AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jg
January 06, 2010 - January 21, 2010
provided by your magneto p-leads. The fact that
the reading "drops" suggests a low signal level
. . . hard to imagine on a p-lead!
However, the VDO input signal conditioning may have
over-attenuated the incoming signal as a by-product
of their own design goals for signal conditioning.
In this case, there's not much you can do outside
the tach short of building some sort of signal-
conditioning device to satisfy the tachometer's
demands.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Question about 16V POLYFUSER Radial Leaded |
Resettable PTC
At 10:23 PM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
>
>I have an EXP bus that I have been considering for my
>project. (That I got for a $40, delivered.) It looks like a slick unit
>
>Sorry, just don't see the design as having much of a downside. If
>you think you may accidentally turn the thing back on, put some red
>tape on the switch or something...pull the wire.
Have you read the discussions on this topic?
Goto http://aeroelectric.com and do a a site
search on . . .
exp bus
Keep in mind that a polyswitch MUST be powered to
STAY tripped. Fault current is reduced to a "safe"
level thus keeping it hot after a trip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 01/05/10 |
Hi guys=2C (I wish there were some girls here too=2C then I wouldn't have t
o waste time on Facebook)
I've been listening here for a few years while building my Murphy Rebel=2C
and now I think I'm actually ready to start wiring. I'm planning to use Z-1
1 and have an occasional-IFR panel with a Garmin 430 and Dynon EFIS. I'm st
ill at the very basic planning phase. I already have a Plane Power 60amp IR
alternator and a Skytec starter to go on my O-320. That's it=2C the rest i
s a blank sheet of paper. I am starting to visualize wire routing and compo
nent placement. I have a couple of beginner questions at this point to help
with this visualization process:
1)With the P.P. alternator I will obviously not have the seperate voltage r
egulator=2C but do I still need the crowbar over voltage protection?
2)The Skytec starter has it's own contactor to engage the gear=2C and apply
power to the motor. According to Skytec=2C I don't need a seperate contact
or for the starter if I use a 20+amp starter switch=2C which I plan to do (
toggle mag switches and seperate starter switch) Are there any cautions for
not using a seperate starter contactor?
Thanks.
Jesse
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Question about 16V POLYFUSER Radial Leaded |
Resettable PTC
From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
I set the premise poorly - let me try again.
On alert, operating a nuclear delivery system, the goal is to maintain
maximum operational capability and flexibility. To that end, the Technical
Order REQUIRED _one_ attempt to restore a tripped circuit breaker, forbade
more than one attempt, and also forbade holding an offending CB closed. In
this situation, the down side to leaving the switch OFF is some reduction in
either capability or flexibility, depending (of course) on which system is
compromised.
On the other hand, NOTHING electrical (except the spark-maker) on my RV is
so critical to my continued survival that it will require troubleshooting
before I get on the ground comfortably. My panel contains exactly one
breaker - the Crowbar OVM. If it trips, I leave it alone, enable the SD8
and decide whether to land soon or later.
============
Neal...having spent some time in the military myself, I know there is ofter
not much thinking that is to be done, and a procedure for almost
everything...
That being said and that we are no longer held to that kind of procedure,
what's the down side to leaving the switch off?
No one says you have to reset it.
My understanding is that once the electrons are removed from the circuit,
it's dead.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Subject: | RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit protection |
Dear Dan
I shouldn't be a pilot (which I am for over 32 years now), I didn't design
or labelled very well my electrical system (which I've done many times),
then, with all the respect, you shouldn't be commenting. sir!
Best regards
Carlos
P.S. You probably didn't read the part of my last comment (the only in which
I didn't panic) when I said I built and fly one airplane with fuses, one
airplane with circuit breakers, and the one I'm currently finishing building
have both. Don't loose your time, just hit the delete button
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Brown
> Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Janeiro de 2010 16:02
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about
circuit
> protection
>
>
> Quoting Carlos Trigo :
>
> > 2) You are flying along in your airplane with Fuses, the radio goes
dead,
> > and nothing else happens. What do you do? Fly the airplane!! not
knowing
> > what happened. Did I loose the alternator? Is there anything that is
going
> > to start a fire? What should I do? Should I land ASAP? Shall I declare
an
> > emergency? Next, anything can happen to the pilot, even panic
>
> Losing the alternator won't take out the radio, unless you don't have
> a battery (in which case it will take out everything electrical).
> Losing the alternator will, however, activate the low-voltage warning
> that you have installed (don't you?), letting you know that you're
> running on battery power. If you're panicking (as most of your
> questions sound like) over losing one radio, you probably shouldn't be
> a pilot.
>
> > When you get on the ground you troubleshoot the problem. If it was a
fuse,
> > it can take some time to find out which.
>
> If it takes you more than 30 seconds to find which fuse goes to that
> radio, you haven't designed or labeled your electrical system very well.
>
> --
> 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: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protection
This fuse versus CB discussion raises this questions with me - perhaps
someone can clear it up.
Are any of the current/modern avionic boxes really depending on the CB
or fuse for their internal 'protection' of anything?
I know many units specify a fuse/CB size and sometimes a wire size but I
just size the fuse to protect the wire and try to use a limited number
of adequate wire sizes. My understanding is that various units have
various means of protecting themselves from spikes, etc. And if any kind
of failure starts drawing more amps than the wire/fuse/cb can provide,
pop goes the external protection.
So I'm thinking that if the radio fails, it fails and I use the backup
radio.
If the wire leading to the radio shorts on rough edge or something, the
radio fails and I use the backup radio.
And since fuses are so cheap, I have a separate circuit for practically
every unit on the panel so there is a 1:1 ratio between units and fuses.
If multiple things fail, then it's an electrical system problem -
haven't worked out the details yet but I hope on my Z-14, I just
crossfeed to use the backup Alt/Batt system or otherwise go to the backups.
And if it smokes, open the windows, make sure it stopped smoking or hit
a master until it does. Land ASAP.
What are the holes in this thinking?
Carlos Trigo wrote
> *.Two simple examples:*
> * *
> *1)** **You are flying along in your airplane with **circuit breakers**, the
radio goes dead, and a breaker button pops out. What do you do? **Fly the
airplane**, knowing that something happened in the electric circuit that is protected
by that particular circuit breaker. If the radio (or anything else that
went dead) is not critical to your flight, you complete it with no other worries*
> *2)** **You are flying along in your airplane with **Fuses**, the radio goes
dead, and nothing else happens. **What do you do? **Fly the airplane!!** not
knowing what happened. Did I loose the alternator? Is there anything that
is going to start a fire? What should I do? Should I land ASAP? Shall I declare
an emergency? Next, anything can happen to the pilot, even panic*
> * *
> *When you get on the ground you troubleshoot the problem. **If it was a fuse,
it can take some time to find out which. If it was a circuit breaker, I will
go IMMEDIATELY to the source of the problem*
> * *
> *If the added cost for the row of little buttons to pop out, on the dash, gives
you a sense of security, I say GO FOR IT......** I have 1 airplane with fuses,
1 airplane with cbs, and the one Im finishing building have both. Not biased,
though **J** Only analysing pros and cons*
> * *
> *Carlos*
> * *
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Electrical System Planning |
At 11:45 AM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
I'm planning to use Z-11 and have an occasional-IFR panel with a
Grmin 430 and Dynon EFIS. I'm still at the very basic planning phase.
Do you plan to have vacuum driven instruments?
If not why not Z13/8?
1)With the P.P. alternator I will obviously not have the separate
voltage regulator, but do I still need the crowbar over voltage protection?
Plane Power INCLUDES crowbar OV protection on their OBAM
aircraft alternators.
2)The Skytec starter has it's own contactor to engage the gear, and
apply power to the motor. According to Skytec, I don't need a
separate contactor for the starter if I use a 20+amp starter switch,
which I plan to do (toggle mag switches and separate starter switch)
Are there any cautions for not using a separate starter contactor?
No.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Subject: | RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit protection |
'Lectric Bob
I do agree with you. Fuses have many technical advantages, weight, price,
simplicity of wiring and others.
I also agree with you that it is a matter of choice or preference.
That's why, in my perspective as a pilot, I do prefer circuit breakers.
>From me, end of discussion.
Thanks
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Janeiro de 2010 16:55
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about
circuit protection
At 07:00 PM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
Bob
I really don't want to resuscitate this discussion but, even being aware of
the technical advantages of fuses versus circuit breakers, it is indeed
almost impossible to convince a pilot that a fuse is better than a circuit
breaker.
It has never been offered as 'better' . . . only
adequate to the task of meeting design goals in
a failure tolerant system.
In flight, when a fuse blows, the pilot will hardly notice it, and even if
some device (whose circuit was protected by that fuse) becomes blank, he
will not know if it was the fuse or anything else that caused that device to
die.
Have you read . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvbkr2.html
If a circuit breaker pops out, there is a big probability the pilot will
immediately notice it, or at least after seeing any device die, he will
immediately look to the circuit breakers heads to look for the one that
popped out.
Being a pilot trained for so many things, he must also know that he shall
not push that particular breaker in, unless he wants to light up the fire
which will burn his own ass.
It's not clear that you embrace/understand the
rationale presented for unreachable fuse-blocks.
Certainly everyone has a choice to make and
in the final analysis it's personal. I did a
power distribution diagram for the BD-10 jet
about 15 years ago. I bounced the idea of fuse-blocks
off the electrical systems wienie. He agreed that
they were adequate to the task but opined that
anyone building a BD-10 wanted that "busy fighter
cockpit look. The more knobs, buttons and switches
the better." But even after the drawing was completed
using breakers throughout, he about had a cow when
I put about a dozen breakers back in the engine
compartment. The architecture called for protection
in these feeders and the sources for those feeders
were in the tail. Further, there was no failure
mode effects analysis that supported any need for
pilot access to these breakers whatsoever. Nonetheless,
he insisted on having all breakers in the cockpit.
I submitted my bill for work accomplished to date
and bowed out of the project. Got a nastygram from
Mr. Bede hisself honking about the fee and stating
that his electro-wienie wasn't authorized to make
contracts. I settled for 50 cents on the dollar
and chalked it up to the fates.
Have you identified errors in the logic offered in many
published pieces on the website and here on the
List that speak to suitability of fuses? If not,
then like the BD-10 episode, it's a matter of preference.
Breakers and their panels are not unsafe. They're
only heavier, more expensive, take up panel space,
require hours of fabrication time, restrict
wire bundle routing options, offer no enhanced level
of safety and MAY be distracting to a pilot who should
be doing more important things.
But if one chooses breakers, they're in good company.
The vast majority of the GA fleet is carrying tons
of them around the sky with a vanishingly small
probability that any single breaker will ever be
called upon to do its job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protection
Dear Dan
I shouldn't be a pilot (which I am for over 32 years now), I didn't
design
or labelled very well my electrical system (which I've done many times),
then, with all the respect, you shouldn't be commenting. sir!
Best regards
Carlos
P.S. You probably didn't read the part of my last comment (the only in
which
I didn't panic) when I said I built and fly one airplane with fuses, one
airplane with circuit breakers, and the one I'm currently finishing
building
have both. Don't loose your time, just hit the delete button
Carlos, my friend,
You have apparently made up your mind that circuit breakers are superior
to
fuses, even though several people on the forum have tried to show you
the
logic and advantages of fuses.
May I suggest that you finish building your aircraft, using resettable
circuit breakers, since this gives you a greater comfort level.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protection
If multiple things fail, then it's an electrical system problem -
haven't worked out the details yet but I hope on my Z-14, I just
crossfeed to use the backup Alt/Batt system or otherwise go to the
backups.
And if it smokes, open the windows, make sure it stopped smoking or hit
a master until it does. Land ASAP.
Bill,
I think you have it right! However if I had multiple
failures, I believe that I would be heading for "Terra Firma" without
delay.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Question about 16V POLYFUSER Radial Leaded |
Resettable PTC
With regards to the use of Polyfues I believe there was something in
a recent issue of Kit Planes (hunting for it now) that the FAA does
not accept their use in certified aircraft - some thing about if
there is a problem with a circuit they want the circuit protection to
keep the circuit disabled and not to re-energize itself
automatically. You may be able to use them in experimental but if
your building in Sport LSA, that may be an issue. I'm trying to find
the issue and page where I read this.
jerb
At 08:23 PM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
>
>I have an EXP bus that I have been considering for my
>project. (That I got for a $40, delivered.) It looks like a slick unit.
>
>I can understand the concern for a circuit resetting itself after
>the power is restored...but isn't that a reason we put switches on
>things?...Like leave that circuit off if it has a problem...
>
>Sorry, just don't see the design as having much of a downside. If
>you think you may accidentally turn the thing back on, put some red
>tape on the switch or something...pull the wire.
>
>Al
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280326#280326
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:55 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>P.S. You probably didn't read the part of my last comment (the only
>in which I didn't panic) when I said I built and fly one airplane
>with fuses, one airplane with circuit breakers, and the one I'm
>currently finishing building have both. Don't loose your time, just
>hit the delete button
>
>
>May I suggest that you finish building your aircraft, using
>resettable circuit breakers, since this gives you a greater comfort level.
>
>
>Roger
>
Gentlemen, this isn't about "superiority" of anything over
anything else. It's about meeting design goals for what
we hope will be a failure tolerant system understood by
the pilot and sufficiently fitted to meet the missions
for which the airplane is built.
The pantry of electro-goodies that can be stirred into
a host of recipes for success is huge. Just because any
one of us has a preference over one ingredient vs. another
should not be taken as an invitation to cast disparaging
remarks.
The mission for each of us on the List is to offer/acquire
understanding of how each ingredient functions in
particular situations . . . and not to suggest that anyone
has made a poor choice EXCEPT where we perceive a risk
for not achieving failure tolerance . . . even if the
"preferred" system is heavier, costlier, perhaps more
complex, or uses breakers.
We have a number of folks putting Z-14 into two-place
airplanes with missions that will never tax the system's
ability to mitigate risk. At the same time, for
each individual on the List who has expressed an interest
in exploring the possibilities, there are many, Many,
MANY more who are wiring their airplanes like a 1969
C-172. Are those folks at extra-ordinary risk for a bad
day in the cockpit? No, a modern alternator, active notification
of LV, modern RG battery and a purpose-driven battery
maintenance program makes them 10x better off than we
were in 1950 with generators and lead-acid slop-pots.
The OBAM aviation community, indeed all of light aircraft GA
is under incremental, relentless attack to simply go away.
Our collective future is best served by helping every
OBAM aircraft builder generate and meet design goals consistent
with the best we know how to do . . . while accommodating their
preferences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Z-14 Switch Combos |
From: | "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> |
Thanks Bob...
I'll make it a DPDT and use the second pole for a nag-light indicating
the x-feed switch is closed.
Great design. Thanks for saving us a bunch of work.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Switch Combos
At 10:19 AM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hey Bob,
>
>It looks like the crossfeed switch doubles as a starter switch in your
>diagram, is that correct?
Yes . . . it's spring loaded out of the start position.
It offers automatic closure of the cross-feed contactor
during start.
>I'm planning on going with a push button to start, so I'll probably
>modify the setup slightly. But just want to make sure I'm reading it
>correctly.
Then the cross-feed switch can be SPST.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Ditto!
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Janeiro de 2010 22:04
Subject: AeroElectric-List: List decorum
At 12:55 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
P.S. You probably didn=12t read the part of my last comment (the only in
which
I didn=12t panic) when I said I built and fly one airplane with fuses,
one
airplane with circuit breakers, and the one I=12m currently finishing
building
have both. Don=12t loose your time, just hit the delete button
May I suggest
that you finish building your aircraft, using resettable circuit
breakers, since this gives you a greater comfort
level.
Roger
Gentlemen, this isn't about "superiority" of anything over
anything else. It's about meeting design goals for what
we hope will be a failure tolerant system understood by
the pilot and sufficiently fitted to meet the missions
for which the airplane is built.
The pantry of electro-goodies that can be stirred into
a host of recipes for success is huge. Just because any
one of us has a preference over one ingredient vs. another
should not be taken as an invitation to cast disparaging
remarks.
The mission for each of us on the List is to offer/acquire
understanding of how each ingredient functions in
particular situations . . . and not to suggest that anyone
has made a poor choice EXCEPT where we perceive a risk
for not achieving failure tolerance . . . even if the
"preferred" system is heavier, costlier, perhaps more
complex, or uses breakers.
We have a number of folks putting Z-14 into two-place
airplanes with missions that will never tax the system's
ability to mitigate risk. At the same time, for
each individual on the List who has expressed an interest
in exploring the possibilities, there are many, Many,
MANY more who are wiring their airplanes like a 1969
C-172. Are those folks at extra-ordinary risk for a bad
day in the cockpit? No, a modern alternator, active notification
of LV, modern RG battery and a purpose-driven battery
maintenance program makes them 10x better off than we
were in 1950 with generators and lead-acid slop-pots.
The OBAM aviation community, indeed all of light aircraft GA
is under incremental, relentless attack to simply go away.
Our collective future is best served by helping every
OBAM aircraft builder generate and meet design goals consistent
with the best we know how to do . . . while accommodating their
preferences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 Switch Combos |
Phil
Even better than a double pole switch might be staying with the SPST
switch and wiring the light to actually show when the crossfeed
contactor is activated. If you implement auto paralleling during
cranking, in addition to showing when the switch is active, the light
will then also confirm auto paralleling. If the engine ever cranks
slowly, you will immediately know whether the crossfeed contactor is
being commanded to close.
Ken
Perry, Phil wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob...
>
> I'll make it a DPDT and use the second pole for a nag-light indicating
> the x-feed switch is closed.
>
> Great design. Thanks for saving us a bunch of work.
>
> Phil
>
>
>> Hey Bob,
>>
>> It looks like the crossfeed switch doubles as a starter switch in your
>> diagram, is that correct?
>
> Yes . . . it's spring loaded out of the start position.
> It offers automatic closure of the cross-feed contactor
> during start.
>
>
>> I'm planning on going with a push button to start, so I'll probably
>> modify the setup slightly. But just want to make sure I'm reading it
>> correctly.
>
> Then the cross-feed switch can be SPST.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
May I suggest
that you finish building your aircraft, using resettable circuit
breakers, since this gives you a greater comfort
level.
Roger
The pantry of electro-goodies that can be stirred into
a host of recipes for success is huge. Just because any
one of us has a preference over one ingredient vs. another
should not be taken as an invitation to cast disparaging
remarks.
Bob . . .
The above statement was NEVER said to "cast disparaging remarks". It
was
only to encourage that we stop the back and forth of the same
statements,
"beating the dead horse", and move on with our learning/teaching
process. I
honestly believe that if he feels more comfortable with circuit
breakers,
then he should install them!
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Z-14 Switch Combos |
At 09:58 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob...
>
>I'll make it a DPDT and use the second pole for a nag-light indicating
>the x-feed switch is closed.
You can wire a lamp across the contactor coil to
do that. Consider an LED indicator with resistors
in BOTH leads located right at the contactor. This
eliminates the need to fuse the wires.
>Great design. Thanks for saving us a bunch of work.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>The above statement was NEVER said to "cast disparaging
>remarks". It was only to encourage that we stop the back and forth
>of the same statements, "beating the dead horse", and move on with
>our learning/teaching process. I honestly believe that if he feels
>more comfortable with circuit breakers, then he should install them!
Which is exactly what he will do with or
without anyone's encouragement. The
"disparaging remark" reference went to
someone's suggestions that perhaps he
"shouldn't be a pilot".
As for beating a dead horse . . . this is
a classroom of 1800+ students and teachers
at last count. We need to keep in mind that
while conversations between individuals may
have been discussed many times in the past,
folks who read them today may have been on
the List a short time.
If we can't make the newbies feel welcome
and well informed then we degrade into
a club of elites that discusses only "new"
topics. The delete button works the same
way on everybody's computer and nobody is
being forced to participate in any conversation.
If anyone is weary of a review of old topics,
they can certainly start a thread on any new
topic of their choice.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 variations |
At 12:13 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>This fuse versus CB discussion raises this questions with me -
>perhaps someone can clear it up.
>Are any of the current/modern avionic boxes really depen
>depending on the CB or fuse for their internal 'protection' of anything?
I'm not aware of any supplier to the TC aircraft industry
that ADMITS to such a philosophy in print. I seem to recall
a company that offered some little whiz-bang . . . perhaps
a digital Clock/OAT/Timer? I think they asked that their
supply line be protected by a fuse of 1A max.
Further, I've opened up "smoked" accessories where traces
or internal components were burned as a consequence of
some downstream fault. This kind of failure is often not
repairable. Would the customer have been better served
if the bus feeder were less robust?
>I know many units specify a fuse/CB size and sometimes a wire size
>but I just size the fuse to protect the wire and try to use a
>limited number of adequate wire sizes.
Greg suggested a one-size-fits-all approach to selection
of feeder sizes in his proposed power distribution and
control described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
I think all his PTC's were 20A devices . . . what do
you mean by "limited number of adequate wire sizes"?
Generally MOST of your electronics will fuse at 5 or 7A
You'll have a handful of larger branches like 10A for 100W
landing and taxi lights. Maybe one 20A for a pitot heater.
But I recommend that you not avoid tailoring the size of
individual feeders to their respective tasks.
>My understanding is that various units have various means of
>protecting themselves from spikes, etc. And if any kind of failure
>starts drawing more amps than the wire/fuse/cb can provide, pop goes
>the external protection.
One generally assumes that feeder protection at the
bus has the highest risk of operating from a faulted
wire someplace between the bus and the appliance. The
next risk is generally limited to motor driven devices
where some kind of failure inside the motor draws a
hard-fault level of current.
Beyond this, your fuses/breakers are going to run the
lifetime of the airplane never being called upon to
do their job.
>So I'm thinking that if the radio fails, it fails and I use the backup radio.
Yup.
>If the wire leading to the radio shorts on rough edge or something,
>the radio fails and I use the backup radio.
Yup.
>And since fuses are so cheap, I have a separate circuit for
>practically every unit on the panel so there is a 1:1 ratio between
>units and fuses.
Good lick . . .
>If multiple things fail, then it's an electrical system problem -
>haven't worked out the details yet but I hope on my Z-14, I just
>crossfeed to use the backup Alt/Batt system or otherwise go to the backups.
Likelihood of multiple independent failures in
systems during any single tank full of fuel
is exceedingly rare. So yes, the design goal for
electrical system design is to have no single failure
take down so much bus structure that you loose
so much equipment that the mission is at risk.
Z-11 with the e-bus and a well maintained battery
and a dual feed-path endurance bus was our first
crack at that.
This first step in the evolutionary process was
VERY strong. When the vacuum pump pad opened up,
Z-13/8 increased the continuous load one could
support on the e-bus while holding all the battery
in reserve for approach to landing.
>And if it smokes, open the windows, make sure it stopped smoking or
>hit a master until it does. Land ASAP.
Certainly, smoke in the cockpit calls for killing
the whole electrical system ASAP. Then bring up
the e-bus (and SD-8 if you have it) and see if
you can drop to the get-home mode. If smoke doesn't
come back you're in business. If smoke comes back,
turn everything off and get out the stuff in your
flight bag . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
You DO plan to carry this kind of capability
in the flight bag . . . right?
With Z-14, smoke still calls for shutting down
everything right now. Then bring up half of the
system at a time. The cross-feed contactor
would probably never be closed after a smoke-
in-the-cockpit event.
>What are the holes in this thinking?
No 'holes'. Continue to think, rethink, and
PLAN how you'll react to any single failure
you can imagine. It's unlikely that you'll
have more than one . . . With Z-14 you have
LOTS of options. Experiments with how those
options best play out should be part of a
plan devised on the ground . . . not in flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
> "disparaging remark" reference went to
> someone's suggestions that perhaps he
> "shouldn't be a pilot".
That would be me, and I'm sorry they were taken as disparaging.
Having never met Mr. Trigo, I certainly have no grounds to question
his abilities as a pilot. The questions he was posing, though, (which
I took as hypothetical) sounded very panicky, and such a panicked
reaction to losing only one radio doesn't seem consistent with good
ADM. I was intending to address the hypothetical response he posed; I
didn't (and don't) assume that he would actually respond that way.
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit protection |
From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
> I even have a light test button
Jay, what if the light test button fails?
-Tom
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280497#280497
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
No hard feelings, Don
Let's proceed with our eternal learning process, listening to Bob and other
good teachers on this List
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Brown
> Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Janeiro de 2010 14:28
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: List decorum
>
>
> Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
> > "disparaging remark" reference went to
> > someone's suggestions that perhaps he
> > "shouldn't be a pilot".
>
> That would be me, and I'm sorry they were taken as disparaging.
> Having never met Mr. Trigo, I certainly have no grounds to question
> his abilities as a pilot. The questions he was posing, though, (which
> I took as hypothetical) sounded very panicky, and such a panicked
> reaction to losing only one radio doesn't seem consistent with good
> ADM. I was intending to address the hypothetical response he posed; I
> didn't (and don't) assume that he would actually respond that way.
