AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jp
June 27, 2010 - July 25, 2010
=C2-
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LV Warn Light vs. Alternator Light |
>
>The first thought if this light comes on is that
>the alternator is off line and not outputting to
>the battery or aircraft bus systems. However this is not necessarily true.
>
>Can not there be a condition where the
>alternator is puitting out its maximum
>capacity but you are trying to use a total load
>greater than that capacity. I think this would
>eventually pull the battery and main bus voltage
>down to a point where the LV warning light would turn on.
Not if one has accomplished the customary load
analysis. The legacy approach to sizing alternators
to loads makes it impossible to overload the alternator.
Now, if one PLANS to have more potential load than
the alternator can carry, then an alternator loadmeter
is indicated to assist the pilot in turning things
on/off as needed to stay within the alternator's
capabilities.
>My thought was that maybe it would be
>advantageous to have an additional indicator of
>alternator function. Many regulators for both
>field wound and/or permanent magnet alternators
>have a light. But what does that light actually tell you?
Those are in the same class as the alternator warning
light on vehicles for 50+ years. They accurately indicate
a broken wire, broken belt and some system failures but
not all. An they're not a LV warning light.
The stand-alone, active notification of LV is still
the single most useful electrical system flight instrument.
>On a schematic supplied by Jabiru for the J3300
>the stock supplied regulator for the permanent
>magnet regulator system has a light
>connection. It is identified as To Low
>Voltage Warning Light. Is this just
>redundant LV warning or does it actually
>tell if the there is alternator output?
Same as cited above. Not a 'real' lv warning
system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Thanks Bob - looks like something along those lines would do the trick.
These examples switch AC current with the DC control. I'm not sure if that
matters or not. But, I figured relays that behave like this must be out
there somewhere. Guess I need DPST bi-stable 24V DC relay.
Valin
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Valin;
The simplest circuit to accomplish your request would be to use your SPST
push button to switch coil power to a bi-stable relay and use the relay
contacts to switch the power to whatever load you wish. Each push of the
button will toggle the relay. The second item on this page (part number
RLY7742) is an example of a 12VDC 15 amp DPDT bi-stable relay.
http://tinyurl.com/2ffvkur
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
Allyson Thorn
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Hi Bob and everyone,
Thanks for the history of the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers. Since
they brand them "speed brakes" I've been using that term even though I know
they are really spoilers. The accident scenario you described really brings
to light how someone without a clear understanding of what they actually do
could call for them at a bad time.
****** Big Clip**********
Anyway, I appreciate and encourage the discussion about the best way to
design all this with aircraft operations and human factors in mind.
Even if I don't do it this way, I'd still like to know the best way to
design a circuit to toggle back and forth between two poles with a push
button switch. J Anyone have any advice on that question?
Thanks,
Valin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Thanks Robert -- that would be nice if I didn=99t already have a
throttle quadrant that isn=99t very conducive to adding a switch
to it See photo below.
Valin
throttle quadrant 2009.jpg
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Sultzbach
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Hi Valin,
I would suggest putting them on the throttle. That is where they were
on military aircraft I flew. The beauty of having them there is it is
extremely easy to develop a habit pattern of activating the spoilers to
retract WHENEVER you ask for full power. There are thumb switches that
have existed for these production aircraft so I would think they would
be available. See if you can find pictures of military aircraft like
the A-4 whose throttle had that setup. As the throttle is advanced the
thumb pushes the thumb switch forward to retract the spoilers and vice
versa when low thrust high drag is needed. Good luck.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2010, at 2:34, "Valin & Allyson Thorn"
wrote:
Hi Bob and everyone,
Thanks for the history of the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers.
Since they brand them =9Cspeed brakes=9D I=99ve been
using that term even though I know they are really spoilers. The
accident scenario you described really brings to light how someone
without a clear understanding of what they actually do could call for
them at a bad time.
I think they can be easily misunderstood since even spoilers can perform
as speed brakes. I like to think of them as lift/drag ratio reducers.
As you point out, an aircraft designer can go after bumping up the drag
side or lowering the lift side to give the pilot more aircraft control
when high on energy and wanting less altitude and/or airspeed. Even as
spoilers they can act like speed brakes since when deployed, lowering
lift, one can increase the wing angle of attack to keep the same lift
(hold same altitude rate) while getting higher drag at the new higher
AOA, slowing the airplane down
Anyway, your accident example has convinced me to label them as spoilers
and not speed brakes.
The discussion has me reconsidering my decision to add the spoiler
control to the joystick grips. But, let me summarize my rules for
picking what=99s on the stick.
1. Actions required frequently
2. Functions needed while it=99s very inconvenient to remove
hand from throttle
3. No functions that if accidentally activated would create a
safety of flight issue
So these are my basic criteria for selecting what=99s switches are
on the joystick. Based on this, I=99ve tentatively made these
assignments:
For those who can=99t see the graphic, I have:
Hat Switch: Pitch & Yaw Trim
Trigger: Radio Transmit
Lower Button: Alarm Mute
Upper Right Button: Autopilot On/Off Toggle
Upper Left Button: Spoilers Up/Down Toggle
I did not put flaps or gear on the stick since one usually only
activates them twice during a typical cross country flight and if they
were to be accidentally deployed when flying too fast it would damage
the aircraft =93 violating strategy rule 3 above.
I=99m thinking having the spoilers on the stick is a good option
because the Lancair Legacy is a very low drag airframe making them very
useful for descents, the Legacy can be easily landed with them deployed,
and there is no speed limit on their deployment. With this discussion
ongoing I have heard from a Legacy flyer with a spoiler switch on his
throttle control and that he wishes he had a guard on it because it has
been accidentally activated a few times. The good news from his
experiences is that he=99d even landed without realizing they were
deployed and it was not an issue. I=99m also checking with
another Legacy flyer who has the control on his joystick to see if
it=99s been a problem for him or if he=99d do it again.
>From earlier discussion with him he said he did it because the Mooney he
used to fly had it that way and it was very convenient to toggle them
when needed on descents.
Anyway, I appreciate and encourage the discussion about the best way to
design all this with aircraft operations and human factors in mind.
Even if I don=99t do it this way, I=99d still like to know
the best way to design a circuit to toggle back and forth between two
poles with a push button switch J Anyone have any advice on
that question?
Thanks,
Valin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
At 08:24 PM 6/26/2010, you wrote:
>I think it has to have a voltage applied at pin 7 continuously to
>keep the speed brakes up. It's designed so that if the unit loses
>power they fail to the retracted position.
This is an excellent topic for discussions of failure
mode effects analysis =AND= understand the simple-ideas
behind the system design goals.
A really important side note concerning the Precise Flight
product is that it's not a "speed brake" in the aerodynamic
sense of the phrase . . .
