AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jh

January 21, 2010 - February 05, 2010



      Your notes have not been ignored - I agree with your position.   
      
      There are two issues being bantered about.  
      
      The first is 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.
      
      The 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).
      
      In my opinion, the FAA has complicated this by using non-descript  language.
      
      Jon
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:15am
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 > > ========================= Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ========================= http://forums.matroni--> _http://www.matroni==================== _ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) _http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification
From: jon(at)finleyweb.net
=0AI totally agree with you Bob!=0A =0AWe had an FAA inspector present at o ur EAA chapter meeting last night. After he said that "flying is a privile dge, not a right" I offered him some advice, stood up, and walked out. =0A =0AJon =0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bobsv35b(at)aol.com=0ASent : Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:14am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification =0A=0A=0AGood Morning Jon,=0A =0AThanks for the response, I was getting lon ely!=0A =0AI don't think the guys that write this stuff want us to understa nd it. Maybe it makes for more business as they enforce the regs?!? =0A =0AHappy Skies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/21/2010 4:43:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:=0AHi Bob,=0A =0AYour notes have not been ignored - I agree with your position. =0A =0AThere ar e two issues being bantered about. =0A =0AThe first is the requirement to have a transponder installed. As you have stated, you are not required to h ave 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 al l times in any airspace other than Class G).=0A =0AIn my opinion, the FAA h as 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=0ASubject: Re: AeroElec tric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification=0A=0A=0AGood Morning Bi ll,=0A =0AI do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can v erify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certif ied by a properly rated shop. =0A =0AHowever, I am amazed that everyone se ems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast ma jority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a tran sponder. 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 r equired. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand 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 subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint an d quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something whic h is not required by the appropriate authority.=0A =0AHappy Skies,=0A =0AOl d Bob=0AAKA=0ABob Siegfried=0ADowners Grove, IL=0AStearman N3977A =0A =0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjr rhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au=0A=0A=0AFolks,=0AUsing the term "controlled airsp ace" is a bit of a misnomer.=0A=0AAirspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.=0A=0AOnly F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, an d very little G, outside Alaska.=0A=0AFor those with a long 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 US, as it is most co mmon airspace below below A.=0A=0AGenerally, B,C and D are terminal/tower a irspace.=0A=0ABelow 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfiel ds on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted.=0A=0AIn my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mod e C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent test ing.=0A=0AHow?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation do es not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintai ned.=0A=0ARegards,=0ABill Hamilton =0A=0A=0A> bakerocb(at)cox.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) "..... a lmost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are =0A> huge =0A> e xpanses of this country where this is true."=0A> =0A> {Response} I wonder i f 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> uncontrolled =0A> a irspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low =0A> al titude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.=0A> =0A> There was da mn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can =0A> you =0A> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area =0A> and =0A> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to dou bt =0A> them. =0A> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Cl ass E airspace =0A> and =0A> therefore is controlled.=0A> =0A> 2) "If you r ead the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that =0A> folks=0A> l iving 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 ANY of the=0A> airs pace 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 wil l 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 direc ted by ATC, no =0A> person =0A> may operate an aircraft in the airspace des cribed in paragraphs (b)(1) =0A> through (b)(5) of this section, unless tha t aircraft is equipped with an =0A> =0A> operable coded radar beacon transp onder.......=0A> =0A> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and t he District of =0A> Columbia =0A> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding t he airspace at and below 2,500 =0A> feet =0A> above the surface; and....." =0A> =0A> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without 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 ope rate 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 controlled, =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 min d to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?=0A> =0A> Anyway the r eal issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or =0A> not =0A> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather =0A> t he =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 an d 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 ab out what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a =0A> set of =0A> low a ltitude IFR charts for the entire country.=0A> =0A> 'OC' Says: "The best in vestment 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 N M. Yes =0A> there =0A> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard =0A> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding whi te (controlled =0A> airspace) =0A> unless a special navigation effort was m ade.=0A> =0A> ==================== =0A> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certificat ion=0A> =0A> Bakerocb,=0A> =0A> Everything noted so far in this thread assu mes controlled airspace. If=0A> I missed where that was stated in this thr ead then ignore my comments. =0A> No=0A> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment=0A> (controlled 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 New Mexico) can fly for =0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 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 transponder and/or witho ut=0A> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is =0A> true.=0A> =0A> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be inter ested in hearing.=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> =========== ============== Use utilities Day ==== =================== - MA TRONICS WEB FORUMS ================== ===== - List Contribution Web Site sp; ====================== =====0A=0A=0A http://forums.matroni--> [http://www.matronics.com/co ntribution] http://www.matroni=============== ====================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification
Good Morning Jon, Good For You! Maybe we need some aviation oriented Tea Partys? Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 10:36:14 A.M. Central Standard Time, jon(at)finleyweb.net writes: I totally agree with you Bob! We had an FAA inspector present at our EAA chapter meeting last night. After he said that "flying is a priviledge, not a right" I offered him some advice, stood up, and walked out. Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Bob, With silicone goo all over the 2nd alternator, 2 smaller batteries never crossed my mind. Looking forward to exploring that. Re fuselinks and fuses/cb's on same line, the Z-13/8 version that I have shows that condition on the battery bus feed to the E-bus alt feed switch to the Ebus. John ************* Joe, Thanks for the links. I'd looked at the AML 24 series , but dismissed them because the contact rating is for just 2 amps resistive @ 24vdc. http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.cfm/ci_id/141354/la_id/1/document/1/re_id/0 I'm not sure if this matters for operating contactors, or some of the other circuits in the Z architectures. I thought that I would have more flexibility with higher amp rated switches at the expense of an extra switch or two, because of single throw limitation. Thanks John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282742#282742 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Planning
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Hopefully this is a dumb question: With an aft battery installation=2C does the main bus feed wire come from t he starter? Also=2C does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest of t abs ground bus through bolt=2C or does it need its own more substantial bra cket to bolt to? Thanks. Jesse _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: E-bus load.
I'm having trouble getting my E bus load down to what I think are acceptable levels. So given the following avionics what would be the recommendation for the ones that should be feed by the E bus? It seems like they all should except for the second comm and one EFIS maybe. The EFIS panels will be switched separately. Also I have been planning on using the Z 10-8, partly because of brown out protection but also as an AUX power source. I once thought this would also protect the avionics during start but now I see it does not. (I dont mean to open this can of worms again, but most of the equipment I have recommends against starting with the equip. on and I'm going to follow that recommendation even though I believe Bob is right on this.) Comments are appreciated. 2 ea GRT EFIS panels: < 2 amps each. 1 ea GNS 430W < 2 amps / 8 on transmit 1 ea second comm < 2 amps on transmit 1 ea transponder 1~ 1.6 amp 1 ea Auto pilot 1 amp nominal, up to 3 in turbulence 1 ea Audio panel < .5 amp Panel lights 1 amp or so Eng info sys < .5 amp Ignition sys (batt bus) 1 amp ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "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." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "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'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "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..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). '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, 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 =========================================================== > 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: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: bakerocb(at)cox.net [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; > jon(at)finleyweb.net > Subject: Encoder Certification > > 1/21/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied > below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace > in > your area. > > Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting > regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the > non > relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining > whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded > transponder. > > I repeat: "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." > > You wrote: > > 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR > chart) > to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." > > {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate > sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare > side > by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the > areas > where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going > from > the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But > this > Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the > airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR > charts. > > 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what > altitude > the floor of Class E > airspace exists." > > {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of > controlled > Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) > or > 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. > > But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G > airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low > altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals > show > this same airspace? > > 3) "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'." > > {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet > above > the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet > MSL > or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded > transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that > determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the > surface in > order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in > that > uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning > of > controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an > operable > coded transponder. > > 4) "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..).' > > {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 > (b). > > '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, > > 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 > > =========================================================== > > 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. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > 01/20/10 19:18:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Encoder Certification
You are confused about transponder/encoder requirements for Class E and G. In the lower 48, if you are outside of A,B or C airspace you have to have a transponder if above 10,000 ft, unless within 2500 ft AGL, regardless of whether it is D, E or G. Just because it is G airspace does not mean you don't need a transponder.( also required under or above B&C regardless of altitude). If you want to go above 2500 agl and 10000msl without transponder, you will have to go to Alaska or Hawaii. Jon Finley wrote: > > RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: > http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm > > Jon > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bakerocb(at)cox.net [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net] >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM >> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; >> jon(at)finleyweb.net >> Subject: Encoder Certification >> >> 1/21/2010 >> >> Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied >> below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace >> in >> your area. >> >> Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting >> regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the >> non >> relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining >> whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded >> transponder. >> >> I repeat: "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." >> >> You wrote: >> >> 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR >> chart) >> to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." >> >> {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate >> sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare >> side >> by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the >> areas >> where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going >> from >> the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But >> this >> Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the >> airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR >> charts. >> >> 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what >> altitude >> the floor of Class E >> airspace exists." >> >> {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of >> controlled >> Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) >> or >> 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. >> >> But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G >> airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low >> altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals >> show >> this same airspace? >> >> 3) "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'." >> >> {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet >> above >> the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet >> MSL >> or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded >> transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) >> (5) >> (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that >> determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) >> (5) >> (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the >> surface in >> order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in >> that >> uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning >> of >> controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an >> operable >> coded transponder. >> >> 4) "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..).' >> >> {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 >> (b). >> >> '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, >> >> 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 >> >> =========================================================== >> >>> 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. >>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> 01/20/10 19:18:00 >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: RE: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification You are confused about transponder/encoder requirements for Class E and G. In the lower 48, if you are outside of A,B or C airspace you have to have a transponder if above 10,000 ft, unless within 2500 ft AGL, regardless of whether it is D, E or G. Just because it is G airspace does not mean you don't need a transponder.( also required under or above B&C regardless of altitude). If you want to go above 2500 agl and 10000msl without transponder, you will have to go to Alaska or Hawaii. Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM jon(at)finleyweb.net Subject: Encoder Certification 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "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." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "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'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "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..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ====================================================== From: "Jon Finley" <mailto:jon(at)finleyweb.net> <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat trip planning. You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way, one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists. I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point. Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'. With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL. Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..). Jon Finley =========================================================== 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. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 01/20/10 19:18:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 19:34:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
And, to sum it up simply, stay out of class A, B, and C airspace. Fly only below 10,000 feet or closer to the ground than 2500 feet if you have to go above ten to avoid the terrain, and you have no need for, or requirement to have, a transponder. That leaves the vast majority of the United States Airspace available for flight by a non transponder equipped aircraft. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 4:55:44 P.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "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." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "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'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "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..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). '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, 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 =========================================================== > 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: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 21, 2010
Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm gone. > > 1/21/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied > below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled > airspace in your area. > > Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that > charting regard I would like to again remind all of the > readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled > airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an > aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. > > I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to > requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-bus load.
At 02:20 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote: > >I'm having trouble getting my E bus load down to what I think are >acceptable levels. So given the following avionics what would be the >recommendation for the ones that should be feed by the E bus? It >seems like they all should except for the second comm and one EFIS >maybe. The EFIS panels will be switched separately. Keep in mind that the "e" in e-bus is ENDURANCE. Just because you don't have some piece of equipment available on the e-bus doesn't mean it's not available to you ever. You can always close the battery contactor and run any other accessory that's on the main bus. The only time you'd ever have to do this is if you had TWO failures (alternator + some electro-whizzy) on the same tank of fuel. Further, by keeping the endurance value at or below the capacity of the SD-8, the ENTIRE energy content of the battery is held in reserve for approach to landing. Suggest the list be pared down as follows >Comments are appreciated. > >1 ea GRT EFIS panels: < 2 amps each. 2.0 >1 ea GNS 430W < 2 amps / 8 on transmit 2.0 >1 ea transponder 1~ 1.6 amp 1.6 >1 ea Auto pilot 1 amp nominal, 1.0 >1 ea Audio panel < .5 amp 0.2 (0.5 amps is >VERY loud!) >Panel lights 0.1 (get this >down to a couple of led floods) > >Ignition sys (batt bus) 1 amp 1.0 This gets you down to under 8A continuous Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Planning
At 01:32 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote: >Hopefully this is a dumb question: >With an aft battery installation, does the main bus feed wire come >from the starter? Battery side of the starter contactor. Or if the contactor is built into the starter, yes, right from the starter. >Also, does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest >of tabs ground bus through bolt, or does it need its own more >substantial bracket to bolt to? To the bolt. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off
topic
Date: Jan 22, 2010
-----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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Aircraft Manufacturer
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Jim Ayers, You wrote: 1) "What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air craft?" {Response} I put my name. 2) "There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form." {Response} That is correct. Similarly only the term MANUFACTURER rather than BUILDER appears in many other generic FAA forms that are used in the process of getting our experimental amateur built aircraft through the FAA administrative wickets of purchasing, registration, and certification. To wit: Form 8050-2, AIRCRAFT BILL OF SALE Form 8050-3, CERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION Form 8050-88, IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ASSIGNMENT AND REGISTRATION OF AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. (This form refers to the "bill of sale from manufacturer of the kit" -- they mean the company that created the kit from which the aircraft is built.)** Form 8050-110, CONFIRMATION OF RESERVATION OF UNITED STATES REGISTRATION NUMBER. The use of these generic FAA forms in the process and the use of the term MANUFACTURER in those generic forms and on the FAA web site does not make the builder of an amateur built experimental aircraft into an approved aircraft manufacturer in the eyes of the FAA. This fact is made abundantly clear in the FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for each individual experimental amateur built aircraft when the MANUFACTURER block is filled with N/A (Not Applicable) and the BUILDER block is filled with the builder's name by the FAA Representative who fills out and signs the form. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: Note that this same form number 8050-88 is use for a different FAA form AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP FOR AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT which does use the term "Builder's Name". I guess the FAA was running short of money and could not afford different numbers for these two different forms. ================================================== Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification From: lessdragprod(at)aol.com Hi All, I just checked the FAA records: William E. Boyd, Jr is the "manufacturer" of a RV-6A. There is no BUILDER block on the aircraft registration form. What did you put on the 8050-1 form you sent to FAA Oklahoma City to register your air craft? I think this is the first form the FAA sees for a new homebuilt. Jim Ayers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Jon, You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise indicated." "All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14,500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. '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: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ======================================= Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fuesable Link
At 10:15 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote: > >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. I have a couple thousand feet of 24AWG which would pair up nicely with 20AWG leadwires for your shunt. Shoot me a mailing address directly. It's hard to find short pieces of the silicone over fiberglass. http://www.atkinsandpearce.com/Coated_Insulation_Products/Ben-Har/ I used to buy it in 500' spools. I'm sure B&C does too. But short chunks in the marketplace are rare. The kits from B&C are probably a pretty good deal. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 22, 2010
So since you don't want to read it, none of the rest of us should be allowed to? This is how these lists lose the most informed and thoughtful participants. How about showing a little respect for the rest of us ... Dude. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:33 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm gone. > > 1/21/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied > below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled > airspace in your area. > > Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that > charting regard I would like to again remind all of the > readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled > airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an > aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. > > I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to > requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Give it a rest
Date: Jan 22, 2010
1/22/2010 Hello Greg Young, You wrote: "Give it a rest." I agree -- I'm gone too. Some people have controlled airspace and transponder requirement and uncontrolled airspace and transponder non requirement so hard wired into their brain that no facts can change their mind. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ======================================================== "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> Subject: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm gone. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Planning
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Thanks Bob=2C yeah=2C I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor and wil l use the built in one. Jesse Date: Thu=2C 21 Jan 2010 21:40:13 -0600 From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Planning At 01:32 PM 1/21/2010=2C you wrote: Hopefully this is a dumb question: With an aft battery installation=2C does the main bus feed wire come from the starter? Battery side of the starter contactor. Or if the contactor is built into the starter=2C yes=2C right from the starter. Also=2C does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest of tabs ground bus through bolt=2C or does it need its own more substantial bracket to bolt to? To the bolt. Bob . . . _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Battery Cranking Amps
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff. http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html Trusting but verifying. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282917#282917 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 1/22/2010 12:41 PM, Terry Watson wrote: > > So since you don't want to read it, none of the rest of us should be allowed > to? This is how these lists lose the most informed and thoughtful > participants. How about showing a little respect for the rest of us ... > Dude. Thank you Terry, I feel the same way. I've been reading these posts with much interest. I admit to being very curious what "advice" Jon Finley offered to the FAA inspector, and am hoping he is willing to elaborate... :-) I believe the Constitution guarantees the right of free travel, and does not limit what mode of travel we can use. From my perspective, flying is a Constitutional Right, not a privilege. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: rgent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
Would like to look at this site but this is what I get when I log onto it "You don't have permission to access /auto.html on this server. " Thanks Dick In a message dated 1/22/2010 12:13:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, jonlaury(at)impulse.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury" Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff. http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html Trusting but verifying. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282917#282917 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Planning
At 11:55 AM 1/22/2010, you wrote: >Thanks Bob, >yeah, I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor >and will use the built in one. Understand. Then the BAT terminal on your starter becomes the forward power distribution point. Your alternator b-lead would tie in there too. Consider an ANL current limiter for the alternator B-lead where the BAT end of the limiter base could become the distribution point. This would prevent piling all those wires on one terminal out on the engine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
At 12:10 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote: > >Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a >specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl >I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff. > >http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html > >Trusting but verifying. The "cranking amps" ratings of batteries are generally not high on the priority of items in system design goals. Weight, size, ease of installation, cost of ownership, and other features usually set decision process in OBAM aircraft. Cranking amps for an engine is pretty whispy too . . . it depends on tightness of the engine, temperature, viscosity of oil, motor efficiency, gear ratios, wire sizes, etc. In other words, I'll suggest you start with a 3 x 6 x 6" SVLA, 17-20 a.h. battery with expansion room for upsizing later. See how that fits with YOUR notions of satisfactory performance. A new battery that size will get your engine going with about any of the modern starters. The question that drives an up-sizing decision is how often you need to replace the battery for the environment and missions you fly. MOST builders are happy with that size battery. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuesable Link
From: "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com>
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Bob, I really appreciate the offer, but I think I'll just buy some from B&C. The reason I was looking for the 26ga is the wires that came with the Dynon harness for the shunt are 22 ga. I think it might be easier to replace the ones in the harness with 20ga then use the 24ga fuseable links from B&C. They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find any of them made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't seem to be a very good idea. Thanks again -------- Paul Rose N417PR (res) RV-9A Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282934#282934 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Encoder ?= =?UTF-8?Q?Certification)?