>
> --
> 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: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
_____
From: Carlos Trigo [mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt]
Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Janeiro de 2010 14:52
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: List decorum
No hard feelings, Dan
Let's proceed with our eternal learning process, listening to Bob and other
good teachers on this List
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Brown
> Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Janeiro de 2010 14:28
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: List decorum
>
>
> Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
> > "disparaging remark" reference went to
> > someone's suggestions that perhaps he
> > "shouldn't be a pilot".
>
> That would be me, and I'm sorry they were taken as disparaging.
> Having never met Mr. Trigo, I certainly have no grounds to question
> his abilities as a pilot. The questions he was posing, though, (which
> I took as hypothetical) sounded very panicky, and such a panicked
> reaction to losing only one radio doesn't seem consistent with good
> ADM. I was intending to address the hypothetical response he posed; I
> didn't (and don't) assume that he would actually respond that way.
>
> --
> 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: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
Just thinking, would there be any value in having CBs on reversible
motors. I'm considering: flap motors; trim motors; gear motors;
variable pitch electric propellers. Perhaps being able to move the
motor in the other direction might have some value or trying again after
a mistake like deploying at too high a speed or in a condition where ice
might have caused an overload. I recognize the low probability of these
things occurring but thought they deserved mentioning in the current
discussion.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Reversible electric motors and CBs |
At 09:21 AM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>Just thinking, would there be any value in having CBs on reversible
>motors. I'm considering: flap motors; trim motors; gear motors;
>variable pitch electric propellers. Perhaps being able to move the
>motor in the other direction might have some value or trying again
>after a mistake like deploying at too high a speed or in a condition
>where ice might have caused an overload. I recognize the low
>probability of these things occurring but thought they deserved
>mentioning in the current discussion.
Careful my friend, you'll be accused of doing
FMEA . . . it's addictive.
What you've hypothesized is a potential for
nuisance tripping the circuit protection in
non-normal or extra-ordinary operations.
My sense is that there are very few motors
at risk for jamming due to environmental
conditions. Flaps and trim surfaces are away
from ice-accretion spots. Ice might gather
close to the hub of a prop blade but those
motors tend to be highly geared and capable
of producing much more torque than is necessary
to move the blades. I think virtually all
OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
pressure relief valves generally address that
issue. Further, large demand devices like
motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
robust protection devices like current limiters.
Extending flaps against cruise speed air-loads
MIGHT be a case where you could pop a fuse . . .
but loads on most flap systems start out low
and ramp up as the flap extends into the
wind. Behavior of the airplane during the first
few degrees of extension would no doubt get
the pilot's attention long before current
demands by the motor put a fuse at risk.
But one can always UP-size a fuse and feeder
to the flap system. PM motors draw so much
current in a stalled state that if you doubled
the size of the fuse (very fast) to accommodate
some perceived transient overload condition
you would not put the motor at risk for other
fault conditions.
That brings up another thought. We know that
unlike breakers, fuses are subject to "wearing"
caused by short term operations at or just above
the fuse's ratings. So if your flap system normally
calls for a 5 or 7A breaker, you would be on
solid ground for upsizing to 10A.
The goal is to provide a solid, trip free
source of power. PM motor inrush currents
are spectacular. Breakers are much slower
than fuses and are pure I(squared)*R sensors.
Fuses can slowly degrade over time when
hit repeatedly with transient "overloads".
Good thoughts . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Re: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protection
That's why you have a parachute... ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tomcostanza
Sent: 07 January 2010 04:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit
protection
> I even have a light test button
Jay, what if the light test button fails?
-Tom
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280497#280497
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protectionRE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions aboutRE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions
about[AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit
Jay,
I am building my electrical system for an all-electric ship and I had
concerns about wanting to know if any of my battery bus fuses had blown.
I didn't want to be merrily flying along on my backup fuel pump or
ignition without knowing it and making a concious decision to continue.
I have LED indicators for my battery bus loads on a visible fuse panel,
but they are at the far right of my cabin so I wanted a
testable/resettable master flashing LED right in front of me. I posed
the this goal to an electrowhizzie forum and got this design and
commentary from a senior member. Hope it helps.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
I think virtually all
OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
pressure relief valves generally address that
issue. Further, large demand devices like
motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
robust protection devices like current limiters.
The Falco, which I am building, is one OBAM aircraft which uses a motor and
jack screws to deploy the LG. There have been many complaints of the
breaker popping when raising the gear. Some owners have set the limit
switches so the gear does not retract fully, and finish the last little bit
of retraction with the hand crank. I believe there is a fundamental design
flaw in the retract mechanism, but have not seen a good fix.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | XeVision DO-160E NOW Certified |
From: | "XeVision" <dblumel(at)XeVision.com> |
We are now Certified (used a documented certified lab) for DO-160E testing standards.
We exceeded the requirements by quite a margin. DO-160E includes a noise
standard for both conducted and radiated emissions among other things. We had
to do this testing for EuroCopter among others, their std was even stricter
than DO-160E. We did both our 50 watt 12 and 24 VDC and our newer (1-year old)
75 watt 12 and 24VDC HID systems. So a total of 4 systems were passed.
Regarding HID ballast output cables needing to be shielded.
Our XeVision cables from Ballast to Bulb are shielded. In fact they are "double"
shielded, both a foil and braided shield under the outer cable jacket (outer
insulation layer). The cables also tie the bulb shielding (metal box around the
igniter) and the ballast case all together. There is continuity in the shielding
from the bulb (igniter box and metal parabolic reflector) to the ballast,
not just the cable is shielded.
We passed all 4 models (systems) on the first try because we had the test equipment
"in house" to prove we were ready to ourselves before we went to the certified
lab and spent the big bucks.
We also received our Patent on Nov, 10, 2009 for our integrated Pulsing system
warm-up for wigwag IP.
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=280520#280520
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 variations |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 12:13 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>> I know many units specify a fuse/CB size and sometimes a wire size
>> but I just size the fuse to protect the wire and try to use a limited
>> number of adequate wire sizes.
> I think all his PTC's were 20A devices . . . what do
> you mean by "limited number of adequate wire sizes"?
I meant essentially what you are saying here. Going back to my diagram
I see that in fact I have 2, 5, 10, and 15 amp circuits and appropriate
wire sizes
>
> Beyond this, your fuses/breakers are going to run the
> lifetime of the airplane never being called upon to
> do their job.
Yep, I've never experienced an electrical failure in a powered aircraft
in 40 years of fun flying (I did smoke a glider's electrical system once).
>> If multiple things fail, then it's an electrical system problem -
>> haven't worked out the details yet but I hope on my Z-14, I just
>> crossfeed to use the backup Alt/Batt system or otherwise go to the
>> backups.
I know the Z-14 is overkill. The peace of mind feature I'm after has
little to do with failure tolerance and everything to do with having a
battery available for running the panel for extended periods (or
charging portable batteries, running lights or whatever) and a separate
battery available for starts. I've found that the peace of mind to stay
on the ground and do whatever I want for as long as I want, valuable in
bad weather flying, especially when FBO facilities aren't available
(e.g. stuck in New Orleans before the terminal was reestablished).
There are many ways to achieve that but the symmetry and robustness of
the Z-14 seduced me.
>>
>>> What are the holes in this thinking?
>> No 'holes'. Continue to think, rethink, and
>> PLAN how you'll react to any single failure
>> you can imagine. It's unlikely that you'll
>> have more than one . . . With Z-14 you have
>> LOTS of options. Experiments with how those
>> options best play out should be part of a
>> plan devised on the ground . . . not in flight.
Good advice, I plan to do that.
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks as always.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Reversible electric motors and CBs |
I always apply a probability to an adverse event, even if it is a WAG
just to help keep my perspective. You're right, it can be addictive.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:21 AM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> Just thinking, would there be any value in having CBs on reversible
>> motors. I'm considering: flap motors; trim motors; gear motors;
>> variable pitch electric propellers. Perhaps being able to move the
>> motor in the other direction might have some value or trying again
>> after a mistake like deploying at too high a speed or in a condition
>> where ice might have caused an overload. I recognize the low
>> probability of these things occurring but thought they deserved
>> mentioning in the current discussion.
>
> Careful my friend, you'll be accused of doing
> FMEA . . . it's addictive.
>
> What you've hypothesized is a potential for
> nuisance tripping the circuit protection in
> non-normal or extra-ordinary operations.
>
> My sense is that there are very few motors
> at risk for jamming due to environmental
> conditions. Flaps and trim surfaces are away
> from ice-accretion spots. Ice might gather
> close to the hub of a prop blade but those
> motors tend to be highly geared and capable
> of producing much more torque than is necessary
> to move the blades. I think virtually all
> OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
> where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
> pressure relief valves generally address that
> issue. Further, large demand devices like
> motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
> robust protection devices like current limiters.
>
> Extending flaps against cruise speed air-loads
> MIGHT be a case where you could pop a fuse . . .
> but loads on most flap systems start out low
> and ramp up as the flap extends into the
> wind. Behavior of the airplane during the first
> few degrees of extension would no doubt get
> the pilot's attention long before current
> demands by the motor put a fuse at risk.
>
> But one can always UP-size a fuse and feeder
> to the flap system. PM motors draw so much
> current in a stalled state that if you doubled
> the size of the fuse (very fast) to accommodate
> some perceived transient overload condition
> you would not put the motor at risk for other
> fault conditions.
>
> That brings up another thought. We know that
> unlike breakers, fuses are subject to "wearing"
> caused by short term operations at or just above
> the fuse's ratings. So if your flap system normally
> calls for a 5 or 7A breaker, you would be on
> solid ground for upsizing to 10A.
>
> The goal is to provide a solid, trip free
> source of power. PM motor inrush currents
> are spectacular. Breakers are much slower
> than fuses and are pure I(squared)*R sensors.
> Fuses can slowly degrade over time when
> hit repeatedly with transient "overloads".
>
> Good thoughts . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
This is an area that I have used to 'placate' one of my clients whose
aircraft I am building. He really wants to see breakers but I talked him
around to fuses and non-inflight changeable ones at that... But, to get him
to accept that I agreed that the hydraulic pump might 'overload' and hence
you might want to reset that breaker, so we put in a breaker for that
circuit and fuses for everything else. It's a perception thing, but here
there was a good compromise.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: 07 January 2010 07:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Reversible electric motors and CBs
I think virtually all
OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
pressure relief valves generally address that
issue. Further, large demand devices like
motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
robust protection devices like current limiters.
The Falco, which I am building, is one OBAM aircraft which uses a motor and
jack screws to deploy the LG. There have been many complaints of the
breaker popping when raising the gear. Some owners have set the limit
switches so the gear does not retract fully, and finish the last little bit
of retraction with the hand crank. I believe there is a fundamental design
flaw in the retract mechanism, but have not seen a good fix.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
If you have visual access to your Fuse Block or Blocks, mine I have a light
smoke plex cover indicator led show quite well, with the ATC/ATO fuses and
the Led that lights when fuse is blown you can quite quickly determine,
first something is of malfunction, two its XXXXXX and three where the fuse
is to replace. Quite Quick and cost effective. On pre flight you can
glance at the block or blocks in seconds determine there all functioning.
All for $0.448 cents. You can get them from Wayteck, Digikey, Auto Zone
......etc. Something that gives visual and replace able with no extra
wiring or circuit. This listing is from Wayteck. Just another thought.
Take care.
LED BLADE TYPE FUSE ATO/ATC
Category: Circuit Protection
Sub Category: Blade Fuses And Accessories
Sub-Sub Category: ATO/ATC Fuses-Light When Blown
Description: LED BLADE TYPE FUSE ATO/ATC
10 AMP RED (12 VOLTS)
Selling U/M: EA
Weight: 0.0032
Price: $0.4480
Min Order Qty: 10
Quantity Discounts:
Quantity Price
100.00 0.3808
500.00 0.3360
For larger quantities then shown,
contact Sales at quotes(at)waytekwire.com.
Qty:
Click here to view catalog.
Comments:
Jim Wickert
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Reversible electric motors and CBs
This is an area that I have used to 'placate' one of my clients whose
aircraft I am building. He really wants to see breakers but I talked him
around to fuses and non-inflight changeable ones at that... But, to get him
to accept that I agreed that the hydraulic pump might 'overload' and hence
you might want to reset that breaker, so we put in a breaker for that
circuit and fuses for everything else. It's a perception thing, but here
there was a good compromise.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: 07 January 2010 07:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Reversible electric motors and CBs
I think virtually all
OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
pressure relief valves generally address that
issue. Further, large demand devices like
motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
robust protection devices like current limiters.
The Falco, which I am building, is one OBAM aircraft which uses a motor and
jack screws to deploy the LG. There have been many complaints of the
breaker popping when raising the gear. Some owners have set the limit
switches so the gear does not retract fully, and finish the last little bit
of retraction with the hand crank. I believe there is a fundamental design
flaw in the retract mechanism, but have not seen a good fix.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit |
protectionRE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions aboutRE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions
about[AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit
Hey there John,
Thanks very much for this- pretty complex looking for a fuse checker! But I
understand your requirements and they have merit I think. My fuse checker
is very simple and does not give you an alarm when a fuse blows- but this I
think you will figure out when something goes wrong- although if it is on a
cct that feeds an essential item like an ECU, via diodes, you are right in
that you may not know about a single fuse failure. Hmmmm.
Thanks for the info and cct diagrams!
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: 07 January 2010 07:01 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about
circuit protectionRE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions aboutRE:
[AeroElectric-List] Questions about[AeroElectric-List] Questions about
circuit
Jay,
I am building my electrical system for an all-electric ship and I had
concerns about wanting to know if any of my battery bus fuses had blown. I
didn't want to be merrily flying along on my backup fuel pump or ignition
without knowing it and making a concious decision to continue. I have LED
indicators for my battery bus loads on a visible fuse panel, but they are at
the far right of my cabin so I wanted a testable/resettable master flashing
LED right in front of me. I posed the this goal to an electrowhizzie forum
and got this design and commentary from a senior member. Hope it helps.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
At 12:10 PM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>This is an area that I have used to 'placate' one of my clients whose
>aircraft I am building. He really wants to see breakers but I talked him
>around to fuses and non-inflight changeable ones at that... But, to get him
>to accept that I agreed that the hydraulic pump might 'overload' and hence
>you might want to reset that breaker, so we put in a breaker for that
>circuit and fuses for everything else. It's a perception thing, but here
>there was a good compromise.
We wouldn't do that on a King Air . . . the motor
supply circuit would be protected with a ROBUST fuse,
i.e. a current limiter.
Besides, how does he get the gear down if the motor
craps?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Z-14 Switch Combos |
From: | "Perry, Phil" <Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com> |
I think I'll have to fuse them anyway. The wire run length from the
contactor to the panel is pretty lengthy and I'd feel better about
putting a fuse inline.
What's the purpose of the resistors? Is that to encourage the
electrons to flow through the coil instead of the LED?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:09 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Switch Combos
At 09:58 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob...
>
>I'll make it a DPDT and use the second pole for a nag-light indicating
>the x-feed switch is closed.
You can wire a lamp across the contactor coil to
do that. Consider an LED indicator with resistors
in BOTH leads located right at the contactor. This
eliminates the need to fuse the wires.
>Great design. Thanks for saving us a bunch of work.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
At 11:11 AM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
I think virtually all
OBAM aircraft with retractable gear use hydraulics
where the motor is not subject to "overload" . . .
pressure relief valves generally address that
issue. Further, large demand devices like
motor driven hydraulics are protected with very
robust protection devices like current limiters.
The Falco, which I am building, is one OBAM aircraft which uses a motor and
jack screws to deploy the LG. There have been many complaints of the
breaker popping when raising the gear. Some owners have set the limit
switches so the gear does not retract fully, and finish the last little bit
of retraction with the hand crank. I believe there is a fundamental design
flaw in the retract mechanism, but have not seen a good fix.
There IS a fix . . . but it's not common to the
OBAM aircraft industry. Some years ago I participated
in the development of a line of electro-mechanical
landing gear actuators. They were controlled over
a serial data line and needed only +28 and a
communications line to hook up. These had micro-
controllers driving brushless dc motors. As "smart"
actuators, they knew when they were approaching
limits and would slow down to a crawl . . . the
stroke drove to hard mechanical limits in the gear
mechanism. The microprocessor sensed the up-tick
in current and shut the motor off. No limit switches
needed.
One of my clients has a line of 'smart actuators'
based on a universal controller with only the motor,
drive transistors, and actuator mechanical details
tailored to the task.
A few years ago, I built some fast electronic
current limiters for a builder who wanted to use
independent actuators at each wheel of a Lancair.
They were not fast and the mechanisms could tolerate
driving to hard stops without tearing up the gear
train. The electronic current limiters prevented
motor inrush and "limit" spikes.
Don't know how that project worked out. Don't even
recall now who was building it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
He used to fly King Airs.. :-)
The gear comes down without power using a hydraulic release valve- which is
why I say its perception thing- he knows that he has a manual backup but he
wants a breaker or two on the panel; it's a compromise of sorts..
-----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: 07 January 2010 09:24 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Reversible electric motors and CBs
At 12:10 PM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>This is an area that I have used to 'placate' one of my clients whose
>aircraft I am building. He really wants to see breakers but I talked him
>around to fuses and non-inflight changeable ones at that... But, to get him
>to accept that I agreed that the hydraulic pump might 'overload' and hence
>you might want to reset that breaker, so we put in a breaker for that
>circuit and fuses for everything else. It's a perception thing, but here
>there was a good compromise.
We wouldn't do that on a King Air . . . the motor
supply circuit would be protected with a ROBUST fuse,
i.e. a current limiter.
Besides, how does he get the gear down if the motor
craps?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
From: jessejenks(at)hotmail.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 01/06/10
Date: Thu=2C 7 Jan 2010 12:58:03 -0800
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System Planning
>
>
> At 11:45 AM 1/6/2010=2C you wrote:
> I'm planning to use Z-11 and have an occasional-IFR panel with a
> Grmin 430 and Dynon EFIS. I'm still at the very basic planning phase.
>
> Do you plan to have vacuum driven instruments?
> If not why not Z13/8?
No=2C I won't have a vacuum pump. I will reconsider Z13/8=2C but I had
deemed it overkill for my mostly VFR bushplane.
I do want to have a "get home" IFR capability=2C but as one who has sp
ent many hours inside clouds in well equipped
airplanes and being scared occasionally=2C mostly by icing=2C I view a
single engine piston airplane without anti-ice systems as a n
ot-very-good IFR platform. Also I like
your philosophy that using a properly maintained RG battery is the sim
plest way to add reliability to the
electrical system. I also have Slick mags=2C and with backup batteries
in the EFIS and a handheld gps/radio=2C
I don't see the electrical system as the most critical system for the
guarantee of a safe landing. I am definitely
willing to change my mind though.
>
> 1)With the P.P. alternator I will obviously not have the separate
> voltage regulator=2C but do I still need the crowbar over voltage protect
ion?
>
> Plane Power INCLUDES crowbar OV protection on their OBAM
> aircraft alternators.
Thank you. Sure enough=2C the schematic that came with my alternator sa
ys right at the top=3B
"12 volt 60 amp experimental alternator w/internal voltage regulator a
nd over voltage protection".
Do you think this system is as good as=2C not as good=2C or better tha
n using an alternator with external regulator
and OV protection? I think I remember you saying in the past that you
tested the Plane Power alternator.
>
> 2)The Skytec starter has it's own contactor to engage the gear=2C and
> apply power to the motor. According to Skytec=2C I don't need a
> separate contactor for the starter if I use a 20+amp starter switch=2C
> which I plan to do (toggle mag switches and separate starter switch)
> Are there any cautions for not using a separate starter contactor?
>
> No.
>
> Bob . . .
I like the simple "NO" answer=2C however now after doing some more read
ing I have a couple more questions=3B
I came across your Z-22=2C fix for run on starters with PM motors=2C wh
ich the Skytec is. You suggest a relay to replace
the contactor. Further Skytec suggests on their website that if wiring
the starter without a seperate contactor=2C to put
a diode at the start switch to lengthen service life of the switch. Thi
s all leaves me a little confused. What is the main
issue here=2C protecting the start switch=2C or preventing possible dam
age to the starter or flywheel gears=2C or both=2C or
something else? Should I use a diode or a relay=2C or both=2C or neithe
r?
And another question=3B I saw your link to the article below. I found th
e philosophical discussion very
interesting=2C I also noticed that in that article you reccomend a 70 or
80 amp fuse in the alternator
B-lead which is different than the Z-figures where an ANL 60 curret limi
ter is shown. Reading note 10 I
see that the current limiter is a modern upgrade to the fuse or breaker
=2C but is 60 amps still the
reccomended rating (not 70 or 80)?
Thanks.
Have you read . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvbkr2.html
>
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: List decorum |
From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
There are many ways to skin a cat, I think, and going one way or the other doesn't
make anyone smarter than anyone else.
The chances are that, if the system is designed well and installed well, anyone
using either breakers or fuses will get a relatively long and hassle-free life
out of it. Some want breakers, some want fuses. Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.......
Just do it properly and don't keep resetting/replacing them when they pop or blow
without figuring out why they did!
;) Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280575#280575
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net> |
Subject: | Z-14 Switch Combos |
LED's run on about 2-3 volts. The resistors provide voltage drop.
William
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Perry,
Phil
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Switch Combos
I think I'll have to fuse them anyway. The wire run length from the
contactor to the panel is pretty lengthy and I'd feel better about
putting a fuse inline.
What's the purpose of the resistors? Is that to encourage the
electrons to flow through the coil instead of the LED?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:09 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Switch Combos
At 09:58 PM 1/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob...
>
>I'll make it a DPDT and use the second pole for a nag-light indicating
>the x-feed switch is closed.
You can wire a lamp across the contactor coil to
do that. Consider an LED indicator with resistors
in BOTH leads located right at the contactor. This
eliminates the need to fuse the wires.
>Great design. Thanks for saving us a bunch of work.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Tachometer problems |
From: | geoff winter <winter.geoff(at)gmail.com> |
Bob
Thanks very much for that, I appreciate your time. I feared I wasn't
looking at an easy fix. I think I'll revert to the old instrument and have
a ponder.
Best regards
Geoff
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> Could anyone suggest some specific combination of capacitor/resistor/diode
>> inline or parallel to the tacho I could try to smooth things out? Failed
>> to get any help from VDO so any advice would be very much appreciated.
>>
>
> It's a WAG. Without knowing how the input circuits
> of the tachometer are crafted, then it's VERY difficult
> to figure out what it doesn't like about the signal
> provided by your magneto p-leads. The fact that
> the reading "drops" suggests a low signal level
> . . . hard to imagine on a p-lead!
>
> However, the VDO input signal conditioning may have
> over-attenuated the incoming signal as a by-product
> of their own design goals for signal conditioning.
>
> In this case, there's not much you can do outside
> the tach short of building some sort of signal-
> conditioning device to satisfy the tachometer's
> demands.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Subject: | : RE: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit protection |
Jay,
You're probably right about noticing changes in normal ops. Certainly so
for the normal ops single fuel pump. The resounding quiet of engine
stoppage is tough to miss ;-). But losing one E-ignition is a barely
noticeable event even during run-up and, as you say, one would not
feel/see/hear any change if one of a dual power source for an EFI
dropped out. I like it that I can test the system, and reset the alarm
feature with the single (MOM) switch. And if the alarm feature fails, I
still have LED's firing up for blown fuses.
When I first assembled an electronics kit, I thought I was in terribly
complex territory. But after I saw how small the finished kit was and
demonstrated its capability to provide a solution, I became hooked! I
frankly don't know what SCR's and some of the other parts are in this
circuit but they're inexpensive and I would guess pretty reliable. The
guy who designed this circuit is in the home/business security biz. He
outlined some possible problems in high electrical noise environments
but, with caveats, didn't think they would crop up in my application.
Here's the thread if you or anybody is interested:
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=30782
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
your philosophy that using a properly maintained RG battery is the
simplest way to add reliability to the
electrical system. I also have Slick mags, and with backup batteries
in the EFIS and a handheld gps/radio,
I don't see the electrical system as the most critical system for the
guarantee of a safe landing. I am definitely
willing to change my mind though.
If you're comfy, so be it. The neat thing about Z-13/8 is that
it's an easy step up from Z-11 at any later time giving you
unlimited 8-10A of e-bus loads for a weight penalty that's
a small fraction of the vacuum system that came out (or wasn't
there in the first place).
-------------------------
Plane Power INCLUDES crowbar OV protection on their OBAM
aircraft alternators.
Thank you. Sure enough, the schematic that came with my alternator
says right at the top;
"12 volt 60 amp experimental alternator w/internal voltage regulator
and over voltage protection".
Do you think this system is as good as, not as good, or better than
using an alternator with external regulator
and OV protection? I think I remember you saying in the past that
you tested the Plane Power alternator.
I have not tested any PP products. However I did
talk to one of the techno-wienies there right after
I was made aware of their offering. I confirmed that
they had adopted a crowbar ov protection technique
and avoided the b-lead contactor by going inside
the alternator to bring out the field excitation
supply line. All in all, an elegant solution.