A speed brake is a means by which aerodynamic DRAG is
added to the mix of thrust-lift-mass-drag combination
that dictates airframe behavior/performance. Drag can
be and most often is added to the performance mix by
throwing large surface areas out into the slipstream.
I've participated in programs that crafted special
actuators to extend large panels out of aft
locations on the airplane where design goals called for
an increase in the airframe's total drag component
while having little or no effect on lift.
Large air transport aircraft will lift rather large
areas of aluminum from the top surface of the wing.
In cruising flight, only the outboard panels will
occasionally lift during roll control maneuvers. In
this mode, the panels are SPOILERS that reduce lift
on one wing at a time. Loss of lift augments rolling
moment offered by the ailerons.
However, during landing roll-out, one often sees
every square foot of aluminum through out into
the breeze with the obvious intent of making the
whole machine a very draggy aerodynamic shape where
flying efficiency is not important while slowing
down is most important.
The space shuttle has a bifurcated rudder that can
be simultaneously extend both to the right and left
of the vertical fin for the purpose of throwing out
some aerodynamic drag.
The Precise Flight product is the brainchild of on
Bill Thompson who was chief of flight test at Cessna
single engine division while I was a tech writer.
Bill was directly responsible for introducing me to
Ken Razak, former dean of engineering at Wichita
State who became my second most revered mentor,
business partner and friend with more than 40 years
of collaboration on interesting things. But that's
another story.
Bill's product first evolved on the Cessna 210
and was later approved for installation on a host
of TC aircraft. I was introduced to the device
in Kerrville, TX by a Mooney test pilot and later
on another Mooney by George Masey.
It was then that I was given to understand that
the Precise flight product is NOT A SPEED BRAKE.
It's a SPOILER. Design goals for this device call
for reducing lift on the wing while having very
little effect on total drag. The artfully installed
blades can be extended during a stabilized approach
to offer a profound effect on rate of descent
while having little effect on pitch angle or
indicated airspeed.
There are similar devices on the top of the wing
in a Beechjet that offer augmentation of tiny
ailerons for roll control in fight -OR- an increased
rate of descent when fully extended on both sides.
These also are NOT SPEED BRAKES. They might be extended
during a roll out for the purpose of killing lift
to increase weight on wheels and improve braking
by the tires . . . but their effect as aerodynamic
speed brakes is nil.
The reason why this distinction is important has
to do with proper and useful deployment of SPOILERS.
I'm working an accident case where a pilot reports
having extended his Precise Flight "speed brakes"
a few seconds before an off-airport landing. He
was under the mistaken understanding that they
would help slow things down before an un-planned
contact with the ground. In fact, the impact forces
were probably GREATER than if he had not extended
the SPOILERS at all. The net effect of extending the
Precise Flight paddles on top of the wing was to
INCREASE rate of descent to the ground.
So after understanding what these things are designed
to do for you, I'll suggest that its a really good
thing to make sure that under no circumstances
can they can extend when you don't want them to
and that they can always be retracted when they're
not needed . . . or their extension would increase
risks of bent airplanes or broken people.
When considering departures from the manufacture's
instructions, make sure that you're not crafting
a situation that increases risk of unintended
extension or loss of pilot control for that
extension. The system should probably include an
easily accessed power switch. Removal of power
from the system insures positive retraction
irrespective of what other switch becomes
stuck.
Itty-bitty switches on stick-grips are not renowned
for their robustness. Take care that your quest
for convenience does not increase risks for
un-intended consequences.
Bob . . .
to browse
Un/Subscription,
Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loman" <loman(at)o2.ie> |
Other builders tell me they wired in a light to indicate that the starter motor
is 'doin its thang'. They value this because you can't hear a Lycoming starter
working and if it continues running, due to welded contacts or some other problem
in the circuit, something needs to be done about it.
What I would really like is a light to indicate A) that the starter is available
to be engaged OR B) is actually energized and working. It would switch off
when the engine was running and the starter was no longer working. Such a light
would come back on when the engine was cut off as long as the master is still
on. This is pretty much how my car status lights work.
I am still learning about electrics but would somebody more knowledgeable know;
can a starter light be wired to this effect and how would it be done?
I will be using the z13/8 architecture for my RV-9.
--------
Loman O'Byrne
RV-9 builder: Emp Done, Wings Done, Fuse underway
Dublin, Ireland
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302755#302755
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Valin;
You're welcome. The 24V version would be part #RLY7443 4th item down on the
link I sent previously. Also although they state these relays switch AC they
work equally well on DC as the switching elements are mechanical micro
switches. You can see this detail clearly if you view the photos on the
linked page.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
Allyson Thorn
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Thanks Bob - looks like something along those lines would do the trick.
These examples switch AC current with the DC control. I'm not sure if that
matters or not. But, I figured relays that behave like this must be out
there somewhere. Guess I need DPST bi-stable 24V DC relay.
Valin
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Valin;
The simplest circuit to accomplish your request would be to use your SPST
push button to switch coil power to a bi-stable relay and use the relay
contacts to switch the power to whatever load you wish. Each push of the
button will toggle the relay. The second item on this page (part number
RLY7742) is an example of a 12VDC 15 amp DPDT bi-stable relay.
http://tinyurl.com/2ffvkur
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
Allyson Thorn
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Hi Bob and everyone,
Thanks for the history of the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers. Since
they brand them "speed brakes" I've been using that term even though I know
they are really spoilers. The accident scenario you described really brings
to light how someone without a clear understanding of what they actually do
could call for them at a bad time.
****** Big Clip**********
Anyway, I appreciate and encourage the discussion about the best way to
design all this with aircraft operations and human factors in mind.
Even if I don't do it this way, I'd still like to know the best way to
design a circuit to toggle back and forth between two poles with a push
button switch. :-) Anyone have any advice on that question?
Thanks,
Valin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter light |
At 08:26 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote:
Other builders tell me they wired in a light to indicate that the
starter motor is 'doin its thang'. They value this because you can't
hear a Lycoming starter working and if it continues running, due to
welded contacts or some other problem in the circuit, something
needs to be done about it.
What I would really like is a light to indicate A) that the starter
is available to be engaged OR B) is actually energized and
working. It would switch off when the engine was running and the
starter was no longer working. Such a light would come back on when
the engine was cut off as long as the master is still on. This is
pretty much how my car status lights work.
I am still learning about electrics but would somebody more
knowledgeable know; can a starter light be wired to this effect and
how would it be done?
I will be using the Z13/8 architecture for my RV-9.
