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 . . . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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* > * * > * * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
'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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: List decorum
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
Date: Jan 06, 2010
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>
Subject: List decorum
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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>
Subject: List decorum
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: List decorum
> >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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
From: Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org>
Subject: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: [AeroElectric-List] Questions about circuit protection
From: "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2010
> 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>
Subject: List decorum
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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>
Subject: List decorum
Date: Jan 07, 2010
_____ 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 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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>
Subject: planning
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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
Date: Jan 07, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: planning
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 08, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 09, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2010
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
Date: Jan 10, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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>
Subject: planning
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 11, 2010
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
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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 . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: planning
>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>
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2010
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:
Date: Jan 13, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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- > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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- >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 28v to 14v
From: "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Subject: 28v to 14v
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Subject: math
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: math
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Subject: math
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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>
Subject: math
Date: Jan 15, 2010
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
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 28v to 14v
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2010
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
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 18, 2010
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
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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
Date: Jan 19, 2010
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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. . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 19, 2010
:D THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282286#282286 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2010
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
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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 > ==================================================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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 >> >> ======================== >> > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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.
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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.
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 20, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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>
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuesable Link
From: "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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
Date: Jan 21, 2010
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