The design goal for the AEC9004 IR alternator controller
is to achieve any time, any conditions, zero-risk pilot
control of an UNMODIFIED internally regulated alternator.
Aside from differences in design goals, I'd judge the
PP products to be entirely suited to the task.
2)The Skytec starter has it's own contactor to engage the gear, and
apply power to the motor. According to Skytec, I don't need a
separate contactor for the starter if I use a 20+amp starter switch,
which I plan to do (toggle mag switches and separate starter switch)
Are there any cautions for not using a separate starter contactor?
No.
I like the simple "NO" answer, however now after doing some more
reading I have a
couple more questions; I came across your Z-22, fix for run on starters with PM
motors, which the Skytec is. You suggest a relay to replace the
contactor. Further
Skytec suggests on their website that if wiring the starter without a
separate contactor,
to put a diode at the start switch to lengthen service life of the
switch. This all
leaves me a little confused. What is the main issue here, protecting the start
switch, or preventing possible damage to the starter or flywheel
gears, or both, or
something else? Should I use a diode or a relay, or both, or neither?
We're getting several issues tangled together here. First,
unless the builder is going to use a robust starter pushbutton
designed for abuse by two-stage contactor/solenoids then
some sort of "buffering" is worth considering.
Assuming you still wish to control the Skytec contactor
directly, then adding a relay per Z-22 is the way to
go about it. Assuming you already have or wish to use
the single stage starter contactor, then you don't want
to "jumper" the Skytec solenoid coil to the main terminal.
This gives rise to the "run on" phenomenon described. In
this case, you take the "I" terminal from the external
single stage contactor over to the Skytec's coil
terminal as suggested by
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Vans_Starter_Wiring_Lg.jpg
This has the advantage of (1) reducing stress on the
starter push-button or switch and (2) preventing
delayed disengagement during spin down on a PM
starter. Kinda slick. Wish I'd thought of it.
Now with most contactors, a diode across the
coil is a good thing to contemplate. On Van's drawing
cathode would go to "S" and anode to ground (case).
You could also consider a diode from the Skytec
coil terminal (cathode) to ground (anode).
And another question; I saw your link to the article below. I found
the philosophical discussion very
interesting, I also noticed that in that article you recommend a 70
or 80 amp fuse in the alternator
B-lead which is different than the Z-figures where an ANL 60 curret
limiter is shown. Reading note 10 I
see that the current limiter is a modern upgrade to the fuse or
breaker, but is 60 amps still the
recommended rating (not 70 or 80)?
Yes, there was a bit of a kerfuffle here on the List
about 13 years ago. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvbkr2.html
Early on we were pretty stoked up about using
JJN/JSS fuses as lower cost, bolt-on b-lead
protection. That idea proved less than ideal
when a number of builders reported opening their
60A fuse on a 60A alternator (so we up-sized to
70A . . . probably should have jumped to 100A).
Other builder noted that these fuses were not
very robust mechanically . . . they reported
end caps pulling off the fuse body. Sooooooo . . .
the ANL limiters came to the rescue. Their
electrical robustness. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/anl/anlvsjjs.html
Note that a 35A ANL would probably take good
care of the b-lead on a 60A alternator . . .
but a 60A is good too. This is NOT a finely tuned
protection task. Fault currents in the b-lead
will be hundreds to perhaps over 1000 amps!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Reversible electric motors and CBs |
At 01:10 AM 1/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>Actually, what you need is one of these....
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4
Pretty cute. I'll have to get the details on
it. Be a good project for my oldest grandson
this summer. I've got a bucket-load of model
servos left over from a project.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Z-14 Switch Combos |
At 01:25 PM 1/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>I think I'll have to fuse them anyway. The wire run length from the
>contactor to the panel is pretty lengthy and I'd feel better about
>putting a fuse inline.
>
>What's the purpose of the resistors? Is that to encourage the
>electrons to flow through the coil instead of the LED?
Fuses protect wires . . . but so do the resistors. If your
led calls for say 1000 ohms total resistance in series
to achieve desired brightness, then consider two
510 ohm resistors in series with each lead right
at the contactor. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Homeless/Homeless_Components.htm
The idea is that the resistors (1) take care of
LED requirements and (2) shorting either lead to
the airframe doesn't create a hazard because the
resistors limit the current.
We did a similar thing with the alternator diagnosis
feature of our now discontinued AEC9021 voltmeter/
loadmeter:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021-704F.pdf
On pages 6 and 9 you see a 470 ohm resistor tapping
a sample of alternator field voltage. The resistor's
presence is not detrimental to the diagnostic procedure
described on page 2 but eliminates the need for a fuse
by preventing alternator upset if the diagnostic wire becomes
faulted.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Back in the days before GPS, I carried a circular slide rule in my shirt pocket.
Once the ground speed was set, the slide rule would tell me the time en route
opposite the distance scale. Later in the flight, I would determine the distance
to go by looking at the distance scale opposite the remaining time. Then
I would measure that distance on the chart and try to find a landmark on the
ground that matched the chart. Do not ask me if I ever got lost. :-)
Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to automatically calculate the distance
to go without having to match up the scales on the circular slide rule?
What I needed was a poor man's DME. I made one utilizing the constant function
of an electronic calculator. Dividing the aircraft ground speed by 1200 gives
the distance traveled in 3 seconds. All I have to do is subtract that 3-second
distance from the total by pushing the EQUALS KEY every 3 seconds. That
is accomplished automatically by the attached circuit that contains a crystal-controlled
oscillator and divider and solid state relay. There are probably
other ICs or microprocessors that will do a better job, but this is the way that
I did it. And of course GPS is much better as long as it works. There might
be other applications for this circuit besides moving vehicles, i.e. anything
that moves at a constant rate.
http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ppOv3v2Wbgtq80VIypr95YNkF1OXb94DIJlAOGJjOaMH01g82rhlsInEKh0RMLu0M2QKEvsMg3eqsaeibksk3Dw/Distance%20Calc.pdf?download
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280758#280758
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/distance_calc_709.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Busbar Protection Coating |
From: | "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com> |
For those of you using bus bars instead of fuse blocks... What are you using to
protect against inadvertent grounding and the sparks that are sure to follow?
I was thinking about coating my bus bars with heat shrink and just cutting
away where I wanted to tie in, but I had second thoughts since if it did spark
the heat shrink could be a good combustible to get a fire going under my panel.
Any thoughts from anyone are appreciated.
Liquid electrical tape?
Is there some tefzel equivlant that could be used to coat the bus bar? I know
many are not insulated, but it just doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Thanks in advance.
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280761#280761
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Adding an antenna to improve on the ground reception? |
From: | "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com> |
IFR DEPARTURE
Expedite Your IFR Clearance. Use the new FS21 dedicated IFR
Clearance Delivery Telephone Number (888-766-8267) when
departing IFR from a non-towered airport that does not have a
remote communication frequency.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280792#280792
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Busbar Protection Coating |
At 08:00 PM 1/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>For those of you using bus bars instead of fuse blocks... What are
>you using to protect against inadvertent grounding and the sparks
>that are sure to follow? I was thinking about coating my bus bars
>with heat shrink and just cutting away where I wanted to tie in, but
>I had second thoughts since if it did spark the heat shrink could be
>a good combustible to get a fire going under my panel. Any
>thoughts from anyone are appreciated.
This is not done in light aircraft. Seldom done
in the larger airplanes. I've often hypothesized
a teachable moment by offering anyone their choice
of tools to crawl under the panel of a light
airplane and then pry, bend, pound or twist on
any part of the airplane in an attempt ground fault
a bus bar.
As an example, here's the back side of a breaker
panel in a Bonanza:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_0.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_2.jpg
Bus structures in other light aircraft are similarly
'exposed'. On the forward side of the firewall we find
this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/A36_Firewall_A.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/A36_Firewall_B.jpg
Lots of potential for arcs and sparks . . . assuming
that anything under the cowl is so poorly secured
as to become a risk.
While cosmetically pleasing, the dressing of bus
bars doesn't reduce risks but it does distract you
from what is probably more useful expenditure of
$time$ on your project.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Voyager flight software group formed |
Of interest may be a new yahoo group for those using Seattle Avionics
"Voyager" flight software just formed this week by a Garmin GNS480
user that also uses Voyager.
Voyager_FPS_Users(at)yahoogroups.com
http://www.seattleavionics.com/Products.aspx
SA has both subscription based and free products, and customer
support from SA monitors the group and has replied to questions.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Equalizers |
Thanks Bob,As I mentioned, it'll be a while before I can get back to work on the
Velocity, but when I do, I'll report whether I decide to maintain the center-tap
scheme or not and how well it works if I do.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Equalizers |
At 03:16 PM 1/9/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob,
>As I mentioned, it'll be a while before I can get back to work on
>the Velocity, but when I do, I'll report whether I decide to
>maintain the center-tap scheme or not and how well it works if I do.
Very good! Hope your project doesn't
have to languish too long!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | P-Static and Ground Loops? |
Good Morning Bob
On this forum and another I have been trying to solve a P-static
problem with my glass airplane (not carbon).. It has been suggested
by Chelton and others to run a large (#12) wire and individually
ground the screens, radio stack, AHRS. These have ground wires as
part of the connectors. One of the members on the other forum was
concerned that it would cause a ground loop affecting the
radios. Your opinion?
P-static is a purely external effect on airplanes having
to do with different materials being slid past each other
with some vigor. Like rubbing your cat with a balloon or
shuffling your shoes on synthetic carpet. Machines like
Van de Graff generators can be fabricated with the notion
of optimizing the effects and generating very large
voltages . . .
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/electrostatic.html
. . . but still small compared to lighting which
is Mother Nature's own manifestation of P-static.
In the case of p-staic on airplanes, the effect of
flying through particulates (snow, rain, ice crystals,
dust) at high velocities generates a virtual
cloud that produces gazillions of micro-lightning
strikes per second (static). Given that your radios occupy
space within the man-made micro-climate that surrounds
the airplane, the results can make the radios difficult
if not impossible to use.
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do inside the
airplane to mitigate the effects. Mitigation processes
include:
(1) altering the nature of the materials on
the surface of the airplane to (a) reduce effectiveness
as static generators or (b) make them conductive and/or
(2) add static wicks to effect an orderly, low energy
dissipation of surface charge. If you can turn the
micro-strikes into pico-strikes, the energy in
each strike (electromagnetically radiated noise)
is too small to bother the radios.
When your airplane is decidedly non-conductive,
the task before you is not simple and indeed may
not have a practical implementation. The suggestion
for bonding things together inside the airplane
will not produce a beneficial result.
I don't know if there are any greybeards left
at Hawker-Beech who would remember what we had to
do on the Starship . . . the only ALL COMPOSITE
airplane to be produced at Beech. I'll ask around.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe McKervey" <mckervey(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Creative led position lights |
Does anyone have a set of instructions they could attach to an e-mail
for Creative Airs Led Position Light Kit. I'm referring to the
unassembled kit.
I've tried in vain to contact Bill Vondane,
Thank you,
Joe McKervey
mckervey(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Joe,
Pretty slick. Your project reminds me of some other instances many moons ago where
cheap calculators where pressed into service as event counters. Again, repeated
actuation of the equals-key produced an increment to the display. When counting
this was an integer of 1, for your application, the increment is a calculated
variable based on present conditions.
A thought for further enhancement of your recipe for success. A PIC microcontroler
could replace both IC's and the crystal. The jellybean processors have built
in timers that are probably accurate enough to serve in this short term prediction
mode. Further, many of them have trimming features for the internal oscillator
that permits an improvement on accuracy at the time the device is assembled.
Your total parts count could be reduced to battery (Lion button cell?), controller,
opto-coupler, resistor and perhaps one Vdd to Gnd bypass capacitor. Obviously,
the same device could be used on terrestrial journeys as well . . . especially
in vehicles on cruise control.
This would be a good project for budding electro-wienies offering a mix of electronics,
small scale fabrication, adaptation of existing products to new applications,
perhaps a bit of software and an example of how one can convert the 8th
grade algebra class story problem into a recipe for success.
Thanks for sharing.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281013#281013
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Creative led position lights |
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
My advice....(and I am trying to be nice)...don't use them. There are a ton of
better LED solutions to the problem that were not available when Bill introduced
these.
If you want to design your own:
periheliondesign.com/downloads/redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf
I am not selling any.
--------
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=281015#281015
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for your comments. I am really proud of this project, but did not expect many replies because GPS has made dead reckoning obsolete. You and another friend suggested using a PIC micro-controller. Unfortunately I know very little about them. I understand that a programmer is required. It was fun learning how to program the CD74HC4059 counter-divider. Learning how to program a PIC micro-controller should be fun too. There are programmers listed on eBay from $15 to over $200. Does anyone have a suggestion on which one to buy? I want to build a capacitance to voltage converter for a fuel gauge like this:http://www.rstengineering.com/kitplanes/KP0007/KPsch.jpg
Can a PIC micro-controller replace much of that circuit?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281029#281029
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
Joe
Take a look at the AVR BUTTERLY for $20. from digi-key.com
Amazing amount of hardware on the tiny development board.
No programmer required just an RS232 (serial port) on your computer.
Software STUDIO4 is free.
Ken
user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Bob, Thanks for your comments. I am really proud of this project,
> but did not expect many replies because GPS has made dead reckoning
> obsolete. You and another friend suggested using a PIC
> micro-controller. Unfortunately I know very little about them. I
> understand that a programmer is required. It was fun learning how to
> program the CD74HC4059 counter-divider. Learning how to program a
> PIC micro-controller should be fun too. There are programmers listed
> on eBay from $15 to over $200. Does anyone have a suggestion on
> which one to buy? I want to build a capacitance to voltage converter
> for a fuel gauge like
> this:http://www.rstengineering.com/kitplanes/KP0007/KPsch.jpg Can a
> PIC micro-controller replace much of that circuit? Thanks, Joe
>
> -------- Joe Gores
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Creative led position lights |
If you want to design your own:
periheliondesign.com/downloads/redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf
I am not selling any.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
Eric,
I noticed that this document has a Dec 04 Rev date. Do you
know if there have been any significant position light regulation changes
since then?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob wrote:
We're getting several issues tangled together here. First=2C
unless the builder is going to use a robust starter pushbutton
designed for abuse by two-stage contactor/solenoids then
some sort of "buffering" is worth considering.
Assuming you still wish to control the Skytec contactor
directly=2C then adding a relay per Z-22 is the way to
go about it. Assuming you already have or wish to use
the single stage starter contactor=2C then you don't want
to "jumper" the Skytec solenoid coil to the main terminal.
This gives rise to the "run on" phenomenon described. In
this case=2C you take the "I" terminal from the external
single stage contactor over to the Skytec's coil
Thanks Bob. I am really struggling to absorb as much as I can from this dis
cussion while also readying everything else I can find from your website an
d other sources=2C while also trying to learn Aeroelectric 101... My B-lead
is about to smoke. So=2C I guess the jumper is what causes the run-on=2C
and whatever I do I don't want it in there. I don't already have a separate
contactor=2C so the way I understand it my options are=3B 1) use Z-22 with
a relay=2C 2) just use a push button rated for 30 amps and no relay.
Can you explain why run-on is a problem if it only lasts a couple seconds?
Jesse
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | SD-8 Z-13/Z-25 practical setup |
From: | "cccbuntin" <cccbuntin(at)insightbb.com> |
I have set-up the SD-8 as per drawing Z-13 and have just recently run across the
Z-25 diagram. I can do this, but I'll have to order parts and do some time
consuming changes (which is okay if worth it).
I have read many of the posts, and noticed Bob stated (back in 2006 from a post)
that "The only thing that the Z-25 mod gets you is a cold startup sans battery."
I am trying to figure out if that is a typo or not? I am trying to figure out
if it's worthwhile for me to do this upgrade/mod? Seems like several people have
had issues with this Z-25 setup. If it is just for a cold startup, I'm not
too worried about having that update. Chances are the battery will have (noticed
I said chances) enough juice to excite the sd-8 without it having to be self
exciting, especially in the way I plan to have it wired.
Right now, I have a three position switch setup that is labeled off -- stby alt
(for the SD-8 ) -- ess pwr. If I go to ess pwr, the SD-8 is also on. As of
now, I plan on flying around with the switch in stby pwr, and moving it to ess
pwr in the event my main alt fails (to run what's on the ess pwr and have the
stby pwr).
>From my understanding of this (of flying around with switch in stby pwr with Z-13
diagram), it will be "energized" and ready if the 60 amp alt fails. It will
be ready because the 60 amp alt is producing more volts than the sd-8, so the
sd-8 is just sitting there, excited, ready to help when the 60 amp alt drops
off line. I will know the 60 amp alt fails from the "main volts warn" light
from the LR-3, in which case I will reach down and move the switch to ess bus,
allowing only the ess bus to be powered and allowing the sd-8 to charge the system
(battery/essential bus). Do I have this correct?
Any thoughts or criticism on this setup would be great. Thank you very much.
Dave
[Question] [Question]
--------
Building RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281052#281052
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning |
Distance Calculator
Hi Joe,
I started programming PIC microcontrollers at the age of 65 - yes, it hurt
the head a lot to begin with, but the payoff was worth it (at least to me it
was). It is not easy (well, it wasn't for me), but there is plenty of help
out there. I had done a small amount of work with analog components but
finally realized that the flexibility and future of the digital chip was
worth the agony of learning it {:>)
There are a number of PIC (microchip)forums and hundreds of products and
more chips types than you can count. Just about every one comes with all
sorts of peripheral modules imbedded in the chip (such as an Analog -
Digital converter, Pulse detectors, Rs232, USB comm. Modules, etc,) along
with up to around 128K of memory running at up to 40 MHz. Well there are
simply too mean features and capabilities to enumerate.
While the PIC is a tremendously capable series of chips and it is well
supported with high level languages (primarily C, but some Basic and
Pascal), there are also other equally capable chips - basic stamp, ... well
dozens which might be simpler to start with - particularly if you needs are
minimal.
The PIC is know as a "bit banging" chips because it has a number of special
registers of 8 bits (larger ones in later chips) in which each bit of the 8
bit byte must be set correctly or it simply will not work properly. If you
find this kind of detail tedious - a different chip might be a better
choice.
The internet is the place to start.
Good luck
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance
Calculator
Bob,
Thanks for your comments. I am really proud of this project, but did not
expect many replies because GPS has made dead reckoning obsolete. You and
another friend suggested using a PIC micro-controller. Unfortunately I know
very little about them. I understand that a programmer is required. It was
fun learning how to program the CD74HC4059 counter-divider. Learning how to
program a PIC micro-controller should be fun too. There are programmers
listed on eBay from $15 to over $200. Does anyone have a suggestion on
which one to buy? I want to build a capacitance to voltage converter for a
fuel gauge like
this:http://www.rstengineering.com/kitplanes/KP0007/KPsch.jpg
Can a PIC micro-controller replace much of that circuit?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281029#281029
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
At 09:47 AM 1/11/2010, you wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for your comments. I am really proud of this project, but did
not expect many replies because GPS has made dead reckoning
obsolete. You and another friend suggested using a PIC
micro-controller. Unfortunately I know very little about them. I
understand that a programmer is required. It was fun learning how to
program the CD74HC4059 counter-divider. Learning how to program a
PIC micro-controller should be fun too.
There's a ton of pic development systems out there
for under $100, dozens for under $50. You might
think about subscribing to Nuts and Volts magazine
http://www.nutsvolts.com/
Their advertisers include a number of hobbyist PIC
systems to get started with. The one we use here is
only $29 and comes with an exceedingly capable editor,
assembler package. I think it's the PicKit II. You can
go the assembler route (I think there's only 35 instructions
to learn how to use) or the Tiny Basic round offered in
the Basic Stamp series systems . . . and others.
http://www.parallax.com/
http://www.parallax.com/Resources/GettingStarted/tabid/270/Default.aspx
There are programmers listed on eBay from $15 to over $200. Does
anyone have a suggestion on which one to buy?
This one is $100 but probably your best bet to get
up and running quickly in Tiny Basic or Assembler
http://tinyurl.com/yfxgka4
See also:
http://www.mstracey.btinternet.co.uk/pictutorial/picmain.htm
http://tutor.al-williams.com/pic-intro.html
http://www.hobbyprojects.com/microcontroller_tutorials.html
I want to build a capacitance to voltage converter for a fuel
gauge like this:http://www.rstengineering.com/kitplanes/KP0007/KPsch.jpg
Can a PIC micro-controller replace much of that circuit?
Oh my, yes. I've been halted on a program to do just that.
The program manager ran out of money. It might come back
in the spring . . .
The philosophy I'm using alternately charges the
tank capacitance through a large value resistor
and discharges it with a transistor. The time it takes
to charge the capacitor from zero to some reference
value is measured by the uP. Every other charge/discharge
cycle, a 100 pf reference capacitor is switched across the
tank line and the time to charge total capacitances is
measured.
By having a reference capacitor, calculation of tank
+ wiring capacitance is a simple ratio that wipes out
errors in charging current or comparator trip voltages.
System accuracy is dependent only on stability of
the reference capacitor and timing accuracy of the uP
(crystal controlled).
I can't offer you anything more than that right
now but I can assure you it's well within the capability of
the PICs to do the timing, operating the capacitor
switch and calculating a PWM output value that
represents % of tank contents. What's more, the
total parts count is VERY low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
Unless you need very fast program response look at www.picaxe.co.uk. The
chips are available worldwide.
These are pic chips pre-programmed with a basic interpreter and need nothing
more than two resistors and a serial cable to connect to a PC and program.
The software for the PC is completely free.
The support on the forum www.picaxeforum.co.uk is fantastic and the chips
have i2c, pwm, etc. capability all available in the interpreter
I can and do use PICs directly programmed in C /assembler using various
programmers but for quick prototyping and many applications the picaxe can
not be bettered
best regards
Peter
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance
Calculator
>
>
> At 09:47 AM 1/11/2010, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
> Thanks for your comments. I am really proud of this project, but did not
> expect many replies because GPS has made dead reckoning obsolete. You and
> another friend suggested using a PIC micro-controller. Unfortunately I
> know very little about them. I understand that a programmer is required.
> It was fun learning how to program the CD74HC4059 counter-divider.
> Learning how to program a PIC micro-controller should be fun too.
>
>
> There's a ton of pic development systems out there
> for under $100, dozens for under $50. You might
> think about subscribing to Nuts and Volts magazine
>
> http://www.nutsvolts.com/
>
> Their advertisers include a number of hobbyist PIC
> systems to get started with. The one we use here is
> only $29 and comes with an exceedingly capable editor,
> assembler package. I think it's the PicKit II. You can
> go the assembler route (I think there's only 35 instructions
> to learn how to use) or the Tiny Basic round offered in
> the Basic Stamp series systems . . . and others.
>
> http://www.parallax.com/
>
> http://www.parallax.com/Resources/GettingStarted/tabid/270/Default.aspx
>
> There are programmers listed on eBay from $15 to over $200. Does anyone
> have a suggestion on which one to buy?
>
> This one is $100 but probably your best bet to get
> up and running quickly in Tiny Basic or Assembler
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yfxgka4
>
> See also:
>
> http://www.mstracey.btinternet.co.uk/pictutorial/picmain.htm
>
> http://tutor.al-williams.com/pic-intro.html
>
> http://www.hobbyprojects.com/microcontroller_tutorials.html
>
>
> I want to build a capacitance to voltage converter for a fuel gauge like
> this:http://www.rstengineering.com/kitplanes/KP0007/KPsch.jpg
> Can a PIC micro-controller replace much of that circuit?
>
> Oh my, yes. I've been halted on a program to do just that.
> The program manager ran out of money. It might come back
> in the spring . . .
>
> The philosophy I'm using alternately charges the
> tank capacitance through a large value resistor
> and discharges it with a transistor. The time it takes
> to charge the capacitor from zero to some reference
> value is measured by the uP. Every other charge/discharge
> cycle, a 100 pf reference capacitor is switched across the
> tank line and the time to charge total capacitances is
> measured.
>
> By having a reference capacitor, calculation of tank
> + wiring capacitance is a simple ratio that wipes out
> errors in charging current or comparator trip voltages.
>
> System accuracy is dependent only on stability of
> the reference capacitor and timing accuracy of the uP
> (crystal controlled).
>
> I can't offer you anything more than that right
> now but I can assure you it's well within the capability of
> the PICs to do the timing, operating the capacitor
> switch and calculating a PWM output value that
> represents % of tank contents. What's more, the
> total parts count is VERY low.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
At 03:01 AM 1/12/2010, you wrote:
>
>Unless you need very fast program response look at www.picaxe.co.uk.
>The chips are available worldwide.
>
>
>
>I can and do use PICs directly programmed in C /assembler using
>various programmers but for quick prototyping and many applications
>the picaxe can not be bettered . . .
OH yeah, forgot about that offering. Yes, it's
one exceedingly versatile application of a
PIC product.
I would encourage any readers of this List
who have an interest in circuit development
for rudimentary tasks to stick their toe in
the software water.
Micro-controllers have become jelly-bean parts.
They're produced and sold for literally pennies.