From: jon(at)finleyweb.net
=0AHi Dj,=0A =0AI recieved that some question offline from a couple folks s o might as well report...=0A=0ABasically I just gave him the 'ole Top Gun " Bullshit!" "cough" and suggested that he needed to do some research to find out what individual rights are provided by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.=0A =0ASomeone that is less anti-authority and more " debate/discussion" oriented (I'm an ass) would probably stick around and di scuss this with him. Discussing Constitutional rights with the local FAA i nspector did not strike me as a "valuable" way to spend my time.=0A =0AJon =0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net> =0ASent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:41am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics .com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification=0A=0A--> AeroE lectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill =0A=0AOn 1/22/201 0 12:41 PM, Terry Watson wrote:=0A> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by : "Terry Watson" =0A> =0A> So since you don't want to r ead it, none of the rest of us should be allowed=0A> to? This is how these lists lose the most informed and thoughtful=0A> participants. How about sho wing a little respect for the rest of us ...=0A> Dude.=0A=0A=0AThank you Te rry, I feel the same way. I've been reading these posts=0Awith much interes t.=0A=0AI admit to being very curious what "advice" Jon Finley offered to t he=0AFAA inspector, and am hoping he is willing to elaborate... :-)=0A=0AI believe the Constitution guarantees the right of free travel, and=0Adoes no t limit what mode of travel we can use. From my perspective,=0Aflying is a Constitutional Right, not a privilege.=0A=0A-Dj=0A=0A-- =0ADj Merrill - N1J OV=0AGlastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman ================0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fuesable Link
> >They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find >any of them made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't >seem to be a very good idea. Not a big deal. There are tens of thousands of airplanes flying with nylon over PVC wire in them . . . a few thousand more with cotton over rubber . . . they're not falling out of the air trailing smoke nor gassing their occupants with the byproducts of inflight fires. The short pieces of PVC on the ends of the fuse holders represents no significant risk. I'd go with the fuses. Lap slice them onto the end of your harness wires like . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Battery Cranking Amps
Date: Jan 22, 2010
I was able to get right on without a problem. Roger Would like to look at this site but this is what I get when I log onto it "You don't have permission to access /auto.html on this server. " Thanks Dick In a message dated 1/22/2010 12:13:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, jonlaury(at)impulse.net writes: Anybody have a method for determining cranking amps necessary for a specific engine? Mine's a 10.5:1 350in 6 cyl I found this site with a CCA calculator and other useful engine stuff. http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html Trusting but verifying. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Fuesable Link
I have some pieces of 26ga aircraft wire if you want them. Let me know what you need and your address and I will stick it into an envelope. Dick PaulR wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "PaulR" > > Bob, > I really appreciate the offer, but I think I'll just buy some from B&C. The reason I was looking for the 26ga is the wires that came with the Dynon harness for the shunt are 22 ga. I think it might be easier to replace the ones in the harness with 20ga then use the 24ga fuseable links from B&C. > > They say I can also put a 1A inline fuse, but I can't seem to find any of them made with anything but PVC coated wire, and that doesn't seem to be a very good idea. > > Thanks again > > -------- > Paul Rose > N417PR (res) > RV-9A > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282934#282934 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: rgent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
Must be an AOL thingy - went to firefox and loaded OK Thanks Dick In a message dated 1/22/2010 1:58:19 P.M. Central Standard Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes: http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Planning
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Great! Thanks again. I had been visualizing the ANL setup that you suggest as one possibility. It makes a lot of sense=2C especially since the ANL seems to b e you're preferred method of protecting the b-lead. What the other option h as going for it is a real short b-lead wire directly from alt. to starter. Of course then I'm forced to use an inline fuse. I'm leaning toward an ANL on the firewall. > Date: Fri=2C 22 Jan 2010 13:14:44 -0600 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Planning > kolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 11:55 AM 1/22/2010=2C you wrote: > >Thanks Bob=2C > >yeah=2C I forgot to mention I decided to omit the starter contactor > >and will use the built in one. > > Understand. Then the BAT terminal on your starter becomes > the forward power distribution point. Your alternator b-lead > would tie in there too. > > Consider an ANL current limiter for the alternator B-lead > where the BAT end of the limiter base could become the > distribution point. This would prevent piling all those > wires on one terminal out on the engine. > > Bob . . . > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuesable Link
From: "PaulR" <prose(at)panhandle.rr.com>
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Dick, I appreciate the offer. I've already got the fuse holders and that's the first thing on the plan for the weekend. Thanks to all who have gone before me, and are willing to teach. I'm hoping someday to be able to "pay it forward". -------- Paul Rose N417PR (res) RV-9A Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282968#282968 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Bob, You wrote regarding Z13/20: "Shouldn't have published it" I too had made the decision to use multiple alternators based on my electrically depandent engine, I also have a design goal of no single point of failure in the electrical system, so I decided on a light weight version of Z14 for basic power distribution and an overlay of Z13 for main-bus and E-bus. I like Z13 for it's simplicity of operation, and Z14 for it's indepandant power supply. I submitted a wiring diagram that you stated you were "praying over" a while back. Seems like I have fallen into an area similar to John so I thought I would probe you again. In your last post regarding my inquiry you said to use Z9 which seemed to address other issues. I figured you were just busy with moving so I didn't pursue the issue at the time. Since John has asked a very similar question, perhaps you could give us your opinion of using Z14 for battery bus, starter and alternator, and then a main-bus and e-bus from there as with Z13. I like this appriach because the inflight troubleshooting is eliminated. Using a low voltage checklist you can get to stable operation in a few seconds after a low voltage envent is detected on either battery bus. You can see my wiring diagram at: http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm. Thanks for all you do to help us understand what trade offs we play in making our electrical decisions. Regards, Bob Lee N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA USA 92% done only 67% to go! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Planning
At 03:05 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote: >Great! >Thanks again. I had been visualizing the ANL setup that you suggest >as one possibility. It makes a lot of sense, especially since the >ANL seems to be you're preferred method of protecting the b-lead. >What the other option has going for it is a real short b-lead wire >directly from alt. to starter. Of course then I'm forced to use an inline fuse. >I'm leaning toward an ANL on the firewall. I think that would be my choice as it handles logistics for a power distribution point nicely. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Subject: New product announcement: TCW Technologies
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Fellow RV builders, TCW Technologies, is pleased to introduce our newest product, Integrated Back-up Battery System (IBBS). IBBS is a complete back-up battery solution for powering critical electronics such as EFIS, GPS, Autopilots and Engine monitors. The IBBS product combines a rechargeable ni-mh battery, a smart charger circuit and the transfer switch in a single enclosure that is easy to install and only 1/2 the weight of a comparable lead acid battery. The IBBS provides about 1 hour of back-up endurance for typical EFIS and GPS systems; additionally, it includes surge suppression and allows systems to operational before and during engine cranking. The IBBS system is very easy to install and eliminates other field installed components such as transfer contactors and diodes. The IBBS product has been tested by Garmin for use with their G3x series of products. For all the details please visit our web site: www.tcwtech.com Thanks, Bob Newman TCW Technologies, LLC. rv-10 40176 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2010
Subject: FW: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
From: jon(at)finleyweb.net
=0AOops, hit reply and it only went to Bob instead of the list....=0A=0A=0A -----Original Message-----=0AFrom: jon(at)finleyweb.net=0ASent: Friday, Januar y 22, 2010 12:11pm=0ATo: bakerocb(at)cox.net=0ASubject: RE: Charting Uncontrol led Airspace=0A=0A=0A=0ABakerocb,=0A =0AApparently I am a terrible glutten for punishment. It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop. As an aside, do you work for the government??=0A =0A1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (whe n is a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has bee n said repeatedly, read CFR 91.215 (b)).=0A =0A2.A. So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That ma kes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is everything that is NOT controlled. Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this ent ire section worthless).=0A =0AThis part is getting really old.... On a sec tional: =0AClass B, C, and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" exten ds to the ground (and much more).=0A =0AThe lowest floor of Class E is 700' AGL. The shaded magenta lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 700' AGL to 1,200' AGL. The shaded blue lines show where the floor of Clas s E changes from 1200' AGL to 14,500' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g. "----___---___-----___----") show where the floor of the Class E airspace i s when this cannot be depicted by the shaded blue or magenta lines. These s taggered blue lines either specify the floor of the Class E airspace or it is 14,500' MSL.=0A=0AClass G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum, p ossibly more, I'm not sure). =0A =0A2.B. We agree that Class G airspace ex ists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this.=0A =0AAdditionally, a low level IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which the floor of the Class E is at a non-standard (14,500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THI NK, because the chart is showing "white", that Class E exists to 1,200' AGL when it does not (rather, it may end at 12,500' AGL, for example).=0A =0A =0AWhy don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better sti ll, do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Sky vector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup, NM (GUP).=0A =0AJon=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bakerocb(at)cox.net=0AHello Jon , You wrote:=0A=0A1) "Oh brother.."=0A=0A{Response} Hang in there for one m ore go around. This time we will restrict =0Athe discussion to just chartin g of uncontrolled airspace and leave =0Atransponders out of it since that s ubject seems to make some peoples' head =0Ahurt.=0A=0A2) ".............. on e has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to =0Asee where true " uncontrolled airspace" exists." and=0A=0A"RE: #2. Look at the Class E secti on of this page:=0A=0Ahttp://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm"=0A=0A{Response } Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram =0Adoes not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here =0A is why:=0A=0AA) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional =0Acharts has this wording in it:=0A=0A"Only the controlled and r eserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL =0Aare shown on this chart. " This means that the location of lateral areas of =0Auncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can =0Anot be determine d by looking at a Sectional chart.=0A=0A=0AB) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR =0AENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has the se wordings in it under AIRSPACE =0AINFORMATION:=0A=0A"Open area (white) in dicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise =0Aindicated."=0A =0A"All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)"=0A=0A"Shaded ar ea (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class =0AG)"=0A =0ASo one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to =0Aco mpletely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located.=0A =0AThe Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace =0Aexists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue =0Ashading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of unc ontrolled =0AClass G airspace are.=0A=0AThe IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where =0Auncontrolled Class G airspace exi sts laterally from the surface up to =0A14,500.=0A=0AWhy don't you get an I FR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west =0Awhere there is som e brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you =0Afind. Our IFR EN ROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between =0Athe navigation information.=0A=0AThanks.=0A=0A=0A'OC' Says: "The best investment we can m ake is the effort to gather and =0Aunderstand knowledge."=0A=0A==== ======================0A=0AFrom: "Jon Finley" =0ASubject: RE: Encoder Certification=0A Date: Jan 21, 2010=0A=0AOh brother..=0A=0AApparently this discussion has we nt around and around enough times that what=0Ais being said no longer makes sense to anyone.=0A=0ANext subject please!=0A=0A=0AJon=0A=0A==== ============0A=0AJon Finley wrote:=0A=0ARE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page:=0A=0Ahttp://www.flytandem.com/airspace .htm=0A=0AJon =0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Jan 22, 2010
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > At 12:10 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote: > > > > > > > In other words, I'll suggest you start with a 3 x 6 x 6" > SVLA, 17-20 a.h. battery with expansion room for upsizing later. > Bob . . . Per your suggestion of using smaller batteries to make a lightweight Z14, I looked at the Odyssey PC 310. With two of them I'd have 620 amps for 5 seconds (wondering how many engine start trys I get). According to the website that I linked in my original post, I need 427amps to spin my 6cyl 350 in. engine. The PC310 (6lbs) is an 8AH battery with a 25 amp discharge capability of 9 minutes. Two of them gets me about 1/2 hr @ 12 amps, which is what my 2 no frills battery buses and E bus need. Having 2 alternators makes me OK with this minimum size battery bank and this light weight Z14 weighs less than the Z19 with 2 17AH batts by about 10 lbs. What am I overlooking John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283034#283034 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 23, 2010
1/23/2010 Hello Jon Finley, I am sorry that your January 22, 2010 2:11 PM posting copied below has an emotional and rejecting tone to it. My postings in response to yours have in no way intended to be punitive or critical of you personally -- just educational for all involved. With that in mind please let me respond in detail to your posting copied below. You wrote: 1) "It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop." {Response} Yes, I was persistent regarding transponder requirements. I did this because some people were still posting using the wrong criteria and I did not want to let that erroneous information stand uncorrected. 2) "As an aside, do you work for the government??" {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36 years on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from that work in 1986. 3) "WE ALL GET IT!" {Response} Good, I hope that my postings had something to do with that. 4) "So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense." {Response} When the aviation chart makers were confronted with the problem of showing the lateral dimensions of that uncontrolled Class G airspace which goes from the surface all the way up to 14,500 feet MSL they realized that putting such information on a Sectional chart would result in unacceptable clutter. They came up with the solution of using brown shading for those areas on the low altitude IFR charts to show that information. 5) "Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless)." {Response} These are the accepted terms. They make it possible to write about those two different kinds of airspace without listing each individual identification letter each time the writer wants to refer to a kind of airspace. 6) "We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this." {Response} This is correct, but you do need a low altitude IFR chart to show the lateral dimensions of the uncontrolled airspace shaded brown that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL because that information is not depicted on a Sectional chart. See the response to item 4 above. One cannot get the total picture just by focusing on vertical dimensions and looking at a Sectional chart. 7) "Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding." {Response} I have already done so. I am suggesting that you look at the actual charts involved, Albuquerque Sectional and the low altitude IFR chart for that area, so that you can see the brown shading for yourself. I made this suggestion because you did not appear to take my posted information as valid. 8) " I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA." I did go to the Skyvector site as you suggested -- thank you. I Iooked at the sample charts that they would let me look at for no cost -- those samples, while not of the specific area of our interest, did confirm my posted information. Since I fly from an airport in Virginia I could not justify the expense of purchasing a current Albuquerque Sectional (my copy is outdated) and appropriate current low altitude IFR chart just to look at them myself when my goal was to have you look at them. A fellow EAA Chapter member has offered to give me a complete set of current low altitude IFR charts. When I get my hands on them I will let you know and ask for your mailing address so that I can mail you the appropriate low altitude IFR chart. I presume that you already have a current Albuquerque Sectional since you fly out of Los Lunas (E98). Please let me know if this plan is acceptable to you. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ==================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:11 PM Subject: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Bakerocb, Apparently I am a terrible glutten for punishment.. It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop. As an aside, do you work for the government?? 1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (when is a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has been said repeatedly, read CFR 91.215 (b)). 2.A. So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is everything that is NOT controlled. Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless). This part is getting really old.... On a sectional: Class B, C, and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" extends to the ground (and much more). The lowest floor of Class E is 700' AGL. The shaded magenta lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 700' AGL to 1,200' AGL. The shaded blue lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 1200' AGL to 14,500' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g. "----___---___-----___----") show where the floor of the Class E airspace is when this cannot be depicted by the shaded blue or magenta lines. These staggered blue lines either specify the floor of the Class E airspace or it is 14,500' MSL. Class G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum, possibly more, I'm not sure). 2.B. We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this. Additionally, a low level IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which the floor of the Class E is at a non-standard (14,500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THINK, because the chart is showing "white", that Class E exists to 1,200' AGL when it does not (rather, it may end at 12,500' AGL, for example). Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup, NM (GUP). Jon ===================================================== -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net Hello Jon, You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise indicated." "All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14,500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. '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: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ======================================= Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
Hi John, You wrote in part: Per your suggestion of using smaller batteries to make a lightweight Z14, I looked at the Odyssey PC 310. With two of them I'd have 620 amps for 5 seconds (wondering how many engine start trys I get). What am I overlooking? Check the size of the battery terminals. Some that I've tried were too small to accept the wire size required to carry starter current requirements. For instance, some would only accept a 6-32 size screw or a 1/4" push on tab. Earl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 23, 2010
This discussion is good. It may not be the appropriate forum for it=2C but it's good anyway. We don't need to get angry though. One important point that was overlooked below is that class E can extend to the SURFACE around some airports (magenta dashed line) when weather is bel ow 1000' and 3 miles. These airports are non towered=2C and so there is a b ig potential gotcha for VFR pilots. This airspace is controlled because an instrument approach exists. It is illegal and unsafe to truck through this airspace (or takeoff or land) without a clearance (special VFR or IFR) when weather is below 1000 and 3. Also=2C check out runwayfinder.com That's my favorite site for quick flight planning. You can view the whole c ountry in sectional form=2C and plot your course on it. You can also see TF Rs and overlay all the weather advisories=2C and it's all FREE. Jesse Date: Fri=2C 22 Jan 2010 19:33:51 -0700 Subject: AeroElectric-List: FW: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace From: jon(at)finleyweb.net Oops=2C hit reply and it only went to Bob instead of the list.... -----Original Message----- From: jon(at)finleyweb.net Sent: Friday=2C January 22=2C 2010 12:11pm Subject: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Bakerocb=2C Apparently I am a terrible glutten for punishment=85. It is no wonder folk s on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop. As an aside=2C do you work for the government?? 1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (when i s a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has been s aid repeatedly=2C read CFR 91.215 (b)). 2.A. So=2C if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspa ce" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is ever ything that is NOT controlled. Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless). This part is getting really old.... On a sectional: Class B=2C C=2C and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" extends to t he ground (and much more). The lowest floor of Class E is 700' AGL. The shaded magenta lines show wher e the floor of Class E changes from 700' AGL to 1=2C200' AGL. The shaded bl ue lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 1200' AGL to 14=2C500 ' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g. "----___---___-----___----") show wh ere the floor of the Class E airspace is when this cannot be depicted by th e shaded blue or magenta lines. These staggered blue lines either specify t he floor of the Class E airspace or it is 14=2C500' MSL. Class G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum=2C possibly more=2C I'm not sure). 2.B. We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airs pace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this. Additionally=2C a low level IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which th e floor of the Class E is at a non-standard (14=2C500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THINK=2C because the chart is showing "white"=2C that Class E exists to 1=2C200' AGL when it does not (rather=2C it may end at 12=2C500' AGL=2C for example). Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still =2C do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Sky vector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup=2C NM (GUP). Jon -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net Hello Jon=2C You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) t o see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Her e is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18=2C000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14=2C500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E)=3B unless otherw ise indicated." "All airspace 14=2C500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14=2C500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blu e shading=2C but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrol led Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart=2C by brown shading=2C will show one whe re uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14=2C500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading=2C check it out=2C and let us know what y ou find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. '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: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21=2C 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that wha t is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ============== Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Good Morning OC, I, for one admire your tenacity and am glad you are helping to educate the rest of us. However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion. As I understood the question, he wanted to know where a transponder was required. A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove. IL Stearman N3977A Never an officer, just a Corporal, USMC. In a message dated 1/23/2010 9:00:31 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 1/23/2010 Hello Jon Finley, I am sorry that your January 22, 2010 2:11 PM posting copied below has an emotional and rejecting tone to it. My postings in response to yours have in no way intended to be punitive or critical of you personally -- just educational for all involved. With that in mind please let me respond in detail to your posting copied below. You wrote: 1) "It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop." {Response} Yes, I was persistent regarding transponder requirements. I did this because some people were still posting using the wrong criteria and I did not want to let that erroneous information stand uncorrected. 2) "As an aside, do you work for the government??" {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36 years on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from that work in 1986. 3) "WE ALL GET IT!" {Response} Good, I hope that my postings had something to do with that. 4) "So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense." {Response} When the aviation chart makers were confronted with the problem of showing the lateral dimensions of that uncontrolled Class G airspace which goes from the surface all the way up to 14,500 feet MSL they realized that putting such information on a Sectional chart would result in unacceptable clutter. They came up with the solution of using brown shading for those areas on the low altitude IFR charts to show that information. 