A simple "starter energized" light is powered from
the downstream side of the starter contactor. It's
illuminated all times the contactor is closed either
because your finger is on the button . . . or because
it's stuck. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Starter_Engaged_Warning_Lt.pdf
Do an archives search on "starter engaged" for a constellation
of the problem and variables associated with the various
starter technologies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Gordon;
See my reply to Valin re: the speed brakes thread, a couple of posts up the
list. This bi-stable relay does what you are describing. The one I cited is
a DPDT device rated 15 amps per contact. You could parallel the two contacts
to approximate the 704's rating. The contacts won't precisely share the load
but unless you are running at absolutely max rating they'll work well. If
the switch ratings are a real concern, the supplied switches on this relay
could be replaced with Omron V-15-1C5 switches which are rated at 15Amps
250VDC.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon
Smith
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Toggle Relay
Is there a 12V. Relay device (SPST or SPDT) that can be toggled OFF/ON from
a remote momentary SPST mini switch? It should remain in the off or on
position until toggled again. I am looking for something in the class of a
S704-1 regarding robustness and capacity.
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltmeter Needs Independent Power Supply |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
It would almost certainly work fine to tie the grounds together and the
+12 supply and the +measurement together.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302792#302792
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
My Lancair Legacy has Precise Flight speedbrakes. But are they spoilers
or speedbrakes?
The primary purpose of a spoiler is to kill the lift on top of the wing.
Typically, they are relatively long and narrow. Long to cover a
significant portion of the wing and narrow because for the purpose of
killing lift, they don't need to be very wide.
The primary purpose of a speedbrake is to slow the airplane by acting as
a flat plate drag device.
The Precise Flight speedbrakes on a Legacy (and some other designs) are
installed on the top of the wing. That makes them neither fish nor
fowl. Since they are on top of the wing, they kill lift along the span
of the wing equal to at least their width, and therefore, act as
spoilers.
However, their shape makes them inefficient as spoilers. Their flat
plate area is nearly square (they are as tall as they are wide), which
means for a spoiler, they are much taller than needed and cover too
short of the span of the wing. So in that regard, they are speedbrakes.
As a practical matter, Precise Flight speedbrakes are both spoilers and
speedbrakes. We know that parasite drag increases as the square of
airspeed. This means that at high airspeed, the effect of the
speedbrakes on parasite drag is hugely more than at low speed.
Deploying them at high speed generates a large amount of parasite drag.
At low speed, the drag effect is relatively small while the spoiler
effect is large.
They act more like speedbrakes at high speed and more like spoilers at
low speed. Since I typically only use mine at high speed to slow down,
for me, they are speedbrakes. I don't normally use them at low speed
because those stubby little wings need all the lift they can get when
flying slowly.
By the way, I rarely use my speedbrakes. I feel like deploying them is
an admission that I used poor planning and am just wasting gas.
However, there are times when it makes life so much easier. There are a
few mountain airports I visit where for safety it's nice to come in high
over a ridge and drop down quickly to pattern altitude before entering
downwind. And there are times on IFR flights when approach control
keeps me high until the last minute.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
yes, that's the one. 817.439.4645
-Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302854#302854
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ground Power and Aux Alt sharing OVM? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I'm using Z13 in conjunction with Z31-B. Is there anything wrong about the aux
alternator and the ground power jack sharing the same OVM? The only condition
that I can think of where both systems would be in use simultaneously is a ground
powered START on the aux alternator and that may not even be an issue unless
the OVM tripped. The issue being what caused it, the GPU or the aux alt.
If this passes group muster, how would I wire it?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302859#302859
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | New kid on the block . . . |
Wonder if we'll see this guy at OSH this year . . .
or perhaps he's been there before and I just didn't
notice or hear of it. OSH is getting pretty BIG.
http://www.terrafugia.com/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New kid on the block . . . |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
Terrafugia has been at the last two Airventures. I'm sure they'll be there this
year as well. Though it will probably be a couple more years before you see
one fly at Airventure.
Bob Borger
On Jun 29, 2010, at 8:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Wonder if we'll see this guy at OSH this year . . .
> or perhaps he's been there before and I just didn't
> notice or hear of it. OSH is getting pretty BIG.
>
> http://www.terrafugia.com/
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | New kid on the block . . . |
Wonder if we'll see this guy at OSH this year . . .
or perhaps he's been there before and I just didn't
notice or hear of it. OSH is getting pretty BIG.
http://www.terrafugia.com/
Bob . . .
This one has been around for a few years. Looks like the
project is moving along quite well. Apparently they are getting very close
to having a marketable item. My understanding is that they still have some
work to make it roadable, accident safety, crumple zones, etc. but it has
flown and I have seen it at Sun-n-Fun.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be willing
to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel the
punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will be
very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
Any help would be appreciated.
Roger Curtis
Upton, MA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
I have one you would be welcome to borrow. 3-1/8 on one side, 2-1/4 on the
other. Kind of heavy but maybe one of those "if it fits it ships" USPS
boxes wouldn't be too much.
Allen Fulmer
Alexander City, AL 35010
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel punch
Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be willing
to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel the
punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will be
very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
Any help would be appreciated.
Roger Curtis
Upton, MA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi Roger,
When I did my RV-6A panel some years ago, I rented a punch from Bob Avery
for a nominal fee. It cut both the typical instruments sizes.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
----- Original Message -----
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel punch
>
>
> Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be
> willing
> to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
> large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel
> the
> punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will
> be
> very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
> been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Roger Curtis
> Upton, MA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
A technique I use for a cleaner hole when using a large hole saw is to drill
the pilot hole first. Then put a standard drill bit into the hole saw
reversed so that the flutes cannot work the pilot hole wider and wider. You
may also use a scrap piece of steel rod (1/4" on my hole saw). The idea is
to not enlarge the pilot hole as the larger part of the hole saw does it's
thing. Of course clamp it tight and use a sharp hole saw for best results.
Clean up with a high speed rotary deburing bit on a die grinder.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel punch
-->
Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be willing
to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel the
punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will be
very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
Any help would be appreciated.
Roger Curtis
Upton, MA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i used a holesaw that i bought at ace. it worked perfect on my 1/16'' thick
alum. i used one that mounted rigid on the center drill. more expensive ones
that allowed substitution of sizes didnt work as well [i bought them too]. i
cut my whole panel with 2 sized holes and each was perfect. buy one and try
it on scrap first.
bob noffs
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
>
> Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be willing
> to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
> large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel the
> punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will be
> very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
> been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Roger Curtis
> Upton, MA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
EAA has a great tutorial video on a clever way to use a hole saw to make
nice holes in an instrument panel.
http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html
It's in the "General" tab, near the bottom of the list.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
Thanks everyone for the helpful hints on punching instrument holes. My
opinion is that the best method is using a punch of the correct size,
however the EAA video, using a hole saw, appears to be a viable
alternative.
