost of
ownership goes up with parts count as does weight,
volume and sometimes - panel space. Flying an airplane
is not a complex or difficult task . . . "convenience"
just doesn't add performance or reduce cost.
Uncle Bert's design goals for Voyager was ALL performance
driven, convenience had little if any part in the task.
I've worked on biz jets where it was possible for a
flight to be totally button-pushed and knob-twisted
from wheels-up to touch-down. Now THAT's convenience
. . . but the airplane didn't get there any faster nor
did it carry more payload.
Airplane owners come in all flavors but I would hope
they are ALL cautious and strive for competence at
the implementation of their personal design goals.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto tacho signal |
>
>If the only reason to have 2 ignitions was for backup - maybe. The
>problem is that these engines with big ass pistons really need 2
>functional ignitions to get the flame spread over with before the
>moment has passed to make useful power.
Understand. But having both ignition systems operating
all the time is not a safety issue . . . only
a performance issue.
Not an emergency, also not at all comfortable. A more thorough
check can be done at altitude, leaned. This shows up problems you
might not notice on the ground check. Unfortunately, I didn't do this
before landing on the prior flight.
Again, a performance issue that does not put
the flight at serious risk for an off-airport
return to earth.
To be sure, there is a host of simple-ideas affecting
performance and reliability that builders are encouraged
to consider in crafting his/her design goals.
System reliability conversation targets risk reduction.
Many cause/effect features in an FMEA will speak
to reductions in performance or increases in pilot
workload. The goal is to maximize probability
of putting the rubber back on the ground with the
aluminum smooth and folks aboard smiling.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 2-10 swtich spacing |
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to ask Bob Nuckolls
on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone with the information. I
am not sure why B&C would not know technical information for items they sell!
I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10 switches fit,
but with very little room between them.
Is there a minimum space between switches required?
Thanks for the help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 swtich spacing |
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
When I had my panel cut out by e-panel builders a while ago they used
1' 1/8 center
Franz
On 19/10/09 1:58 PM, "rvg8tor" wrote:
>
> I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to ask Bob
> Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone with the information.
> I am not sure why B&C would not know technical information for items they
> sell!
>
> I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10 switches
> fit, but with very little room between them.
>
> Is there a minimum space between switches required?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Franz Fux
Director of Operations
Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd.
Bell 2 Lodge
P.O. Box 1237
Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6
CANADA
Office Contact
T: (250) 558-7980
F: (250) 558-7981
http://www.lastfrontierheli.com
Lodge Contact
T: (250) 275-4770
F: (250) 275-4912
http://www.bell2lodge.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | 2-10 swtich spacing |
I seem to recall Bob M suggested 0.9 inch spacing.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvg8tor
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 1:58 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 swtich spacing
I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to ask Bob
Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone with the
information. I am not sure why B&C would not know technical information for
items they sell!
I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10
switches fit, but with very little room between them.
Is there a minimum space between switches required?
Thanks for the help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vaughn Teegarden" <europaul260i(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 swtich spacing |
In Bob Nukolls original Aeroelectic drawings I am sure he showed 0.8 inch
spacing, but in his newer version he has 0.9 inch spacing. I believe you
will have to wait for an answer from the man himself. His experience is
vast, while most of us have little to none.
Europa XS191
----- Original Message -----
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 16:58
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 swtich spacing
>
> I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to ask Bob
> Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone with the
> information. I am not sure why B&C would not know technical information
> for items they sell!
>
> I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10
> switches fit, but with very little room between them.
>
> Is there a minimum space between switches required?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: King KMD150 battery |
Hi guys.. My King KMD150 in my experimental has started to display the
dreaded "internal battery needs replacing".. I googled the details and
it looks like a kinda involved process to pull the unit apart, carefull
y separate some PC boards and solder in a new one. Battery + and Battery
giant has them for 5 bucks so the parts cost is minimal. Anyone know a
tech who does the R&R for a reasonable price ? If not it looks like I w
ill break out the soldering stuff and give it a try.
Thanks in advance
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
The Art Institutes
Offering Programs In Media Arts, Culinary, Fashion, & Design.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=AB_T2Vm23Js3pZvKDRat0
QAAJ1GgTD6yWnN9nTOcXhzb7nn5AAQAAAAFAAAAAMP1KD4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhBI
QAAAAA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Reynolds <richardreynolds(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 swtich spacing |
1 inch to provide finger and wiring space.
Richard Reynolds
Norfolk VA
RV-6A - N841RV
On Oct 19, 2009, at 4:58 PM, rvg8tor wrote:
> >
>
> I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to
> ask Bob Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone
> with the information. I am not sure why B&C would not know
> technical information for items they sell!
>
> I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10
> switches fit, but with very little room between them.
>
> Is there a minimum space between switches required?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> --------
> Mike "Nemo" Elliott
> RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Angier M.Ames" <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RST-523 Marker Beacon Receiver Kit |
If anyone in the group has recently constructed this receiver, I've
got a few questions.