Yet with creative programming, they accomplish
tasks that we could not do with a quart jar full
of resistors, capacitors and transistors 30 years
ago.
The majority of new product development for the
'Connection is uC based. One good example is the
AEC9024
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/
where one set of hardware can perform 4 or more
functions . . . with a parts count that is a tiny
fraction of what it used to take for any one
function built of discrete components.
My grandson will get his feet wet with those
pesky resistors, capacitors and things . . . they're
not going away. They're just getting so small that
you assemble them under an illuminated magnifier.
We'll even build some vacuum tube stuff. While
the idea of considering programmable devices might
have been lesson 19 in the curriculum 10 years ago,
it's been moved up to lesson 10. They really do make
the designer's job SOOOooooo much easier.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: PIC Microchip |
>
>The PIC is know as a "bit banging" chips because it has a number of special
>registers of 8 bits (larger ones in later chips) in which each bit of the 8
>bit byte must be set correctly or it simply will not work properly. If you
>find this kind of detail tedious - a different chip might be a better
>choice.
I would encourage anyone to wade into the register configuration
devices first crack out of the bag. These registers have been with
us since day-one so the concepts are not new, only the capabilities
have grown.
But they are CRITICAL to low cost versatility. For example,
the lowly PIC12F683 has but 8 pins, 2 of which are used up
for Vdd and Ground. This leaves 6 pins which can be digital
i/o, up to 4 channels of 10-bid a/d, PWM outout, edge detecting
interrupt, etc . . . all configured by what bits get put into
configuration registers at programming time. The critters
sell for under a dollar in production quantities.
I don't personally program these yet but I'm going to have
to jump in if I'm going to have anything to hand off to my
grandsons. I cut my teeth on 6500/6800 devices in killobuck
development systems 30 years ago . . . that's when a dinosaur
called the Kaypro II running two 5" floppies under CP/M was
the $low$ workhorse of choice!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 Z-13/Z-25 practical setup |
I am trying to figure out if that is a typo or not? I am trying to
figure out if it's worthwhile for me to do this upgrade/mod? Seems
like several people have had issues with this Z-25 setup. If it is
just for a cold startup, I'm not too worried about having that
update. Chances are the battery will have (noticed I said chances)
enough juice to excite the sd-8 without it having to be self
exciting, especially in the way I plan to have it wired.
It was developed to meet a "worry" posted by someone
here on the list . . . it's not likely to be a big
asset. I'd leave it off.
Right now, I have a three position switch setup that is labeled off
-- stby alt (for the SD-8 ) -- ess pwr. If I go to ess pwr, the SD-8
is also on. As of now, I plan on flying around with the switch in
stby pwr, and moving it to ess pwr in the event my main alt fails (to
run what's on the ess pwr and have the stby pwr).
You've combined some switch functions? Keep in mind
that the Z-figures were crafted for failure tolerance
where one goal was to eliminate single points of failure
for multiple systems. Bundling multiple functions into
one switch may make that switch critical.
>From my understanding of this (of flying around with switch in stby
pwr with Z-13 diagram), it will be "energized" and ready if the 60
amp alt fails. It will be ready because the 60 amp alt is producing
more volts than the sd-8, so the sd-8 is just sitting there, excited,
ready to help when the 60 amp alt drops off line. I will know the 60
amp alt fails from the "main volts warn" light from the LR-3, in
which case I will reach down and move the switch to ess bus, allowing
only the ess bus to be powered and allowing the sd-8 to charge the
system (battery/essential bus). Do I have this correct?
No. Leave it off until needed.
I'm working on a set of check-lists for the various Z-figures.
I'll try to that published pretty soon.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>So, I guess the jumper is what causes the run-on, and whatever I do
>I don't want it in there. I don't already have a separate contactor,
>so the way I understand it my options are; 1) use Z-22 with a relay,
>2) just use a push button rated for 30 amps and no relay.
Yes.
>Can you explain why run-on is a problem if it only lasts a couple seconds?
The design goal for engagement solenoids with
integral contactors is to effect immediate retraction
of the pinion gear when the starter button is
released. There ARE over-run clutches in the starter
gearing that prevents the engine from back-driving
the starter. These are VERY important . . .
For a small starter to be efficient, the armature
is highly geared down to crank the engine at 150
to 300 rpm. when the engine starts, it's suddenly
running at 4x that speed. Were it not for over-run
clutches, this would immediately spin the armature
up to 4x it's operating speed and probably throw
windings, commutator bars, or strip gear teeth.
The run-on phenomenon simply exercises the over-run
mechanism and increases pinion wear for reasons that
do not add value . . . and would not happen except
for an unintended consequence of using the solenoid/
contactor in a manner contrary to original design
goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
To Peter, Bob, Ken, Ed,
I know that I can build that capacitance-to-voltage-converter fuel-gauge circuit
designed by Jim Weir using discreet parts that do not cost very much. Using
a PIC microcontroller will cost more in both time and money to purchase the
programmer and to learn how to use it. On the other hand, new technology is
exciting and it will be fun to learn a new skill that can be used for future projects.
Thanks for your suggestions and advice.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281163#281163
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: SD-8 Z-13/Z-25 practical setup |
From: | "cccbuntin" <cccbuntin(at)insightbb.com> |
Thank you for your input/reply Bob. Dave :)
--------
Building RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281166#281166
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Electronic Dead Reckoning Distance Calculator |
At 08:38 AM 1/12/2010, you wrote:
>
>To Peter, Bob, Ken, Ed,
> I know that I can build that capacitance-to-voltage-converter
> fuel-gauge circuit designed by Jim Weir using discreet parts that
> do not cost very much. Using a PIC microcontroller will cost more
> in both time and money to purchase the programmer and to learn how
> to use it. On the other hand, new technology is exciting and it
> will be fun to learn a new skill that can be used for future
> projects. Thanks for your suggestions and advice.
Certainly going the discrete component route has some
educational value . . . as I mentioned, I have plans
for my grandsons to sling a little solder over some
vacuum tubes. I've looked at the schematic in Jim's
article. It's not clear to me that it even works.
There are two oscillators . . . U101A and U101C
who's frequency is set by hysteresis (resistor network
on the minus terminal) and the RC time constant of
network on the plus terminal.
The frequency of the lower oscillator is fixed.
The frequency of the upper oscillator is affected
by the 360 pF variable which I presume is tank
+ wiring capacitance. The output of both oscillators
is fed to positive peak following integrators and
then applied to a differential amplifier and finally
to a gain stage U102B. Offset and gain potentiometers
are provided in the DC gain stages.
It appears that the circuit depends on a DIFFERENCE
in relative duty cycle of the two oscillators. While
they differ from each other in frequency, their duty
cycles will be close to 50% irrespective of frequency.
The stages at U101B and U101D are not frequency
discriminators. I'd like to enlist the assistance
of other electron-herders on the list to confirm
or correct my dissection of this circuit's functionality.
If you're up to the task for conducting the experiment,
you might consider this schematic:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Fuel_Capacitance_Meter.pdf
This circuit was crafted to generate a variable
DUTY CYCLE as tank sensor capacitance changes.
Like any analog circuit, calibration stability
is subject to the sum total of effect contributed
by every nearly every component in the system.
This circuit was never built but it was analyzed
for component effects on the system error budget.
It's possible to build a practical fuel gage but
falls short of the best we know how to do. This
is why I move off to the processor-based design
I described earlier . . . parts count and effects
of those parts on calibration and drift are a
TINY fraction of the analog.
Let's see if anyone else on the List can confirm
that the Kitplanes article fuel gage can be expected
to meet design goals.
Bob . . .
>Joe
>
>--------
>Joe Gores
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281163#281163
>
>
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | fuses vs. breakers "aging"? |
>
>This seems to contradict my learning/memory but after 71 years,
>either may be suspect. When asked, I had always advised that
>fuses did 'not' suffer from memory whereas breakers did 'age'.
>Can you point me in a direction to clarify my thoughts?
Sure.
If you put a brand new breaker and brand new fuse
on the shelf for 20 years and then test them, you
wouldn't see a measurable shift in fuse performance
and you might see a tiny shift in the breaker. (This
presumes, of course, that you could "test" the fuse
before you stored it away!.)
The breaker is an electro-mechanical device and
therefore subject to some effects of age . . . but
I've never found an old breaker from my junk box
(some more than 40 years old!) that was not still
suited to task after being in service, removed and
stored. Fuses have no moving parts and as long as
they're not stored in a horribly corrosive environment,
there's nothing to "age".
However, there ARE effects of service stress that may
affect fuses and breakers differently . . .
Have you ever pulled a glass cartridge fuse and
seen a "sag" in the fusible element running down
the center? A fuse is a one-time, melting (fusing)
thing. When operated in a manner that bangs the
edge of its heating characteristics, the element
can become 'plastic' and change shape without going
all the way. Any change in shape during a transient
event ALWAYS works to reduce the I(squared)T energy
needed to trip the fuse . . . i.e. it drifts downward
with repeated service stresses over time.
This is why the fuse engineering catalogs suggest
that a fuse be operated at no more than 75% of
rating . . . less is even better if the system
whacks the fuse hard or often with transient
events. A typical 'fast' fuse is the glass cartridge
ACG series from Bussmann:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/AGC_Specs.pdf
Note on page 2 of the spec sheet that a 1A fuse will
carry 1A forever at room temperature but takes 200
seconds max at 2A. Suppose you whacked it with 5A
for say 10 milliseconds every time you turned on a
devise that draws only 1/2A but has some fat capacitors
across the input. Notice on page 2 of the spec that
on average, a 5A load will open the fuse in 50 milliseconds.
Suppose your electro-whizzie hits the fuse at 5 a for
10 milliseconds. Way too small to open it for one
hit or perhaps even dozens of hits. But each hit can
cause the fuse element to change shape slightly to
the point where it may ultimately fail to carry rated load
any more.
It's hard to do this on purpose and it's very rare
accidently but it has happened. This is why you
can buy fuses with "slow blow" or current limiters
with "long blow" characteristics.
This is a phenomenon that does not plague breakers
especially those neat little double break minatures
that we're all so fond of.
So when one speaks of the aging of these components,
you have to differentiate between effects of time
under normal conditions or the effects of stress
under transient overload.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | AeroElectric-List Digest: |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: planning
>So=2C I guess the jumper is what causes the run-on=2C and whatever I do
>I don't want it in there. I don't already have a separate contactor=2C
>so the way I understand it my options are=3B 1) use Z-22 with a relay=2C
>2) just use a push button rated for 30 amps and no relay.
Yes.
>Can you explain why run-on is a problem if it only lasts a couple seconds?
The design goal for engagement solenoids with
integral contactors is to effect immediate retraction
of the pinion gear when the starter button is
released. There ARE over-run clutches in the starter
gearing that prevents the engine from back-driving
the starter. These are VERY important . . .
For a small starter to be efficient=2C the armature
is highly geared down to crank the engine at 150
to 300 rpm. when the engine starts=2C it's suddenly
running at 4x that speed. Were it not for over-run
clutches=2C this would immediately spin the armature
up to 4x it's operating speed and probably throw
windings=2C commutator bars=2C or strip gear teeth.
The run-on phenomenon simply exercises the over-run
mechanism and increases pinion wear for reasons that
do not add value . . . and would not happen except
for an unintended consequence of using the solenoid/
contactor in a manner contrary to original design
goals.
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob. I think I finally get it.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Intercom Shields |
From: | "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com> |
I'm working on wiring the 25 pin Dsub for a PSE intercom and trying to understand
shields. PSE wants all the headset and mic wires shielded which I've done
and they are to only be connected together at the intercom end. My question is,
is it okay to stop these shields an inch or so before getting to the backshell
on the DB25? Will this work okay and not introduce a bunch of noise? I just
can't see anyway to continue the shielding into the backshell and then back
out to join the ground connector to run them all together. I've made a 25 pin
ground bus per Bob's directions.
Intercom is PM 3000
Thanks
--------
Paul Rose
N417PR (res)
RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281510#281510
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | ebus wire sizing |
I'm trying to get to the point where I can actually run some wires so I fee
l like I'm getting something done while I continue to learn about and plan
my electrical system. I read the section in AEC on wire sizing=2C but it le
aves me feeling like I won't be able to figure this out on my own. I unders
tand that care must be taken here=2C but in real life do I need to do a who
le page of algebra for each wire? Is there a quick reference rule-of-thumb
chart somewhere?
Can someone give me a best guess on wire size for a 12' e-bus alternate fee
d wire from my rear mounted battery considering a 6 amp max load (a guess i
n itself at this point)?
While you're at it=2C how about for the battery contactor wire? Is 22awg st
ill ok for a 12' run?
Also=2C I deduced from the chart on Skytec's website that to be safe I woul
d use 1 gauge cable for the battery-starter connection=2C which appears to
be about 15'. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I would rather go a little sm
aller if possible. I plan to use welding cable.
The last question is=3B can I run these 3 wires together in the same holes(
fat battery=2C contactor=2C and e-bus)?
Thanks.
Jesse
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
Fellow Grand Rapids customers:
We are in the midst of trying to decide what functions to assign to
the buttons on our CS-8 Aircraft Grips from Tosten Mfg.
(<http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#>http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#).
In addition to a 4-way hat switch, this ambidextrous grip has two
face buttons, an index button and a trigger switch.
We, of course, will use the hat switch for the elevator and aileron
trim. Initially, we thought of assigning the two face buttons (L and
R) to the cowl flap (Open and Close). The trigger switch would be the
Push To Talk and the index button "Acknowledge and turn checklist
pages" for the VP-200.
However, after receiving suggestions from fellow Subie engine users,
it appears the cowl flap actuator does not deserve such a prominent
position on the grip and would work fine on the panel. There are
other possible uses for the two face buttons if we didn't assign them
to the cowl flap. For instance:
1. "Swap" button to allow the pilot to switch from the current Com to
the other Com frequency. (Suggested by PS Engineering.)
2. VFR button for GTX 327 transponder (Suggested by Garmin.)
3. Remote Servo Disconnect/Pilot Controlled Steering button for our
Trio Pro Pilot. (Strongly suggested by Trio.)
Any of you have experience of upside or downside of assigning all
these buttons?
Dee Whittington
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034, reserved N18TA
Eggenfellner E6 Subaru 3.6L with 2.01 redrive
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I used the extra buttons for comm radio flip-flop and transponder 'ident'
button (I also have a GTX-327). Not flying yet, so I can't really tell if
these are very useful.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, final assembly.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Radio Noise Answer |
About a month ago I requested some ideas about what could be causing my King
KX125 nav com to have a screeching/hi-freq whistle (in the headsets) every
time I pressed the PTT button (like feed-back) - for the first 5-10min after
a startup - on cold mornings. After running for a while - even on re-fueling
stops this problem would not surface again. No-one from the group rose to
the challenge - but then again - maybe I didn't give enough data for anyone
to form an opinion or theory. :-)
At first the alternator was suspected - a call to SkyTek resulted in them
sending me a filter cap to put on the output stud of the alternator to
ground. No difference.
Then the radio's adjustment of side-tone was suspected. Decreased - no
change.
This morning I finally tracked it down - at cold temperatures (<40) the
problem will show-up. If you take the radio out, pre-heat it (I put mine in
my car with the heater going) and bring it up to 70 deg or so, put it back
in and voila! No whistle at initial startup.
This problem only showed up when the temps fell this winter.
Just thought it might help someone else who might experience the same
problem.
I guess you have to pre-heat radios as well as engines! :-)
Dave
N365DL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
I'm not flying either (RV10) but I'm using the 2 buttons for AP
disconnect and freq flip flop.
The little button on the backside I'm using for ident. Using it for
squawking VFR would probably be equally useful since either function is
used on average slightly less than once a flight.
I really like the Tosten grip. Had some concerns about the 'fit and
finish' appearance from the website picture but turns out it is a very
nicely designed unit. The swiveling ability seems like a winner too.
Can't wait to fly it.
Bill "just finished wiring the stick last week" Watson
RV10 Durham NC
DeWitt Whittington wrote:
> Fellow Grand Rapids customers:
>
> We are in the midst of trying to decide what functions to assign to
> the buttons on our CS-8 Aircraft Grips from Tosten Mfg. (
> http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#
> ). In addition to a 4-way hat switch, this ambidextrous grip has two
> face buttons, an index button and a trigger switch.
>
> We, of course, will use the hat switch for the elevator and aileron
> trim. Initially, we thought of assigning the two face buttons (L and
> R) to the cowl flap (Open and Close). The trigger switch would be the
> Push To Talk and the index button "Acknowledge and turn checklist
> pages" for the VP-200.
>
> However, after receiving suggestions from fellow Subie engine users,
> it appears the cowl flap actuator does not deserve such a prominent
> position on the grip and would work fine on the panel. There are other
> possible uses for the two face buttons if we didn't assign them to the
> cowl flap. For instance:
>
> 1. "Swap" button to allow the pilot to switch from the current Com to
> the other Com frequency. (Suggested by PS Engineering.)
> 2. VFR button for GTX 327 transponder (Suggested by Garmin.)
> 3. Remote Servo Disconnect/Pilot Controlled Steering button for our
> Trio Pro Pilot. (Strongly suggested by Trio.)
>
> Any of you have experience of upside or downside of assigning all
> these buttons?
>
>
> Dee Whittington
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> 406 N Mulberry St
> Richmond, VA 23220-3320
> (804) 358-4333 phone and fax
> SKYPE: hilltopkid
> GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034, reserved N18TA
> Eggenfellner E6 Subaru 3.6L with 2.01 redrive
> dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
Subject: | Re: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
Dee
I've got the two buttons as Com frequency switch and Trio servo
disconnect - never used them !
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: DeWitt Whittington
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question on best use of buttons on stick
grip
Fellow Grand Rapids customers:
We are in the midst of trying to decide what functions to assign to
the buttons on our CS-8 Aircraft Grips from Tosten Mfg. (
http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.
html# ). In addition to a 4-way hat switch, this ambidextrous grip has
two face buttons, an index button and a trigger switch.
We, of course, will use the hat switch for the elevator and aileron
trim. Initially, we thought of assigning the two face buttons (L and R)
to the cowl flap (Open and Close). The trigger switch would be the Push
To Talk and the index button "Acknowledge and turn checklist pages" for
the VP-200.
However, after receiving suggestions from fellow Subie engine users,
it appears the cowl flap actuator does not deserve such a prominent
position on the grip and would work fine on the panel. There are other
possible uses for the two face buttons if we didn't assign them to the
cowl flap. For instance:
1. "Swap" button to allow the pilot to switch from the current Com to
the other Com frequency. (Suggested by PS Engineering.)
2. VFR button for GTX 327 transponder (Suggested by Garmin.)
3. Remote Servo Disconnect/Pilot Controlled Steering button for our
Trio Pro Pilot. (Strongly suggested by Trio.)
Any of you have experience of upside or downside of assigning all
these buttons?
Dee Whittington
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034, reserved N18TA
Eggenfellner E6 Subaru 3.6L with 2.01 redrive
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Intercom Shields |
At 01:09 PM 1/14/2010, you wrote:
I'm working on wiring the 25 pin Dsub for a PSE intercom and trying
to understand shields. PSE wants all the headset and mic wires
shielded which I've done and they are to only be connected together
at the intercom end. My question is, is it okay to stop these
shields an inch or so before getting to the backshell on the DB25?
Will this work okay and not introduce a bunch of noise?
You can stop them 5" with virtually zero risk of noise.
I just can't see anyway to continue the shielding into the backshell
and then back out to join the ground connector to run them all
together. I've made a 25 pin ground bus per Bob's directions.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
I have a different grip - but similar functionality.
Hat switch is for trims. Either side of the hat switch are autopilot mode (includes
disconnect) and radio swap (activates the comm swap on the PMA7000MS).
I use them both frequently.
I previously had autopilot disconnect and mode switches on the stick - but found
the radio swap more useful - especially since the autopilot mode switch also
includes the disconnect function.
The autopilot 'off' and mode switches are on the panel if necessary (if there's
a failure inside the stick grip).
Happy with my setup!
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Jan 14, 2010 3:33 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip
>
>Fellow Grand Rapids customers:
>
>We are in the midst of trying to decide what functions to assign to
>the buttons on our CS-8 Aircraft Grips from Tosten Mfg.
>(<http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#>http://tostenmanufacturing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#).
>In addition to a 4-way hat switch, this ambidextrous grip has two
>face buttons, an index button and a trigger switch.
>
>We, of course, will use the hat switch for the elevator and aileron
>trim. Initially, we thought of assigning the two face buttons (L and
>R) to the cowl flap (Open and Close). The trigger switch would be the
>Push To Talk and the index button "Acknowledge and turn checklist
>pages" for the VP-200.
>
>However, after receiving suggestions from fellow Subie engine users,
>it appears the cowl flap actuator does not deserve such a prominent
>position on the grip and would work fine on the panel. There are
>other possible uses for the two face buttons if we didn't assign them
>to the cowl flap. For instance:
>
>1. "Swap" button to allow the pilot to switch from the current Com to
>the other Com frequency. (Suggested by PS Engineering.)
>2. VFR button for GTX 327 transponder (Suggested by Garmin.)
>3. Remote Servo Disconnect/Pilot Controlled Steering button for our
>Trio Pro Pilot. (Strongly suggested by Trio.)
>
>Any of you have experience of upside or downside of assigning all
>these buttons?
>
>
>Dee Whittington
>
>
>DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
>406 N Mulberry St
>Richmond, VA 23220-3320
>(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
>SKYPE: hilltopkid
>GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034, reserved N18TA
>Eggenfellner E6 Subaru 3.6L with 2.01 redrive
>dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: ebus wire sizing |
At 02:16 PM 1/14/2010, you wrote:
I'm trying to get to the point where I can actually run some wires so
I feel like I'm getting something done while I continue to learn
about and plan my electrical system. I read the section in AEC on
wire sizing, but it leaves me feeling like I won't be able to figure
this out on my own. I understand that care must be taken here, but in
real life do I need to do a whole page of algebra for each wire? Is
there a quick reference rule-of-thumb chart somewhere?
Yes, it's in the chapter on Wire in the
'Connection . . . it's also found at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf
Can someone give me a best guess on wire size for a 12' e-bus
alternate feed wire from my rear mounted battery considering a 6 amp
max load (a guess in itself at this point)?
Run a 14 AWG for this wire . . . yes, oversized
but will accommodate future changes without
having to pull new wire. Keeps voltage drop low
too. See figure Z-32.
While you're at it, how about for the battery contactor wire? Is
22awg still ok for a 12' run?
yes
Also, I deduced from the chart on Skytec's website that to be safe I
would use 1 gauge cable for the battery-starter connection, which
appears to be about 15'. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I would
rather go a little smaller if possible. I plan to use welding cable.
#2 is fine for all runs except those that
connect to battery. Drop to #4 for these
short jumpers.
The last question is; can I run these 3 wires together in the same
holes(fat battery, contactor, and e-bus)?
don't know why not . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Intercom Shields |
From: | "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com> |
Thanks Bob, I had already looked at the pigtail detail, but the connections didn't
seem to be working that way. As long as I can stop them just short of the
housing for the connector, it will be fine.
Thanks
--------
Paul Rose
N417PR (res)
RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281601#281601
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fisher Paul A." <FisherPaulA(at)johndeere.com> |
Subject: | Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
I too have one of these grips and I like it a lot. I've only got about 60
flight hours so far, but I'm happy with the switch selections:
4 way hat switch - as you stated, aileron and elevator trim
Trigger - Push to talk
Left top button - Com1/Com2 swap (function of the audio panel)
Right top button - Com1 active/standby frequency swap (SL-30)
Index button - Trio Autopilot and altitude hold disconnect
Obviously it depends on the kind of flying you do, but these have worked ou
t well for me.
Paul A. Fisher
RV-7A N18PF (flying since August 2009)
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DeWitt Whittington
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 14:33
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip
Fellow Grand Rapids customers:
We are in the midst of trying to decide what functions to assign to the but
tons on our CS-8 Aircraft Grips from Tosten Mfg. ( http://tostenmanufacturi
ng.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html#<http://tostenmanufac
turing.com/catalog/aircraft-grips/cs-8-aircraft-grip.html> ). In addition t
o a 4-way hat switch, this ambidextrous grip has two face buttons, an index
button and a trigger switch.
... snip...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
I have the same sticks in my Velocity (not flying yet) and plan to use one
of them as a remote autopilot disconnect.-
I've flown many military aircraft and found a remote disconnect on the stic
k to be extremely useful when the glass starts to do something you'd rather
it doesn't.- With the button on the stick you can both disconnect the au
topilot and begin your manual correction with one action. YMMV
Dan
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
Subject: | RE: Question on best use of buttons on stick grip |
I've been flying three years with the same stick grip and I'm very happy
with it. Here is how I have mine wired:
Hat Switch: Elevator and aileron trim
Right Switch: Radio frequency flip/flop
Left Switch: Chelton audio warnings mute
Index Switch: Autopilot on/off
Trigger: Push to transmit on radio
Some of the switches share a common ground, which reduced the
versatility a little. I had to add a relay to control the Chelton mute
because merely connecting a pin to ground didn't work. I bought my
stick grip from CH Products and the current one from Tosten appears to
be similar.