5) "Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless)." {Response} These are the accepted terms. They make it possible to write about those two different kinds of airspace without listing each individual identification letter each time the writer wants to refer to a kind of airspace. 6) "We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this." {Response} This is correct, but you do need a low altitude IFR chart to show the lateral dimensions of the uncontrolled airspace shaded brown that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL because that information is not depicted on a Sectional chart. See the response to item 4 above. One cannot get the total picture just by focusing on vertical dimensions and looking at a Sectional chart. 7) "Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding." {Response} I have already done so. I am suggesting that you look at the actual charts involved, Albuquerque Sectional and the low altitude IFR chart for that area, so that you can see the brown shading for yourself. I made this suggestion because you did not appear to take my posted information as valid. 8) " I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA." I did go to the Skyvector site as you suggested -- thank you. I Iooked at the sample charts that they would let me look at for no cost -- those samples, while not of the specific area of our interest, did confirm my posted information. Since I fly from an airport in Virginia I could not justify the expense of purchasing a current Albuquerque Sectional (my copy is outdated) and appropriate current low altitude IFR chart just to look at them myself when my goal was to have you look at them. A fellow EAA Chapter member has offered to give me a complete set of current low altitude IFR charts. When I get my hands on them I will let you know and ask for your mailing address so that I can mail you the appropriate low altitude IFR chart. I presume that you already have a current Albuquerque Sectional since you fly out of Los Lunas (E98). Please let me know if this plan is acceptable to you. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ==================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: <jon(at)finleyweb.net> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:11 PM Subject: RE: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Bakerocb, Apparently I am a terrible glutten for punishment.. It is no wonder folks on the list are asking for this nonsense to stop. As an aside, do you work for the government?? 1. For some reason you seem to believe that nobody understands this (when is a transponder required). WE ALL GET IT! It is very simple (it has been said repeatedly, read CFR 91.215 (b)). 2.A. So, if only "controlled airspace" is shown then "uncontrolled airspace" cannot be shown?? That makes no sense. "Uncontrolled airspace" is everything that is NOT controlled. Using these generic terms ("controlled" and "uncontrolled" makes this entire section worthless). This part is getting really old.... On a sectional: Class B, C, and D indicate where the "controlled airspace" extends to the ground (and much more). The lowest floor of Class E is 700' AGL. The shaded magenta lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 700' AGL to 1,200' AGL. The shaded blue lines show where the floor of Class E changes from 1200' AGL to 14,500' AGL. The staggered blue lines (e.g. "----___---___-----___----") show where the floor of the Class E airspace is when this cannot be depicted by the shaded blue or magenta lines. These staggered blue lines either specify the floor of the Class E airspace or it is 14,500' MSL. Class G airspace exists UNDER Class E (at a minimum, possibly more, I'm not sure). 2.B. We agree that Class G airspace exists UNDER the floor of Class E airspace. THIS IS DEPICTED ON A SECTIONAL. You do not need an IFR chart to see this. Additionally, a low level IFR chart does NOT depict the areas in which the floor of the Class E is at a non-standard (14,500' MSL) altitude. This means that the pilot could THINK, because the chart is showing "white", that Class E exists to 1,200' AGL when it does not (rather, it may end at 12,500' AGL, for example). Why don't YOU do the research instead of asking me to do it? Better still, do this research BEFORE responding. I have given you the resource (Skyvector.com) to see any sectional and IFR chart in the USA. I'll even give you a tip - look at the two charts in the area around Gallup, NM (GUP). Jon ===================================================== -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb(at)cox.net Hello Jon, You wrote: 1) "Oh brother.." {Response} Hang in there for one more go around. This time we will restrict the discussion to just charting of uncontrolled airspace and leave transponders out of it since that subject seems to make some peoples' head hurt. 2) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFRchart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." and "RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm" {Response} Just looking at a Sectional chart alone and the web site diagram does not permit one to see where all true uncontrolled airspace exists. Here is why: A) The AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRSPACE Legend portion of current Sectional charts has this wording in it: "Only the controlled and reserved airspace effective below 18,000 ft. MSL are shown on this chart." This means that the location of lateral areas of uncontrolled Class G airspace that go from the surface up to 14,500 feet can not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart. B) The AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES AND AIRSPACE INFORMATION on a current IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart has these wordings in it under AIRSPACE INFORMATION: "Open area (white) indicates controlled airspace (Class E); unless otherwise indicated." "All airspace 14,500' and above is controlled (Class E)" "Shaded area (brown) indicates uncontrolled airspace below 14,500' (Class G)" So one needs both Sectional and IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts to completely determine where all uncontrolled Class G airspace is located. The Sectional chart will tell one where the controlled Class E airspace exists both laterally by an outline and vertically by either magenta or blue shading, but won't tell one where the the lateral dimensions of uncontrolled Class G airspace are. The IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart, by brown shading, will show one where uncontrolled Class G airspace exists laterally from the surface up to 14,500. Why don't you get an IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE chart for some areas out west where there is some brown shading, check it out, and let us know what you find. Our IFR ENROUTE LOW ALTITUDE charts back east are all white between the navigation information. Thanks. '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: Encoder Certification Date: Jan 21, 2010 Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon ======================================= Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New product announcement: TCW Technologies
At 05:15 PM 1/22/2010, you wrote: >Fellow RV builders, >TCW Technologies, is pleased to introduce our newest product, >Integrated Back-up Battery System (IBBS). >IBBS is a complete back-up battery solution for powering critical >electronics such as EFIS, GPS, Autopilots and Engine monitors. The >IBBS product combines a rechargeable ni-mh battery, a smart charger >circuit and the transfer switch in a single enclosure that is easy >to install and only 1/2 the weight of a comparable lead acid battery. > >The IBBS provides about 1 hour of back-up endurance for typical EFIS >and GPS systems; additionally, it includes surge suppression and >allows systems to operational before and during engine cranking. > >The IBBS system is very easy to install and eliminates other field >installed components such as transfer contactors and diodes. > >The IBBS product has been tested by Garmin for use with their G3x >series of products. I'll suggest these products are most applicable to aircraft where the electrical system is not already failure tolerant. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
At 09:06 AM 1/23/2010, you wrote: > > >Hi John, >You wrote in part: >Per your suggestion of using smaller batteries to make a lightweight >Z14, I looked at the Odyssey PC 310. With two of them I'd have 620 >amps for 5 seconds (wondering how many engine start trys I get). > >What am I overlooking? > >Check the size of the battery terminals. Some that I've tried were >too small to accept the wire size required to carry starter current >requirements. For instance, some would only accept a 6-32 size >screw or a 1/4" push on tab. The 310 is pretty light even in pairs. Limited cranking ability due to high internal resistance. Even with two paralleled, total battery resistance about twice that of a 680. That doesn't mean it won't work for YOUR airplane and the environment in which you crank the engine. There ARE small batteries with low internal resitances. Bill and I tested a 10 a.h. Gates product about 15 years ago that gave us five, 10-second cranking cycles on a room temperature, hi-compression engine with 1 minute waits between attempts. So there is potential for a pair of light weights to step up to the task . . . the 310 may or may not be a good choice. You'll have to tell us. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Jan 23, 2010
bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Morning OC, > A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob Apologies for butting my Aussie nose into this quite interesting discussion, but virtually all of our rules these days are based very closely on FAA regs for standardisation reasons, and they very clearly require the carriage and operation of a transponder in Class A, B, C, and E airspace (which is pretty much all controlled airspace), unless you're VFR and are not equipped with an electrical system capable of continuously powering one. You can get an exemption in certain circumstances at the discretion of individual ATC units, but these are not exactly handed out in Cracker Jack boxes. I appreciate FAA regs may differ, but for a common garden-variety VFR aircraft to not require a transponder in the majority of controlled airspace would seem highly unusual to me (as it kinda somewhat defeats the purpose of the airspace being actually controlled, ATC "control" applying to all aircraft regardless of their category). Just food for thought. No offence intended to anyone. Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283159#283159 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2010
Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Good Evening Mike, I have no knowledge at all concerning Australian regulations, but if you have access to a list of US regulations you will find that what I said is true. I hate to repeat it so often, but we do NOT need a transponder if we stay out of class A, B, and C airspace and do not fly above ten thousand feet MSL anywhere except when doing so would make us hit the terrain. In that case, we can go above ten thousand without a transponder as long as we stay within 2500 feet of the ground.(We do NOT need a transponder to fly in class E airspace) We do NOT need a transponder for VFR flight. As others (I think It was Kelly among others) have said, we can even fly IFR in the areas I listed as OK for VFR without a transponder. I am not recommending that as a normal operation, but that was not the question that had been asked. In uncontrolled airspace, of which there is very little in the lower forty-eight, we CAN fly IFR without a clearance. That is the only material difference between Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace. Controlled only refers to IFR operations. There are other rules that tell us what we need in the various categories of airspace. For example, class D requires that we establish communication and get a clearance to go in there, but we do NOT need a transponder to fly in the class D controlled airspace unless it is within a class B or C associated airspace ring that does require a transponder. The vast majority of airspace in which we USA GA pilots fly can legally be flown in without a transponder. As OC says, it is easiest to just read the pertinent portions of the FARs. It is all spelled out quite clearly in the regulations. and in fewer words than it took me! Any help at all? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL USA Stearman N3977A In a message dated 1/23/2010 8:24:37 P.M. Central Standard Time, mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmayfield" bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Morning OC, > A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob Apologies for butting my Aussie nose into this quite interesting discussion, but virtually all of our rules these days are based very closely on FAA regs for standardisation reasons, and they very clearly require the carriage and operation of a transponder in Class A, B, C, and E airspace (which is pretty much all controlled airspace), unless you're VFR and are not equipped with an electrical system capable of continuously powering one. You can get an exemption in certain circumstances at the discretion of individual ATC units, but these are not exactly handed out in Cracker Jack boxes. I appreciate FAA regs may differ, but for a common garden-variety VFR aircraft to not require a transponder in the majority of controlled airspace would seem highly unusual to me (as it kinda somewhat defeats the purpose of the airspace being actually controlled, ATC "control" applying to all aircraft regardless of their category). Just food for thought. No offence intended to anyone. Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283159#283159 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2010
http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004_files/wd0004_frames.htm Bob Lee, The fuel injector relay is missing a wire on the common contact. There are two current paths between Battery Bus 2 and the Endurance Bus, one through a diode and one through a 10 amp fuse. Since the second path through the fuse does not have a diode in it, current from Battery Bus 1 can flow to Battery Bus 2. The ground power relay coil needs to have a diode in series with it to protect against reverse polarity. What is the purpose of the 5 amp breaker with two wires going to the ground power plug? As drawn, the "Cross Contactor" is energized, but the indicator light is off. Did you intend that terminal 3 of the Cross Contactor Switch be grounded? I suggest that the top half of the "Cross Contactor" switch control the ground side of the fuel injector relay coil instead of the hot side, thus minimizing hot wires inside of the cockpit. Of course that change would require changing the indicator light circuit too. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283174#283174 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Encoder Certification
This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Jan 23, 2010
Gidday Bob. I understand the clearance/no clearance requirements with controlled and uncontrolled airspace and IFR vs VFR. That's quite standard, and it's the same over here. Just interesting about the transponder requirements. They are certainly different, and Australian homebuilders should take note if they're thinking of not installing one, even if they are going VFR everywhere! Cheers, Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283192#283192 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Joe, Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm Regards, Bob Lee N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA USA 92% done only 67% to go! Joe Gores (user9253 [fran4sew(at)banyanol.com]) wrote: The fuel injector relay is missing a wire on the common contact. << The jumper from that contact to the relay coil was omitted. It's been fixed. >> There are two current paths between Battery Bus 2 and the Endurance Bus, one through a diode and one through a 10 amp fuse. Since the second path through the fuse does not have a diode in it, current from Battery Bus 1 can flow to Battery Bus 2. << Years ago I scored a bunch of AN-3160 circuit breaker switches for a buck each at Oshkosh. The symbol you identified as a fuse is in reality a guarded circuit breaker switch. As the note on the diagram states it is the E-bus alternate feed path. If the E-bus goes dark, open the guard and flip the alternate feed breaker. If the primary path E-bus feed through the diode is dark I don't see the backfeed issue as problematic. >> The ground power relay coil needs to have a diode in series with it to protect against reverse polarity. << I just looked at Z-31B again and realized what I did. I put the diode across the relay like a battery contactor. It's been fixed >> What is the purpose of the 5 amp breaker with two wires going to the ground power plug? << The breaker is in the ground path to the over voltage crowbar. The ground symbol was up in the crowbar area. I moved it down to the circuit breaker. I also changed the breaker to 2 amp rating per Z-31B. >> As drawn, the "Cross Contactor" is energized, but the indicator light is off. Did you intend that terminal 3 of the Cross Contactor Switch be grounded? I suggest that the top half of the "Cross Contactor" switch control the ground side of the fuel injector relay coil instead of the hot side, thus minimizing hot wires inside of the cockpit. Of course that change would require changing the indicator light circuit too. << The relay is actually the starter realy that coincidently controls the fuel injection cold start circuit. That is why it is on the hot side. I changed the cross connect light circuit to get it's power from the cross connect contactor. >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Bakerocb, Much more important than any of the airspace stuff - THANK YOU for your years of service. Jon > {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36 > years > on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and > officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from > that > work in 1986. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Subject: Re: RE: Encoder Certification
Good Morning John, As Always, It All Depends! I think most of us would agree with your assessment. The subject came up when a homebuilder wanted to know if he could fly his transponder equipped airplane to another point to get it certified. That morphed into a discussion as to where a transponder is required. While most of us do opt to have an operating transponder on board, the fact remains that such a unit is NOT required in most of the airspace utilized by we GA pilots. Even in areas where a transponder IS required, there are procedures available that may allow a flight to be made with the transponder inoperative. And, why do we care? As OC says, it's all in the spirit of education. Since there are so many conflicting opinions, it appears that some education is required. Does that make any sense at all or do you still feel we were wasting your time? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A (With a transponder) In a message dated 1/24/2010 12:08:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, grosseair(at)comcast.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm Regards, Bob Lee Bob, In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you power this up a diode will vaporize. I haven't looked over the rest of the drawing. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" Bob, You wrote regarding Z13/20: "Shouldn't have published it" Yes . . . it was not a well considered or tested recipe for success at the time of publication. I too had made the decision to use multiple alternators based on my electrically dependent engine, I also have a design goal of no single point of failure in the electrical system, so I decided on a light weight version of Z14 for basic power distribution and an overlay of Z13 for main-bus and E-bus. I like Z13 for it's simplicity of operation, and Z14 for it's independent power supply. There is risk associated with cherry-picking features from multiple recipes for the purpose of crafting a new recipe. It begs to be sifted for the effects of single failures (if flight for hire or transport, double failures along with probability analysis). Finally, the value of a new recipe is traded against existing recipes for addressing design goals not easily addressed in existing recipes. Z13/20 was crafted and published without due diligence to these processes. I submitted a wiring diagram that you stated you were "praying over" a while back. Seems like I have fallen into an area similar to John so I thought I would probe you again. In your last post regarding my inquiry you said to use Z9 which seemed to address other issues. Z-9 was crafted to meet design goals offered by "Mr. Corvair Engines" and fine tuned to adopt legacy design goals for failure modes. Conversion packages for the VW would have similar electrical system issues as the Corvair. You've stated that you found Z13/8, Z-14 and I guess Z-9 inadequate to your design goals. Cruising your website offers and impression that your goals for the KR-2 are indeed extra-ordinary. I didn't have time to read all the details so correct me if I'm wrong . . . this is a highly experimental endeavor that uses a lot of designs and hardware from projects never before assembled in this combination on a single airplane . . . much less multiple airplanes. Not necessarily a "bad" idea. But it does suggest a long list of risks requiring a "fine-tuning" of the airplane before you can confidently launch on a series of long distance travels with high probability of care-free arrivals. This is not your grandpa's C-170. It will certainly test your skills as a multi-discipline, flight test engineer. From one who has participated in the flight testing and product development of very complex airplanes I can only caution that $time$ to test, de-bug, and re-design seems to go up with the exponentially with the number of "new ingredients" in your recipe for success. Of course, given the unforgiving nature of the aerodynamically supported machines, one hopes that new de-bugging tasks are not displaced by issues involving bent airplanes and/or broken bods. You can see my wiring diagram at: http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm This is a busy electrical system. It has virtually no legacy of design goals that birthed the Z-figures and is essentially a scratch design. It would take hours of conversation and mulling features to first understand why the system is designed this way and then ratify the ideas or suggest alternatives. This is something I cannot offer right now as I have more than I can handle for consulting clients already on the schedule. My best suggestion is that you adopt Z-13/8 as a system that gets its reliability from simplicity. My sense is that you are going to have a great deal on your plate getting other, much more risky details ironed out. Electrical SYSTEM failures are VERY SELDOM root cause of an unplanned arrival with the earth. Z-13/8 with a well maintained battery offers a rock solid energy generation and delivery platform. "Stirring" the recipe only adds risk for design error and complexity driven risk. I'm working an accident right now that happened for reasons involving a stirring of the recipe. An expensive, complex airplane carrying people hit the dirt for rudimentary lapses in judgement about electrical system architecture. There was always plenty of POWER available . . . but poorly conducted to critical components. I wish you well with your project. It's my best recommendation that you don't stack electrical uncertainties on top of the tasks before you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
At 09:03 AM 1/24/2010, you wrote: >Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets >beat this dead horse one more time. I'm sorry that you feel exhausted . . . education is a laborious, exacting process that involves the best-we-know-how-to-do both as teachers and students. Further, teachers and students come in all forms of ability and knowledge. The greatest benefit to the community is not a fixed or predictable process. But as long as all participants are conducting themselves honorably, then relief from over-exertion is simple and obvious . . . don't show up for class. My wife has students that do that all the time! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Date: Jan 24, 2010
1/24/2010 Hello Fellow Marine Old Bob, You wrote: "However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion." Agreed -- airspace category identification on charts per se was not pertinent to the original posting, but that identification became of educational interest as postings went on. I don't think an audit trail of the entire sequence of postings on how this subject got all wrapped around the axle is desired by all readers -- so here is a condensed audit trail version: A) It all began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010), using the subject "Encoder Certification" who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. B) Both you and I responded to his request (maybe some others as well) telling him how this was possible. Neither of us used the term "controlled airspace". C) Then on Jan 18, 2010 in #48141 Jon Finley wrote: "Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace." and leaving the impression that controlled airspace alone could possibly be the determining factor in whether or not an aircraft was required to be equipped with an operable coded transponder. D) You and I both responded in a supportive, but clarification manner to Jon. Then followed a series of transponder oriented postings by many that morphed into a discussion of controlled versus uncontrolled airspace transponder requirements that further morphed into a discussion of how controlled and uncontrolled airspace was depicted on our aviation charts. E) In that discourse on Jan20, 2010 in Msg #48158 Jon wrote: "......one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." F) I then attempted to clarify that chart related statement by changing the subject line to "Charting Uncontrolled Airspace" and pointing out the existence of the brown shaded uncontrolled airspace locations on the low altitude IFR charts which could not be determined by looking at a Sectional chart alone. Jon took exception to my clarification and we were launched off on an ongoing posting wrangle on that charting point using the new subject line . So you can see how we got from encoder certification into airspace depictions on charts. Maybe a bit messy sequence of events, and maybe not all directly related to this aeroelectric list venue, but still of some interest to those of us who fly in this country. I am mindful of the many readers of this list who may absorb what is written here without a challenging or questioning attitude and I am reluctant to let stand potentially misleading information. Semper Fidelis, 'OC' ====================================================== From: bobsv35b(at)aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace Good Morning OC, I, for one admire your tenacity and am glad you are helping to educate the rest of us. However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion. As I understood the question, he wanted to know where a transponder was required. A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove. IL Stearman N3977A Never an officer, just a Corporal, USMC. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Roger (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS [mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net]) wrote: In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you power this up a diode will vaporize. Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA USA 92% done only 67% to go! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee Bob, My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Date: Jan 24, 2010
Hi Roger; Different Bob, but the starter/Xfeed switch depicted is a three position switch and with the switch in the "centre" position which is presumably intended to be the "normal" position the Xfeed is Off. Bob McC _____________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER & JEAN CURTIS Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:08 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode component values are sized appropriately). Regards, Bob Lee Bob, My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 24, 2010