Again, thanks,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Check out the video in the EAA's hints for homebuilders:
http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html
<http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html>There is one about using a hole
saw for instrument panels, and if I remember correctly, he uses a piece of
pre-drilled plywood above the aluminum to align and steady the saw. It's
been a while since I watched it though.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:19 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> i used a holesaw that i bought at ace. it worked perfect on my 1/16'' thick
> alum. i used one that mounted rigid on the center drill. more expensive ones
> that allowed substitution of sizes didnt work as well [i bought them too]. i
> cut my whole panel with 2 sized holes and each was perfect. buy one and try
> it on scrap first.
> bob noffs
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <
> mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
>>
>> Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be
>> willing
>> to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
>> large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel
>> the
>> punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will
>> be
>> very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
>> been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>> utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
>> www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ====
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Speed Brakes/Spoilers |
Dennis,
I sent this diatribe to the wrong address so here it comes now:
One of us has it right (IMHO). The spoiler cancel switch should be on the
throttle. The TriStar 500 was a whiz in cockpit design. There were four
different kinds of spoilers on the wing.
The first were big jobs inboard to plop the aircraft onto the tires on
touchdown because you could round out, put only five of eight mainwheels on,
catch a drift and touch brakes would blow out the tires on the runway - so
the full weight was required to save tires - called GROUND SPOILERS. The
second were roll augmenters and "speed brakes" in the air but accompanies
the biggies when the touchdown was complete, the third types were outboard
to balance fuel tank contents on an "active" wing (called 'direct Lift
control' - don't ask) and I can't remember the 4th, but three of the four
assisted in roll. The speed brakes could only be selected in air with no
flap out - they were then effective brakes.
So, you can call 'em speed brakes only if they operate to increase
drag - that's how they are engineered into the wing. Just to complicate it,
there were mixers which decided if your selection was (a) acceptable and (b)
possible.
The crux was on the throttles (3). The outer ones (1 & 3) had
outside buttons in parallel, so were called GO AROUND buttons. If Cap'n was
flying he used the No1 throttle button, if the F/O was doing it he had the
No4 throttle button. When you wanted to abort the approach, you hollered "Go
around", pushed the GA button on your side as you opened the throttles to GA
power. The approach was made with some spoiler panels partially extended.
The button [1] demanded a proper nose-up pitch, [2] cancelled the extended
spoilers instantly which allowed the aircraft to 'leap' upward and [3] did a
number of complicated things which made aborting an approach magic and
instantaneous. No other a/c could do this and it meant (very early in the
trade) approaching to 7 feet (wheel height) from the runway and not drop a
foot farther - without ever seeing the ground. And 90% of the exercise was
aerodynamic - a miracle. Let's hear it for partial spoilers.
I suspect the throttle is the ideal place to cancel spoilers/speed
brakes because you are probably going to want to increase speed or improve
lift - and now.
I have to close, I hear matron coming down the hall.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Speed Brakes/Spoilers |
There was a major Delta crash at DFW a few years ago where the plane
encountered wind shear on short final and touched down in a pasture prior to
the airport. When the wheels touched, the spoilers automatically deployed
and the pilot could not go around as a result. Major loss of life!
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus
Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Speed Brakes/Spoilers
Dennis,
I sent this diatribe to the wrong address so here it comes now:
One of us has it right (IMHO). The spoiler cancel switch should be on the
throttle. The TriStar 500 was a whiz in cockpit design. There were four
different kinds of spoilers on the wing.
The first were big jobs inboard to plop the aircraft onto the tires on
touchdown because you could round out, put only five of eight mainwheels on,
catch a drift and touch brakes would blow out the tires on the runway - so
the full weight was required to save tires - called GROUND SPOILERS. The
second were roll augmenters and "speed brakes" in the air but accompanies
the biggies when the touchdown was complete, the third types were outboard
to balance fuel tank contents on an "active" wing (called 'direct Lift
control' - don't ask) and I can't remember the 4th, but three of the four
assisted in roll. The speed brakes could only be selected in air with no
flap out - they were then effective brakes.
So, you can call 'em speed brakes only if they operate to increase
drag - that's how they are engineered into the wing. Just to complicate it,
there were mixers which decided if your selection was (a) acceptable and (b)
possible.
The crux was on the throttles (3). The outer ones (1 & 3) had
outside buttons in parallel, so were called GO AROUND buttons. If Cap'n was
flying he used the No1 throttle button, if the F/O was doing it he had the
No4 throttle button. When you wanted to abort the approach, you hollered "Go
around", pushed the GA button on your side as you opened the throttles to GA
power. The approach was made with some spoiler panels partially extended.
The button [1] demanded a proper nose-up pitch, [2] cancelled the extended
spoilers instantly which allowed the aircraft to 'leap' upward and [3] did a
number of complicated things which made aborting an approach magic and
instantaneous. No other a/c could do this and it meant (very early in the
trade) approaching to 7 feet (wheel height) from the runway and not drop a
foot farther - without ever seeing the ground. And 90% of the exercise was
aerodynamic - a miracle. Let's hear it for partial spoilers.
I suspect the throttle is the ideal place to cancel spoilers/speed
brakes because you are probably going to want to increase speed or improve
lift - and now.
I have to close, I hear matron coming down the hall.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
I think someone said that they would send you a punch. If not and you still
need one, let me know. My panel is .090 and these die worked on it. You do
have to squeeze, release, rotate, squeeze on this .090 thickness. It would
really work like a breeze on a thinner panel. And you will need something
to drill the center hole with. A step drill works best for that.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel Punch
Thanks everyone for the helpful hints on punching instrument holes. My
opinion is that the best method is using a punch of the correct size,
however the EAA video, using a hole saw, appears to be a viable alternative.