Please contact me off list.
Thanks,
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: King KMD150 battery |
| From: | "zwakie" <mz(at)cariama.nl> |
Ben,
If the KMD150 is similar to the SkyMap IIIC this is a very simple thing to do.
(for those intereseted, I have attached the instructions for the SM IIIC)
Even for non-techies (like myself) it won't take much more than 20 minutes.
Marcel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268670#268670
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/skyforce_battery_change_1_225.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 swtich spacing |
At 09:32 PM 10/19/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>In Bob Nukolls original Aeroelectic drawings I am sure he showed 0.8
>inch spacing, but in his newer version he has 0.9 inch spacing. I
>believe you will have to wait for an answer from the man himself.
>His experience is vast, while most of us have little to none.
What ever will fit for you. There are no "standard
practices" driven by switch size. There are human
factors issues that usually speak to manipulation
by the fingers without operating more than one
switch . . . and the size of placard lettering.
I don't think we ever used smaller than 1/8" high,
Futura bold style lettering. We did a little study
here on the list where someone was contemplating all
miniature switches to "save panel space". As it turned
out the human factors issues drove limitation that
saved only about 5-10% of total panel area for having
"gone miniature". Going any tighter only made the
switches problematic to operate and/or the placard
lettering too small.
I'm in Wichita this week and away from my Medicine
Lodge data base (maybe I need to try that GoToMyPC
service). But I think the drawings I've published
for exemplar panel layouts with full sized switches
used 0.8" spacing.
There's a fabrication tool that you might consider
for helping you lay out the holes. Somewhere in my
tools I have a piece of steel bar about .1" thick,
1" wide and 5" long with a two rows of #30 holes.
One row is for the switch bushing centers, the
second row is for the anti-rotation tabs.
The drill fixture has 5 sets of holes. You can
drill your first hole in the panel and then Cleco
the fixture to the panel such that the hole at
the other end lines up on the bushings centerline.
Then drill the 5th switch hole.
Install another Cleco and drill the remaining
8 pilot holes. Then use Clecos to move the fixture
two holes at a time along the remainder of the
row of switches. I had the drill fixture made
on a vertical mill with a digital readout. It
offers a way to produce very accurately spaced
hole patterns of any length.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Two Generals - 64 years later |
No comments needed. I think this tableau speaks
well for itself . . .
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Two_Generals.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 swtich spacing |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> I'm in Wichita this week and away from my Medicine
> Lodge data base (maybe I need to try that GoToMyPC
> service).
Try this first. It is actually much easier than it first appears.
http://www.nomachine.com/products.php
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 2-10 swtich spacing |
Really,
Ok, if I sit in your plane and it's .75 I'm going to tell bob J
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 2-10 swtich spacing
1 inch to provide finger and wiring space.
Richard Reynolds
Norfolk VA
RV-6A - N841RV
On Oct 19, 2009, at 4:58 PM, rvg8tor wrote:
I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to ask
Bob Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone with the
information. I am not sure why B&C would not know technical information
for items they sell!
I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10
switches fit, but with very little room between them.
Is there a minimum space between switches required?
Thanks for the help.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
- The -->
&n========================
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 switch spacing |
Yes, room for the replacement switch when the original fails and are
no longer available. It's happened before it will happen again.
If the wire crimp(s) can be mounted on the terminals and not touch by
some reasonable clearance, I would think that would be acceptable
- only exception might be switch controlling very high current loads
which may warm up some.
jerb
At 01:58 PM 10/19/2009, you wrote:
>
>I asked this of B&C who sells the switches but they directed me to
>ask Bob Nuckolls on this forum so I am putting it out for anyone
>with the information. I am not sure why B&C would not know
>technical information for items they sell!
>
>I had drilled holes 3/4" on center for my switches. The bigger 2-10
>switches fit, but with very little room between them.
>
>Is there a minimum space between switches required?
>
>Thanks for the help.
>
>--------
>Mike "Nemo" Elliott
>RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268599#268599
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net> |
I am looking for opinions on my method for connecting wires to the buses. The
top two rows in the photo are my main buss breakers. The big nut at the top is
the 6 awg wire from the battery relay, it is just the lug now. The short wire
labeled P13 is how I connect the top bus bar to the middle bar. This wire
is only 8 awg, I am not sure this is OK since the main feed is a 6 awg wire.
I am using 6 awg based Aeroelectric DWG, but I am guessing I could get away with
8 awg, it is only about 3 feet from the contactor to the bus. I will run wire
from the 8 awg wire where you see it clamped, to the diode on the black heat
sink then to the bottom bus bar which is my essential bus.
Please give me feedback and pointers, I want to know if I am on the right track.
This panel will sit by my right leg along the sloped console of the RV-8A.
I used a castle nut because for a temporary install it is easier to work with.
I am using a AN4 bolt because that is the smallest size lug I could find for
the 6 awg wire.
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Fuselage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268805#268805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
October 04, 2009 - October 21, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jb