A few times I've accidentally hit the frequency flip/flop switch. It
would be nice if the left and right switches had ring guards to make
accidental activation less likely. I certainly wouldn't want anything
on those two switches if accidental activation could jeopardize safe
flight.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | "Loman" <loman(at)o2.ie> |
I am intent on imitating the RV12 setup where ATO fuses protrude through the panel,
like this:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/N412RV/switch_fuse.jpg
I found fuseholders that can be panel-mounted close together. I actually bought
some. They cost very little and they look great.
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/155ATOPanel.pdf
I am using the separate components on the lower half of this datasheet, so that
I can crimp in my own wire and be sure it is tefzel of the correct size.
I can cram 19 of these into a space 1 in wide by 8 in tall, with labels alongside
Two questions:
A) can anybody be a devil's advocate and offer a compelling argument against this
scheme?
B) One downside is that the feed side of each fuse holder needs to be separately
wired back to the appropriate bus. Can anybody suggest an approach to achieve
this or a fitting or material from which the three buses could be made up?
--------
Loman O'Byrne
RV-9 builder: Emp Done, Wings Done, Fuse underway
Dublin, Ireland
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281655#281655
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | peter laurence <peterlaurence6(at)gmail.com> |
Check this site. http://home.earthlink.net/~dswartzendruber/
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Loman wrote:
>
> I am intent on imitating the RV12 setup where ATO fuses protrude through
> the panel, like this:
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/N412RV/switch_fuse.jpg
>
> I found fuseholders that can be panel-mounted close together. I actually
> bought some. They cost very little and they look great.
>
> http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/155ATOPanel.pdf
> I am using the separate components on the lower half of this datasheet, so
> that I can crimp in my own wire and be sure it is tefzel of the correct
> size.
>
> I can cram 19 of these into a space 1 in wide by 8 in tall, with labels
> alongside
>
> Two questions:
>
> A) can anybody be a devil's advocate and offer a compelling argument
> against this scheme?
>
> B) One downside is that the feed side of each fuse holder needs to be
> separately wired back to the appropriate bus. Can anybody suggest an
> approach to achieve this or a fitting or material from which the three buses
> could be made up?
>
> --------
> Loman O'Byrne
> RV-9 builder: Emp Done, Wings Done, Fuse underway
> Dublin, Ireland
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281655#281655
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Unrelated to your question.. Is the depicted panel through which the
fuses protrude metal? It would seem that it might be quite easy to short
one leg of the fuse between the (grounded?) panel and the feeder. Maybe
the geometry doesn't allow it, but I would make sure that there is no way
for a short to happen there.
I like the look. Very slick.
As has been discussed at length recently, mounting the fuses in the panel
pretty much means that you also have to provide the pilot with replacement
fuses, or demonstrate to the DAR that none of the fuses are critical to
continued flight. It also means that should someone suffer an electrical
malfunction (which might or might not be related to an opened fuse), they
may spend time diagnosing the problem in flight instead of flying the
airplane - increasing risk.
To hijack the topic a bit further I wonder if it might be fairly easy to
install a light source in (behind) the panel which would allow inspection
of the fuses more easy - directly illuminating the conducting element in
each fuse. No active notification, but at least you wouldn't have to pull
each fuse to find the blown one. And no circuitry interaction.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> I am intent on imitating the RV12 setup where ATO fuses protrude through
> the panel, like this:
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/N412RV/switch_fuse.jpg
>
> I found fuseholders that can be panel-mounted close together. I actually
> bought some. They cost very little and they look great.
>
> http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/155ATOPanel.pdf
> I am using the separate components on the lower half of this datasheet, so
> that I can crimp in my own wire and be sure it is tefzel of the correct
> size.
>
> I can cram 19 of these into a space 1 in wide by 8 in tall, with labels
> alongside
>
> Two questions:
>
> A) can anybody be a devil's advocate and offer a compelling argument
> against this scheme?
>
> B) One downside is that the feed side of each fuse holder needs to be
> separately wired back to the appropriate bus. Can anybody suggest an
> approach to achieve this or a fitting or material from which the three
> buses could be made up?
>
> --------
> Loman O'Byrne
> RV-9 builder: Emp Done, Wings Done, Fuse underway
> Dublin, Ireland
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281655#281655
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | a.f.rupp(at)att.net |
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
Use a Waytek fuse that has a LED that lights up when it blows. It looks like the
picture has them installed.
Al Rupp
Lake Placid
-
------------- Original message from "Matt Prather" : --------------
> >
> As has been discussed at length recently, mounting the fuses in the panel
> pretty much means that you also have to provide the pilot with replacement
> fuses, or demonstrate to the DAR that none of the fuses are critical to
> continued flight. It also means that should someone suffer an electrical
> malfunction (which might or might not be related to an opened fuse), they
> may spend time diagnosing the problem in flight instead of flying the
> airplane - increasing risk.
>
> To hijack the topic a bit further I wonder if it might be fairly easy to
> install a light source in (behind) the panel which would allow inspection
> of the fuses more easy - directly illuminating the conducting element in
> each fuse. No active notification, but at least you wouldn't have to pull
> each fuse to find the blown one. And no circuitry interaction.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
It's probably not a big deal, but as I said, I'm interested in not having
monitoring circuitry interact with the circuit protection in any way. I
admit the Wayteks appear to be pretty slick.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Use a Waytek fuse that has a LED that lights up when it blows. It looks
> like the picture has them installed.
> Al Rupp
> Lake Placid
> -
> ------------- Original message from "Matt Prather" :
> --------------
>
>> >
>> As has been discussed at length recently, mounting the fuses in the
>> panel
>> pretty much means that you also have to provide the pilot with
>> replacement
>> fuses, or demonstrate to the DAR that none of the fuses are critical to
>> continued flight. It also means that should someone suffer an
>> electrical
>> malfunction (which might or might not be related to an opened fuse),
>> they
>> may spend time diagnosing the problem in flight instead of flying the
>> airplane - increasing risk.
>>
>> To hijack the topic a bit further I wonder if it might be fairly easy to
>> install a light source in (behind) the panel which would allow
>> inspection
>> of the fuses more easy - directly illuminating the conducting element in
>> each fuse. No active notification, but at least you wouldn't have to
>> pull
>> each fuse to find the blown one. And no circuitry interaction.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi
Is there a simple way of operating a 28v Nav/Com radio from 14v (RV) airplane
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281697#281697
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Robert Savage <bsavage22(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Radio Noise Answer |
In my certified airplane=2C I leave an 80 watt heater on and under the pane
l in the winter when the airplane is not in use. My reason was just to kee
p it a little warmer than otherwise and to help reduce any condensation tha
t might occur. Maybe the same could help you. I got the heater at the har
dware store and it is advertised to be used in boats and motorhomes.
Bob
> From: dalamphere(at)comcast.net
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise Answer
> Date: Thu=2C 14 Jan 2010 16:08:24 -0500
>
phere(at)comcast.net>
>
> About a month ago I requested some ideas about what could be causing my K
ing
> KX125 nav com to have a screeching/hi-freq whistle (in the headsets) eve
ry
> time I pressed the PTT button (like feed-back) - for the first 5-10min af
ter
> a startup - on cold mornings. After running for a while - even on re-fuel
ing
> stops this problem would not surface again. No-one from the group rose to
> the challenge - but then again - maybe I didn't give enough data for anyo
ne
> to form an opinion or theory. :-)
>
> At first the alternator was suspected - a call to SkyTek resulted in them
> sending me a filter cap to put on the output stud of the alternator to
> ground. No difference.
>
> Then the radio's adjustment of side-tone was suspected. Decreased - no
> change.
>
> This morning I finally tracked it down - at cold temperatures (<40) the
> problem will show-up. If you take the radio out=2C pre-heat it (I put min
e in
> my car with the heater going) and bring it up to 70 deg or so=2C put it b
ack
> in and voila! No whistle at initial startup.
>
> This problem only showed up when the temps fell this winter.
>
> Just thought it might help someone else who might experience the same
> problem.
>
> I guess you have to pre-heat radios as well as engines! :-)
>
> Dave
> N365DL
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
You could use a 14V to 28V step-up converter...but they are kind of pricey
(hundreds of $$'s). It's what we do with almost every G900X installation in
14V airplanes (as their Comm is 28V to transmit at 16W).
Cheers, Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN
TIPTON
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 28v to 14v
Hi
Is there a simple way of operating a 28v Nav/Com radio from 14v (RV)
airplane
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281697#281697
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
OK=2C I wanted to at least try to understand the math for my starter fat wi
re. Here's what I came up with using Bob's example of wiring a 110V 1500w h
eater from page 8-7 in the AEC as a model.
On the schematic from Skytec I got 200A @ 12V which is 2400w. At 10v (batte
ry voltage) that will be 240A. I calculated starter resistance to be .042 O
hms. The wire resistance will be .0023 Ohms for 15' of #2 wire (assuming 0
resistance from airframe ground). This gives a total circuit resistance of
.0443 Ohms and a circuit current of 227.27 amps. Voltage at the starter wil
l be 9.55V=2C and power at the starter will be 2=2C170.43 Watts=2C for a po
wer loss of 9.6% and a Voltage drop of .45 Volts. I did the same calculatio
ns for #1 wire=2C and the difference seems minor: .02V and 9.52W=2C or .6%
power.
So I have two questions=3B Did I do that right? If so=2C is #2 wire accepta
ble=2C and what standard are we using for power loss in the starter wire?
That's actually 3 questions I guess.
Also=2C I realize this only addresses the power loss problem. Wire insulati
on heating is the other problem=2C but I assume power loss will be the more
restrictive of the two.
Thanks.
Jesse
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Answer |
Thanks Bob.
I'll look into that - sounds like a good idea.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Savage
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise Answer
In my certified airplane, I leave an 80 watt heater on and under the
panel in the winter when the airplane is not in use. My reason was just
to keep it a little warmer than otherwise and to help reduce any
condensation that might occur. Maybe the same could help you. I got
the heater at the hardware store and it is advertised to be used in
boats and motorhomes.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Intercom Shields |
At 07:52 AM 1/15/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob, I had already looked at the pigtail detail, but the
>connections didn't seem to be working that way. As long as I can
>stop them just short of the housing for the connector, it will be fine.
Don't make them TOO short . . . or all the
same distance outside the housing . Stagger
'em so they don't make a big lump.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:05 PM 1/15/2010, you wrote:
>OK, I wanted to at least try to understand the math for my starter
>fat wire. Here's what I came up with using Bob's example of wiring a
>110V 1500w heater from page 8-7 in the AEC as a model.
>On the schematic from Skytec I got 200A @ 12V which is 2400w. At 10v
>(battery voltage) that will be 240A. I calculated starter resistance
>to be .042 Ohms. The wire resistance will be .0023 Ohms for 15' of
>#2 wire (assuming 0 resistance from airframe ground). This gives a
>total circuit resistance of .0443 Ohms and a circuit current of
>227.27 amps. Voltage at the starter will be 9.55V, and power at the
>starter will be 2,170.43 Watts, for a power loss of 9.6% and a
>Voltage drop of .45 Volts. I did the same calculations for #1 wire,
>and the difference seems minor: .02V and 9.52W, or .6% power.
>So I have two questions; Did I do that right? If so, is #2 wire
>acceptable, and what standard are we using for power loss in the starter wire?
Don't worry about "getting it right" by calculation
for cranking circuits. Temperature rise is not part
of the concern for VERY light duty cycle loads . . . i.e.
seconds per flight cycle. Voltage drop studies at very
high currents demand that you also consider internal
resistance of the battery and voltage drops across
contactors.
This is mostly an academic exercise unless every
system drop is accounted for.
2AWG has be PLENTY big for cranking with rear
mounted batteries in light airplanes for decades
and hundreds of thousands of aircraft. The overall
system losses due to resistances is more than
you really want to contemplate . . . fortunately
it's not significant in the grand scheme of
things. 4AWG jumpers to batteries for ALL installations
is to accommodate ease of maintenance and reduction
of stresses on battery terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | AN3115 Pitot Tube Connectors Available |
Packing "stuff" up for move to M.L. I find four
AN3115 electrical connectors heated pitot tube.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/AN3115_Pitot_Tube_Heater/AN3115-1.jpg
These are new old stock and sell in the $55.00 range
from other suppliers.
I have 4 connectors to offer to members of the List at $30.00
each postage paid. Put an order in at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
and put "AN3115-1 connector @ $30.00/pp" in comments
box at bottom of the form.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
2AWG has be PLENTY big for cranking with rear
mounted batteries in light airplanes for decades
and hundreds of thousands of aircraft. The overall
system losses due to resistances is more than
you really want to contemplate . . . fortunately
it's not significant in the grand scheme of
things. 4AWG jumpers to batteries for ALL installations
is to accommodate ease of maintenance and reduction
of stresses on battery terminals.
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob. I need to start looking in my inbox before I hit send.
Jesse
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com> |
From: jessejenks(at)hotmail.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: math
Date: Fri=2C 15 Jan 2010 15:05:38 -0800
OK=2C I wanted to at least try to understand the math for my starter fat wi
re. Here's what I came up with using Bob's example of wiring a 110V 1500w h
eater from page 8-7 in the AEC as a model.
On the schematic from Skytec I got 200A @ 12V which is 2400w. At 10v (batte
ry voltage) that will be 240A. I calculated starter resistance to be .042 O
hms. The wire resistance will be .0023 Ohms for 15' of #2 wire (assuming 0
resistance from airframe ground). This gives a total circuit resistance of
.0443 Ohms and a circuit current of 227.27 amps. Voltage at the starter wil
l be 9.55V=2C and power at the starter will be 2=2C170.43 Watts=2C for a po
wer loss of 9.6% and a Voltage drop of .45 Volts. I did the same calculatio
ns for #1 wire=2C and the difference seems minor: .02V and 9.52W=2C or .6%
power.
So I have two questions=3B Did I do that right? If so=2C is #2 wire accepta
ble=2C and what standard are we using for power loss in the starter wire?
That's actually 3 questions I guess.
Also=2C I realize this only addresses the power loss problem. Wire insulati
on heating is the other problem=2C but I assume power loss will be the more
restrictive of the two.
Thanks.
Jesse
Thanks Bob=2C I already see that I made some poor assumptions and
omissions in my math attempt. I forgot to include the resistance of the
battery=2C and I guess calculating the starter's resistance is not as
simple as dividing Volts by Amps as in the case of the heater. I
thought I had it figured out=2C but now it seems complicated again.
Thanks for "individuals willing to share a career's worth of
experience".
It seems that sometimes people size the wire simply based on the Volts=2C
current draw of the device=2C and the length of the wire. You give some
lengthy example calculations that go deeper to include resistance of
various devices in the circuit. How do i know when it's ok to "grab any
wire chart and hook things up accordingly"?
I hadn't noticed Z-32 before. Is that the standard for a rear battery?
I hadn't considered using a relay. If the bulk of the ebus load is
resistive=2C shouldn't a switch be able to handle the 10 amps that the
#14 wire can cary? Wouldn't a relay just be another possible point of
failure? I'll go that route if it's necessary=2C but I would rather keep
it simple at this point.
Ok=2C I'll use #2 wire to the starter=2C but why #4 at the battery? That
seems strange. Won't that negate the benefit of the longer piece of #2?
Let me guess at your answer: Is it because you're worried about
fatiguing the battery terminals and the voltage drop of those short
pieces of #4 is not very significant to the overall circuit=2C and the
temp rise is not really an issue? Is fatigue as much of an issue with
more flexible welding cable?
The picture I have in my mind though is those pieces of #4 acting like a tr
affic-jam to electron flow. is that incorrect?
Jesse
At 02:16 PM 1/14/2010=2C you wrote:
I'm trying to get to the point where I can actually run some wires so
I feel like I'm getting something done while I continue to learn
about and plan my electrical system. I read the section in AEC on
wire sizing=2C but it leaves me feeling like I won't be able to figure
this out on my own. I understand that care must be taken here=2C but in
real life do I need to do a whole page of algebra for each wire? Is
there a quick reference rule-of-thumb chart somewhere?
Yes=2C it's in the chapter on Wire in the
'Connection . . . it's also found at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf
Can someone give me a best guess on wire size for a 12' e-bus
alternate feed wire from my rear mounted battery considering a 6 amp
max load (a guess in itself at this point)?
Run a 14 AWG for this wire . . . yes=2C oversized
but will accommodate future changes without
having to pull new wire. Keeps voltage drop low
too. See figure Z-32.
While you're at it=2C how about for the battery contactor wire? Is
22awg still ok for a 12' run?
yes
Also=2C I deduced from the chart on Skytec's website that to be safe I
would use 1 gauge cable for the battery-starter connection=2C which
appears to be about 15'. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I would
rather go a little smaller if possible. I plan to use welding cable.
#2 is fine for all runs except those that
connect to battery. Drop to #4 for these
short jumpers.
The last question is=3B can I run these 3 wires together in the same
holes(fat battery=2C contactor=2C and e-bus)?
don't know why not . . .
...Bob
=========
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Through-panel ATO fuses |
1/16/2010
Hello Matt, You wrote: "As has been discussed at length recently, mounting
the fuses in the panel
pretty much means that you also have to provide the pilot with replacement
fuses, or demonstrate to the DAR that none of the fuses are critical to
continued flight."
If the aircraft is to be flown at night or IFR I don't understand how a
decision by a DAR (documented or undocumented) could override the required
wording in the aircraft's Operating Limitations and the resulting applicable
wording in 14 CFR 91.205.
>From the Operating Limitations:
"After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft
is to be operated under VFR, day only."
>From 14 CFR 91.205
"(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that
are accessible to the pilot in flight."
and
"(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c)
of this section."
The requirement regarding placement of fuses and circuit breakers
"..essential to safety in flight.." comes from 14 CFR 23 which provides the
airworthiness standards for type certificated aircraft.
14 CFR 23.1357 Circuit protective devices reads:
"(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight."
and
"(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight-
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each
rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot."
14 CFR 23 does not apply to experimental amateur built aircraft.
I conclude that if an experimental amateur built aircraft has ANY of the
fuses installed in ANY of its electrical systems accessible to the pilot in
flight then the pilot must carry the 91.205 regulatory required spare fuses.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=======================================================
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Through-panel ATO fuses
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Unrelated to your question....... skip........
As has been discussed at length recently, mounting the fuses in the panel
pretty much means that you also have to provide the pilot with replacement
fuses, or demonstrate to the DAR that none of the fuses are critical to
continued flight. It also means that should someone suffer an electrical
malfunction (which might or might not be related to an opened fuse), they
may spend time diagnosing the problem in flight instead of flying the
airplane - increasing risk.
..................... skip.................
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | "rockyjs" <rockyjs(at)mchsi.com> |
I was also interested in placing some fuses through the panel. In searching I
found these. You would have to manufacture a stand off, but I like the compactness.
I also attempted to find the ones used in the RV-12 and was told it was
proprietary.
http://www.delcity.net/store/8!way-fuse-block/p_10823.a_1
Rocky
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281802#281802
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
A message to Stan Sutterfield:
You wrote last June:
> This may not be the ideal forum for asking this question, but I'll try
it
> anyway.
>
> I want to certify my RV-8 for IFR flight. I know the FARs - I've
looked at
> them.
>
> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS One as primary instrumentation.
> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite as a backup.
> Both EFISs are on different electrical busses - the main and the
standby.
> -
> which can be tied together, if needed.
>
> I asked a local avionics guy about doing a pitot-static and
transponder
>
> check for IFR. He said I would have to install a separate altimeter
and
>
> encoder in order to get IFR certification. The EFIS has a built-in
encod
> er.
>
> Has anyone else encountered this obstacle?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
There were several replies that mostly focused on finding the right
avionics guy. I have the exact same setup in my panel as do you and am
ready for certification. Can you share your experience? Are you
certified and flying? Who did you use for your certification and how
did you go about getting it?
I am in Southern California, and anyone else who can offer any advice on
this topic will be welcome. My local shop mostly deals with biz jets
and large non-jets. I don't think they will be very helpful with an
experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. Do I need a transponder
cert for my DAR inspection? Can I fly somewhere else to get it done
once I have flown off my hours?
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
Steve,
You wrote: << My local shop ... I don't think they will be very helpful
with an experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. >>
Never let what you think prevent you from asking. If you don't ask your
local shop it's a 0% chance they will calibrate your system at a reasonable
price. If you do ask them all they can say is yes or no so you've got a 50%
chance they will help you at a reasonable price. Your odds of success are
50 times better if you ask!
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
I would advise you to check with the EAA. This subject has been aired
before. I essence, by passing the certification criteria (ramp test), it
meets the FAA's standards. No TSO or separate encoder/altimeter is
required. The EAA has chapter and verse. I would also suggest you find
another shop who work on experimentals. Those heavy iron types are
rather inflexible to new ideas.
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 Bob
Lee
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Steve,
You wrote: << My local shop ... I don't think they will be very
helpful with an experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. >>
Never let what you think prevent you from asking. If you don't ask your
local shop it's a 0% chance they will calibrate your system at a
reasonable price. If you do ask them all they can say is yes or no so
you've got a 50% chance they will help you at a reasonable price. Your
odds of success are 50 times better if you ask!
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Try Astrodyne for great low cost power supplies that will do what you want.
--------
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=281851#281851
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Wires, wires, so many choices . . . |
>
>It seems that sometimes people size the wire simply based on the
>Volts, current draw of the device, and the length of the wire. You
>give some lengthy example calculations that go deeper to include
>resistance of various devices in the circuit. How do i know when
>it's ok to "grab any wire chart and hook things up accordingly"?
It's not that random a process. In EVERY wire sizing task
one starts with design goals. For example, the case for
navigation lights (used to be the most energy hungry
system on the airplane - before LEDs), we consider
a high-duty cycle system where we want the bulbs to
operate close to their design values. Here, voltage
drop rules-of-thumb for 5% sort of drive the decisions.
For getting the engine started, its a very low duty
cycle, highest POWER task on the airplane with
variables such as temperature of engine oil and
battery, potential for partially discharged battery,
mixture management for lighting off the fires, no
alternator to help out, installed weight, etc.
Now our design goal is to minimize the time it takes
to get the engine running irrespective of how much
loss is tolerated. If we were to obsess over losses,
perhaps AWG 0 wire would make us feel better, but
that wire's ability to perform is only taxed while
cranking the engine . . . the rest of the time it's
dead weight on the airframe.
For establishing design goals, you STILL want to be
aware of where the energy comes from (chemical and/or
electro-mechanical), who needs it and how you're going
to use the various ingredients for success to get it
all wired up while always aware of the holy grail of
airframe systems design . . . minimum WEIGHT to still
get the job done.
>I hadn't noticed Z-32 before. Is that the standard for a rear
>battery? I hadn't considered using a relay. If the bulk of the ebus
>load is resistive, shouldn't a switch be able to handle the 10 amps
>that the #14 wire can cary? Wouldn't a relay just be another
>possible point of failure? I'll go that route if it's necessary, but
>I would rather keep it simple at this point.
The relay becomes a 'mini-contactor' for driving a remotely
mounted bus. The rule-of-thumb for always hot wires in
airplanes is 5A breakered, 7A fused and MINIMUM length
for wires that carry more than that. LONG fat wires that
attach to batteries get protected with a contactor at
the battery. Your 14AWG feeder to a "heavy duty" e-bus
is too fat and too long to be allowed to run always
hot.
The history of the e-bus began before we had SD-8 standby
alternators and all electric panels. An e-bus load back
then was 4-5 amps max . . . no contactor necessary.
As the e-bus got bigger (supported by an 8A engine
driven alternate power source) it looks more like
the main bus in terms of feeders between the battery
bus and the e-bus . . . and the mini-contactor
is called for.
>Ok, I'll use #2 wire to the starter, but why #4 at the battery? That
>seems strange. Won't that negate the benefit of the longer piece of
>#2? Let me guess at your answer: Is it because you're worried about
>fatiguing the battery terminals and the voltage drop of those short
>pieces of #4 is not very significant to the overall circuit, and the
>temp rise is not really an issue?
YES!
>Is fatigue as much of an issue with more flexible welding cable?
>The picture I have in my mind though is those pieces of #4 acting
>like a traffic-jam to electron flow. is that incorrect?
Yes, the voltage drop is greater . . . but if your
battery were up front, you would wire the entire
the entire suite of fat wires with 4awg. The batteries
really like 4awg mechanically so there's a reason
to retain them even if you up-size to 2awg for a remote
battery.
Actually, there are a lot of all metal airplanes with
rear mounted batteries that use 4AWG, I've even
seen a few Eze type aircraft with round-trip 4AWG
wiring . . . but these are 'warm weather' airplanes.
Now, could you use 2AWG battery jumpers . . . sure
and they're probably fine too in WELDING cable.
But I've seen two failures of the battery connector
tabs when the batteries were wired with 2AWG, 22759
wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/17/2009
Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my hours?"