1/24/2010 Hello John Grosse, You wrote: "I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder..." {Response} Recall that this thread began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16, 2010 using the subject "Encoder Certification") who wanted to know if he could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location. Sorry that it got so drawn out and exhausting as we initially tried to help him and then got bogged down while trying to clarify some subsequent postings. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ===================================================== From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course. you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification]
And just where do you find this encoder requirement? It isn't in 91.205(d), it isn't in 91.215 that I can see. Unless it is a very recent change, I've flown IFR both without a transponder and with one without encoder for many years. Just increases your reporting requirements and may slightly annoy the controller. Note flight plan equipment codes /X and /T are still valid. Obviously it limits you to non-Class B, C airports and below 10,000 ft. unless you get a waiver. Kelly Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote: > Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead > horse one more time. > Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled > airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or > 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be > certified/TSO'd. > > So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your > only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the > performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c > or TSO-C112. > > Angier Ames > N4ZQ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: New alkaline cell source
I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5 cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service. It's going to be some time before I can put any on uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their contained energy. But at this price, it seems unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be of exemplary value. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Jan 24, 2010
OK I'm abandoning my holy grail search for a lightweight Z-14. I don't want to spend $300 for 2 PC310's to find out that they won't crank my engine. I think I'll settle for Z-13/8 (with a 40amp stby; $350 less money, more amps and a 4.5 # penalty over the B&C PM alts that don't fit my Franklin engine) and I'll use a single PC680. I have accomodation for another 680 should I decide that I need the redundancy. A single 680 gives me about 45 mins with my Ebus load (longer than the dual 310's). I still save 7+ lbs over Z-19 and I like having the second alternator better than a second battery. No matter how frequently I tested my batteries, I know that with no alternator, I'm not going to be comfortable with a vague notion of how long I've got. I would head for an airport immediately. With a second alternator and battery reserve, a primary alternator failure, becomes a bother rather than something I have to make a go/no-go decision about. Other than the size of the alternator, and using two B&C LR-3 VR's, I see nothing in Z13/8 that I would change. Any observations/refinements appreciated. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283291#283291 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Jan 24, 2010
earl_schroeder(at)juno.co wrote: > Hi John, > Check the size ng?of the battery terminals. Some that I've tried were too small to accept the wire size required to carry starter current requirements. For instance, some would only accept a 6-32 size screw or a 1/4" push on tab. Earl Thanks Earl. You're right. The PC 310 use an M4 screw (#8-32 equiv). There's a pad for more contact, but the screw is pretty small to get decent clamping force applied. See the previous post. John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283292#283292 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: New alkaline cell source
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells > on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells > for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5 > cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service. > > It's going to be some time before I can put any on > uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their > contained energy. But at this price, it seems > unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be > of exemplary value. I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot about it. If you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value. As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them. Regards, Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New alkaline cell source
> >I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot >about it. If >you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at >Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to >some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value. > >As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the >package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them. Good data point. Thanks! We'll have to see how Sam's products work out. Given that they're carrying the Sam's Club logo, I suspect the suppliers had to jump some pretty tight hoops . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Klinefelter" <kevann(at)gotsky.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Cranking Amps
Date: Jan 25, 2010
I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a new one for the plane. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:01 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Cranking Amps > > OK I'm abandoning my holy grail search for a lightweight Z-14. I don't > want to spend $300 for 2 PC310's to find out that they won't crank my > engine. I think I'll settle for Z-13/8 (with a 40amp stby; $350 less > money, more amps and a 4.5 # penalty over the B&C PM alts that don't fit > my Franklin engine) and I'll use a single PC680. I have accomodation for > another 680 should I decide that I need the redundancy. A single 680 gives > me about 45 mins with my Ebus load (longer than the dual 310's). I still > save 7+ lbs over Z-19 and I like having the second alternator better than > a second battery. > > No matter how frequently I tested my batteries, I know that with no > alternator, I'm not going to be comfortable with a vague notion of how > long I've got. I would head for an airport immediately. With a second > alternator and battery reserve, a primary alternator failure, becomes a > bother rather than something I have to make a go/no-go decision about. > > Other than the size of the alternator, and using two B&C LR-3 VR's, I see > nothing in Z13/8 that I would change. > > Any observations/refinements appreciated. > > John > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283291#283291 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 25, 2010
1/25/2010 Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below: 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace." {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that airspace identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise? 2) "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd." {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the opposite. Read here: "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. (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) "So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112." {Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of proving "the performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or an alternate method of complying with the requirements, for avionics are very extensive, demanding, and expensive. This is why most of the altitude encoding EFIS' available to the experimental amateur built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive material in the aeroelectric list archives on the significance of paragraph14 CFR 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself. '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: Encoder Certification Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead horse one more time. Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ TSO'd. So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c or TSO-C112. Angier Ames N4ZQ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Does anyone have a source for these specialized Adel
clamps
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2010
They are self mounting swivel clamps. http://www.adelwiggins.com/ProdDtl.cfm?pid=109 -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283357#283357 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/109_210.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Carey <kpc(at)speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification
Date: Jan 25, 2010
/set mode = "dead horse" /enable beat On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:35 AM, wrote: > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 1/25/2010 > > Hello Angier Ames, You wrote 1) 2) and 3) below: > > 1) "Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in > controlled airspace." > > {Response} Not true for all controlled airspace -- just that > airspace identified in 91.215 (b). Can you show otherwise? > > 2) "And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, as > per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ > TSO'd." > > {Response} Not true because 14 CFR Section 215 (a) says exactly the > opposite. Read here: > > "91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. > > (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) "So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. > Your only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets > the performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b > or c or TSO-C112." > > {Response} More than a bit misleading. The FAA requirements of > proving "the performance and environmental standards" of a TSO, or > an alternate method of complying with the requirements, for avionics > are very extensive, demanding, and expensive. This is why most of > the altitude encoding EFIS' available to the experimental amateur > built community are not TSO'd. There is extensive material in the > aeroelectric list archives on the significance of paragraph14 CFR > 91.217, particularly 91.217 (b). Just help yourself. > > '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: Encoder Certification > > Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead > horse one more time. > Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled > airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135, > as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/ > TSO'd. > > So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your > only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the > performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c > or TSO-C112. > > Angier Ames > N4ZQ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2010
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Encoder Certification
I agree, Bob, and I thought the first couple of responses pretty well covered the original question. The subsequent discussion has certainly covered the subject of controlled airspace, but reminds me of a favorite quote: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill John :-) bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Morning John, > As Always, It All Depends! > I think most of us would agree with your assessment. > The subject came up when a homebuilder wanted to know if he could fly > his transponder equipped airplane to another point to get it certified. > That morphed into a discussion as to where a transponder is required. > While most of us do opt to have an operating transponder on board, the > fact remains that such a unit is NOT required in most of the airspace > utilized by we GA pilots. > Even in areas where a transponder IS required, there are procedures > available that may allow a flight to be made with the transponder > inoperative. > And, why do we care? As OC says, it's all in the spirit of education. > Since there are so many conflicting opinions, it appears that some > education is required. > Does that make any sense at all or do you still feel we were wasting > your time? > Happy Skies, > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Downers Grove, IL > Stearman N3977A (With a transponder) > In a message dated 1/24/2010 12:08:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, > grosseair(at)comcast.net writes: > > > > This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't > understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of > course. > you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no > electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care? > > John > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net>
Subject: Z13-8 questions
Date: Jan 25, 2010
Hi Bob, As I prepare to begin wiring per Z13-8, I have two questions. 1) Using the B&C LR-3 regulator, can the bus voltage sense lead be placed on the E-bus rather than on the main bus? In the very unlikely event of two failures on one tank of fuel, would this also offer low voltage warning in the if something in the SD-8 system would fail? I seem to recall this question being raised some time ago, but could not locate it in the archives. 2) The installation instructions for the SD-8 call for an inline fuse on one of the output leads. I don't see this included in the Z13-8 diagrams. Is there a reason that it is not shown? Thanks, Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Z-13/8
Date: Jan 25, 2010
Bob, I'm planning to wire my RV8 with your Z-13/8 configuration. My question is: can I use a single switch (2-3) to replace the two swathes (1-3) Aux Alt on/off and the E-bus alternate feed? I can envision no time when I would have one of those on and the other off. Am I missing something? Mauri Morin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
From: "grnord" <grnordgarden(at)cox.net>
Date: Jan 25, 2010
I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet alternator instead of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures and discussed in the AeroElectric book. I'd like to put overvoltage protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier but the three-phase output is delivered to it via three feed-wires instead of the two from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect relays in any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator-coil sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would probably be triggered at slightly different voltages due to component tolerances but an OV event in the narrow window between those two voltages seems unlikely. I have three questions: (1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept unworkable? (2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened to open one relay but not the other? (3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20? If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream of the regulator but that would leave that not-cheap regulator-rectifier vulnerable. Twinned OV protection is cheaper than one fried regulator... Rick Nordgarden Council Bluffs IA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Battery replacement philosophies . . .
At 11:43 AM 1/25/2010, you wrote: kevann(at)gotsky.com wrote: > I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I change > out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take the > 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get a > new one for the plane. > > Kevin > --- Thanks Kevin. I've often thought that with the numbers of people that subscribe to the List and who monitor this forum, there's got to be a market for 1 or 2 year old AGM batteries like the Odysseys for those who opt for a two battery system like Z19 or 14 and are in their first year. It always pained me thinking of tossing a perfectly good $100+ battery. You don't HAVE to TOSS it if you have a way to TEST it. The yearly rotation thing was suggested for folks who wanted to exploit the low cost batteries while NOT piling on costs of ownership for having to test them. I.e., the $time$ for testing was more than the cost of a replacement battery. The options cited were to add things like an SD-8 and plan an endurance bus that didn't take more than 8A. Then run the battery 'til it craps. Or, invest in some type of battery capacity checker and change out the battery when it's contained energy drops below your design goals for e-bus support. If you're invested in $high$ batteries, then yes . . . yearly change-out policy seems arbitrary and fails to offer the best return on investment. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Hi Rick Putting an OV module upstream of the regulator when using a permanent magnet alternator is very likely to trip incessantly, as the regulator keeps the voltage correct by dissipating the extra energy as heat, unlike a field-coil alternator that actively modifies the voltage generated by the alternator. For that reason, I wouldn't think that it's possible to have an OV event, other than with a regulator failure, and the only way to catch that would be to stick the OV relay and module downstream of the regulator, after the rectification has happened, and when you're dealing with DC. Now on a different note, wouldn't it be a good idea to stick the OV relay upstream of the smoothing capacitor? I've seen one of those 70,000uF caps explode due to too much juice, and it's quite impressive! My thinking is that if your regulator goes off the hook and supplies the cap with 40V (or whatever the permanent magnet alternator can generate), and that thing explodes in the cockpit, the pilot is going to need a new set of underwear... Thoughts? Thanks Etienne On 26 Jan 2010, at 3:56 AM, grnord wrote: > > > > I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet > alternator instead of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures > and discussed in the AeroElectric book. I'd like to put overvoltage > protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier but the three-phase > output is delivered to it via three feed-wires instead of the two > from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect relays > in any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator- > coil sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would > probably be triggered at slightly different voltages due to > component tolerances but an OV event in the narrow window between > those two voltages seems unlikely. I have three questions: > > (1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept > unworkable? > > (2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened > to open one relay but not the other? > > (3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20? > > If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream > of the regulator but that would leave that not-cheap regulator- > rectifier vulnerable. Twinned OV protection is cheaper than one > fried regulator... > > > Rick Nordgarden > Council Bluffs IA > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
At 07:56 PM 1/25/2010, you wrote: I've been considering how to use a three-phase permanent-magnet alternator instead of the single-phase units shown in the Z-figures and discussed in the AeroElectric book. I'd like to put overvoltage protection upstream of the regulator-rectifier but the three-phase output is delivered to it via three feed-wires instead of the two from a single-phase PM stator. It seems that OV disconnect relays in any two feed-lines would interrupt current from all three stator-coil sets; the two AEC 9024-20 modules operating the relays would probably be triggered at slightly different voltages due to component tolerances but an OV event in the narrow window between those two voltages seems unlikely. I have three questions: (1) Have I overlooked something that makes the basic concept unworkable? Don't want 2 ov sensors for reasons cited . . . (2) What would be the consequences of an OV event that happened to open one relay but not the other? Not easily predicted . . . (3) Is it possible to control two relays with one AEC 9024-20? Yes, or get a two-pole relay. But two relays is workable too and probably less expensive. If necessary I could go with a single OV disconnect relay downstream of the regulator but that would leave that not-cheap regulator-rectifier vulnerable. Twinned OV protection is cheaper than one fried regulator... Agreed. Rick Nordgarden Council Bluffs IA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283444#283444 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 01/25/10 19:36:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-13/8
At 06:48 PM 1/25/2010, you wrote: >Bob, >I'm planning to wire my RV8 with your Z-13/8 configuration. >My question is: can I use a single switch (2-3) to replace the two >swathes (1-3) Aux Alt on/off and the E-bus alternate feed? I can >envision no time when I would have one of those on and the other off. Combined switching creates single point of failure for two critical pathways. Suggest you stay with two switches. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Reruven Brand <reuvenbrand(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: Bendix/king KLN 90A TSO GPS
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: reuvenbrand(at)hotmail.com Subject: Bendix/king KLN 90A TSO GPS Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:24:44 +0000 Good Morning, Anyone out there, have an idea? For a Bendix/king KLN 90A TSO GPS , What does the message " RCVR HW Error : 200" means? Email me off list if you want to. Thanks Reuven Brand reuvenbrand(at)hotmail.com Savio, Israel C421TP Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Keith, Let me Google that fer ya.... Google: ADEL LOOP CLAMPS SWIVEL -------- 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=283475#283475 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
I've been rotating my 2 or 3 year old Odysseys from the plane to the ham shack, lawn tractor and house generator for awhile now, where they continue to give good service. In fact, I've yet to discard an Odyssey in the last decade, as they all still work well enough in their respective roles. Bill B. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 11:43 AM 1/25/2010, you wrote: > > > kevann(at)gotsky.com wrote: > > I have a two alt one batt(pc680) syatem in my 914 powered Europa. I > change > > out the battery every other year. I modified our Subaru Legacy to take > the > > 680. The two year old 680 cranks the Subaru fine for two years till I get > a > > new one for the plane. > > > > Kevin > > --- > > > Thanks Kevin. > I've often thought that with the numbers of people that subscribe to the > List and who monitor this forum, there's got to be a market for 1 or 2 year > old AGM batteries like the Odysseys for those who opt for a two battery > system like Z19 or 14 and are in their first year. > > It always pained me thinking of tossing a perfectly good $100+ battery. > > You don't HAVE to TOSS it if you have a way to TEST it. > The yearly rotation thing was suggested for folks who > wanted to exploit the low cost batteries while NOT piling > on costs of ownership for having to test them. I.e., the > $time$ for testing was more than the cost of a replacement > battery. > > The options cited were to add things like an SD-8 and > plan an endurance bus that didn't take more than 8A. > Then run the battery 'til it craps. Or, invest in some > type of battery capacity checker and change out the > battery when it's contained energy drops below your > design goals for e-bus support. > > If you're invested in $high$ batteries, then yes . . . > yearly change-out policy seems arbitrary and fails > to offer the best return on investment. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Thanks for that but i had searched the internet numerous times. Found the parent company as well as two aircraft supply companies, non of which would sell to me as an individual. -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283483#283483 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z13-8 questions
At 10:17 AM 1/25/2010, you wrote: >Hi Bob, > >As I prepare to begin wiring per Z13-8, I have two questions. > >1) Using the B&C LR-3 regulator, can the bus voltage sense lead be >placed on the E-bus rather than on the main bus? In the very >unlikely event of two failures on one tank of fuel, would this also >offer low voltage warning in the if something in the SD-8 system would fail? That's double failure in single tank of gas . . . exceedingly unlikely. Recommend your ov protection be on main bus and voltmeter (or instrument containing voltage display function) run from e-bus. > I seem to recall this question being raised some time ago, but > could not locate it in the archives. No, that lead is also the regulator's v-sense lead. > >2) The installation instructions for the SD-8 call for an inline >fuse on one of the output leads. I don't see this included in the >Z13-8 diagrams. Is there a reason that it is not shown? There's a fusible link in the Z-figures Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
At 11:30 PM 1/25/2010, you wrote: Hi Rick Putting an OV module upstream of the regulator when using a permanent magnet alternator is very likely to trip incessantly, as the regulator keeps the voltage correct by dissipating the extra energy as heat, unlike a field-coil alternator that actively modifies the voltage generated by the alternator. Etienne's assertions are based on the earliest marketplace examples of rectifier regulator for PM alternators. The PM alternator goes wAAAyyyy back in the history of electrical systems on small engines where folks wanted to add things light lighting and self starting to scooters, bikes, and lawn care equipment. Indeed, these alternators were seldom rated for more than 5-10 amps at max RPM (in a 6v system). The simplest means for controlling their widely variable output voltage was to simply throw a shunt load on the device to prevent excess energy from making it out onto the system. Of course, this means that the rectifier/regulator had to be capable of turning 100% of the alternator's output into pure heat under all conditions. So the heat dissipating abilities of the R/R had to accommodate 50-100 watts of output. As the systems needing simple, low cost power matured the the alternators were up-sized to accommodate design goals. One can buy 3-phase, 30A PM machines today . . . but the regulators are most certainly not capable of sinking all that power. The reason is that SHUNT regulation has been pretty much abandoned for SERIES regulation wherein excess energy is kept off the system not by sinking it to ground but by disconnecting the energy source from the rest of the system. This means that alternators are now taxed only as the system demands can use the energy . . . before, the alternator always ran flat-out and was necessarily hot all the time. Exemplar schematics for modern rectifier/ regulators can be viewed here . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/3-Phase_PM_Rectifier_Regulator.gif http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Kubota_Schematic.jpg For that reason, I wouldn't think that it's possible to have an OV event, other than with a regulator failure, and the only way to catch that would be to stick the OV relay and module downstream of the regulator, after the rectification has happened, and when you're dealing with DC. The original idea for adding OV protection to the SD-8 DID put the disconnect relay downstream of the R/R. But this didn't really comport with design goals for all other OV protection systems . . . shut off the flow of energy at the source. This is what prompted moving the relay from the downstream side of R/R to the upstream side in the AC wiring. Now on a different note, wouldn't it be a good idea to stick the OV relay upstream of the smoothing capacitor? I've seen one of those 70,000uF caps explode due to too much juice, and it's quite impressive! My thinking is that if your regulator goes off the hook and supplies the cap with 40V (or whatever the permanent magnet alternator can generate), and that thing explodes in the cockpit, the pilot is going to need a new set of underwear... You need to abuse these guys pretty badly to achieve such spectacular failures. Certainly a runaway 30A alternator would be classified as pretty abusive. Hence, putting the OV disconnect in the upstream AC wiring affords the capacitor the same degree of OV protection as the rest of the electro-whizzies on the airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .
At 07:27 AM 1/26/2010, you wrote: >I've been rotating my 2 or 3 year old Odysseys from the plane to the >ham shack, lawn tractor and house generator for awhile now, where >they continue to give good service. In fact, I've yet to discard an >Odyssey in the last decade, as they all still work well enough in >their respective roles. ABSOLUTELY! I have SVLA instrumentation batteries that have been kept on maintainers when not in service. Some are pushing 6-7 years old and they still deliver a hefty percentage of like-new energy. There's no reason that a well cared for battery in an airplane cannot offer a very long service life. But the phrase "well cared for" has a cost of ownership value. You need to have a preventative maintenance plan that calls for test equipment and $time$ along with an attitude that encourages due-diligence on the part of the owner-operator (YOU) to implement the plan. In the air-transport and other commercial applications for airplanes, there are usually folks on staff who are paid for their due diligence and are outfitted with the necessary tools. Compare this situation with the C-172 that sits unattended for long periods of time, perhaps a long way from an AC mains connection, owned and operated by a guy who probably understands less about his airplane than he does about his car or bass boat. The yearly change-out idea grew from the notion that readers here on the List know far more about their machines. It was further considered that many would be attracted to the idea of treating batteries like razor blades. Buy the least expensive and change out often. This ASSURES in-flight performance while MINIMIZING taxation of time, talent and resources to keep battery-only operations confidence levels high. Now, if one is enamored of the notion for fitting premium battery(ies) to their airplane, then indeed the idea of yearly swap-out is problematic in for achieving the lowest cost of ownership. So your choices now are very clear. (1) Shoulder the costs of NOT KNOWING just how good or bad your battery might be in terms of meeting battery-only design goals . . . and swap 'em out. OR . . . (2) Acquire tools and adopt a program that replaces the convenience of yearly swap-out with a performance assurance plan. The decision is one that only you can make. I have the tools and talent necessary to make my airplane batteries well cared for. But if it were my airplane, I'd opt for the yearly swap-out of inexpensive batteries . . . but that's because I have better things to do with my time than pray over batteries. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Have you tried Aircraft Spruce yet? They say that they can get parts that aren't listed in their catalog and I know from experience that this is the case. All you need is a manufacturer name and part number. It would be worth a call to them. Bill Glasair ----- Original Message ----- From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized Adel clamps > > > Thanks for that but i had searched the internet numerous times. Found the > parent company as well as two aircraft supply companies, non of which > would sell to me as an individual. > > -------- > Keith McKinley > 700HS > KFIT > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283483#283483 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 13:36:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mp.gamble(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Message repeats
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Can anyone tell me why I'm getting 3 copies of each message from the list - it's taking too long with the delete key to tidy things up. Thanks Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mp.gamble(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: test
Date: Jan 26, 2010
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z13-8 questions
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Tom, > can the bus voltage sense lead be placed on the E-bus The E-bus is fed through a diode which drops the voltage by about 1 volt. If the regulator senses the E-bus voltage, then the regulator will try to keep the E-Bus at 14 volts. The main bus will be 1 volt higher at over 15 volts. Operating at over 15 volts will shorten the life of the battery and the devices connected to the main bus. > I don't see this included in the Z13-8 diagrams. The fusible link is located above the battery contactor. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283495#283495 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mp.gamble(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: test
Date: Jan 26, 2010
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
From: "grnord" <grnordgarden(at)cox.net>
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Bob and Etienne, thanks for your replies. You've shed some light on a controversy that erupted on the CorvairCraft list (on mylist.net) early this month: somebody started bad-mouthing PM alternators and as evidence he cited several instances of blown smoothing capacitors on Rotax installations. The thread got bogged down in ad hominem attacks and counter-attacks and eventually was dropped without resolving the question of why the capacitors had blown, but it appears in light of what you two have pointed out that those setups must have had the capacitors upstream of their OV protection -- or no OVP at all... ...Which leaves me puzzled with respect to the Z-figures' treatment of smoothing capacitors with PM alternators: only Z-9 and Z-16 show them downstream of the OVP; Z-10/8, -13/8, -17, -20 and -21 all have the capacitor upstream of the OVP. The guy stirring things up on CorvairCraft confirmed that failures of these caps are indeed spectacular. How likely to hear such a bang are users of Z-10/8 et al? Am I right in concluding that my best bet for minimizing the probability of an unhappy ending with a three-phase PM alternator is to put a single disconnect relay in the DC line downstream of the R/R but upstream of the smoothing capacitor, leaving the R/R to fend for itself? Rick Nordgarden Council Bluffs IA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283502#283502 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil>
Keith - I may have some - have to wait till I'm back at the hangar this weekend. What sizes do you need? Neal -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of keithmckinley Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized Adel clamps Thanks for that but i had searched the internet numerous times. Found the parent company as well as two aircraft supply companies, non of which would sell to me as an individual. -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Message repeats
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Can anyone tell me why I'm getting 3 copies of each message from the list - it's taking too long with the delete key to tidy things up. Thanks Mike I only get 1 copy, unless someone hits the send key twice. Must be a problem with your setup. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
At 10:46 AM 1/26/2010, you wrote: > >Bob and Etienne, thanks for your replies. You've shed some light on >a controversy that erupted on the CorvairCraft list (on mylist.net) >early this month: somebody started bad-mouthing PM alternators and >as evidence he cited several instances of blown smoothing capacitors >on Rotax installations. The thread got bogged down in ad hominem >attacks and counter-attacks and eventually was dropped without >resolving the question of why the capacitors had blown, but it >appears in light of what you two have pointed out that those setups >must have had the capacitors upstream of their OV protection -- or >no OVP at all... Hard to tell . . . mostly because they were using hardware that has not been as well evaluated for behavior as the SD-8 and regulators supplied by B&C. >Am I right in concluding that my best bet for minimizing the >probability of an unhappy ending with a three-phase PM alternator is >to put a single disconnect relay in the DC line downstream of the >R/R but upstream of the smoothing capacitor, leaving the R/R to fend >for itself? No . . . best-we-know-how-to-do is disconnect the offending energy flow AT ITS SOURCE . . . break the AC leads. The Z-figures have not been all updated to this idea . . . but unlike the larger, 3-phase machines, and the 18A system on Rotax, the SD-8 on a vacuum pump pad doesn't represent much of a hazard to the smoothing capacitor. Alternators that run much faster (higher open circuit voltage) are another matter entirely. By the way, you can leave this capacitor off if you wish . . . it's value is problematic. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/SD-8_Noise_Data.pdf Note that some of the plots are at 50 mv/division vertical scale, others are at 200 mv/division. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Message repeats
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Mike, I had a similar problem. Discovered I had two sets of e mail rules for dumping list e mails into my aeroelectric mail folder. So each time the browser rule checker got triggered, it dump a copy (two total). I deleted one of the rules and now only one copy. Don't know if that would apply to your problem, but if you use rules, you might check it. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com <http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com <http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html> http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ <http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm> http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm <http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html> _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Message repeats Can anyone tell me why I'm getting 3 copies of each message from the list - it's taking too long with the delete key to tidy things up. Thanks Mike __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Message repeats
On 1/26/2010 9:03 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote: > > Can anyone tell me why I'm getting 3 copies of each message from the > list -- it's taking too long with the delete key to tidy things up. > > Thanks > > Mike > > > * > * I have had the same problem for over a year now, not just this list and when I switched to Thunderbird the problem came along. Tim A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
My recollection is that these Z diagrams have gone through changes over time as design goals have evolved. I think I remember seeing some of the PM diagrams without capacitors even. Some systems aren't very sensitive to alternator noise.. Components never installed never fail. I'd guess that the vast majority of PM alternators run for the life of the airplane so long as the components are held to reasonable temperature and the wiring is done correctly. Similarly, the output voltage of the unregulated PM alternator isn't _that_ high - <100V. You can pick a cap that can stand the full output and not worry about it failing should the regulator pack it in. I see caps rated to (and above) 100V on the digikey site for reasonable prices. Regards, Matt- > > Bob and Etienne, thanks for your replies. You've shed some light on a > controversy that erupted on the CorvairCraft list (on mylist.net) early > this month: somebody started bad-mouthing PM alternators and as evidence > he cited several instances of blown smoothing capacitors on Rotax > installations. The thread got bogged down in ad hominem attacks and > counter-attacks and eventually was dropped without resolving the question > of why the capacitors had blown, but it appears in light of what you two > have pointed out that those setups must have had the capacitors upstream > of their OV protection -- or no OVP at all... > > ...Which leaves me puzzled with respect to the Z-figures' treatment of > smoothing capacitors with PM alternators: only Z-9 and Z-16 show them > downstream of the OVP; Z-10/8, -13/8, -17, -20 and -21 all have the > capacitor upstream of the OVP. The guy stirring things up on > CorvairCraft confirmed that failures of these caps are indeed spectacular. > How likely to hear such a bang are users of Z-10/8 et al? > > Am I right in concluding that my best bet for minimizing the probability > of an unhappy ending with a three-phase PM alternator is to put a single > disconnect relay in the DC line downstream of the R/R but upstream of the > smoothing capacitor, leaving the R/R to fend for itself? > > > Rick Nordgarden > Council Bluffs IA > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283502#283502 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mp.gamble(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: test
Date: Jan 26, 2010
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mp.gamble(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Message repeats
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Thanks a bundle Ed. I had 2 extra rules sending the same thing to my aeroelectric folder.(How they got there I do not know!) All ok now. Ta. Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Message repeats
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Yeah, Mike, the double messages kept doing it to me for most of a year, until I finally got so fed up I went searching for the problem. Never figured it was that simple (once you find it {:>). My browser has a mind of its own. Glad it fixed the problem Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com <http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com <http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html> http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ <http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm> http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm <http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html> _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:55 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Message repeats Thanks a bundle Ed. I had 2 extra rules sending the same thing to my aeroelectric folder.(How they got there I do not know!) All ok now. Ta. Mike __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
At 11:42 AM 1/26/2010, you wrote: My recollection is that these Z diagrams have gone through changes over time as design goals have evolved. I think I remember seeing some of the PM diagrams without capacitors even. Some systems aren't very sensitive to alternator noise.. Components never installed never fail. I don't recall that. Until I did the noise studies we just "assumed" that the single phase rectified output from the SD-8 was going to be exemplar ordinarily noisy and adding a capacitor was a good thing to do. Rotax and others had been doing it for some years prior. The surprise was that the SD-8 without a capacitor generated no more noise than other devices qualified under mil-std-704 design goals that allow up to 1.5 v pk-pk conducted noise in certain frequency ranges. See figure 15 in http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/Mil-Std-704_excerpts.pdf I'd guess that the vast majority of PM alternators run for the life of the airplane so long as the components are held to reasonable temperature and the wiring is done correctly. Similarly, the output voltage of the unregulated PM alternator isn't _that_ high - <100V. You can pick a cap that can stand the full output and not worry about it failing should the regulator pack it in. I see caps rated to (and above) 100V on the digikey site for reasonable prices. True. However the majority of catastrophic failures I've put my hands on were the result of hooking the capacitor up backwards. And the SD-8 turning at 4,000 rpm on a vacuum pump pad isn't a snarling monster either. Getting OV protection sensed downstream of the capacitor and cutting power upstream of the R/R seems to be the elegant solution. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OV Protection for Three-Phase PM Alternator
Date: Jan 26, 2010
On 26 Jan 2010, at 7:10 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > . . . best-we-know-how-to-do is disconnect the > offending energy flow AT ITS SOURCE . . . break the > AC leads. Hi Rick and Bob I realize now that I didn't get the picture in my mind across very clearly at all! Agreed that the actual break in the circuit should be as far upstream as possible, but the sensing should happen downstream of the regulator, as you have explained. Apologies for confusing the matter... As for the cap disintegrating, my fears are put at ease if the relay disconnects the source upstream of the regulator. Thanks Etienne ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Good call on aircraft spruce...didn't realize they did that. Neal, I'm slowly going through some old fuel line, air line and smoke system clamps, not to mention some electrical wire runs. Right now I can't be specific on sizes and clamp layout until I get going on this. Thanks for the offer. Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283570#283570 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Subject: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
From: rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us
Has anyone converted a CD ROM to a retractable cup holder for use in their aeroplane? Details would be appreciated. I just spent the last week hanging instrument module on my Europa XS and need to mutilate it a bit with an access panel. There is a place where a retractable cup holder would be a nice feature so a little more mutilation would not be a problem.I am thinking a gutted and mutilated CD ROM would not be too heavy and way kool. Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
There was a Coke a Cola bit of software going around about 10 years ago, advertised as a free cup holder. You clicked on the link and your CD drawer opened. Cute. It may have been associated with a virus, though. Sam Hoskins www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:57 PM, wrote: > Has anyone converted a CD ROM to a retractable cup holder for use in their > aeroplane? > Details would be appreciated. > I just spent the last week hanging instrument module on my Europa XS and > need to mutilate it a bit with an access panel. There is a place where a > retractable cup holder would be a nice feature so a little more mutilation > would not be a problem. I am thinking a gutted and mutilated CD ROM would > not be too heavy and way kool. > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2010
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
From: Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com>
Hi Ron, My 2000 Subaru Imprezza had a dash board retractable cup holder. Quite a bit lighter than any cd-rom i've come across. Keep in mind that IT support folks generally *learn* about these little stories *after* the abused computer item fails in it's non-intended role. It's not the misuse that makes these on-the-job stories funny, it's the indignation of the person demanding why the cup holder broke after just 3 weeks that makes it difficult not to laugh. Oh, the Subaru part actually does a decent job. They are probably cheap if you're willing to go to a breaker's yard and work out some stress extricating it. Ummm.. I'm not sure my sube was a 2000 model though, sorry about that. c'ya, Michael On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, wrote: > Has anyone converted a CD ROM to a retractable cup holder for use in their > aeroplane? > Details would be appreciated. > I just spent the last week hanging instrument module on my Europa XS and > need to mutilate it a bit with an access panel. There is a place where a > retractable cup holder would be a nice feature so a little more mutilation > would not be a problem.I am thinking a gutted and mutilated CD ROM would > not be too heavy and way kool. > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2010
From: D <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
My old 2000 Jetta had a similar arrangement. It was a cartridge about 3/4 inch tall that lived right above the radio. I bet you could find on at an auto recycler (junk yard...) Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jared Yates" <junk(at)jaredyates.com>
Subject: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
Date: Jan 27, 2010
Check out the VW Jetta from the early 2000s. There is a double cup holder just above the radio that might also serve your needs. It retracts to about 3/4" thickness and when extended, it can accommodate a wide range of cup diameters. You could probably get one from a junkyard pretty cheap, and you may also find it in other VW cars. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Pereira Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:27 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking. Hi Ron, My 2000 Subaru Imprezza had a dash board retractable cup holder. Quite a bit lighter than any cd-rom i've come across. Keep in mind that IT support folks generally *learn* about these little stories *after* the abused computer item fails in it's non-intended role. It's not the misuse that makes these on-the-job stories funny, it's the indignation of the person demanding why the cup holder broke after just 3 weeks that makes it difficult not to laugh. Oh, the Subaru part actually does a decent job. They are probably cheap if you're willing to go to a breaker's yard and work out some stress extricating it. Ummm.. I'm not sure my sube was a 2000 model though, sorry about that. c'ya, Michael On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, wrote: > Has anyone converted a CD ROM to a retractable cup holder for use in their > aeroplane? > Details would be appreciated. > I just spent the last week hanging instrument module on my Europa XS and > need to mutilate it a bit with an access panel. There is a place where a > retractable cup holder would be a nice feature so a little more mutilation > would not be a problem.I am thinking a gutted and mutilated CD ROM would > not be too heavy and way kool. > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2010
From: GERRY VAN%20DYK <gerry.vandyk(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
Here's a thought... http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/bevholder.php I'm not necessarily suggesting buying one of these but the picture should give one enough to build one yourself. If you can build an airplane you should be able to build a cupholder. ;^) Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: D <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking. > > My old 2000 Jetta had a similar arrangement. It was a cartridge > about > 3/4 inch tall that lived right above the radio. I bet you could > find > on at an auto recycler (junk yard...) > > Dan > > > > > > > > AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > _- > = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > _- > = - List Contribution Web Site - > _- > = -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .
Date: Jan 27, 2010
Bob, You said: ...your choices now are very clear. (1) Shoulder the costs of NOT KNOWING just how good or bad your battery might be in terms of meeting battery-only design goals . . . and swap 'em out. OR . . . (2) Acquire tools and adopt a program that replaces the convenience of yearly swap-out with a performance assurance plan. ...... But if it were my airplane, I'd opt for the yearly swap-out of inexpensive batteries . . . but that's because I have better things to do with my time than pray over batteries. Bob . . . I have no desire to "pray" over batteries or buy expensive ones. At your suggestion, that an Odyssey PC680 would happily crank my 350 in 6 cyl Franklin, I opted for that single battery over a pair of PC310's of dubious ability to crank the Franklin. I would much rather buy a less expensive battery and replace it bi-annually if it would crank the engine. I've looked at a few other 17AH batts. The price ranges from $30 to Odyssey prices and some don't list crank amps or reserve capacity. PowerSonic has the most information, besides Odyssey, and is about 1/2 the price ($55) for an 18AH (PS-12180 NB) that seems like it would do the job. But any suggestions for brands and models that you or anybody else has would be much appreciated. Thanks, John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2010
From: Dennis Haverlah <clouduster(at)austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
I cut off a plastic soda bottle about 2 1/2 inches from the bottom and put velcro on the bottom. This is attached to the wing spar just in front of my control stick on my RV-7. A canned drink fits snugly inside the plastic soda container. Real cheap and it works. Dennis H. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2010
From: James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .
I use Panasonic 18AH batteries. 2 batteries in my Glasair lll with IO540 hi compression pistons. I am wired with Bob's 2 batteries, 2 alternators system and I never have problems starting. ( batteries x tie to start) I think I get them from DigiKey for under $50 ea. I rotate them at annual. I have replaced both at the same time,but Bob 's suggestion was replace 1 at each annual. Your call James Robinson Glasair lll N79R Spanish Fork UT U77 ________________________________ From: John Burnaby <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 2:35:32 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery replacement philosophies . . . Bob, You said: ...your choices now are very clear. (1) Shoulder the costs of NOT KNOWING just how good or bad your battery might be in terms of meeting battery-only design goals . . . and swap 'em out. OR . . . (2) Acquire tools and adopt a program that replaces the convenience of yearly swap-out with a performance assurance plan. ...... But if it were my airplane, I'd opt for the yearly swap-out of inexpensive batteries . . . but that's because I have better things to do with my time than pray over batteries. Bob . . . I have no desire to "pray" over batteries or buy expensive ones. At your suggestion, that an Odyssey PC680 would happily crank my 350 in 6 cyl Franklin, I opted for that single battery over a pair of PC310's of dubious ability to crank the Franklin. I would much rather buy a less expensive battery and replace it bi-annually if it would crank the engine. I've looked at a few other 17AH batts. The price ranges from $30 to Odyssey prices and some don't list crank amps or reserve capacity. PowerSonic has the most information, besides Odyssey, and is about 1/2 the price ($55) for an 18AH (PS-12180 NB) that seems like it would do the job. But any suggestions for brands and models that you or anybody else has would be much appreciated. Thanks, John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
Date: Jan 28, 2010
I think that this has come up a while ago but I cannot find it in the archives; I see that the LV module offered by B&C does not have a relay switching contact as the AEC9005-101 shown in Z-19 has. Do I have to make my own LV module or is someone else offering these for sale? Jay ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .Battery replacement
philosophies . . .
Date: Jan 28, 2010
..... I never have problems starting. ( batteries x tie to start) ...Hi James,Thanks for your experience. Have you ever tried starting your 540 with just one 18AH Panasonic? If so, was it adequate?When I talked to a Panasonic tech, he said that the 18AH was not suited to do what I wanted. I did find a a PowerSonic 21 Ah that would put out 210amps for 10 sec duration and it also has a flame retardant case & 30 more cranking amps than the 18AH at the same weight and cost.Power-Sonic PSH-12180FR John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2010
From: James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Battery replacement philosophies . . .Battery replacement
philosophies . . . Hi John To answer your question no I haven't because the system is not set up that way. I do have electronic ignitiion and that may help in the starting, but the engine spins rapidly with the 2 batteries. I'll keep the info and look into the power sonic before my next change Jim James Robinson Glasair lll N79R Spanish Fork UT U77 ________________________________ From: John Burnaby <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 11:53:58 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery replacement philosophies . . .Battery replacement philosophies . . . ..... I never have problems starting. ( batteries x tie to start) ... Hi James, Thanks for your experience. Have you ever tried starting your 540 with just one 18AH Panasonic? If so, was it adequate? When I talked to a Panasonic tech, he said that the 18AH was not suited to do what I wanted. I did find a a PowerSonic 21 Ah that would put out 210amps for 10 sec duration and it also has a flame retardant case & 30 more cranking amps than the 18AH at the same weight and cost. Power-Sonic PSH-12180FR John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LV Sensor
At 11:37 PM 1/27/2010, you wrote: >I think that this has come up a while ago but I cannot find it in >the archives; I see that the LV module offered by B&C does not have >a relay switching contact as the AEC9005-101 shown in Z-19 has. Do >I have to make my own LV module or is someone else offering these for sale? I'll be replacing the AEC9005 with the AEC9024 series devices. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/ exemplar applications are show in http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z09A.pdf Z9 doesn't show an aux battery management system but that's one of the four separate functions you can get from the AEC9024, 4-function module. Alternatively, all the data need to do it yourself on an AEC9005 LVWarn/ABMM can be found at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/ including ECB artwork that can be used to order boards from ExpressPCB.com The AEC9024 is at the top of the list for development programs. Software and bill of materials is done . . . I'm wreestling with packaging issues and lack of a full-up workbench. Look for these to be available this spring. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: LV Sensor
At 11:37 PM 1/27/2010, you wrote: >I think that this has come up a while ago but I cannot find it in >the archives; I see that the LV module offered by B&C does not have >a relay switching contact as the AEC9005-101 shown in Z-19 has. Do >I have to make my own LV module or is someone else offering these for sale? My apologies. I forgot about a clone of the AEC9005 LVWarn/ABMM offered on Eric Jones' website at: http://www.periheliondesign.com/lvwaabm.htm This may well be your short path to meeting design goals . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
Date: Jan 29, 2010
Thanks- I am considering making a few of them, and the OV crowbar, here (in South Africa); it's a real pain to have to keep ordering them from the US onesey/ twoseys. Jay _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: 29 January 2010 07:22 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LV Sensor At 11:37 PM 1/27/2010, you wrote: I think that this has come up a while ago but I cannot find it in the archives; I see that the LV module offered by B&C does not have a relay switching contact as the AEC9005-101 shown in Z-19 has. Do I have to make my own LV module or is someone else offering these for sale? My apologies. I forgot about a clone of the AEC9005 LVWarn/ABMM offered on Eric Jones' website at: http://www.periheliondesign.com/lvwaabm.htm This may well be your short path to meeting design goals . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
At 11:48 AM 1/29/2010, you wrote: >Thanks- I am considering making a few of them, and the OV crowbar, >here (in South Africa); it's a real pain to have to keep ordering >them from the US onesey/ twoseys. > >Jay Understand. If you've downloaded the ECB development software from expresspcb.com . . . You'll note that the .pcb file in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/ is laid out such that a quick-turn order for 3 miniboards will get you six production boards for about $10 each. However, if you squeeze the trim margins down and delete half the artwork, you can get standard boards service for 20 production boards for about $6 each. The rest of the parts are pretty much jelly-bean items. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
Date: Jan 29, 2010
Got that- been having fun working with the Express PCB programs and now I am trying to lay out the OV Protection module so that I can order them-thar boards at the same time and save a bit on the postage. Thanks Bob! Jay _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: 29 January 2010 08:35 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LV Sensor At 11:48 AM 1/29/2010, you wrote: Thanks- I am considering making a few of them, and the OV crowbar, here (in South Africa); it=12s a real pain to have to keep ordering them from the US onesey/ twoseys. Jay Understand. If you've downloaded the ECB development software from expresspcb.com . . . You'll note that the .pcb file in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/ is laid out such that a quick-turn order for 3 miniboards will get you six production boards for about $10 each. However, if you squeeze the trim margins down and delete half the artwork, you can get standard boards service for 20 production boards for about $6 each. The rest of the parts are pretty much jelly-bean items. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
At 01:11 PM 1/29/2010, you wrote: >Got that- been having fun working with the Express PCB programs and >now I am trying to lay out the OV Protection module so that I can >order them-thar boards at the same time and save a bit on the postage. >Thanks Bob! > Good for you. Is it a crowbar ov module? I'd be willing to share the artwork for the latest version we're building if it would be helpful. At the same time, I'd encourage you to get proficient with ExpressPCB. It's got a very high return on investment for spinning up a small shop. They've made all our boards for over 10 years. --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LV Sensor
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 30, 2010
Thanks Bob, Yes, I sell the LVWAABM. I also sell the 13V Idiot Light, which I will make on request, with a spare common collector lead to connect buzzers, etc. Driving a relay coil would be easy. I am selling more parts to NASCAR and various racing organizations these days, who want the same kind of things that airplane builders do. -------- 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=284027#284027 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: LV Sensor
Date: Jan 30, 2010
It is exactly the crowbar OV module- your one. I've laid out the schematic, which was good practice, and now I want to do the board- having your artwork would help though. Jay _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: 29 January 2010 10:39 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LV Sensor At 01:11 PM 1/29/2010, you wrote: Got that- been having fun working with the Express PCB programs and now I am trying to lay out the OV Protection module so that I can order them-thar boards at the same time and save a bit on the postage. Thanks Bob! Good for you. Is it a crowbar ov module? I'd be willing to share the artwork for the latest version we're building if it would be helpful. At the same time, I'd encourage you to get proficient with ExpressPCB. It's got a very high return on investment for spinning up a small shop. They've made all our boards for over 10 years. --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Re: 28v to 14v
Date: Jan 31, 2010
John, you could try one of these. I've bought a couple for non aviation use. The download manual has the circuit diagram and full specs. Can't break the bank. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/12V-to-24V-Step-up-Power-Converter-Module-DC-to-DC_W0QQitemZ180461820730QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item2a045cdb3a > > > 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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Encoder Certification
From: "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2010
This has been a most humorous thread...It appears that many agree that a transponder is required in all controlled airspace...it is not. In fact, a transponder is not required for all IFR flight. A quote from the EAA regarding equipment for IFR flights... "Transponders and related equipment; One item that will be high on the list of desired equipment will be a transponder. Its interesting to note that 91.205 does not list a transponder as required in order to operate under IFR." Just to muddy the water! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284117#284117 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 28v to 14v
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Depending on the details, you could be in more or less trouble. I still recommend Astrodyne. The Ebay (and God I love it) supply is unlikely to have the power required nor the noise specs. -------- 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=284141#284141 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: cutting large wire
Date: Jan 31, 2010
How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4=2C (hopefully without buying anot her expensive tool)? Thanks. Jesse _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
At 09:18 1/31/2010, you wrote: >How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying >another expensive tool)? >Thanks. >Jesse $8 isn't too bad... http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=40507 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neal George" <n8zg(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: cutting large wire
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Dremel tool or die grinder with an abrasive cut-off wheel works well. Neal ============= How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)? Thanks. Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
A chisel and a ball peen hammer makes a nice clean cut. Rick Girard On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Jesse Jenks wrote: > > How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)? > Thanks. > Jesse > > > ------------------------------ > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
From: joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com>
Harbor freight has a cheap cable cutter for around 8 bucks. That or wrap the cable tightly with electrical tape and a wood chisel and a hammer on a block of wood. Joe Motis No archivos . On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Jesse Jenks wrote: > > How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)? > > Thanks. > Jesse > > > ------------------------------ > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
At 11:18 AM 1/31/2010, you wrote: >How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying >another expensive tool)? >Thanks. > The most effective tools for handling big wires will have the effect of shearing the two pieces apart as opposed to diagonal cutters which mash the wire between two wedges. One suggestion of a hammer/chisel technique is better than mash-em tools but not a whole lot. I have a pair of Kline cable shears that retail for over $30 and have long enough handles to do a good job on very large Tefzel conductors. However, if you're committed to welding cable and nothing larger than 2AWG, then there are a host of low cost shears that range from $5 to $15 and perhaps additional shipping. Some exemplar tools found on Ebay and Harbor Freight are illustrated here: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Cutters/ These produce a very smooth and square end on finely stranded welding cable or Tefzel wires. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "sharmon32" <sharmon32(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
Date: Feb 01, 2010
I would use a 4 1/2" grinder with a thin bit. It would cut a nice clean cut. STeve Steven W. Harmon 2446 E. 3800 N. Filer Idaho 83328 "Lovin Life in Idaho" Where Being poor on a farm beats being rich in the city ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Quillin To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:46 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cutting large wire At 09:18 1/31/2010, you wrote: How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4, (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)? Thanks. Jesse $8 isn't too bad... http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=40507 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: cutting large wire
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Thanks guys. I was picturing a large bolt cutter type tool. This is good=2C thanks again. Jesse Date: Sun=2C 31 Jan 2010 13:12:06 -0600 From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cutting large wire At 11:18 AM 1/31/2010=2C you wrote: How do I cut the big wires like #2 and #4=2C (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)? Thanks. The most effective tools for handling big wires will have the effect of shearing the two pieces apart as opposed to diagonal cutters which mash the wire between two wedges. One suggestion of a hammer/chisel technique is better than mash-em tools but not a whole lot. I have a pair of Kline cable shears that retail for over $30 and have long enough handles to do a good job on very large Tefzel conductors. However=2C if you're committed to welding cable and nothing larger than 2AWG=2C then there are a host of low cost shears that range from $5 to $15 and perhaps additional shipping. Some exemplar tools found on Ebay and Harbor Freight are illustrated here: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Cutters/ These produce a very smooth and square end on finely stranded welding cable or Tefzel wires. Bob . . . _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net>
Subject: Using a SPST switch to control both the alternator
field and master contactor. List, I have a switch that I really like that I want to use for the main switch. It's a heavy duty switch that can handle up to 75amp, but it's only a SPST switch. The diagrams in the Aeroelectric connection show a DPST switch for the master because it turns off the alternator field coil. This leads me to ask two questions: 1. Does the field coil need to be turned off? If it's wired directly to the main power bus then the second the master switch is turned off the contactor isolates the main buss anyway causing the field coil to shut down. 2. If it's harmful to have the field coil wired to the main power buss without a way to isolate it, then can I wire my main power switch as shown in the attached drawing? Other than a little more wire, is there anything wrong with doing it this way? Thanks, schu ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: revised Z13/8 schematic
Bob -- Thanks for sending me the link for the drawing files. -I was able to down load the one for Z-13/8 and figure out how to modify it using TurboCAD 2D f or Mac. -I personalized it for my particular airplane (an RV-7A with one magneto and one electronic ignition) which was a very good exercise to go t hrough...it generated a lot of questions, most of which I was able to get a nswers to. -I changed the SD-8 wiring to comply with the installation ins tructions from B&C (I understand that I will not have the "self-starting" f eature discussed in the AEC) but I don't understand why the circuit protect ion (the 2A breaker) comes downstream of the AUX ALT switch -- doesn't the switch always follow the protection? -Perhaps with short wire runs it doe sn't matter. -I also changed the starter/ignition circuits to comply with Z-27, moved some of the wire termination points and signified the wires th at will have to pass through the firewall. I'm attaching a relatively small .pdf file of my revised Z-13/8 drawing (I know there's a worry about bogging down the Matronics servers) -- it's only 620 KB which is well under the 1MB limit -- and I know there's probably a lot of RV builders that will utilize Z-13/8. -This version might help the m as they begin to visualize where all the electrical components get locate d. -If anyone wants to review it and offer feedback that would be very mu ch appreciated as well. -Thanks again Bob. Lincoln KeillRV-7A- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: revised Z13/8 schematic
Bob -- Thanks for sending me the link for the drawing files. -I was able to down load the one for Z-13/8 and figure out how to modify it using TurboCAD 2D f or Mac. -I personalized it for my particular airplane (an RV-7A with one magneto and one electronic ignition) which was a very good exercise to go t hrough...it generated a lot of questions, most of which I was able to get a nswers to. -I changed the SD-8 wiring to comply with the installation ins tructions from B&C (I understand that I will not have the "self-starting" f eature discussed in the AEC) but I don't understand why the circuit protect ion (the 2A breaker) comes downstream of the AUX ALT switch -- doesn't the switch always follow the protection? -Perhaps with short wire runs it doe sn't matter. -I also changed the starter/ignition circuits to comply with Z-27, moved some of the wire termination points and signified the wires th at will have to pass through the firewall. I'm attaching a relatively small .pdf file of my revised Z-13/8 drawing (I know there's a worry about bogging down the Matronics servers) -- it's only 620 KB which is well under the 1MB limit -- and I know there's probably a lot of RV builders that will utilize Z-13/8. -This version might help the m as they begin to visualize where all the electrical components get locate d. -If anyone wants to review it and offer feedback that would be very mu ch appreciated as well. -Thanks again Bob. Lincoln KeillRV-7A- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: revised Z13/8 schematic
From: "grnord" <grnordgarden(at)cox.net>
Date: Jan 31, 2010
The aux alternator won't ever work: the OV disconnect relay has no power source and it's grounded at both ends when the switch is closed. Other than that I don't see any glitches. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284252#284252 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: cutting large wire
Date: Jan 31, 2010
I went with the Dremel tool suggestion. I also cut the fuel and oil lines with the Dremel after putting a few wraps of masking tape around the areas to be marked and cut. Jim in Kelowna RV6-A C-GIIG For sale (no license) ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Jenks To: aeroelectric-list=40matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: cutting large wire Thanks guys. I was picturing a large bolt cutter type tool. This is good, thanks again. Jesse --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:12:06 -0600 To: aeroelectric-list=40matronics.com From: nuckolls.bob=40aeroelectric.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cutting large wire At 11:18 AM 1/31/2010, you wrote: How do I cut the big wires like =232 and=234, (hopefully without buying another expensive tool)?Thanks. The most effective tools for handling big wires will have the effect of shearing the two pieces apart as opposed to diagonal cutters which mash the wire between two wedges. One suggestion of a hammer/chisel technique is better than mash-em tools but not a whole lot. I have a pair of Kline cable shears that retail for over =2430 and have long enough handles to do a good job on very large Tefzel conductors. However, if you're committed to welding cable and nothing larger than 2AWG, then there are a host of low cost shears that range from =245 to =2415 and perhaps additional shipping. Some exemplar tools found on Ebay and Harbor Freight are illustrated here: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Wire_Cutters/ These produce a very smooth and square end on finely stranded welding cable or Tefzel wires. Bob . . . http://www.matro; http://forums.matronics.comgt; http://www.matronic================== = --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s pirect/01/' target='_new'>Sign up now. E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) Database version: 6.14250 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) Database version: 6.14250 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Using a SPST switch to control both the alternator