Again, thanks,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed Brakes/Spoilers |
Dear Sir.=0A=0A The crash of Delta 191 at DFW on 2 Aug 85 was not caused b
y the spoilers deploying at touchdown. It was conjected by Monday morning
qb's that had the spoilers deployed or not retracted at touchdown the aircr
aft would have stayed on the ground where it touched down north of Texas st
ate route 114. Therefore, it would not have hit the water tank at DFW. I
recall that on the Tristar going to full throttle automatically retracted t
he spoilers. So at full throttle during the windshear encounter, the spoil
ers automatically retracted. Time has a way of making memories fuzzy so if
anyone recollects differently please set me straight. Incidentally, from
what I can tell, EVERY airliner extends spoilers at weight on wheels during
landing. To go around, advance the throttles and retract the spoilers. W
hat might be a point of confusion is thrust reverser deployment. After thr
ust reverse is applied go arounds are generally forbidden by aircraft manuf
acturers.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0ASent from my iPhone=0A=0AOn Jun 30, 2010, at 23:2
4, "Bill Bradburry" wrote:=0A=0AThere was a majo
r Delta crash at DFW a few years ago where the plane encountered wind shear
on short final and touched down in a pasture prior to the airport. When t
he wheels touched, the spoilers automatically deployed and the pilot could
not go around as a result. Major loss of life!=0A=0A =0A=0ABill B=0A=0A
=0A=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aero
electric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle=0ASent: Wednes
day, June 30, 2010 3:31 PM=0ATo: 1AeroElectricLIST=0ASubject: AeroElectric-
List: Speed Brakes/Spoilers=0A=0A =0A=0ADennis,=0A=0A I sent this di
atribe to the wrong address so here it comes now:=0A=0AOne of us has it rig
ht (IMHO). The spoiler cancel switch should be on the throttle. The TriStar
500 was a whiz in cockpit design. There were four different kinds of spoil
ers on the wing.=0A=0AThe first were big jobs inboard to plop the aircraft
onto the tires on touchdown because you could round out, put only five of e
ight mainwheels on, catch a drift and touch brakes would blow out the tires
on the runway =93 so the full weight was required to save tires
=93 called GROUND SPOILERS. The second were roll augmenters and
=9Cspeed brakes=9D in the air but accompanies the biggies when the to
uchdown was complete, the third types were outboard to balance fuel tank co
ntents on an =9Cactive=9D wing (called =98direct Lift con
trol=99 =93 don=99t ask) and I can=99t remember the
4th, but three of the four assisted in roll. The speed brakes could only b
e selected in air with no flap out =93 they were then effective brake
s.=0A=0A So, you can call =98em speed brakes only if they oper
ate to increase drag =93 that=99s how they are engineered into
the wing. Just to complicate it, there were mixers which decided if your se
lection was (a) acceptable and (b) possible.=0A=0A The crux was on t
he throttles (3). The outer ones (1 & 3) had outside buttons in parallel,
so were called GO AROUND buttons. If Cap=99n was flying he used the N
o1 throttle button, if the F/O was doing it he had the No4 throttle button.
When you wanted to abort the approach, you hollered =9CGo around
=9D, pushed the GA button on your side as you opened the throttles to GA
power. The approach was made with some spoiler panels partially extended.
The button [1] demanded a proper nose-up pitch, [2] cancelled the extended
spoilers instantly which allowed the aircraft to =98leap=99 up
ward and [3] did a number of complicated things which made aborting an appr
oach magic and instantaneous. No other a/c could do this and it meant (very
early in the trade) approaching to 7 feet (wheel height) from the runway a
nd not drop a foot farther =93 without ever seeing the ground. And 90
% of the exercise was aerodynamic =93 a miracle. Let=99s hear i
t for partial
spoilers.=0A=0A I suspect the throttle is the ideal place to cancel
spoilers/speed brakes because you are probably going to want to increase s
peed or improve lift =93 and now.=0A=0A I have to close, I hea
r matron coming down the hall.=0A=0AFerg=0A=0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.
=========================0A
=========================0A
========0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Bob,
Is the paralysis resolving? I'm wondering when the 9004 and 9011 modules will
be available.
Thanks,
Eric Schlanser
W-10/Lycoming O320 with Z-13 and maybe Z-24
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303264#303264
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
There is one other technology for panel fabrication that
some of you may wish to consider. Many fabricators of
flat sheet products can take your CAD drawings and convert
them directly into finished product.
Some years ago I did this panel layout for a C-120
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/120PANEL.pdf
I took a sheet of .125" aluminum and the .dxf file
for the drawing to a local CNC shop and for just over
$120 they cut me a panel that was accurate to better
than .001" all around.
Had I thought about it beforehand, I could have had
lettering engraved directly into the panel. After
having the panel anodized, the lettering can be filled
with colored, stick-enamels of choice.
I've built a number of devices for HBC, not the
least of which was this recovery parachute controller:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Recovery_Parachute_Controller_2.jpg
In this case, I e-mailed the drawing to a California
firm who cut me two engraved overlays with lettering,
beveled edges and all thru holes. I think two placards
were about $200.
Very low cost software like TurboCAD will produce the
necessary files for your panels, circuit breaker, and
switch panel overlays. The end results can look quit
professional.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
I've got a BatteryTender Plus that has a float voltage of 12.7 volts.
This is on both a new battery and the one that is being replaced. Is it
time for a new Batterytender?
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
| From: | "icrashrc" <icrashrc(at)aol.com> |
Bob,
I finally got around to taking the OVM-14 you sent out of the package. I just want
to double check that this is a hearty enough unit to drop the 30 amp breaker
called for in the Rotax 912 schematics. There doesn't seem to be a separate
field breaker called for. Do i maybe have to install it elsewhere? Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303354#303354
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax-B & C over voltage protection |
At 03:02 PM 7/1/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I finally got around to taking the OVM-14 you sent out of the
>package. I just want to double check that this is a hearty enough
>unit to drop the 30 amp breaker called for in the Rotax 912
>schematics. There doesn't seem to be a separate field breaker called
>for. Do i maybe have to install it elsewhere? Thanks,
In no set of instructions is the OVM expected to open
any breaker over 5A.
Since the 912 schematics don't address ov protection
of any type, you're stuck with installing as shown
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
At 11:26 AM 7/1/2010, you wrote:
>I've got a BatteryTender Plus that has a float voltage of 12.7
>volts. This is on both a new battery and the one that is being
>replaced. Is it time for a new Batterytender?
Sounds like it . . . if you're sure the voltmeter
is reading correctly . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
Thanks Bob, yep, I checked it with 3 different meters and they all read
the same. I just talked to Deltran and they confirmed that the
Batterytender probably was ready for the big parts box in the sky.
That'll teach me to let the thing fall off the wing...more than once
.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
At 11:26 AM 7/1/2010, you wrote:
I've got a BatteryTender Plus that has a float voltage of 12.7
volts. This is on both a new battery and the one that is being
replaced. Is it time for a new Batterytender?
Sounds like it . . . if you're sure the voltmeter
is reading correctly . . .
Bob . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07/01/10 01:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Alberto
Thats the radio that I am installing in my plane as well. I also note it has aux
inputs available for the MP3 and GPS warning.
As I am a 2 seat Zodiac XL thats all I should need as its got a built in Intercom,
thats one of its selling features. Friends with the radio love the intercom
and say its great.
Chris
Sydney
Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303521#303521
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Over Voltage Module sharing? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Trying again.
I'm using Z13 in conjunction with Z31-B. Is there anything wrong about the aux
alternator and the ground power jack sharing the same OVM? The only condition
that I can think of where both systems would be in use simultaneously is a ground
powered START on the aux alternator and that may not even be an issue unless
the OVM tripped. The issue being what caused it, the GPU or the aux alt.