Here is what 14 CFR says:
"91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must
be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace
within the time periods specified as follows:
(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the
airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to
proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request
may be made at any time."
So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating
transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so. Why
not do some research to:
A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting you
make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above.
B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your flight
test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on a
flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the
certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a 20-30
minute orbit over the originating field.)
It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire Phase
one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing in
airspace that did not require a transponder.
2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?"
The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or FAA
inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in
that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one.
If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport with
your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that
question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing with
the program letter and all of the other paperwork required?
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
========================================================
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
A message to Stan Sutterfield:
You wrote last June:
> This may not be the ideal forum for asking this question, but I'll try
it
> anyway.
>
> I want to certify my RV-8 for IFR flight. I know the FARs - I've
looked at
> them.
>
> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS One as primary instrumentation.
> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite as a backup.
> Both EFISs are on different electrical busses - the main and the
standby.
> -
> which can be tied together, if needed.
>
> I asked a local avionics guy about doing a pitot-static and
transponder
>
> check for IFR. He said I would have to install a separate altimeter
and
>
> encoder in order to get IFR certification. The EFIS has a built-in
encod
> er.
>
> Has anyone else encountered this obstacle?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
There were several replies that mostly focused on finding the right
avionics guy. I have the exact same setup in my panel as do you and am
ready for certification. Can you share your experience? Are you
certified and flying? Who did you use for your certification and how
did you go about getting it?
I am in Southern California, and anyone else who can offer any advice on
this topic will be welcome. My local shop mostly deals with biz jets
and large non-jets. I don't think they will be very helpful with an
experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. Do I need a transponder
cert for my DAR inspection? Can I fly somewhere else to get it done
once I have flown off my hours?
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
Good Morning O.C. and Steve Thomas,
You (O.C.) have given your usual very accurate listing of current rules and
you did use language saying that there is airspace where the transponder
is not required. However, I get the feeling that Steve may not realize that
the use of a transponder is NOT required in the vast majority of airspace
within the United States of America. I want to emphasize that point
I also recognize that he does wish to fly IFR and doing so does increase
the likelihood of his wanting to have a certified operational transponder.
As long as he is operating in a space where no transponder is required,
there should be no rush to get it checked.
The DAR has no need to evaluate the suitability of the aircraft for IFR
flight. He should just use the canned language that the aircraft is to be
flown day VFR only unless it is equipped -- etc. It is up to the operator
to make the IFR and night suitability determination.
Please DO NOT ask the DAR to list it any way other than as recommended. It
will just muddy up the water.
Have I once again placed my foot in my mouth?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 1/17/2010 8:14:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
1/17/2009
Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my
hours?"
Here is what 14 CFR says:
"91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must
be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned
airspace
within the time periods specified as follows:
(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the
airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to
proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request
may be made at any time."
So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating
transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so.
Why
not do some research to:
A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting
you
make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above.
B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your
flight
test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on a
flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the
certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a
20-30
minute orbit over the originating field.)
It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire
Phase
one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing
in
airspace that did not require a transponder.
2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?"
The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or
FAA
inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in
that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one.
If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport with
your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that
question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing
with
the program letter and all of the other paperwork required?
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My simple
minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a flight
bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP".
Fly to the shop, then install it for the test.
Sam
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:49 AM, wrote:
> Good Morning O.C. and Steve Thomas,
>
> You (O.C.) have given your usual very accurate listing of current rules and
> you did use language saying that there is airspace where the transponder is
> not required. However, I get the feeling that Steve may not realize that the
> use of a transponder is NOT required in the vast majority of airspace within
> the United States of America. I want to emphasize that point
>
> I also recognize that he does wish to fly IFR and doing so does increase
> the likelihood of his wanting to have a certified operational transponder.
>
> As long as he is operating in a space where no transponder is required,
> there should be no rush to get it checked.
>
> The DAR has no need to evaluate the suitability of the aircraft for IFR
> flight. He should just use the canned language that the aircraft is to be
> flown day VFR only unless it is equipped -- etc. It is up to the operator
> to make the IFR and night suitability determination.
>
> Please DO NOT ask the DAR to list it any way other than as recommended. It
> will just muddy up the water.
>
> Have I once again placed my foot in my mouth?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Downers Grove, IL
> Stearman N3977A
>
> In a message dated 1/17/2010 8:14:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> 1/17/2009
>
> Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my
> hours?"
>
> Here is what 14 CFR says:
>
> "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
>
> (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must
> be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace
>
> within the time periods specified as follows:
>
> (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the
> airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to
> proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request
> may be made at any time."
>
> So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating
> transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so.
> Why
> not do some research to:
>
> A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting you
>
> make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above.
>
> B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your
> flight
> test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on a
> flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the
> certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a 20-30
>
> minute orbit over the originating field.)
>
> It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire Phase
>
> one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing in
>
> airspace that did not require a transponder.
>
> 2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?"
>
> The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or
> FAA
> inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in
> that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one.
>
> If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport with
> your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that
> question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing with
>
> the program letter and all of the other paperwork required?
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | CbOV-14_Installation_A |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
In that I don't see a voltage regulator in the wiring diagram on page 3 for CbOV-14_Installation_A
on the AEC site, may I assume that this diagram is for an
IR alternator?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=281929#281929
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
When I requested my airworthiness inspection from the FAA inspector on
my Wittman Tailwind , he insisted that I get my
pitot/static/transponder/encoder system checked by a certified shop to
FAR 91.413, FAR43 App F - IFR standards - FIRST before he would come
out - even tho the plane was not going to be used in IFR conditions. I
found a guy that was setup to do this at my hangar (Don Hendrix) and did
a fine job. We found some leaks in the static system partway through the
tests that I corrected before the test could be completed. He made some
adjustments in the process of the tests also.
The FAA inspector felt that it was the safe thing to do on a newly built
plane and would eliminate one cause for first flight problems later.
I agree, - - - now.. :-)
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Good Morning O.C. and Steve Thomas,
You (O.C.) have given your usual very accurate listing of current
rules and you did use language saying that there is airspace where the
transponder is not required. However, I get the feeling that Steve may
not realize that the use of a transponder is NOT required in the vast
majority of airspace within the United States of America. I want to
emphasize that point
I also recognize that he does wish to fly IFR and doing so does
increase the likelihood of his wanting to have a certified operational
transponder.
As long as he is operating in a space where no transponder is
required, there should be no rush to get it checked.
The DAR has no need to evaluate the suitability of the aircraft for
IFR flight. He should just use the canned language that the aircraft is
to be flown day VFR only unless it is equipped -- etc. It is up to
the operator to make the IFR and night suitability determination.
Please DO NOT ask the DAR to list it any way other than as
recommended. It will just muddy up the water.
Have I once again placed my foot in my mouth?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
From: | Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca> |
I'd also agree. Having both the pitot and the static system tested by a
mechanic with the right equipment is very important. After my own
experience, I'd say VITAL to safe first flight testing. Having done
what I thought was a very good job of building my aircraft we discovered
five separate tiny leaks in the system. Finding them would have been a
lot more complicated without the expert help. Ian Brown, RV-9A
clip
When I requested my airworthiness inspection from the FAA inspector on
my Wittman Tailwind , he insisted that I get my
pitot/static/transponder/encoder system checked by a certified shop to
FAR 91.413, FAR43 App F - IFR standards - FIRST before he would come
out - even tho the plane was not going to be used in IFR conditions. I
found a guy that was setup to do this at my hangar (Don Hendrix) and did
a fine job. We found some leaks in the static system partway through the
tests that I corrected before the test could be completed. He made some
adjustments in the process of the tests also.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
1/17/2010
Hello Stan Sutterfield, You wrote:
1) "All of this is correct, but why does ATC need to be involved?"
Valid question. ATC does not need to be involved in approving non
transponder flight operations if one is not flying in airspace where the
aircraft must be transponder equipped.
Note my wording copied from below "......where one is required....".
See 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (1) through (5) for a description of the airspace
where the aircraft must be transponder equipped. We are assuming an aircraft
that has been originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical
system.
2) "Unless you will be flying under airspace that requires a transponder,
then there is no
need to contact ATC ..........skip....."
I agree, providing the word "under" is changed to the word "in" as "in" is a
more inclusive word and also the wording used in 14 CFR 91.215.
3) "........... coordinate with approach control by phone for
instructions."
Approach Control is part of the ATC (Air Traffic Control) system. When you
talk to approach control you are talking to ATC.
4) "My DAR did not ask for proof of pitot-static or transponder
certification ..........."
Good, I think that is the way that it should be done. However, as I
mentioned earlier the inspector during the initial airworthiness inspection
is endowed with the power of the Administrator and some inspectors swing a
too heavy hammer. If one disagrees with the inspector one is left with
either swallowing that disagreement or going over the inspector's head
within the FAA.
One should proceed with caution in going over the inspector's head on a
specific item because the inspector may find other areas to show that he is
really the boss. I recall a particularly stubborn DAR that required
direction from FAA Headquarters, at my request, through the supervising FSDO
before he would yield on an inspection issue. He got so mad when he was over
ruled that he refused to acknowledge to me that he had been wrong.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: <speedy11(at)aol.com>
;
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
>
> All of this is correct, but why does ATC need to be involved? Unless you
> will be flying under airspace that requires a transponder, then there is
> no
> need to contact ATC unless you want them to check your transponder code
> and
> mode C. If you are transiting under class B, then coordinate with
> approach control by phone for instructions.
> My DAR did not ask for proof of pitot-static or transponder
> certification -
> although I had them available.
> Stan Sutterfield
> ================================================
>
> 1/17/2009
>
> Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Can I fly somewhere else to get it done once I have flown off my
> hours?"
>
> Here is what 14 CFR says:
>
> "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
>
> (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations
> must
> be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned
> airspace
> within the time periods specified as follows:
>
> (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the
> airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to
> proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the
> request
> may be made at any time."
>
> So you see that it is possible to fly your airplane without an operating
> transponder where one is required if you obtain ATC permission to do so.
> Why
> not do some research to:
>
> A) Determine how amenable your local ATC coverage people are to letting
> you
> make a one time flight without a transponder IAW 91.215 (d) (2) above.
>
> B) Find a facility that will do your transponder cert and design your
> flight
> test area to include that facility. Then make your request to ATC and on
> a
> flight subsequent to your first flight fly to that location to have the
> certification done. (I recommend that the first test flight be just a
> 20-30
> minute orbit over the originating field.)
>
> It would not be reasonable to expect permission to perform the entire
> Phase
> one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing
> in
> airspace that did not require a transponder.
>
> 2) "Do I need a transponder cert for my DAR inspection?"
>
> The regulations do not require this -- see 91.215 (d) (2). But a DAR, or
> FAA
> inspector, has wide discretion and the power of the FAA Administrator in
> that original airworthiness inspection and he may choose to require one.
>
> If you have not already established some contact and level of rapport
> with
> your prospective inspector you should start now -- and ask him that
> question. An FAA inspector would be my first choice. How are you doing
> with
> the program letter and all of the other paperwork required?
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> ========================================================
>
> From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> A message to Stan Sutterfield:
>
> You wrote last June:
>
>> This may not be the ideal forum for asking this question, but I'll try
> it
>> anyway.
>>
>> I want to certify my RV-8 for IFR flight. I know the FARs - I've
> looked at
>> them.
>>
>> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS One as primary instrumentation.
>> I have the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite as a backup.
>> Both EFISs are on different electrical busses - the main and the
> standby.
>> -
>> which can be tied together, if needed.
>>
>> I asked a local avionics guy about doing a pitot-static and
> transponder
>>
>> check for IFR. He said I would have to install a separate altimeter
> and
>>
>> encoder in order to get IFR certification. The EFIS has a built-in
> encod
>> er.
>>
>> Has anyone else encountered this obstacle?
>>
>> Stan Sutterfield
>
> There were several replies that mostly focused on finding the right
> avionics guy. I have the exact same setup in my panel as do you and am
> ready for certification. Can you share your experience? Are you
> certified and flying? Who did you use for your certification and how
> did you go about getting it?
>
> I am in Southern California, and anyone else who can offer any advice on
> this topic will be welcome. My local shop mostly deals with biz jets
> and large non-jets. I don't think they will be very helpful with an
> experimental. Also, exorbitantly expensive. Do I need a transponder
> cert for my DAR inspection? Can I fly somewhere else to get it done
> once I have flown off my hours?
>
>
> Steve Thomas
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: CbOV-14_Installation_A |
At 11:19 AM 1/17/2010, you wrote:
>
>In that I don't see a voltage regulator in the wiring diagram on
>page 3 for CbOV-14_Installation_A on the AEC site, may I assume that
>this diagram is for an IR alternator?
Correct. See also . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z24-Interim.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z24A.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | no xpdr ops, was Encoder Certification |
Hi All-
Just a tangential data point here-
I know of a fella who has an experimental with an inop xpdr, based at a
controlled field under class B airspace. He comes and goes frequently, and
with no more hassle than to include "negative transponder" at the end of
his initial contact. ATC has never once had one word on the topic, or the
slightest discrimination towards him for it. It could not be less of an
issue for him.
FWIW-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Rosen <N205EN(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | diode vs guarded switch |
Bob Nuckolls
I am designing my dual alternator RV10 system, and would like your
opinion. I am providing an alternate feed to the Ebus from a remote
relay at the battery. I want this so I can power the Ebus for extended
periods, to program the FMS before engine start, as well for abnormal
inflight situations. I have planned an avionics bus relay to feed the
avionics bus from the main. (I know your thoughts on this, but I want
the ability to have all that stuff off for engine start). My design will
have a guarded switch or diode to provide a back door to the main bus,
thru the Ebus, and it's bus-tie breaker to the avionics bus. The guarded
switch will give me the most control of this back door, as well as a
backup to the avionics bus relay, but it'll cost me a voltage drop
(shouldn't be an issue). The diode will allow the back flow without any
pilot action, which has it's own merits. The ebus to avionics bus-tie
breaker will be a lower value than the ebus feed breaker, to assure that
if the alternate Ebus feed is over taxed by anything on the avionics, or
main bus, it'll open and I'll still have power to the Ebus.
Would you suggest that I use a diode, or guarded switch for this function?
Thanks
Chris Hukill
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Altitude encoder |
I built the Rocky Mountain Instrument MicroEncoder from a kit and
although I can't say for certain, the altitude encoder portion of this
instrument may well be more accurate than a certified unit. Which gets
me to my point...., it is my understanding that your IFR equipment
must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that
the equipment be certified.
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Altitude encoder |
I built the Rocky Mountain Instrument MicroEncoder from a kit and
although I can't say for certain, the altitude encoder portion of this
instrument may well be more accurate than a certified unit. Which gets
me to my point...., it is my understanding that your IFR equipment
must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that
the equipment be certified.
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: diode vs guarded switch |
At 06:55 AM 1/18/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob Nuckolls
>I am designing my dual alternator RV10 system, and would like your
>opinion. I am providing an alternate feed to the Ebus from a remote
>relay at the battery. I want this so I can power the Ebus for
>extended periods, to program the FMS before engine start, as well
>for abnormal inflight situations. I have planned an avionics bus
>relay to feed the avionics bus from the main. (I know your thoughts
>on this, but I want the ability to have all that stuff off for
>engine start). My design will have a guarded switch or diode to
>provide a back door to the main bus, thru the Ebus, and it's bus-tie
>breaker to the avionics bus. The guarded switch will give me the
>most control of this back door, as well as a backup to the avionics
>bus relay, but it'll cost me a voltage drop (shouldn't be an issue).
>The diode will allow the back flow without any pilot action, which
>has it's own merits. The ebus to avionics bus-tie breaker will be a
>lower value than the ebus feed breaker, to assure that if the
>alternate Ebus feed is over taxed by anything on the avionics, or
>main bus, it'll open and I'll still have power to the Ebus.
>Would you suggest that I use a diode, or guarded switch for this function?
Hmmmm . . . I'm in M.L. today and I thought I received
and answered this question from Wichita yesterday or perhaps
the day before. Check your inbox.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | speedy11(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
Steve,
You may already know about this, but EAA Chapter 1000 has a lot of test
pilot guys (Edwards AFB) and their web site has instructions on doing your own
pitot-static calibration. You can see it at
_http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/techidx.htm_ (http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/techidx.htm) .
Stan Sutterfield
A discussion is already underway. What is most important to me is to
know the facts. You cannot argue with "experts" if you don't know the
facts. Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a
long way to being able to discuss with some authority. Being able to
calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right
direction.
Thanks to all of you for this invaluable help! I will report back and
detail my experience.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
From: | "Loman" <loman(at)o2.ie> |
Thanks for the input folks.
That is an interesting point about the possibility of shorting. I will have to
experiment but initial thoughts are that the fuseholders should be mounted on
a stand-off that is far enough behind the panel so that the metal blades have
cleared the back of the panel before they can contact their clasps in the fuseholder.
In other words only the plastic body of the fuse can touch the panel
when the fuse is in contact with any live component. I don't know but maybe
this is how Vans does it.
The Bussman product looks very good but I want a narrow, tall compact arrangement
of fuses to suit the intended space on my panel. 19 fuses in a 1 in wide by
8 in tall is more compact than any I have seen.
The fuses themselves will indeed have LEDS to clearly indicate failure and I have
three of the 19 slots available for spares. However, I am of the view that
reseting breakers or replacing fuses are probably equally pointless. I can't
see how fuses would be any more or less distracting than a tripped breaker or
any other circuit protection device. The benefit of having them visible as opposed
to sitting on a fuseholder somewhere behind the panel where you can neither
see or touch them is largely better information - not the option to reset/replace
them.
I should also say that, building in Ireland, I am not subject to the same regs
as most of you.
Rocky, that link doesn't work. Could you try again as I would like to see the
part you are referencing.
How about my second question guys? I still can't figure out what I am going to
connect those feed wires back to. I thought of using the brass bar with fast-on
tabs that Stein sells as a ground bus (SA-9900), but I would have to fabricate
an insulated mounting arrangement for each of the three busses - no biggie
I suppose but maybe someone has a better idea?
--------
Loman O'Byrne
RV-9 builder: Emp Done, Wings Done, Fuse underway
Dublin, Ireland
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282105#282105
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/18/2010
Hello Sam Hoskins, You wrote:
1) "Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on."
That is correct. Here is what 14 CFR 91.215 (c) says:
"(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person
operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained
in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate
code or as assigned by ATC."
2) "My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it
into a flight
bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the shop, then
install it for the test."
That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.215 which says, in part:
"(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person
may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an
operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code
capability,.............."
91.215 goes on to provide some exceptions to the above requirement such as
aircraft originally certified with no electrical system and getting
permission from ATC to operate with no transponder. What you describe is not
one of the exceptions.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
====================================
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My simple
minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a flight
bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP".
Fly to the shop, then install it for the test.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Mayor Daley slams Harrison Ford |
From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
A little off-topic but this one really got my blood boiling. Be sure to
read the reader's comments when you finish the article.
http://www.9wsyr.com/entertainment/story/Ford-slammed-by-Chicago-mayor/UZUOkGiueEKzg3qrZ703fw.cspx
I flew into Meigs a few times, once with the Q-200, always a great
experience.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
Bakerocb,
Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
I
missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No
doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
(controlled airspace).
If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
airspace
listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not
apply
as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
it
turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is true.
If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bakerocb(at)cox.net
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:19 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com;
> sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
>
> 1/18/2010
>
> Hello Sam Hoskins, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft
> is
> equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on."
>
> That is correct. Here is what 14 CFR 91.215 (c) says:
>
> "(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
> paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each
> person
> operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder
> maintained
> in accordance with =A791.413 of this part shall operate the
transponder,
> including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the
> appropriate
> code or as assigned by ATC."
>
> 2) "My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff
> it
> into a flight
> bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the
shop,
> then
> install it for the test."
>
> That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.215 which says, in part:
[Jon] ONLY a violation IF flying in controlled airspace.
> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person
> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with
> an
> operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096
> code
> capability,.............."
>
> 91.215 goes on to provide some exceptions to the above requirement
such
> as
> aircraft originally certified with no electrical system and getting
> permission from ATC to operate with no transponder. What you describe
> is not
> one of the exceptions.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather
and
> understand knowledge."
>
>
===========
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
> From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
>
> Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
> equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My
> simple
> minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a
> flight
> bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP".
>
> Fly to the shop, then install it for the test.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 01/18/10 07:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
Good Evening Jon,
I tried to make the same point a couple of days ago and my comment seems
to
have been totally ignored by all. Maybe you will have better luck!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/18/2010 9:12:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:
Bakerocb,
Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
I
missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No
doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
(controlled airspace).
If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the airspa
ce
listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not appl
y as
almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is tru
e.
If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bakerocb(at)cox.net
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:19 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com;
> sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
>
> 1/18/2010
>
> Hello Sam Hoskins, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft
> is
> equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on."
>
> That is correct. Here is what 14 CFR 91.215 (c) says:
>
> "(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
> paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each
> person
> operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder
> maintained
> in accordance with =A791.413 of this part shall operate the transponder
,
> including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the
> appropriate
> code or as assigned by ATC."
>
> 2) "My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff
> it
> into a flight
> bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the shop,
> then
> install it for the test."
>
> That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.215 which says, in part:
[Jon] ONLY a violation IF flying in controlled airspace.
> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person
> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with
> an
> operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096
> code
> capability,.............."
>
> 91.215 goes on to provide some exceptions to the above requirement such
> as
> aircraft originally certified with no electrical system and getting
> permission from ATC to operate with no transponder. What you describe
> is not
> one of the exceptions.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> ============
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
> From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
>
> Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
> equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My
> simple
> minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a
> flight
> bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP".
>
> Fly to the shop, then install it for the test.
>
> Sam
>
>
> ===========AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
Un/Subscription,
Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===========
> -the Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
> ===========List Contribution Web Site -
support!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===========
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com270.14.149/2630 - Release Date:
> 01/18/10 07:35:00
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/18/2010
Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
1) "Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way
to being able to discuss with some authority."
A) There is no regulatory requirement for a pitot system check, but you may
gain some confidence in the accuracy of your airspeed indicator by
performing one.
B) The static pressure system check performed in order to meet the
requirements of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here:
"Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-
(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system,
each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting
system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E
and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
Must be performed in accordance with the portion of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted
here:
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
(1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and
inspections are to be performed;
(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those
functions and holding-
(i) An instrument rating, Class I;
(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of
appliance to be tested;
(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be
tested; or
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system
tests and inspections only)."
So only if you hold one of the qualifications listed above, would you be
able to perform the regulatory requirement of the static pressure system
tests. But otherwise, as you point out, performing the test yourself could
help you in your discussions. The equipment and parameters to perform the
test are described in 14 CFR Appendix E to Part 43 (a).
2) "Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step
in the right
direction."
Good idea.
3) "I will report back and detail my experience."
I would appreciate that -- thank you.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==============================================
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification
A discussion is already underway. What is most important to me is to
know the facts. You cannot argue with "experts" if you don't know the
facts. Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a
long way to being able to discuss with some authority. Being able to
calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right
direction.
Thanks to all of you for this invaluable help! I will report back and
detail my experience.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/19/2010
Hello Jon Finley, Many thanks for your input and raising this point again.
You wrote:
1) "Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace."
I did not make this assumption.
2) "If I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my
comments."
Here is my wording: "It would not be reasonable to expect permission to
perform the entire Phase
one testing without a transponder unless you were able to do the testing in
airspace that did not require a transponder."
This specifically raises the point that there is indeed airspace that does
not require a transponder. I also point out that 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (1)
through (b) (5) and 91.215 (c) identifies the airspace where you must have a
transponder. If one is not flying in the airspace identified then there is
no requirement for a transponder.
3) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b),........"
Absolutely on point.
Up on my soap box now: I have been working on people sized airplanes (as
opposed to models) since 1950 and flying since 1958 -- all that time I was
planning and gathering information with the intent of building my own
airplane some day. When that day came and I started to build and the
internet allowed me to see what other builders were thinking and writing I
was appalled at the ignorance and assumptions regarding applicable
regulations displayed by my fellow builders.
Here we had the greatest opportunity on our planet to do this wonderful
homebuilding and flying thing and there were many builders so willing to
operate on hearsay, gossip, and rumor and possibly violate regulations
rather than educate themselves. Each notorious violation bringing us closer
to the day when we could lose the opportunity to homebuild and fly.
So my mission in life became to educate my fellow homebuilders and pilots
regarding what the regulations actually say with the hope and belief that
education would encourage compliance. That is why many of my postings read
the way they do.
4) "Additionally, 91.215 (c), does not apply as almost all of our airspace
is uncontrolled."
Let's see what 14 CFR definitions says:
"Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which
air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in
accordance with the airspace classification.
Note: Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B,
Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace."
So as long as one is flying outside of the airspace identified in 91.215 (b)
(1) through (5) and outside the definition of controlled airspace then one
indeed does not need to have or operate a transponder.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==================================================
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Bakerocb,
Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If I
missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No
doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
(controlled airspace).
If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does
not
apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is true.