field and master contactor. At 04:41 PM 1/31/2010, you wrote: List, I have a switch that I really like that I want to use for the main switch. It's a heavy duty switch that can handle up to 75amp, but it's only a SPST switch. What kind of airplane/engine? Where is your battery located with respect to the proposed location for the battery master switch? The diagrams in the Aeroelectric connection show a DPST switch for the master because it turns off the alternator field coil. This leads me to ask two questions: 1. Does the field coil need to be turned off? It's customary in type certificated aircraft to have one switch that controls DC power for all sources. I.e., a MASTER switch. If it's wired directly to the main power bus then the second the master switch is turned off the contactor isolates the main buss anyway causing the field coil to shut down. No. Alternators can . . . and often do continue to run "self-excited" unless you break the field supply lead (or open the ON/OFF command lead for internally regulated alternators). 2. If it's harmful to have the field coil wired to the main power buss without a way to isolate it, then can I wire my main power switch as shown in the attached drawing? Other than a little more wire, is there anything wrong with doing it this way? I didn't see an drawing come through as an attachment. If it's your intention to replace a battery contactor with a manually operated switch (common to many aircraft back in the 40's and 50's) then you need a separate alternator control switch. In this configuration, you don't have a MASTER switch and both switches need to be opened to kill the system. The subject of your note does raise a question . . . do you plan to use a battery contactor or is the 75A rated switch intended to be the replacement for a battery contactor? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Subject: Re: revised Z13/8 schematic
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
The breaker isn't there so much to protect the wire.. It works as part of the crowbar overvoltage protection. If the overvoltage module detects the correct conditions, it works by firing an SCR which shorts across the coil of the disconnect relay, which also shorts the feed to the coil. This causes the breaker to open and keeps the alternator relay open and the alternator off line until the breaker is reset. Regards, Matt- > Bob -- > Thanks for sending me the link for the drawing files. I was able to > download the one for Z-13/8 and figure out how to modify it using TurboCAD > 2D for Mac. I personalized it for my particular airplane (an RV-7A with > one magneto and one electronic ignition) which was a very good exercise to > go through...it generated a lot of questions, most of which I was able to > get answers to. I changed the SD-8 wiring to comply with the installation > instructions from B&C (I understand that I will not have the > "self-starting" feature discussed in the AEC) but I don't understand why > the circuit protection (the 2A breaker) comes downstream of the AUX ALT > switch -- doesn't the switch always follow the protection? Perhaps with > short wire runs it doesn't matter. I also changed the starter/ignition > circuits to comply with Z-27, moved some of the wire termination points > and signified the wires that will have to pass through the firewall. > I'm attaching a relatively small .pdf file of my revised Z-13/8 drawing (I > know there's a worry about bogging down the Matronics servers) -- it's > only 620 KB which is well under the 1MB limit -- and I know there's > probably a lot of RV builders that will utilize Z-13/8. This version > might help them as they begin to visualize where all the electrical > components get located. If anyone wants to review it and offer feedback > that would be very much appreciated as well. Thanks again Bob. > Lincoln KeillRV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: revised Z13/8 schematic
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Lincoln; You express concern about bandwidth, yet posted the identical message twice. <http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxpt484YYCA> Yellow Orange (I know --- it happens) <http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxpt484YYCA> Yellow Orange The S704-1 controlling the Aux Alt has both ends of the coil grounded. Therefore won't work. The battery contactor is drawn with the coil shorted. Closing the master will smoke some wires. The E-bus alt feed relay is drawn with the coil shorted. Closing the E-bus alternate feed switch will blow the 15A fuse. The shorts on the above relay coils seem to be labeled as two different diode models. If the intention was that these shorts are diodes, why two different ones? Using one model of diode simplifies things slightly. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln Keill Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:42 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: revised Z13/8 schematic Bob -- Thanks for sending me the link for the drawing files ----Big snip--- If anyone wants to review it and offer feedback that would be very much appreciated as well. Thanks again Bob. Lincoln Keill RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: revised Z13/8 schematic
From: "grnord" <grnordgarden(at)cox.net>
Date: Jan 31, 2010
Bob McC, The OP's schematic has diode numbers near the "shorts" but no diode symbols there because of a file-transfer problem the OP apparently didn't notice (it took me a while to notice when it first happened to me): when copying a file from the AeroElectric site to one's own drafting system, the diode symbols may not make the trip; dunno why not, and dunno if it happens with all drafting software... The diode numbers are as printed in Z-13/8 so Mr. Nuckolls would be the one to say why they're different. I've noticed that, too, but haven't asked yet. Rick Nordgarden Council Bluffs IA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284300#284300 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: revised Z13/8 schematic
At 10:52 PM 1/31/2010, you wrote: Bob McC, The OP's schematic has diode numbers near the "shorts" but no diode symbols there because of a file-transfer problem the OP apparently didn't notice (it took me a while to notice when it first happened to me): when copying a file from the AeroElectric site to one's own drafting system, the diode symbols may not make the trip; dunno why not, and dunno if it happens with all drafting software... Porting work product to other CAD systems can be problematic. In the BIG world we use standardized file transfer prototcols like Step Files and IGES. But even these multi-killobuck systems will stub their toe from time to time. Just for grins, I've posted Z-18/8Q as a .dxf file here . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8Q.dxf See your TurboCAD will suck this in any cleaner. .DXF is a very rudimentary file transfer system that converts every entity into pen-strokes. Text and symbols are a series of lines and arcs. The diode numbers are as printed in Z-13/8 so Mr. Nuckolls would be the one to say why they're different. I've noticed that, too, but haven't asked yet. The diodes are very NON critical. The 1N4000 series are nice because they're small, the IN5400 series handy because they're mechanically robust. Either works fine . . . as would any other part number with a 50V or greater rating. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2010
From: Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net>
Subject: Re: Using a SPST switch to control both the alternator
field and master contactor. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > I have a switch that I really like that I want to use for the main > switch. It's a heavy duty switch that can handle up to 75amp, but it's > only a SPST switch. > > > What kind of airplane/engine? Where is your battery located > with respect to the proposed location for the battery master > switch? The airplane is a bearhawk. I haven't totally decided where the battery is going to go, but I think it will end up on the firewall, perhaps even cockpit side. > If it's wired directly to the main power bus then the second the > master switch is turned off the contactor isolates the main buss > anyway causing the field coil to shut down. > > No. Alternators can . . . and often do continue to run > "self-excited" unless you break the field supply lead > (or open the ON/OFF command lead for internally regulated > alternators). Ok, so if I'm reading you right, since the battery lead on the alt and the field lead are both connected to the main power bus, the residual magnetism in the alternator could cause it to produce some bias (voltage) that will keep the field coil working, which creates more bias causing it to continue to work. Did I get that right? > 2. If it's harmful to have the field coil wired to the main power buss > without a way to isolate it, then can I wire my main power switch as > shown in the attached drawing? Other than a little more wire, is there > anything wrong with doing it this way? > > I didn't see an drawing come through as an attachment. > If it's your intention to replace a battery contactor with > a manually operated switch (common to many aircraft back > in the 40's and 50's) then you need a separate alternator > control switch. In this configuration, you don't have a > MASTER switch and both switches need to be opened to kill > the system. I wonder what happened to my attachment, I got it. Oh well, you can see it here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=67973 Anyway, no I'm not looking to replace the battery contactor. What the drawing shows is a switch connected to the battery + on one side with it feeding the alternator field and the master contactor on the other side. So basically, instead of the coil on the contactor always conntected to the battery + and the master switch connecting the other side to ground, the ground side is always connected, and the SPST master switch connects the other side to the battery, along with the alternator field. I think this would work because the switch would bear the load of the alternator field and master contactor coil which it's certainly capable of doing, and because there isn't any possibility of 'self-exciting' since opening the master switch would kill the alt field and the battery side of the alt is isolated from the battery. > > The subject of your note does raise a question . . . do > you plan to use a battery contactor or is the 75A rated > switch intended to be the replacement for a battery > contactor? No, I just like the switch (it's a push/pull), and it just happens to be high current, I'll still use the contactor. Thanks, schu ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tom Herrmann <n262th(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Alternator/OV protection module compatibility
Date: Feb 01, 2010
I am planning to use an external solid-state Ford regulator and Ford automotive 60 amp 1G alternator in my homebuild project. I would like to use Aeroelectric's OV protection module in my wiring circuit, but wonder if my alternator is compatible with the module wiring as shown on the Aeroelectric website. Specifically, no Stator connection is shown on the diagram alternator. Could it be that the way the regulator and alternator is wired, using the OV module, the Ford 1G alternator Stator connection is left unwired? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cutting big wires...
From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2010
What are some tried and true ways to cut thicker wires? I'm especially interested methods to cut #2 and #4 AWG. Thanks in advance, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284438#284438 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2010
Subject: Re: Cutting big wires...
From: Dale Ellis <rv8builder.kd0m(at)gmail.com>
For thick/stiff # 2 or # 4 wire, I have used a dremel (heavy-duty) cut-off wheel and a cut-off wheel in a die-grinder. Both make a square/clean cut. JUST WEAR EYE PROTECTION WHILE DOING THIS. METAL FRAGMENTS WILL FLY! Dale RV-8 at the 90/90 stage. On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, jayb wrote: > > What are some tried and true ways to cut thicker wires? I'm especially interested methods to cut #2 and #4 AWG. > > Thanks in advance, > Jay > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284438#284438 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2010
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Z-13/8 modification (version 2.0)
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. -I've manually drawn in the diode sy mbols at the contactors/relays which I think prevents the previous shorts b ut still provides power to the coils when the switch(es) is (are) thrown. -I also updated the electronic ignition wiring to comply with the instruc tions from Lightspeed and redrawn the regulator & low voltage part of the s chematic and replaced it with B&C's LR-3C regulator+OV protection+UV warnin g. -The new .pdf file is attached (still under 1MB). -Any additional co mments are most welcome. -Thanks again. Lincoln Keill ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2010
george, my email to you got shot back. Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284540#284540 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator/OV protection module compatibility
At 01:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote: > >I am planning to use an external solid-state Ford regulator and Ford >automotive 60 amp 1G alternator in my homebuild project. I would like >to use Aeroelectric's OV protection module in my wiring circuit, but >wonder if my alternator is compatible with the module wiring as shown >on the Aeroelectric website. Specifically, no Stator connection is >shown on the diagram alternator. Could it be that the way the >regulator and alternator is wired, using the OV module, the Ford 1G >alternator Stator connection is left unwired? The stator terminal was used on the old electro-mechanical voltage regulators . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_EM_Reg.jpg . . . .to sense when the alternator was actually being rotated by the engine. This prevented leaving the field switch ON after shutdown and draining the battery (in certain automotive applications . . . this was never a risk to aircraft so that terminal is not used except for some early and rather crude attempts to sense low voltage at that terminal. So, wire per figure Z-11 and ignore the stator terminal. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Seriously...if you want a cool airplane cupholder, see: http://tiny.cc/fCZM4 -------- 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=284569#284569 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Using a SPST switch to control both the
alternator field and master contactor. At 11:50 AM 2/1/2010, you wrote: Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > I have a switch that I really like that I want to use for the main > switch. It's a heavy duty switch that can handle up to 75amp, but it's > only a SPST switch. Okay, WHY heavy duty? This switch normally carries less than 5A for the alternator field and 1A for the battery contactor. Since you're not attempting to eliminate the battery contactor with a manual switch, I'm mystified by the notion that trading out the two pole master for a single pole device is a good thing to do . . . Ok, so if I'm reading you right, since the battery lead on the alt and the field lead are both connected to the main power bus, the residual magnetism in the alternator could cause it to produce some bias (voltage) that will keep the field coil working, which creates more bias causing it to continue to work. Did I get that right? Yes, that is the essence of "self excitation" . . . generators did it nicely, alternators often do not come on line by themselves but will run without a battery once they get stood up. I wonder what happened to my attachment, I got it. Oh well, you can see it here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=67973 Anyway, no I'm not looking to replace the battery contactor. Okay. That leads me to inquire as to the design goals for departure from the legacy control philosophy for a DC power master switch in aircraft. No, I just like the switch (it's a push/pull), and it just happens to be high current, I'll still use the contactor. If it's just a style-thing, I'll suggest you reconsider and go with Z-11 (or other architecture) as published. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Using a SPST switch to control both the alternator
field
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Schu, In the past, wanting to test the alternator on my car, I disconnected the battery while the engine was running. The engine kept running, which proved to me that the alternator was working OK. As for your proposed circuit, it looks like it will work OK. The only issue that I see is that a hot wire will be brought into the cockpit with no way to shut it off. That wire should be double insulated and protected with a fuse near the battery. You could use a relay near the battery to eliminate the hot wire into the cockpit. That introduces another failure point, which is OK as long as you have a backup plan. Can you manually trip that 5amp breaker? Is there some failure mode where it is desired to shut off the alternator without shutting off the master contactor? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284578#284578 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Seriously...if you want a cool airplane cupholder, see: http://tiny.cc/fCZM4 -------- Eric M. Jones You can save a couple of bucks on this item if you order directly from the vendors website. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-13/8 modification (version 2.0)
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Lincoln, The dynamo relay has a missing diode from the N.O. terminal to the coil. This diode allows the relay to be energized from the dynamo power even if the battery and main alternator are completely dead. If you do not want to use this diode, then the other diode that connects to the COM terminal is not needed either, although it does not hurt anything. Either both diodes should be used, or none at all. Using two diodes allows the dynamo relay to be powered by two separate sources without connecting those two sources together until the dynamo relay contacts are closed. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284599#284599 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking.
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Or buy from a fellow RV builder at: http://www.aerosportproducts.com/catalog.htm#7 _____________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER & JEAN CURTIS Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking. Seriously...if you want a cool airplane cupholder, see: http://tiny.cc/fCZM4 -------- Eric M. Jones You can save a couple of bucks on this item if you order directly from the vendors website. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: cup holder
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Roger Which is the vendor=92s website? Carlos _____________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER & JEAN CURTIS Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 2 de Fevereiro de 2010 15:58 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking. Seriously...if you want a cool airplane cupholder, see: http://tiny.cc/fCZM4 -------- Eric M. Jones You can save a couple of bucks on this item if you order directly from the vendors website. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: cup holder
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Roger Which is the vendor's website? Carlos Here is the site http://www.scottlandyardspares.com/cupholder.htm Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Subject: Re: cup holder
Sorry, Roger The EBay site has them for 2/$9.99 including shipping On the home site they are $7.95+ S&H I liked them so I got a couple coming. Dick In a message dated 2/2/2010 12:05:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt writes: Roger Which is the vendor=99s website? Carlos _____________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [_mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) ] On Behalf Of ROGE R & JEAN CURTIS Sent: ter=C3=A7a-feira, 2 de Fevereiro de 2010 15:58 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: CD ROM as a cup holder, no joking. Seriously...if you want a cool airplane cupholder, see: _http://tiny.cc/fCZM4_ (http://tiny.cc/fCZM4) -------- Eric M. Jones You can save a couple of bucks on this item if you order directly from th e vendors website. Roger ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) ======================== ============ ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Subject: Re: cup holder
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 2/2/2010 4:36 PM, RGent1224(at)aol.com wrote: > Sorry, Roger > The EBay site has them for 2/$9.99 including shipping > On the home site they are $7.95+ S&H > I liked them so I got a couple coming. 2 for $11.50 including shipping at the vendor site: http://www.scottlandyardspares.com/cupholder.htm -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: cup holder
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Sorry, Roger The EBay site has them for 2/$9.99 including shipping On the home site they are $7.95+ S&H I liked them so I got a couple coming. Dick Hi Dick, Either you are getting a bit confused or you are looking at different websites than I am. I have ordered a pair (2) Folding cup holders through Scottlandyardspares.com for a grand total of $11.50 postage paid. When I looked at the ebay site I found the same thing for $9.95 + $5.95 shipping, or $14.99 with free shipping. Am I missing something?? Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ivan_allen" <ivan_allen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Aeroelectric connection
Date: Feb 02, 2010
Hi group. New member here. I just bought the Revision 11 book at a reduced price. I am building a simple (electrically) airplane and had hoped to use the diagram Z-11 as a basis for design. Alas it is not in the book. The first drawing in the Z section is on the back of page Z11 but it is Z-12 for a dual alternator. What gives? I understood that I could upgrade my book on line with the newer stuff and maybe the drawing is available there, but I can't find that link. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aeroelectric connection
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2010
> . . .had hoped to use the diagram Z-11 as a basis for design. Alas it is not in the book. . . .I can't find that link. http://www.aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284699#284699 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Aeroelectric connection
At 07:37 AM 2/3/2010, you wrote: > > > > . . .had hoped to use the diagram Z-11 as a basis for design. > Alas it is not in the book. . . .I can't find that link. > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf There was a lot of R11 books that were missing one or more pages in Appendix Z . . . we didn't do a search-and-fix effort on that error because the latest iteration is always available on the website. I just downloaded a copy of the current version from: http://www.aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf It's a big file . . . it may take a few minutes for it to pop up after you call for the download. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Aeroelectric connection
At 10:03 PM 2/2/2010, you wrote: >Hi group. New member here. I just bought the Revision 11 book at a >reduced price. I am building a simple (electrically) airplane and >had hoped to use the diagram Z-11 as a basis for design. Alas it is >not in the book. The first drawing in the Z section is on the back >of page Z11 but it is Z-12 for a dual alternator. What gives? I >understood that I could upgrade my book on line with the newer stuff >and maybe the drawing is available there, but I can't find that link. See my posting of a minute ago . . . The latest changes to the 'Connection are listed and linked in the What's New? feature on website. http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Alternator over current protection?