Is this doable? Unwise?, how would I wire it?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303524#303524
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
> I have one you would be welcome to borrow. 3-1/8 on one side, 2-1/4 on
> the
> other. Kind of heavy but maybe one of those "if it fits it ships" USPS
> boxes wouldn't be too much.
>
> Allen Fulmer
> Alexander City, AL 35010
Allen,
I tried to contact you off line but did not get a response. I would like to
take you up on your offer to let me borrow your punches. I will be happy to
pay the Flat Rate USPS postage both ways.
If you have changed you mind about loaning the punch, please let me know and
I will make other arrangements.
Thanks,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
Bill,
...before you trash the BT, take it apart.
Unless, they have changed the assembly, it used to have 2 adjustable
pots inside. You had to pick off a little silicon glue first. One pot
set the max voltage charge level before it flipped state to the float
voltage level. The second pot set the float voltage. That one should
be about 13.2 - 13.4 volts. If you can make adjustments on your unit,
make very tiny pot corrections and wait to see where the level settles
out. I have seen brand new units not set correctly. You can also let
us know if they pot the units now, or got rid of the pots.....
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hibbing
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
Thanks Bob, yep, I checked it with 3 different meters and they all
read the same. I just talked to Deltran and they confirmed that the
Batterytender probably was ready for the big parts box in the sky.
That'll teach me to let the thing fall off the wing...more than once
.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
At 11:26 AM 7/1/2010, you wrote:
I've got a BatteryTender Plus that has a float voltage of 12.7
volts. This is on both a new battery and the one that is being
replaced. Is it time for a new Batterytender?
Sounds like it . . . if you're sure the voltmeter
is reading correctly . . .
Bob . . .
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
- Release Date: 07/01/10 01:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
Thanks David. I'll give it a try tomorrow if I get out to my hangar.
This is an old unit...had it for about 7-8 years now. I ordered up a
new so if this doesn't work I have a back up. Any idea on which pot is
which?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: David LLoyd
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
Bill,
...before you trash the BT, take it apart.
Unless, they have changed the assembly, it used to have 2 adjustable
pots inside. You had to pick off a little silicon glue first. One pot
set the max voltage charge level before it flipped state to the float
voltage level. The second pot set the float voltage. That one should
be about 13.2 - 13.4 volts. If you can make adjustments on your unit,
make very tiny pot corrections and wait to see where the level settles
out. I have seen brand new units not set correctly. You can also let
us know if they pot the units now, or got rid of the pots.....
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
Bill,
I knew you might ask me that question.....which pot.? My old notes are
in the hangar and I can't get to it until the 6th as we are heading to
WA in the morning....on 4 wheels not, 3. I'll try to find the notes,
when I return.
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hibbing
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
Thanks David. I'll give it a try tomorrow if I get out to my hangar.
This is an old unit...had it for about 7-8 years now. I ordered up a
new so if this doesn't work I have a back up. Any idea on which pot is
which?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: David LLoyd
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery tender
Bill,
...before you trash the BT, take it apart.
Unless, they have changed the assembly, it used to have 2 adjustable
pots inside. You had to pick off a little silicon glue first. One pot
set the max voltage charge level before it flipped state to the float
voltage level. The second pot set the float voltage. That one should
be about 13.2 - 13.4 volts. If you can make adjustments on your unit,
make very tiny pot corrections and wait to see where the level settles
out. I have seen brand new units not set correctly. You can also let
us know if they pot the units now, or got rid of the pots.....
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin <iberplanes(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Chris,
I am also building a Zodiac, now I=B4m applying the upgrade. If you are in
the
Zenith Aero as a member, seach for iberplanes so we can contact each other
on line.
Thank you very much for your comments on the intercom, very useful.
Take care,
Alberto,
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Started
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino mejor
aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97".
Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I got my panel figured out, but the actual labeling layout has made me think I
need to change some things. I originally had planned on having a row of toggle
switches about as close together as they'd comfortably go, which is ~0.9" I believe.
Here is a rough schematic of how I was planning it originally. At this
stage there are no labels, i.e. the text is just to identify items in the computer
image.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303606#303606
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_panel_for_labels_to_scale_original_147.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Labeling |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I found that I'd have a hard time putting the actual labels on for the two 2-10
off-on-on switches, assuming I want to have the center positions labeled.
So I figured I could eliminate the 'EFIS alarm' light and move the two offending
switches over almost an inch. This would allow me to apply the labels to the
center positions. This 'EFIS alarm' is programmable and as far as I understand
it could come on as a secondary alarm to the screen alarm for any or all alarms.
So I'd have the screen flashing at me as well as this light. There is also
an audio alarm that can be programmed to come on through the headphones whenever
any or all screen alarms come on. Seems I could rely on just the screen and
audio alarms, safely ditching the extra light alarm.
This is for a Sonex, which has a 30 degree tilted main panel and a 1.5" vertical
subpanel. The EFIS is an MGL Enigma, which barely fits. The bold black text
in this diagram is the exact size the labels might be. Font is Myriad Bold 11.47,
fwiw. I thought I'd put in 12, but must have messed it up somehow. Also forgot
to remove the 'primer' text on the red knob. I've printed out a full size
version and it seems to be easily readable. The only difference is my panel would
be Rustoleum Hammered Black and the labels white, so the contrast should
be about the same. I just got Decal Pro to make these. Once applied, I've got
some clear matte to spray over the top to protect them and cut down on the sorta
glossy hammered finish.
The only info I've gotten about labeling is from browsing pics of people's panels
on the web. So please let me know if you you have any suggestions.
Thanks!
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303608#303608
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_panel_for_labels_to_scale_switches_spread_209.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery tender |
At 12:46 PM 7/2/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob, yep, I checked it with 3 different meters and they all
>read the same. I just talked to Deltran and they confirmed that the
>Batterytender probably was ready for the big parts box in the
>sky. That'll teach me to let the thing fall off the wing...more than once .
Hmmm . . . Dave has suggested exploring a diddling-of-the-pots.
It that doesn't revive the ol' feller, consider a Schumacher
1562 series device from WalMart. About 1/2 the price if you
have to have the BT shipped in . . . and about twice the snort
(0.8 versus 1.5 amps).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:35 AM 7/1/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
> Is the paralysis resolving? I'm wondering when the 9004 and 9011
> modules will be available.
>Thanks,
>Eric Schlanser
>W-10/Lycoming O320 with Z-13 and maybe Z-24
I did some more think-work on them while on the
round trip to Denver. Got the packaging decisions
resolved. I'll do a board layout on the 9004 Monday
and get some proof-of-concept parts built for
my software guy to play with. Should be within
the next 60 cays. By the way, I'll be looking for
"Beta testers" for the 9004. I'll provide a ship
set of 9004 parts to someone who is already flying
regularly if they'll install the parts and
give me feedback on installation/operational/performance
issues. Email me directly.