If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Altitude encoder |
1/19/2010
Hello Angier Ames, You wrote: ".....it is my understanding that your IFR
equipment
must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that the
equipment be certified."
Why operate on just an understanding when you can go to the regulations and
determine the facts? With regard specifically to the altitude encoder here
is what 14 CFR says on this subject:
"91.217 Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure
altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.
No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment
associated with a radar beacon transponder-
(a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC;
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter
normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft; or
(c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively."
So now, instead of just operating on some understanding, I call it hearsay,
gossip, and rumor, we can operate on the facts. Also please see the
attachment. Please let me know if you want further clarification.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=================================================
From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Altitude encoder
I built the Rocky Mountain Instrument MicroEncoder from a kit and
although I can't say for certain, the altitude encoder portion of this
instrument may well be more accurate than a certified unit. Which gets
me to my point...., it is my understanding that your IFR equipment
must perform to minimum FAA specs, but there is no requirement that
the equipment be certified.
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
OC,
As I read the regs. you quote below, it sounds like I am qualified to perform the
tests.
> "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by-
>
> (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections
are to be performed;
I am the manufacturer of the airplane.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:11 PM, wrote:
>
> 1/18/2010
>
> Hello Steve Thomas, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a long way to
being able to discuss with some authority."
>
> A) There is no regulatory requirement for a pitot system check, but you may gain
some confidence in the accuracy of your airspeed indicator by performing one.
>
> B) The static pressure system check performed in order to meet the requirements
of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here:
>
> "Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections.
>
> (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-
>
> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each
altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system
has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part
43 of this chapter;"
>
> Must be performed in accordance with the portion of 14 CFR 91.411 quoted here:
>
> "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by-
>
> (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections
are to be performed;
>
> (2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions
and holding-
>
> (i) An instrument rating, Class I;
>
> (ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance
to be tested;
>
> (iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
>
> (iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested;
or
>
> (3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system tests
and inspections only)."
>
> So only if you hold one of the qualifications listed above, would you be able
to perform the regulatory requirement of the static pressure system tests. But
otherwise, as you point out, performing the test yourself could help you in
your discussions. The equipment and parameters to perform the test are described
in 14 CFR Appendix E to Part 43 (a).
>
> 2) "Being able to calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in
the right
> direction."
>
> Good idea.
>
> 3) "I will report back and detail my experience."
>
> I would appreciate that -- thank you.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge."
>
> ==============================================
>
> From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Encoder Certification
>
> A discussion is already underway. What is most important to me is to
> know the facts. You cannot argue with "experts" if you don't know the
> facts. Being able to do my own pitot-static check will also get me a
> long way to being able to discuss with some authority. Being able to
> calibrate my BMA EFIS ahead of time will be a giant step in the right
> direction.
>
> Thanks to all of you for this invaluable help! I will report back and
> detail my experience.
>
>
> Steve Thomas
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | RE: no xpdr ops, was Encoder Certification |
> From: Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: no xpdr ops, was Encoder Certification
>
>
> Just a tangential data point here-
> > I know of a fella who has an experimental with an inop xpdr, based at a
> > controlled field under class B airspace. He comes and goes frequently,
and
> > with no more hassle than to include "negative transponder" at the end of
> > his initial contact. ATC has never once had one word on the topic, or
the
> > slightest discrimination towards him for it. It could not be less of an
> > issue for him.
> >
> > FWIW-
> >
> Wouldn't it be nice if he'd get it fixed - just for kicks.
>
>
> (I'm guessing there's no issue for ATC to deal with - the controllers at
> the destination aren't even looking at radar and he slips under the
> bottom of the class B. The people who might object aren't even
> contacted. Just a guess though)
>
Okay, just for kicks, here comes the micrometer. The airport in question
is actually just outside the class B, within the veil. The Australian
manufacturer made repairing the xpdr the most problematic alternative. As
to the guessing, you are one third correct. It is no issue for ATC. The
other factors are that the tower has a BRITE set that they use quite
admirably, and that the TRACON guys don't object or remotely care about
what goes on in the underlaying class D airspace. The craft is a VFR
competition aerobatic machine that spends most of it's flying time in the
practice area just outside the class D. No guessing involved.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
At 08:47 AM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
>
>OC,
>
>As I read the regs. you quote below, it sounds like I am qualified
>to perform the tests.
>
> > "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be
> conducted by-
> >
> > (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the
> tests and inspections are to be performed;
>
>I am the manufacturer of the airplane.
Only one small caveat . . . manufacturers of
type certificated airplanes are expected/commanded
to jump lots of hoops not the least of which is
calibration traceability, proper equipment,
and training of persons tasked with operating
the equipment.
If one understands the physics, spirit and intent
of a pitot-static system check, it can be accomplished
with the most rudimentary of pressure measuring devices
(including a water manometer you might build up from
hardware store materials), a pump (can and often is
hand operated) and a calculator or set of charts that
converts observed pressures to observed panel readings.
Of course, the FIRST (and most common) dragon to
slay is leaks. This requires no calibration, only
the ability to apply a pressure, stop it off,
watch for changes, and then soap the joints looking
for bubbles . . . and finally, to see that panel
indications do not drift with time faster than
what's allowed. In other words, SOME degree of
leaking is permitted in some venues.
After the system is tight, then you need to
worry with the numbers. Not at all difficult
if you're interested in educating and equipping
yourself to the task . . . but convincing the
odd institutionally educated bureaucrat that
you KNOW what your doing is . . . well . . .
problematic.
It would be interesting to hear of your experience
in this endeavor. One thing that WOULD help is
to document the test procedure you use. If
pressures are read with a device subject
to calibration, then having a quality assurance
or cert document (not more than a year old) for that
device would be helpful. Or calibrate it yourself
using a water manometer. Fortunately, its
EASY to get a measuring tape with some assurance
of accuracy.
While we may all rightfully claim to be "the
manufacturer" of our projects, there may be a
price of membership for taking on that title.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
From: | "estebane" <estebanemody(at)gmail.com> |
Gentle Mens and (I hope) Ladies!
It is pleasure to be here with you!
I say sorry now, because my English.
Today I start to help to reinstall a used kx-125 nav/com, kr-85 adf and kma-20
audio panel in a Cessna 150L. I was looking for documentation since last month
but I didn't find anything. If somebody can help me, I will very appreciated!
Thanks a lot!!!
Esteban = Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282253#282253
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
At 11:17 AM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
>
>Gentle Mens and (I hope) Ladies!
> It is pleasure to be here with you!
> I say sorry now, because my English.
> Today I start to help to reinstall a used kx-125 nav/com, kr-85
> adf and kma-20 audio panel in a Cessna 150L. I was looking for
> documentation since last month but I didn't find anything. If
> somebody can help me, I will very appreciated!
> Thanks a lot!!!
> Esteban = Steve
Yes, see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KX125_Inst_Manual_Corrected.pdf
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
Esteban,
check that link, you should find plenty there:
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/>
Werner
On 19.01.2010 18:17, estebane wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "estebane"
>
> Gentle Mens and (I hope) Ladies!
> It is pleasure to be here with you!
> I say sorry now, because my English.
> Today I start to help to reinstall a used kx-125 nav/com, kr-85 adf and kma-20
audio panel in a Cessna 150L. I was looking for documentation since last month
but I didn't find anything. If somebody can help me, I will very appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Subject: | Re: Through-panel ATO fuses |
Loman,
I am doing a fuse panel that is visible in the cockpit. One stack is
about 6" x 16 fuses. I am running the wires from the fuse holders to two
(main and E-bus) bus bars made from vice-squashed 3/8 soft copper tube
with 3, .250" x 6 gang brass quick-connect tabs soldered to them,
yielding 18 tabs, expandable to 36 by using male/female quick-connects.
These are then SS riveted to a hat-shaped non conductive fiberglass
stand-off channel and bonded to the side of my glass airplane behind the
panel. You could screw or rivet to aluminum in your plane.
Using http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/155_153PCMount.pdf
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=A27874
-ND (also in 8,10, 20 tab)
John
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: KX-125 Installation Manual? |
From: | "estebane" <estebanemody(at)gmail.com> |
:D THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282286#282286
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
The original poster said he was in SoCal, if I remember correctly. I
don't remember that he specified and airport, though. Hard to find much
in the way of un-controlled airspace around here with all the mode C veils.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Jon Finley wrote:
>
> Bakerocb,
>
>
>
> Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace.
> If I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my
> comments. No doubt that what has been said is applicable given the
> right environment (controlled airspace).
>
>
>
> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that
> folks living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can
> fly for hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of
> the airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215
> (c), does not apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
>
>
>
> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or
> without it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where
> this is true.
>
>
>
> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
>
> > aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bakerocb(at)cox.net
>
> > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:19 AM
>
> > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com;
>
> > sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com
>
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > 1/18/2010
>
> >
>
> > Hello Sam Hoskins, You wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 1) "Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft
>
> > is
>
> > equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on."
>
> >
>
> > That is correct. Here is what 14 CFR 91.215 (c) says:
>
> >
>
> > "(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
>
> > paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each
>
> > person
>
> > operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder
>
> > maintained
>
> > in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
>
> > including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the
>
> > appropriate
>
> > code or as assigned by ATC."
>
> >
>
> > 2) "My simple minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff
>
> > it
>
> > into a flight
>
> > bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP". Fly to the shop,
>
> > then
>
> > install it for the test."
>
> >
>
> > That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.215 which says, in part:
>
>
>
> [Jon] ONLY a violation IF flying in controlled airspace.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
>
> > person
>
> > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
>
> > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with
>
> > an
>
> > operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096
>
> > code
>
> > capability,.............."
>
> >
>
> > 91.215 goes on to provide some exceptions to the above requirement such
>
> > as
>
> > aircraft originally certified with no electrical system and getting
>
> > permission from ATC to operate with no transponder. What you describe
>
> > is not
>
> > one of the exceptions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
>
> > understand knowledge."
>
> >
>
> > ===========
>
> >
>
>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> > From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > Without looking at the regs, I seem to recall that if the aircraft is
>
> > equipped with an operating transponder, it must be turned on. My
>
> > simple
>
> > minded solution would to pull the transponder and stuff it into a
>
> > flight
>
> > bag. You could even apply a sticker that says "INOP".
>
> >
>
> > Fly to the shop, then install it for the test.
>
> >
>
> > Sam
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum - Navigator to browse Un/Subscription,
> Browse, Chat, FAQ, more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> > ==========
>
> > -
>
> the Web Forums! http://forums.matronics.com
>
> > ==========
>
> List Contribution Web Site - support!
>
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> > ==========
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> 270.14.149/2630 - Release Date:
>
> > 01/18/10 07:35:00
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/20/2010
Hello Steve Thomas, You write: "I am the manufacturer of the airplane."
{Response} Nice try, but no cigar.
In the eyes of the FAA you are not the manufacturer of a type certificated
airplane (which title carrys many significant qualifications, approvals, and
inspections), but instead the "fabicator and assembler" of an experimental
amateur built airplane.
The regulatory permission and description that allows our category of
aircraft to exist does not use the word "manufactured". See here:
" 14 CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates. Experimental certificates are
issued for the following purposes:
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook
the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=========================================================
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
OC,
As I read the regs. you quote below, it sounds like I am qualified to
perform the
tests.
> "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
> by-
>
> (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests
> and inspections
are to be performed;
I am the manufacturer of the airplane.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Encoder Certification |
From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on
it for "manufacturer." I've seen some builders put their last name there,
while others put "Vans" or whatever. I'm not looking at my cert right now
(it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not
labeled "Fabricator."
-Bill B
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:00 AM, wrote:
>
> 1/20/2010
>
> Hello Steve Thomas, You write: "I am the manufacturer of the airplane."
>
> {Response} Nice try, but no cigar.
>
> In the eyes of the FAA you are not the manufacturer of a type certificated
> airplane (which title carrys many significant qualifications, approvals, and
> inspections), but instead the "fabicator and assembler" of an experimental
> amateur built airplane.
>
> The regulatory permission and description that allows our category of
> aircraft to exist does not use the word "manufactured". See here:
>
> " 14 CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates. Experimental certificates are
> issued for the following purposes:
>
> (g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
> portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook
> the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> =========================================================
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
> From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
>
>
> OC,
>
> As I read the regs. you quote below, it sounds like I am qualified to
> perform the
> tests.
>
> "(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
>> by-
>>
>> (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests
>> and inspections
>>
> are to be performed;
>
> I am the manufacturer of the airplane.
>
>
> Steve Thomas
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/20/2010
Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more with
your help?
You write:
1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are huge
expanses of this country where this is true."
{Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam the
wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the uncontrolled
airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low
altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.
There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can you
please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area and
confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt them.
Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace and
therefore is controlled.
2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."
{Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of the
surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) (5)
(i). See here:
"(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person
may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an
operable coded radar beacon transponder.......
(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia
at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet
above the surface; and....."
3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
it turned on."
{Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with no
transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL if
within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, as
long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.
Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you have
in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?
Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not
is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the
specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace"
is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR
paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a
transponder or not.
Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a set of
low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes there
is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard
pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled airspace)
unless a special navigation effort was made.
==================================================
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
Bakerocb,
Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. No
doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
(controlled airspace).
If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), does
not
apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is true.
If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
Bakerocb,
SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR
chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat
trip planning.
You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR
chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way,
one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E
airspace exists.
I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point.
Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where
I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most
of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach
exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There
is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts
at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'.
With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual
flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I
would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a
higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is
recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low
- I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL.
Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or
leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the
repair shop is..).
Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom and dignity.
It is the argument of tyrants and it is the creed of slaves" - William Pitt
in the House of Commons
>
> 1/20/2010
>
> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more
> with
> your help?
>
> You write:
>
> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are
> huge
> expanses of this country where this is true."
>
> {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam
> the
> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the
> uncontrolled
> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low
> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.
>
> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now.
> Can you
> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area
> and
> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt
> them.
> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace
> and
> therefore is controlled.
>
> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that
> folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."
>
> {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet
> of the
> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b)
> (5)
> (i). See here:
>
> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person
> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with
> an
> operable coded radar beacon transponder.......
>
> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
> Columbia
> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500
> feet
> above the surface; and....."
>
> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or
> without
> it turned on."
>
> {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with
> no
> transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL
> if
> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled,
> as
> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.
>
> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you
> have
> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?
>
> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or
> not
> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather
> the
> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled
> airspace"
> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14
> CFR
> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a
> transponder or not.
>
> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a
> set of
> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes
> there
> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard
> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled
> airspace)
> unless a special navigation effort was made.
>
> ==================================================
>
> From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> Bakerocb,
>
> Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
> I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments.
> No
> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
> (controlled airspace).
>
> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that
> folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c),
> does
> not
> apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
>
> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or
> without
> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is
> true.
>
> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
>
> Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Z-13/20 questions |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I've decided that Z13/20 works best for my all electric ship and I have a couple
of questions:
For aesthetic and robustness reasons, I'm married to the Honeywell AML 34 15A
switches. But they only come in DPST.
So for the Ebus-Alt and Master Power switches, could I use one pole for the respective
VR Bus terminal and one for the respective contactor? I see the reason
for the DPDT switch in the drawing is to allow shutting down the respective alternator
without disconnecting the respective bus from the remaining alternator.
But couldn't that be accomplished by placing the Alt Field breaker between
the DPST switch and the VR to use as a 'switch' to shutdown the offending alternator
without opening the respective contactor?
In the drawing, why is the VR bus circuit both fuselinked AND CB'd?
Why fuselink the battery bus-Ebus wire if it's (*) 6" or less?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282517#282517
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Silicone goo in IR alt. |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
When I opened up the regulator of an IR alternator, the circuit board was submerged
in a slime of silicone jelly. I blew most of it out with 100 psi air, but
how do you get rid of the residue? I tried acetone with no effect. And even though
I wiped off the area, I can still feel the slippery effects of the residue
everytime I handle that part. I'm concerned about contaminating other parts
of my plane and subsequent bonding problems for resin and/or paint.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282524#282524
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | ONGOING DISCUSSION |
1/19/2010
Hello Jim, Good to hear from you.
You ask: "Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance
with the 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates
under "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?"
>"14 CFR 91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in
>controlled airspace under IFR unless-
>
> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
{Response} Just avoiding all "IFR operations in controlled airspace" is not
sufficient
to relieve one of the 14 CFR required periodic transponder checks. Let's see
if we can figure out why.
1) First, while operating in what airspace must one's aircraft be
"........equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder......"?
Paragraph 91.215 (b) answers that question:
"91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with
an operable coded radar beacon transponder .........."
So if one avoids flying in any of the transponder required airspace as
described in (b) (1) through (b) (5) then one does not need a transponder.
But if one flys, even under VFR, in any of that described airspace then they
must have an operable transponder installed. Note that the airspace below
10,000 feet MSL and within 2,500 feet of the surface is not transponder
required airspace. See 91.215 (b) (5) (i).**
2) What kind of transponder must we part 91 pilots have to fly in that
transponder required airspace? 91.215 (a) answers that question:
"91.215 (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
(Mode S)."
3) Does that 91.215 (a) required installed transponder have to have any kind
of a periodic test? 91.413 answers that question:
"91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
(a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a),
121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24
calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found
to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..............."
4) When are we required to operate the 91.215 (a) required transponder that
has been tested as required by 91.413? Paragraph 91.215 (c) answers that
question:
"91.215 (c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person
operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained
in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate
code or as assigned by ATC."
5) Note that the term IFR has not even come up yet in the questions and
answers in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. So what is the big deal about transponders
and IFR controlled airspace?
The big deal is the requirement in 91.411 of complying with Appendix E as
well as Appendix F of Part 43 for a transponder used in IFR operations in
controlled airspace. See here:
"91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-
(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system,
each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting
system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E
and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
6) So if we have an aircraft with an engine-driven electrical system how do
we get out from under the 91.411 or 91.413 every two year transponder
checks? We could:
A) Never fly (VFRor IFR) within the 91.215 (b) transponder required
airspace. Then you will not be be required to either have a transponder or
have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed,
but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it.
B) Fly only VFR within the 91.215 (b) permitted airspace -- below 10,000
feet MSL or within 2,500 feet above the surface. There you will not be be
required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have one.
If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you are
forbidden from operating it.
C) Fly IFR only in Class G uncontrolled airspace, if you can find some.
There you will not be required to either have a transponder or have it
checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but it
has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. You don't even
have to be in contact with ATC.
I think that item C above is largely theoretical in nature. Supposedly the
low altitude IFR charts show the uncontrolled Class G airspace below 14,500
MSL in brown. It has been quite awhile since I've flown out west where there
was still some brown showing, but there wasn't much left. All airspace above
14,500MSL is Class E air space and therefore considered controlled.
So you can see that it is possible to avoid the 14 CFR required periodic
transponder checks, but not very practical unless maybe you are an ag pilot
operating locally.
Comments or questions?
OC
**PS: See 91.215 (b) (2). I note that KHWY is within 30 miles of KIAD which
is listed in Appendix D, Section 1 to Part 91. Therefore airplanes operating
out of KHWY are required to have operable transponders.
===================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:12 PM
Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION
> Hello, OC,
>
> Enjoyed meeting you and looking at your Experimental some months back when
> I was at HEF for Craig Laporte's first flight of his Tailwind.
>
> I've been following the "Forum" discussions on Transponder required-checks
> and have learned a lot from your well informed inputs. The following
> portion of your current message caused me to wonder if I have been missing
> something of significance in this arena.
>
> Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance with the
> 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates under
> "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?
>
>
> "(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled
> airspace under IFR unless-
>
> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>
> Jim McCulley
> TAILWIND at HWY
> ====================================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
Essentially impossible. All you can do is make sure you do not handle
the part and then touch anything else that may need paint or resin.
I guess curiosity would prompt me to ask why you removed the silicone
potting material since it was put there for a purpose? And why you are
removing the regulator from an IR alternator in the first place?
If your intention is to replace it with an external regulator, then just
get rid of the part with the silicone residue on it - problem solved.
If you plan to repackage the internal regulator externally, then do so
now - problem solved.
Dick Tasker
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> When I opened up the regulator of an IR alternator, the circuit board was submerged
in a slime of silicone jelly. I blew most of it out with 100 psi air, but
how do you get rid of the residue? I tried acetone with no effect. And even
though I wiped off the area, I can still feel the slippery effects of the residue
everytime I handle that part. I'm concerned about contaminating other parts
of my plane and subsequent bonding problems for resin and/or paint.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282524#282524
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Subject: | Re: ONGOING DISCUSSION |
Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the
chapter?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> 1/19/2010
>
> Hello Jim, Good to hear from you.
>
> You ask: "Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance
> with the 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates
> under "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?"
>
>> "14 CFR 91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in
>> controlled airspace under IFR unless-
>>
>> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
>> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
>> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
>> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>
> {Response} Just avoiding all "IFR operations in controlled airspace" is
> not sufficient
> to relieve one of the 14 CFR required periodic transponder checks. Let's
> see
> if we can figure out why.
>
> 1) First, while operating in what airspace must one's aircraft be
> "........equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder......"?
> Paragraph 91.215 (b) answers that question:
>
> "91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by
> ATC, no
> person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs
> (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped
> with
> an operable coded radar beacon transponder .........."
>
> So if one avoids flying in any of the transponder required airspace as
> described in (b) (1) through (b) (5) then one does not need a transponder.
> But if one flys, even under VFR, in any of that described airspace then
> they
> must have an operable transponder installed. Note that the airspace below
> 10,000 feet MSL and within 2,500 feet of the surface is not transponder
> required airspace. See 91.215 (b) (5) (i).**
>
> 2) What kind of transponder must we part 91 pilots have to fly in that
> transponder required airspace? 91.215 (a) answers that question:
>
> "91.215 (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations
> not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
> installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
> class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
> reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
> (Mode S)."
>
> 3) Does that 91.215 (a) required installed transponder have to have any
> kind
> of a periodic test? 91.413 answers that question:
>
> "91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
>
> (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a),
> 121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24
> calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and
> found
> to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..............."
>
> 4) When are we required to operate the 91.215 (a) required transponder that
> has been tested as required by 91.413? Paragraph 91.215 (c) answers that
> question:
>
> "91.215 (c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in
> paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person
> operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained
> in accordance with 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
> including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate
> code or as assigned by ATC."
>
> 5) Note that the term IFR has not even come up yet in the questions and
> answers in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. So what is the big deal about transponders
> and IFR controlled airspace?
>
> The big deal is the requirement in 91.411 of complying with Appendix E as
> well as Appendix F of Part 43 for a transponder used in IFR operations in
> controlled airspace. See here:
>
> "91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
> inspections.
>
> (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled
> airspace
> under IFR unless-
>
> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system,
> each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting
> system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E
> and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>
> 6) So if we have an aircraft with an engine-driven electrical system how do
> we get out from under the 91.411 or 91.413 every two year transponder
> checks? We could:
>
> A) Never fly (VFRor IFR) within the 91.215 (b) transponder required
> airspace. Then you will not be be required to either have a transponder or
> have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed,
> but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it.
>
> B) Fly only VFR within the 91.215 (b) permitted airspace -- below 10,000
> feet MSL or within 2,500 feet above the surface. There you will not be be
> required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have
> one.
> If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you are
> forbidden from operating it.
>
> C) Fly IFR only in Class G uncontrolled airspace, if you can find some.
> There you will not be required to either have a transponder or have it
> checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but it
> has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. You don't even
> have to be in contact with ATC.
>
> I think that item C above is largely theoretical in nature. Supposedly the
> low altitude IFR charts show the uncontrolled Class G airspace below 14,500
> MSL in brown. It has been quite awhile since I've flown out west where
> there
> was still some brown showing, but there wasn't much left. All airspace
> above
> 14,500MSL is Class E air space and therefore considered controlled.
>
> So you can see that it is possible to avoid the 14 CFR required periodic
> transponder checks, but not very practical unless maybe you are an ag pilot
> operating locally.
>
> Comments or questions?
>
> OC
>
> **PS: See 91.215 (b) (2). I note that KHWY is within 30 miles of KIAD which
> is listed in Appendix D, Section 1 to Part 91. Therefore airplanes
> operating
> out of KHWY are required to have operable transponders.
>
> ===================================================
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:12 PM
> Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION
>
>
>> Hello, OC,
>>
>> Enjoyed meeting you and looking at your Experimental some months back
>> when
>> I was at HEF for Craig Laporte's first flight of his Tailwind.
>>
>> I've been following the "Forum" discussions on Transponder
>> required-checks
>> and have learned a lot from your well informed inputs. The following
>> portion of your current message caused me to wonder if I have been
>> missing
>> something of significance in this arena.
>>
>> Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance with the
>> 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates under
>> "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?