>The schematics are not clear to me for the overcurrent circuit for >the alternator. What do I need to supply that protection. I have >and reviewed your cd. Unlike generators that had over current or over load protection built into their regulators, alternators are inherently self-limited to the amount of output current. They are incapable of destroying themselves due to drains that exceed nameplate ratings. This assumes of course that they are adequately cooled. In other words, if the alternator is installed and fitted with conditions that allow continuous operation at full rated output, then having them operate in current limited mode (10-15% above nameplate) does not represent a hazardous condition. Alternator b-lead conductors in airplanes have traditionally been protected by either a fat breaker on the panel or (in the case of Z-figures) some form of robust fusing on the firewall. This "fuse" is depicted as an ANL style device usually located right next to the starter contactor. //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2010
From: Tom Packard <tjpackard(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Starter and contactor wiring
Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also, I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks, Tom Packard ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
At 04:56 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote: Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also, I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? You got me. Never heard of the 12/24 volt jumper option. If the starter will function when supplied with 24v and the "S" terminal left open, then there's something going on inside that I'm not aware of. Suggest you follow instructions and leave the jumper installed. Since these instructions appear to accommodate TC aircraft, they'll no doubt have external contactors as part of the original design. This means that for a 14v airplane, it wires just like the B&C configuration (jumper installed) depicted on the Z-figures. Of course, you can always add the starter engaged light on the "I" terminal of your external contactor. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Tom Packard, See: http://www.skytecair.com/Jumper101.htm Quoting from Sky Tec's website: " > Sky-Tec repurposed the S-Terminal functionality on NL model starters to serve as a means of switching the starter between 12V and 24V operation. Because of this, ALL NL STARTER INSTALLATIONS MUST BE WIRED ACCORDING TO THE CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT WIRING DIAGRAM BELOW - NO EXCEPTIONS! See wiring diagram: http://www.skytecair.com/images/NL%2012V%20Installation%20Wiring_1100.jpg Evidently the jumper changes the internal wiring to the motor. If operated on 12 volts without the jumper, something bad might happen. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284834#284834 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2010
From: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_aeroelectric(at)jline.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
This is great timing. I am confused, because Van's default wiring plans have you remove the jumper on the starter and wire this B11 wire separately from starter contactor to starter, which seems the same thing as leaving the jumper in place. picture link here to Van's wiring schematic: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/fF4SlbjCoxWWDl_8bqtbHg?authkey=Gv1sRgCI7088GZlYCc2AE&feat=directlink Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks! Jae user9253 wrote: > > Tom Packard, > See: http://www.skytecair.com/Jumper101.htm > Quoting from Sky Tec's website: > " > >> Sky-Tec repurposed the S-Terminal functionality on NL model starters to serve as a means of switching the starter between 12V and 24V operation. Because of this, ALL NL STARTER INSTALLATIONS MUST BE WIRED ACCORDING TO THE CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT WIRING DIAGRAM BELOW - NO EXCEPTIONS! >> > > See wiring diagram: http://www.skytecair.com/images/NL%2012V%20Installation%20Wiring_1100.jpg > Evidently the jumper changes the internal wiring to the motor. If operated on 12 volts without the jumper, something bad might happen. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284834#284834 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
Tom, For what it's worth, I'll tell you my story. I have an IO-390 with Skytec LS starter. The starter comes with a jumper wire installed which I understand jumps power over to engage the starter solenoid. The Skytec folks have a diagram on their web site showing how Van's recommends wiring the starter and said the Van's method is bogus (my words) and it would be foolish to wire it that way. I took their advice and did not wire it like Van's. I should have wired like Van's. Not long ago, during start, I had a run-on starter and had to disconnect the battery to disengage the starter. Long story short, I made a wiring error that, in the event of a stuck contactor or stuck starter solenoid, I could not remove power from the starter. I corrected that error and in the process I asked Bob's opinion and he recommended removing the jumper wire and wiring like Van's. So, now, the starter solenoid (S term) is powered from the I terminal on the contactor, a starter engaged light is powered from the contactor I terminal and I can now remove all power from the contactor in the event of a starter run-on. I did not put a fuse in the starter light wire from the contactor I terminal to the starter engaged light because it is only powered for a few seconds and releasing the starter button removes power from the S terminal and the wire. My setup is working fine now and I can check after each start to insure the starter engaged light is not on. Regards, Stan Sutterfield Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also, I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks, Tom Packard ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
Date: Feb 04, 2010
I'm curious if the "starter engaged light" actually tells you anything more than that you are pressing the starter button with your thumb=2C which you should hopefully know already? In other words would the light actually inf orm you of a starter stuck on after the engine is running? I had been considering weather a light on the panel is worth wile or not. Thanks. Jesse PS I will be wiring like Vans=2C without the jumper. From: Speedy11(at)aol.com Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 15:01:36 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Tom=2C For what it's worth=2C I'll tell you my story. I have an IO-390 with Skytec LS starter. The starter comes with a jumper wire installed which I understand jumps power over to engage the sta rter solenoid. The Skytec folks have a diagram on their web site showing how Van's recommends wiring the starter and said the Van's method is bogus (my words) and it would be foolish to wire it that way. I took their advice and did not wire it like Van's. I should have wired like Van's. Not long ago=2C during start=2C I had a run-on starter and had to disconnec t the battery to disengage the starter. Long story short=2C I made a wiring error that=2C in the event of a stuck contactor or stuck starter solenoid =2C I could not remove power from the starter. I corrected that error and in the process I asked Bob's opinion and he recommended removing the jumper wire a nd wiring like Van's. So=2C now=2C the starter solenoid (S term) is powered from the I terminal on the contactor=2C a starter engaged light is powered from the contactor I terminal and I can now remove all power from the contactor in the event of a starter run-on. I did not put a fuse in the starter light wire from the contactor I terminal to the starter engaged light because it is only powered for a few seconds and releasing the starter butt on removes power from the S terminal and the wire. My setup is working fine now and I can check after each start to insure the starter engaged lig ht is not on. Regards=2C Stan Sutterfield Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also=2C I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks=2C Tom Packard _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Wouldn't it be better to wire the light to the inboard heavy stud on the st arter? That way if the light was on after you took your thumb off the butto n=2C you would know there is power at the actual starter=2C not just at the solenoid. From: jessejenks(at)hotmail.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 13:53:07 -0800 I'm curious if the "starter engaged light" actually tells you anything more than that you are pressing the starter button with your thumb=2C which you should hopefully know already? In other words would the light actually inf orm you of a starter stuck on after the engine is running? I had been considering weather a light on the panel is worth wile or not. Thanks. Jesse PS I will be wiring like Vans=2C without the jumper. From: Speedy11(at)aol.com Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 15:01:36 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Tom=2C For what it's worth=2C I'll tell you my story. I have an IO-390 with Skytec LS starter. The starter comes with a jumper wire installed which I understand jumps power over to engage the sta rter solenoid. The Skytec folks have a diagram on their web site showing how Van's recommends wiring the starter and said the Van's method is bogus (my words) and it would be foolish to wire it that way. I took their advice and did not wire it like Van's. I should have wired like Van's. Not long ago=2C during start=2C I had a run-on starter and had to disconnec t the battery to disengage the starter. Long story short=2C I made a wiring error that=2C in the event of a stuck contactor or stuck starter solenoid =2C I could not remove power from the starter. I corrected that error and in the process I asked Bob's opinion and he recommended removing the jumper wire a nd wiring like Van's. So=2C now=2C the starter solenoid (S term) is powered from the I terminal on the contactor=2C a starter engaged light is powered from the contactor I terminal and I can now remove all power from the contactor in the event of a starter run-on. I did not put a fuse in the starter light wire from the contactor I terminal to the starter engaged light because it is only powered for a few seconds and releasing the starter butt on removes power from the S terminal and the wire. My setup is working fine now and I can check after each start to insure the starter engaged lig ht is not on. Regards=2C Stan Sutterfield Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also=2C I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks=2C Tom Packard <==================== Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAtarget='_new'>Sign up now. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
Good Afternoon Jesse, I wired my starter warning almost that way. I put it at the other end of that fat wire right on the contactor. As long as that wire is hot, for whatever reason, the light will be on. If your starter has an additional internal contactor my version wouldn't work, but if the external contactor is the only way for power to get to the starter it works fine. If the contactor sticks or gets shorted to power in some other manner, the light is lit. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 2/4/2010 4:14:34 P.M. Central Standard Time, jessejenks(at)hotmail.com writes: Wouldn't it be better to wire the light to the inboard heavy stud on the starter? That way if the light was on after you took your thumb off the button, you would know there is power at the actual starter, not just at the solenoid. ____________________________________ From: jessejenks(at)hotmail.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:53:07 -0800 I'm curious if the "starter engaged light" actually tells you anything more than that you are pressing the starter button with your thumb, which you should hopefully know already? In other words would the light actually inform you of a starter stuck on after the engine is running? I had been considering weather a light on the panel is worth wile or not. Thanks. Jesse PS I will be wiring like Vans, without the jumper. ____________________________________ From: Speedy11(at)aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:01:36 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Tom, For what it's worth, I'll tell you my story. I have an IO-390 with Skytec LS starter. The starter comes with a jumper wire installed which I understand jumps power over to engage the starter solenoid. The Skytec folks have a diagram on their web site showing how Van's recommends wiring the starter and said the Van's method is bogus (my words) and it would be foolish to wire it that way. I took their advice and did not wire it like Van's. I should have wired like Van's. Not long ago, during start, I had a run-on starter and had to disconnect the battery to disengage the starter. Long story short, I made a wiring error that, in the event of a stuck contactor or stuck starter solenoid, I could not remove power from the starter. I corrected that error and in the process I asked Bob's opinion and he recommended removing the jumper wire and wiring like Van's. So, now, the starter solenoid (S term) is powered from the I terminal on the contactor, a starter engaged light is powered from the contactor I terminal and I can now remove all power from the contactor in the event of a starter run-on. I did not put a fuse in the starter light wire from the contactor I terminal to the starter engaged light because it is only powered for a few seconds and releasing the starter button removes power from the S terminal and the wire. My setup is working fine now and I can check after each start to insure the starter engaged light is not on. Regards, Stan Sutterfield Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also, I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks, Tom Packard <==================== ____________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAtarget='_new'>Sign up now. http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
At 11:35 AM 2/4/2010, you wrote: > > >This is great timing. I am confused, because Van's default wiring >plans have you remove the jumper on the starter and wire this B11 >wire separately from starter contactor to starter, which seems the >same thing as leaving the jumper in place. Correct . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
At 03:53 PM 2/4/2010, you wrote: >I'm curious if the "starter engaged light" actually tells you >anything more than that you are pressing the starter button with >your thumb, which you should hopefully know already? In other words >would the light actually inform you of a starter stuck on after the >engine is running? The "I" terminal is an independent connection that parallels the connetion between the external contactor's fat-wire studs. So yes, if there's power on the "I" terminal, then that contactor is either (1) energized to crank the engine or (2) stuck in a closed condition after the starter button is released. Contactor sticking is a rare incident usually related to cranking with a soggy battery. But it DOES happen. Adding an indicator lamp to the "I" terminal annunicates the condition in a timely manner. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Jenks <jessejenks(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starter and contactor wiring
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Thanks Bob and Old Bob=2C I was confusing myself with going between the Vans diagram for wiring with a separate contactor and the jumper removed on the internal contactor/solen oid=2C and the Z-22 diagram (which is actually how I'm going to do it). Wit h Z-22 it looks like you would wire the "starter engaged" light like I said =3B from the inboard (starter side) fat terminal on the starter because bat tery power is always present (with the master on) at the other fat terminal and if the internal contactor sticks closed that is the only way a light w ould show it. Am I right? From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 17:20:57 -0500 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Good Afternoon Jesse=2C I wired my starter warning almost that way. I put it at the other end of that fat wire right on the contactor. As long as that wire is hot=2C for wh atever reason=2C the light will be on. If your starter has an additional internal contactor my version wouldn't work=2C but if the external contactor is the only way for power to get to the starter it works fine. If the contactor sticks or gets shorted to power in some other manner=2C the light is lit. Happy Skies=2C Old Bob In a message dated 2/4/2010 4:14:34 P.M. Central Standard Time=2C jessejenks(at)hotmail.com writes: Wouldn't it be better to wire the light to the inboard heavy stud on the starter? That way if the light was on after you took your thumb off the button=2C you w ould know there is power at the actual starter=2C not just at the solenoid. From: jessejenks(at)hotmail.com aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 13:53:07 -0800 I'm curious if the "starter engaged light" actually tells you anything mo re than that you are pressing the starter button with your thumb=2C which yo u should hopefully know already? In other words would the light actually in form you of a starter stuck on after the engine is running? I had been considering weather a light on the panel is worth wile or not. Thanks. Jesse PS I will be wiring like Vans=2C without the jumper. From: Speedy11(at)aol.com Date: Thu=2C 4 Feb 2010 15:01:36 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter and contactor wiring aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Tom=2C For what it's worth=2C I'll tell you my story. I have an IO-390 with Skytec LS starter. The starter comes with a jumper wire installed which I understand jumps power over to engage the starter solenoid. The Skytec folks have a diagram on their web site showing how Van's recommends wiring the starter and said the Van's method is bogus (my words) and it would be foolish to wire it that way. I took their advice and did not wire it like Van's. I should have wired like Van's. Not long ago=2C during start=2C I had a run-on starter and had to disconn ect the battery to disengage the starter. Long story short=2C I made a wirin g error that=2C in the event of a stuck contactor or stuck starter solenoid =2C I could not remove power from the starter. I corrected that error and in the process I asked Bob's opinion and he recommended removing the jumper wire and wiring like Van's. So=2C now=2C the starter solenoid (S term) is powered from the I terminal on the contactor=2C a starter engaged light is powered fro m the contactor I terminal and I can now remove all power from the contactor in the event of a starter run-on. I did not put a fuse in the starter light wire from the contactor I terminal to the starter engaged light because it is only powered for a few seconds and releasing the starter button removes power from the S terminal and the wire. My setup is working fine now and I can check after each start to insure the starter engaged light is not on. Regards=2C Stan Sutterfield Bob and/or others with help.. A couple of months ago there was some discussion about wiring a Skytec starter per Vans recommendations. I believe Bob recommended eliminating the jumper wire between the Starter B+ and 'S' terminal and connecting the 'S' terminal to the starter contactor "I" terminal. I am installing a Skytec 149-NL starter and the instructions say to remove this jumper wire when wiring for 24 volts and leave it in for 12 v operation. Does removing the jumper effect 12 volt operation? Also=2C I would like to add a 'starter engaged' warning light per Bobs' recommendation in the "connection" by wiring the "I" terminal of the starter contactor thru a 5amp fuse to the warning light. Any problem with doing both wiring alterations? Thanks=2C Tom Packard <==================== Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAtarget='_new'>Sign up now. http ://f======================= =ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut io======================== ============== _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a source for these specialized
Adel clamps
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2010
Neal, My emails to you keep getting bounced back. Keith -------- Keith McKinley 700HS KFIT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=284930#284930 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2010
From: Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net>
Subject: Nice catalog with fuse blocks, connectors, etc...
List, Just found this catalog, after purchasing a fuse block on ebay: http://www.mta.it/on-multi/en/Home/ProductsandSales/Catalogues/OriginalEquipmentCatalogue/documento15002877.html The parts look to be very good quality, but I'm not sure if you can order directly due to the minimum quantity. I got my parts from this guy and he was good to work with: http://stores.ebay.com/arlingtonproducts Hopefully someone finds this useful. schu ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Starter engaged light, was Starter and contactor
wiring
Date: Feb 05, 2010
Hi All- It's been a while since I went down my decision tree on this topic, and I might not recall all the details perfectly, but it seems to me that there are a couple details of 'starter engaged' annunciation that might have been overlooked. First, it seems to me that the objective is to know whether there is power on the starter or not, so tapping the fat wire between the solenoid and the motor would be in order. This would then annunciate that there was power to the starter motor itself. It also has the advantage of monitoring the spin down of the motor. Should the pinion hang and the motor remain engaged after the solenoid opens, the back emf can keep the engaged light illuminated. It might be especially zippy if one were to use a bi-directional led for the indicator, such that one could perhaps have amber indicate normal engagement and red to indicate run-on. Including a zener diode could clip the spin-down indication during normal operation while still allowing the run-on indication to function, should that become desirable. glen matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2010
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Battery desulfators . . .
>Comments/Questions: Why do the generally available battery >desulfators all say "not for aviation use". What is the hazard? Is >it legal or technical?? Probably a bit of both. If a battery intended for use in an airplane has suffered much sulfation, it's either (1) been abused in terms of maintaining it in a topped off condition or (2) is past end of


January 21, 2010 - February 05, 2010

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jh