The 9011 design is done. I just need to inventory
up on parts and show the kids how to assemble and
test them. We'll do both programs together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Bob;
On page 4 of the document found here
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf at bottom of
the page, the connections are shown for the various pins in the D9P
connector. Pin 6 is used twice. Typo I would imagine?? Same issue in this
drawing http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011_PM_OV-LV.pdf
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Labeling |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm a bit embarrassed, but at least I caught my mistake. I had designed my instrument
panel last summer, and in the fall I added a boost pump to the fuel system.
When I resumed the instrument panel project a few days ago, I had forgotten
all about adding the boost pump.
So I've added a 2-3 switch for this in my design. Below is one possible solution
doing it this way, which keeps the center position labeling format by still
having the 2-10 switches separated from the others. I've simply moved both the
'push start' button and 'starter engaged' up and the mag switches over.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303708#303708
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_panel_for_labels_to_scale_starter_above_116.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Labeling |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Another option is to put the fuel pump switch in the space between the 2-10 switches
and 2-3 switches. The labeling is more cluttered and confusing, but it allows
the starter button to stay in the same row.
I also switched the ALT/BAT main power switch with the EFIS PWR switch. I'd prolly
do this in the previous layout, but just didn't catch it before posting. So
the start sequence would be flip the ALT/BAT switch (up). I think the ALT WARN
light would come on in either center or up positions, since the alternator
is offline. I'll have to double check how I'd wired it. I have the Jabiru voltage
regulator and have the green (LV) wire available for this. As I understand
it, this would be the lead to connect to the ALT WARN light.
Next would be the EFIS PWR to center. If the EFIS powers up, I know my EFIS backup
battery is working. Flipping it to the up position would bring the main battery
online to the EFIS, which is needed to charge the backup.
The fuel pump, left and right mag switches would be turned on in order. The primer
cable needs to be pulled open for a few seconds when cold starting. I have
a Rotec TBI and doing this opens the diaphragm to allow more fuel to flow. I
imagine if this is done when the fuel pump has been turned on, it wouldn't need
to stay open as long as with the pump off. I'll figure out later whether it's
better if the primer is pulled before or after the fuel pump is turned on.
With my non-pilot eyes, it seems the the layout with the gap between the 2-10 switches
and the others is simpler. The center positions for both switches are
easier to read. And the gap in the row of switches separates the switches a little
more making it easier to find things. For example, suppose I've reached altitude
and turned off the boost pump when my mechanical pump fails. It would
be easier to locate the fuel pump switch as the left most switch of three, compared
to the middle one of five.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303713#303713
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "michael harris" <bearhawk390(at)clearwire.net> |
greetings all,
I just finished reading the aero connection wow! THANK YOU BOB for
all your efforts, although extremely informative it opens up a whole new
list of questions, and before I ask those questions I wanted to be sure
iam posting them in the right place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Power and Aux Alt sharing OVM? |
At 12:49 PM 6/28/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm using Z13 in conjunction with Z31-B. Is there anything wrong
>about the aux alternator and the ground power jack sharing the same
>OVM? The only condition that I can think of where both systems would
>be in use simultaneously is a ground powered START on the aux
>alternator and that may not even be an issue unless the OVM tripped.
>The issue being what caused it, the GPU or the aux alt.
>
>If this passes group muster, how would I wire it?
Can't think of a practical way to do it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:25 AM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>greetings all,
> I just finished reading the aero connection wow! THANK YOU BOB
> for all your efforts, although extremely informative it opens up a
> whole new list of questions, and before I ask those questions I
> wanted to be sure iam posting them in the right place.
Absolutely. The AeroElectric-List is a community supported
classroom where the only expectations for participation
are a civil demeanor and a quest for improving upon the
best we know how to do.
There are about 1800 folk who find value in watching what
transpires here on the List. The sum total of personal
experience of implementing recipes for success by our
participants must be measured in centuries.
I attended a family gathering in Denver this past weekend.
One of the topics of discussion amongst those of us
once or presently employed in the technical professions was
the steady decline of technical expertise and skill in virtually
every institution of which any had personal experience.
For all the ISO, EPA, OSHA, FAA, etc. etc. directives
for success, virtually no such institutions seemed aware
of the means by which tribal knowledge is passed to those
who follow.
Until we can do the Vulcan mind-meld and pass all
understanding by mere touch, one-on-one mentorship will
have to suffice . . . and it has . . . for thousands
of years. You are indeed in the right place my friend.
Welcome aboard!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:23 PM 7/4/2010, you wrote:
>Bob;
>
>On page 4 of the document found here
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
>at bottom of the page, the connections are shown for the various
>pins in the D9P connector. Pin 6 is used twice. Typo I would
>imagine?? Same issue in this drawing
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011_PM_OV-LV.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011_PM_OV-LV.pdf
>
>
>Bob McC
Yes, those are preliminary documents and I appreciate the
heads-up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Headset and mic shield question |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
My 2 place Europa has a PS audio panel. I need to route shielded headset and mic
wires out the port side of instrument module through a D-sub connector.
Curiosity question, what would happen if the shields were connected at the D-sub?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303808#303808
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset and mic shield question |
At 11:55 AM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>My 2 place Europa has a PS audio panel. I need to route shielded
>headset and mic wires out the port side of instrument module through
>a D-sub connector.
>
>Curiosity question, what would happen if the shields were connected
>at the D-sub?
What does the PS installation instructions say about
shielding? It should describe their recommendations
for terminating the shields. Do they use the shields
a part of the signal paths (i.e. grounds) or are they
simply shields over an array of wires? It makes
a difference and they should tell you exactly how
to do it.
For example, on page 1.10 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
you can see examples of shield-only and shield-plus-signal
connections for shielded wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Dufresne <robertdufresne(at)videotron.ca> |
Hi,
Where can I find the meaning of the symbols 3, P2, A1, S8, K10, 5, L4,
L6, 7
in hexagonal boxes on page 4 of document 9011-700-1C.pdf.
Robert D.
De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] De la part de
Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Envoy=E9 : 5 juillet 2010 10:04
=C0 : aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: AEC-9011
At 12:23 PM 7/4/2010, you wrote:
Bob;
On page 4 of the document found here
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf at bottom
of
the page, the connections are shown for the various pins in the D9P
connector. Pin 6 is used twice. Typo I would imagine?? Same issue in
this
drawing http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011_PM_OV-LV.pdf
Bob McC
Yes, those are preliminary documents and I appreciate the
heads-up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:06 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Where can I find the meaning of the symbols 3, P2, A1, S8, K10, 5,
>L4, L6, 7 in hexagonal boxes on page 4 of document 9011-700-1C.pdf.