>>
>>
>> "(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled
>> airspace under IFR unless-
>>
>> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
>> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
>> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
>> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>>
>> Jim McCulley
>> TAILWIND at HWY
>> =====================================================================================
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Hey, John, how about something like this?:
http://tinyurl.com/yhotqp4
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:06 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> When I opened up the regulator of an IR alternator, the circuit board was submerged
in a slime of silicone jelly. I blew most of it out with 100 psi air, but
how do you get rid of the residue? I tried acetone with no effect. And even
though I wiped off the area, I can still feel the slippery effects of the residue
everytime I handle that part. I'm concerned about contaminating other parts
of my plane and subsequent bonding problems for resin and/or paint.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: ONGOING DISCUSSION |
From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Since I was out aviating in uncontrolled airspace this afternoon I took a
look at my aircraft's certificate during preflight. In the box for
manufacturer the FAA put N/A. In the box for builder, they put my name.
My 2 cents in this learned and informative discussion.
Thanks guys.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:40 PM, wrote:
>
>
> 1/19/2010
>
> Hello Jim, Good to hear from you.
>
> You ask: "Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from complianc
e
> with the 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operat
es
> under "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?"
>
> "14 CFR 91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in
>> controlled airspace under IFR unless-
>>
>> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
>> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
>> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
>> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>>
>
> {Response} Just avoiding all "IFR operations in controlled airspace" is n
ot
> sufficient
> to relieve one of the 14 CFR required periodic transponder checks. Let's
> see
> if we can figure out why.
>
> 1) First, while operating in what airspace must one's aircraft be
> "........equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder......"?
> Paragraph 91.215 (b) answers that question:
>
> "91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC,
> no
> person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs
> (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped
> with
> an operable coded radar beacon transponder .........."
>
> So if one avoids flying in any of the transponder required airspace as
> described in (b) (1) through (b) (5) then one does not need a transponder
.
> But if one flys, even under VFR, in any of that described airspace then
> they
> must have an operable transponder installed. Note that the airspace below
> 10,000 feet MSL and within 2,500 feet of the surface is not transponder
> required airspace. See 91.215 (b) (5) (i).**
>
> 2) What kind of transponder must we part 91 pilots have to fly in that
> transponder required airspace? 91.215 (a) answers that question:
>
> "91.215 (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations
> not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipmen
t
> installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
> class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
> reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C11
2
> (Mode S)."
>
> 3) Does that 91.215 (a) required installed transponder have to have any
> kind
> of a periodic test? 91.413 answers that question:
>
> "91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
>
> (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a),
> 121.345(c), or =A7135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding
24
> calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and
> found
> to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and..............."
>
> 4) When are we required to operate the 91.215 (a) required transponder th
at
> has been tested as required by 91.413? Paragraph 91.215 (c) answers that
> question:
>
> "91.215 (c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified
in
> paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person
> operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintaine
d
> in accordance with =A791.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
> including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropria
te
> code or as assigned by ATC."
>
> 5) Note that the term IFR has not even come up yet in the questions and
> answers in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. So what is the big deal about transponde
rs
> and IFR controlled airspace?
>
> The big deal is the requirement in 91.411 of complying with Appendix E as
> well as Appendix F of Part 43 for a transponder used in IFR operations in
> controlled airspace. See here:
>
> "91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
> inspections.
>
> (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled
> airspace
> under IFR unless-
>
> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system,
> each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting
> system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices
E
> and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>
> 6) So if we have an aircraft with an engine-driven electrical system how
do
> we get out from under the 91.411 or 91.413 every two year transponder
> checks? We could:
>
> A) Never fly (VFRor IFR) within the 91.215 (b) transponder required
> airspace. Then you will not be be required to either have a transponder o
r
> have it checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installe
d,
> but it has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it.
>
> B) Fly only VFR within the 91.215 (b) permitted airspace -- below 10,000
> feet MSL or within 2,500 feet above the surface. There you will not be be
> required to either have a transponder or have it checked if you do have
> one.
> If you do have a transponder installed, but it has not been checked you a
re
> forbidden from operating it.
>
> C) Fly IFR only in Class G uncontrolled airspace, if you can find some.
> There you will not be required to either have a transponder or have it
> checked if you do have one. If you do have a transponder installed, but i
t
> has not been checked you are forbidden from operating it. You don't even
> have to be in contact with ATC.
>
> I think that item C above is largely theoretical in nature. Supposedly th
e
> low altitude IFR charts show the uncontrolled Class G airspace below 14,5
00
> MSL in brown. It has been quite awhile since I've flown out west where
> there
> was still some brown showing, but there wasn't much left. All airspace
> above
> 14,500MSL is Class E air space and therefore considered controlled.
>
> So you can see that it is possible to avoid the 14 CFR required periodic
> transponder checks, but not very practical unless maybe you are an ag pil
ot
> operating locally.
>
> Comments or questions?
>
> OC
>
> **PS: See 91.215 (b) (2). I note that KHWY is within 30 miles of KIAD whi
ch
> is listed in Appendix D, Section 1 to Part 91. Therefore airplanes
> operating
> out of KHWY are required to have operable transponders.
>
> ========================
==
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.ne
t
> >
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:12 PM
> Subject: ONGOING DISCUSSION
>
>
> Hello, OC,
>>
>> Enjoyed meeting you and looking at your Experimental some months back wh
en
>> I was at HEF for Craig Laporte's first flight of his Tailwind.
>>
>> I've been following the "Forum" discussions on Transponder required-chec
ks
>> and have learned a lot from your well informed inputs. The following
>> portion of your current message caused me to wonder if I have been missi
ng
>> something of significance in this arena.
>>
>> Does the following item (a) possibly relieve one from compliance with th
e
>> 24 calendar month criteria if the aircraft involved never operates under
>> "IFR conditions" in controlled airspace?
>>
>>
>> "(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled
>> airspace under IFR unless-
>>
>> (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure
>> system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude
>> reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with
>> appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;"
>>
>> Jim McCulley
>> TAILWIND at HWY
>>
>> ========================
>>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
At 01:06 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
>
>When I opened up the regulator of an IR alternator, the circuit
>board was submerged in a slime of silicone jelly. I blew most of it
>out with 100 psi air, but how do you get rid of the residue? I tried
>acetone with no effect. And even though I wiped off the area, I can
>still feel the slippery effects of the residue everytime I handle
>that part. I'm concerned about contaminating other parts of my plane
>and subsequent bonding problems for resin and/or paint.
That's a tough job . . . I think we had some
super-solvents at HBC that would cut silicon
oils. I'm going to be out there tomorrow close
to the processes lab . . . I'll drop in and
ask.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-13/20 questions |
At 12:53 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
>
>I've decided that Z13/20 works best for my all electric ship and I
>have a couple of questions:
>
>For aesthetic and robustness reasons, I'm married to the Honeywell
>AML 34 15A switches. But they only come in DPST.
>
>So for the Ebus-Alt and Master Power switches, could I use one pole
>for the respective VR Bus terminal and one for the respective
>contactor? I see the reason for the DPDT switch in the drawing is to
>allow shutting down the respective alternator without disconnecting
>the respective bus from the remaining alternator. But couldn't that
>be accomplished by placing the Alt Field breaker between the DPST
>switch and the VR to use as a 'switch' to shutdown the offending
>alternator without opening the respective contactor?
>
>In the drawing, why is the VR bus circuit both fuselinked AND CB'd?
>Why fuselink the battery bus-Ebus wire if it's (*) 6" or less?
We've had a number of conversations about Z-13/20
since it was first conceived and published. About
two years ago I confessed that it wasn't a good
idea and pulled it from the suite of drawings offered
on the website and the book.
It's my recommendation you consider Z-13/8 as the
lightest, simplest, and least expensive approach
to a highly failure tolerant system for light
aircraft. If you MUST go with the SD20 alternator,
then some variant on full-up, dual systems with
crossfeed is recommended.
Switching philosophy is a personal choice. Suggestions
made in the Z-figures are the product of 20+ years
of sifting simple ideas to meet design goals.
I'm not suggesting that the Z-figures are "golden",
only that they satisfied the design goals. If your
goal is to use the AML switches, you can add more
switches and give up the convenience and operational
safeguards offered by the two pole, progressive
transfer devices . . . or have the AML operate relay(s)
as needed to keep the functionality. Finally,
as you've suggested, you can start shuffling things
around . . . but it's no longer a Z-figure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Dick,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I opened up the IR to cut all the circuits of the board away from external terminals
so that I could convert it to a ER alternator. I'll have to look at how
I might do the conversion without the OE plug and mounting points.
I was following instructions for the conversion from an article that appeared in
the Experimenter. The alternator in the pictures had an epoxy potted board instead
of this nasty silicone surprise
John.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282603#282603
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Steve,
Thanks for that. The data sheet says it gets rid of silicone oils so should do
the trick. Now the trick is to find it.javascript:emoticon(':D')
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282608#282608
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Silicone goo in IR alt. |
Jon;
Possibly the last item on this page?? http://tinyurl.com/yjjtwus Silicone is
resistant to most solvents. Another possibility is silicone polish remover,
available from auto paint shop wholesalers.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:07 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Silicone goo in IR alt.
>
>
> When I opened up the regulator of an IR alternator, the circuit board was
submerged
> in a slime of silicone jelly. I blew most of it out with 100 psi air, but
how do you get
> rid of the residue? I tried acetone with no effect. And even though I
wiped off the
> area, I can still feel the slippery effects of the residue everytime I
handle that part.
> I'm concerned about contaminating other parts of my plane and subsequent
bonding
> problems for resin and/or paint.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282524#282524
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ===================================================
> =======
> _-
> ===================================================
> =======
> _-
> ===================================================
> =======
> _-
> ===================================================
> =======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob McC
The PolySi product looks like it would do the job, but one gal. smallest size is
a bit more than I need.
The 3M Novec Degreaser product is available (who'd athunk) from Aircraft Spruce!
in 12 oz aerosol, $19, and I have to place an order there soon.
Thanks for the thought,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282619#282619
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Silicone goo in IR alt. |
John;
The link I sent says it's available also in pints and quarts, but if you've
found something at "Spruce" and you're placing an order anyway, then that's
the way to go.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:01 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Silicone goo in IR alt.
>
>
> Bob McC
>
> The PolySi product looks like it would do the job, but one gal. smallest
size is a bit
> more than I need.
>
> The 3M Novec Degreaser product is available (who'd athunk) from Aircraft
Spruce! in
> 12 oz aerosol, $19, and I have to place an order there soon.
>
> Thanks for the thought,
> John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au |
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification |
Folks,
Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer.
Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside
Alaska.
For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR
Exempt".
In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it
is most common airspace below below A.
Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace.
Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates
to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is
centered, or as otherwise noted/charted.
In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode
C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing.
How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part
91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it
does not establish the in-service performance is maintained.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton
> bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by:
>
> 1/20/2010
>
> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more
> with
> your help?
>
> You write:
>
> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are
> huge
> expanses of this country where this is true."
>
> {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam
> the
> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the
> uncontrolled
> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low
> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.
>
> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can
> you
> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area
> and
> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt
> them.
> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace
> and
> therefore is controlled.
>
> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that
> folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."
>
> {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of
> the
> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b)
> (5)
> (i). See here:
>
> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person
> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an
>
> operable coded radar beacon transponder.......
>
> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
> Columbia
> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500
> feet
> above the surface; and....."
>
> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or
> without
> it turned on."
>
> {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with
> no
> transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL
> if
> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled,
> as
> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.
>
> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you
> have
> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?
>
> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or
> not
> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather
> the
> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled
> airspace"
> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14
> CFR
> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a
> transponder or not.
>
> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a
> set of
> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes
> there
> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard
> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled
> airspace)
> unless a special navigation effort was made.
>
> ==================================================
>
> From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> Bakerocb,
>
> Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
> I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments.
> No
> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
> (controlled airspace).
>
> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c),
> does
> not
> apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
>
> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is
> true.
>
> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
>
> Jon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-13/20 questions |
From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Arrgh, Bob.
After all my rumination to decide and you say "by the way that system sucks"? You're
killing me!(':)')
As you probably gathered from the Silicone Goo post, I already have the aux alternator.
It's 40 amps, same basic unit as B&C. It's overkill but the penalty is
just 1.5 #'s and I do need some of the capacity.
I'm choosing Z-13 over Z-19 for 6#'s less weight and unlimited electrical endurance
at the expense of marginally less reliability than 2 batteries.
But I don't see an advantage to a cross-feed contactor in Z-13, or where it would
go. It seems that Z-13 has everything that I would need. What did you have
in mind?
I still don't understand the thinking of having a fuselink and fuse/CB on the
same circuit ala the battery bus to e bus run. Otherwise I feel that Z-13/8(40)
and I will get along fine.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282651#282651
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification |
Good Morning Bill,
I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify the
accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified by a
properly rated shop.
However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR
and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas
that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless
you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C,
and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint and quit
participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is
not required by the appropriate authority.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au
Folks,
Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer.
Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little
G, outside Alaska.
For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called
"Controlled/VFR Exempt".
In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US,
as it is most common airspace below below A.
Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace.
Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder
relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which
Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted.
In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for
a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary
initial/recurrent testing.
How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required
in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do
that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton
> bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by:
>
> 1/20/2010
>
> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more
> with
> your help?
>
> You write:
>
> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are
> huge
> expanses of this country where this is true."
>
> {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam
> the
> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the
> uncontrolled
> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low
> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.
>
> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can
> you
> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area
> and
> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt
> them.
> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace
> and
> therefore is controlled.
>
> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that
> folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."
>
> {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of
> the
> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b)
> (5)
> (i). See here:
>
> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no
> person
> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an
>
> operable coded radar beacon transponder.......
>
> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
> Columbia
> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500
> feet
> above the surface; and....."
>
> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or
> without
> it turned on."
>
> {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with
> no
> transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL
> if
> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled,
> as
> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.
>
> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you
> have
> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?
>
> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or
> not
> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather
> the
> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled
> airspace"
> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14
> CFR
> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a
> transponder or not.
>
> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a
> set of
> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes
> there
> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard
> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled
> airspace)
> unless a special navigation effort was made.
>
> ==================================================
>
> From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
>
> Bakerocb,
>
> Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If
> I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments.
> No
> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment
> (controlled airspace).
>
> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks
> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for
> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the
> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c),
> does
> not
> apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.
>
> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without
> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is
> true.
>
> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing.
>
> Jon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification |
From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AHi Bob,=0A =0AYour notes have not been ignored - I agree with your posit
ion. =0A =0AThere are two issues being bantered about. =0A =0AThe first i
s the requirement to have a transponder installed. As you have stated, you
are not required to have one unless flying in the airspace that you listed.
=0A =0AThe second is the USE of a transponder IF you have one installed (14
CFR 91.215 (c) at all times in any airspace other than Class G).=0A =0AIn
my opinion, the FAA has complicated this by using non-descript language.=0A
=0AJon=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bobsv35b(at)aol.com=0ASent:
Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:15am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification=0A
=0A=0AGood Morning Bill,=0A =0AI do not have an opinion as to whether or no
t a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would pro
bably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. =0A =0AHowever, I am am
azed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most op
erations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from area
s that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strict
ly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an a
irspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten t
housand feet MSL and it is easy. =0A =0AGet out where you have to fly above
ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't
need a transponder.=0A =0AThis is the third message I have sent on this su
bject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I sho
uld take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they
need something which is not required by the appropriate authority.=0A =0AH
appy Skies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0AAKA=0ABob Siegfried=0ADowners Grove, IL=0AStear
man N3977A =0A =0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central
Standard Time, wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:--> AeroElectric-List me
ssage posted by: wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au=0A=0A=0AFolks,=0AUsing the ter
m "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer.=0A=0AAirspace is categorize
d as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.=0A=0AOnly F and G are "uncontrolled", there is
no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska.=0A=0AFor those with a l
ong memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt
".=0AIn regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in U
S, as it is most common airspace below below A.=0A=0AGenerally, B,C and D a
re terminal/tower airspace.=0A=0ABelow 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the
requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 m
iles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/c
harted.=0A=0AIn my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requ
irements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary ini
tial/recurrent testing.=0A=0AHow?? do you establish the 95% probability per
formance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of
an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service per
formance is maintained.=0A=0ARegards,=0ABill Hamilton =0A=0A=0A> bakerocb@c
ox.net wrote:=0A> =0A> --> Avionics-List message posted by: =0A> =0A> 1/20/2010=0A> =0A> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat
on this subject a bit more =0A> with =0A> your help?=0A> =0A> You write:=0A
> =0A> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There ar
e =0A> huge =0A> expanses of this country where this is true."=0A> =0A> {Re
sponse} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam =0A> the
=0A> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the =0A> u
ncontrolled =0A> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white
on the low =0A> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.=0A>
=0A> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now.
Can =0A> you =0A> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart f
or your area =0A> and =0A> confirm that the statements you made above are t
rue? I tend to doubt =0A> them. =0A> Note that all airspace in our country
above 14,500 is Class E airspace =0A> and =0A> therefore is controlled.=0A>
=0A> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find tha
t =0A> folks=0A> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico
) can fly for=0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon A
NY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."=0A> =0A> {Response
} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of =0A> the
=0A> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b
) =0A> (5) =0A> (i). See here:=0A> =0A> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise
authorized or directed by ATC, no =0A> person =0A> may operate an aircraft
in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) =0A> through (b)(5) of this
section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an =0A> =0A> operable coded
radar beacon transponder.......=0A> =0A> (i) In all airspace of the 48 con
tiguous states and the District of =0A> Columbia =0A> at and above 10,000 f
eet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 =0A> feet =0A> above the
surface; and....."=0A> =0A> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly withou
t a transponder and/or =0A> without =0A> it turned on."=0A> =0A> {Response}
Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with =0A> no =0A>
transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL =0A
> if =0A> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is contro
lled, =0A> as =0A> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.=0A> =0A
> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you
=0A> have =0A> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?
=0A> =0A> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transpond
er or =0A> not =0A> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airsp
ace, but rather =0A> the =0A> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b).
The term "controlled =0A> airspace" =0A> is not used once in the entire 91.
215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 =0A> CFR =0A> paragaph that regulates
whether an aircraft must be equipped with a =0A> transponder or not.=0A>
=0A> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a
=0A> set of =0A> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.=0A> =0A> '
OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and =0A>
understand knowledge."=0A> =0A> PS: I just went on line and checked in the
vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes =0A> there =0A> is some brown (uncontrolled ai
rspace) out there, but one would be hard =0A> pressed to fly around and avo
id all surrounding white (controlled =0A> airspace) =0A> unless a special n
avigation effort was made.=0A> =0A> =============
=0A> From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>=0A> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-L
ist: Encoder Certification=0A> =0A> Bakerocb,=0A> =0A> Everything noted so
far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If=0A> I missed where that
was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. =0A> No=0A> doubt that
what has been said is applicable given the right environment=0A> (controll
ed airspace).=0A> =0A> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you
will find that folks=0A> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in Ne
w Mexico) can fly for=0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT com
e upon ANY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additional
ly, 91.215 (c), =0A> does =0A> not=0A> apply as almost all of our airspace
is uncontrolled.=0A> =0A> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a tra
nsponder and/or without=0A> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this
country where this is =0A> true.=0A> =0A> If someone can prove the above wr
ong, I would be interested in hearing.=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> ====
===================== Use utiliti
es Day ======================
= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ===========
============ - List Contribution Web Sit
e sp; ===============
.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List] http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl
===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Encoder Certification |
1/21/2010
Hello Bill Boyd, You wrote:
1) "OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a
blank on
it for "manufacturer.""
{Response} That is correct. FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATE block B is entitled MANUFACTURER. This form is used for many
different kinds of aircraft than just experimental amateur built. Some of
these different kinds of aircraft could indeed have been created by an FAA
recognized manufacturer such as Boeing, Piper, Cessna, etc.
2) "I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put
"Vans" or whatever."
{Response} Not likely. That form is filled out and signed by the FAA
Representative, either an FAA Employee or a DAR, who signs it in block E.
3) "I'm not looking at my cert right now it's in the plane), but I'm
reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator.""
{Response} I am looking at my SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE right now.
Block B, MANUFACTURER has N/A as an entry. Block D, BUILDER has my name.
I hope that every homebuilder who has read this thread is now convinced that
they are not their aircraft's manufacturer, which is one of the
qualifications listed in 14 CFR 91.411 as needed in order to perform the
tests required by that paragraph (91.411 Atimeter system and altitude
reporting equipment tests and inspection).
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: I write not to pick on you Bill, but to encourage my fellow builders to
move from the casual arena of "pretty sure" or "hearsay, gossip, and rumor"
to the available facts (which are usually not that hard to come by)
regarding our hobby.
==========================================================
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on
it for "manufacturer." I've seen some builders put their last name there,
while others put "Vans" or whatever. I'm not looking at my cert right now
(it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not
labeled "Fabricator."
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | ONGOING DISCUSSION |
1/21/2010
Hello Raymond, You wrote; "Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance
with E and F of the
chapter?"
{Response} The entities qualified to perform the 14 CFR Part 43 Appendicies
E and F tests required by 14 CFR paragraphs 91.411 and 91.413 are listed in
those paragraphs. They can be readily accessed at this web site by clicking
on Regulations & Policies:
http://www.faa.gov/
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=================================================
From: ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ONGOING DISCUSSION
Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the
chapter?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-13/20 questions |
At 10:54 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
>
>Arrgh, Bob.
>
>After all my rumination to decide and you say "by the way that
>system sucks"? You're killing me!(':)')
Sorry 'bout that . . . but it was not well thought
out. Shouldn't have published it without more thought.
>As you probably gathered from the Silicone Goo post, I already have
>the aux alternator. It's 40 amps, same basic unit as B&C. It's
>overkill but the penalty is just 1.5 #'s and I do need some of the capacity.
>I'm choosing Z-13 over Z-19 for 6#'s less weight and unlimited
>electrical endurance at the expense of marginally less reliability
>than 2 batteries.
>
>But I don't see an advantage to a cross-feed contactor in Z-13, or
>where it would go. It seems that Z-13 has everything that I would
>need. What did you have in mind?
Only completely independent systems have/need
cross-feed capability. If you have the ability
to drive two alternators and get rated output
from them and your second alternator is hefty,
then perhaps Z-14 is a better bet with two smaller
batteries.
>I still don't understand the thinking of having a fuselink and
>fuse/CB on the same circuit ala the battery bus to e bus run.
>Otherwise I feel that Z-13/8(40) and I will get along fine.
The only instance I recall using a fusible link in series
with a breaker is on systems that feature fuse blocks AND
crowbar OV protection. The only circuit protection on the
panel is the 5A breaker made necessary by the crowbar ov
system EXTENSION of the fuse bus up to the breaker calls
for ROBUST circuit protection that won't open when the breaker
trips.
Where do you see a fusible link, fuse and cb on the same
line in my drawings?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off |
topic
Old Bob
Be assured that many of us do read your comments!
Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage
everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to
ATC or are always in remote areas.
With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer
to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the
pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard
any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never
had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission?
If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the
same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder
turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting
the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as
well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the
manometer test to rule out that risk though.
Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is
irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak
that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops
with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment
directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later.
I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating
a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other
certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different??
Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make
transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety?
It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us
from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification
costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users.
Ken
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bill,
>
> I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify
> the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified
> by a properly rated shop.
>
> However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
> required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is
> VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those
> few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT
> required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away
> from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
>
> Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
> stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
>
> This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
> previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint
> and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something
> which is not required by the appropriate authority.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Downers Grove, IL
> Stearman N3977A
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jared Yates" <junk(at)jaredyates.com> |
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off |
topic
Likewise, TCAS systems that are in many larger airplanes will not "see" an
airplane that doesn't have a transponder on.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification -
off topic
Old Bob
Be assured that many of us do read your comments!
Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage
everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to
ATC or are always in remote areas.
With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer
to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the
pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard
any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never
had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission?
If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the
same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder
turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting
the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as
well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the
manometer test to rule out that risk though.
Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is
irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak
that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops
with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment
directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later.
I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating
a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other
certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different??
Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make
transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety?
It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us
from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification
costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users.
Ken
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bill,
>
> I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify
> the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified
> by a properly rated shop.
>
> However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is
> required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is
> VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those
> few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT
> required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away
> from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy.
>
> Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and
> stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.
>
> This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the
> previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint
> and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something
> which is not required by the appropriate authority.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Downers Grove, IL
> Stearman N3977A
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-13/20 questions |
From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
John,
Here are some more AML rocker switches if you are interested:
http://tinyurl.com/yzesmjo
And the data sheet:
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/manual/catalog/c30030.pdf
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282724#282724
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com> |
I'm trying to find a place to purchase the silicone sleeving to make some fuse
links out of. Anyone have any ideas? I'd buy the kits from B&C but I need some
26GA for the shunt.
Thanks
--------
Paul Rose
N417PR (res)
RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282725#282725
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification |
Good Morning Jon,
Thanks for the response, I was getting lonely!
I don't think the guys that write this stuff want us to understand it.
Maybe it makes for more business as they enforce the regs?!?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/21/2010 4:43:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:
Hi Bob,
January 06, 2010 - January 21, 2010
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jg