>
That's a preliminary document intended only to describe the
spirit-and-intent of the new product. When the design
is finalized, the document will be updated to look like
this one
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
where a spread-sheet of reference designators and the materials
call-outs will be fully expanded like on page 3.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
Bob,
Would you expect that the microphone output level from a standard Aviation
headset to be similar/ or even the same as a standard handheld audio
microphone as used with a professional sound board? I don't own an audio
meter but just need to be close for a non-aircraft related project.
Bevan
Rv7A Implementing Z13/8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Headset and mic shield question |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
I have a PS Engineering PMA 4000.
See:
Page #21:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA4000_IM.pdf
Each 2 or 3 conductor cable has the shield connected to a different pin on the
25 pinb P1 Bottom Unit Connector.
If pin 1, 2 , 6 and 7 were to touch each other at my D-sub connector, what trouble
(if any) might that cause?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303825#303825
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Microphone levels |
At 03:04 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>Would you expect that the microphone output level from a standard Aviation
>headset to be similar/ or even the same as a standard handheld audio
>microphone as used with a professional sound board?
No. Aircraft microphones are victim to legacy compatibility
standards that emulate the original carbon granule microphones
(like those in telephones through the 70s).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_microphone
The audio output is not only very high (as much as 1 vrms) it is
generated with a power supply delivered by the transmitter.
Hence, most aircraft microphones have active electronics so
that modern TINY voltage microphones can dress up like
a carbon mic.
> I don't own an audio
>meter but just need to be close for a non-aircraft related project.
Sound boards are generally set up to accept 100 mV pk-pk
(30 mV rms) output from dynamic mics delivered on twisted pairs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Bob
I have recently developed a problem when I transmit my VSI and other features on
my Cheltons goes crazy. I have added a engine monitor EI MVP-50 recently. Is
there a way to isolate the cause. This is a recent occurance No prior problem
for 350 hrs
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
Thanks Bob, exactly what I'm looking for.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Microphone levels
-->
At 03:04 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>-->
>
> Bob,
>
>Would you expect that the microphone output level from a standard
>Aviation headset to be similar/ or even the same as a standard handheld
>audio microphone as used with a professional sound board?
No. Aircraft microphones are victim to legacy compatibility
standards that emulate the original carbon granule microphones
(like those in telephones through the 70s).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_microphone
The audio output is not only very high (as much as 1 vrms) it is
generated with a power supply delivered by the transmitter.
Hence, most aircraft microphones have active electronics so
that modern TINY voltage microphones can dress up like
a carbon mic.
> I don't own an audio
>meter but just need to be close for a non-aircraft related project.
Sound boards are generally set up to accept 100 mV pk-pk
(30 mV rms) output from dynamic mics delivered on twisted pairs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics.com access? |
Is anyone having trouble accessing http://matronics.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:18 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>I have recently developed a problem when I transmit my VSI and other
>features on my Cheltons goes crazy. I have added a engine monitor
>EI MVP-50 recently. Is there a way to isolate the cause. This is a
>recent occurance No prior problem for 350 hrs
A high-probability possibility is that a feed line
shield has become detached at one end or the other
on your comm antenna. A simple inspection may suffice.
An organized troubleshooting effort suggest you
dummy load the transceiver at the back of the tray
with a device like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/RF_Antenna_Test_Tools/DummyLoad.jpg
See if the problem goes away. If so, then
move the dummy load to the other end of the
feedline. You'll need a male-male adapter, a
t-connector can be used too. Try again to see
if the problem goes away or is still there.
If the problem does not manifest with either
dummy load experiment, then it's likely that
something has changed in system conditions
for the Cheltons. But I'm betting it's a feed
line problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matronics.com access? |
At 09:26 AM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Is anyone having trouble accessing http://matronics.com
>
I think the servers were down for a period of time since
midnight last night but they seem to be up now. All is
right with the world . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matronics.com access? |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
Yup, it was down for a while but seems to be back up now.
Bob Borger
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:26, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Is anyone having trouble accessing http://matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Matronics.com access? |
Is anyone having trouble accessing http://matronics.com
Bob . . .
Seems to be OK for me
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob!!!!
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 10:45:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stray RF
At 11:18 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
> Hi Bob
> I have recently developed a problem when I transmit my VSI and other features
>on my Cheltons goes crazy. I have added a engine monitor EI MVP-50 recently.
>Is there a way to isolate the cause. This is a recent occurance No prior
>problem for 350 hrs
A high-probability possibility is that a feed line
shield has become detached at one end or the other
on your comm antenna. A simple inspection may suffice.
An organized troubleshooting effort suggest you
dummy load the transceiver at the back of the tray
with a device like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/RF_Antenna_Test_Tools/DummyLoad.jpg
See if the problem goes away. If so, then
move the dummy load to the other end of the
feedline. You'll need a male-male adapter, a
t-connector can be used too. Try again to see
if the problem goes away or is still there.
If the problem does not manifest with either
dummy load experiment, then it's likely that
something has changed in system conditions
for the Cheltons. But I'm betting it's a feed
line problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heat Sink necessary? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Using a 25a bridge rectifier for dual power sources for EFI. The injectors might
pull 10a, worst case. For normal ops, 6a.
Is heat sinking necessary for the rectifer?
Thanks,
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303922#303922
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-31B Ground Power Contactor Diode |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
In Z-31B, I'm using a continuous duty contactor with one coil post, like the one
shown in the diagram and labled"Existing Battery Contactor", for a Grd. Pwr.
Contactor.
I'm unsure about where to place and how to orient the diode for a GP jack when
using the CD contactor.
Thanks for any help,
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303931#303931
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heat Sink necessary? |
Jon,
You are mixing supply and demand (but that's ok). Normally it is
suggested a heat sink be used for a sink load of 20A or more. Since your
hardware is bigger than your load you could try it without. If it is
continuous load you may want to monitor the rectifier temperature to be
sure you're in limits. The manufacturer should publish that.
If you're at all concerned about temperature, just add a heat sink. If
the heat sink sets you back wait till you see the price at the gas pump.
Wow! The poor man's option is to mount it on a piece phenolic block
which you'll find does little for heat dissipation but is virtually
indestructible should your diode take to glowing in flight. You can cut
some grooves in the top of the block to allow air to travel underneath
the rectifier. You can also buy one of those computer fans and a frame
for about a $1.00 to point in the general direction. I have a variety
pack of those stick on thermometers that lets one visualize surface
temps. Could be handy for something like this. Most of this is much more
fuss than just installing the heat sink.
Hey, what kind of injectors pull 10A? I suppose you mean the ignition
module.
Enjoy,
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jonlaury
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:08 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Heat Sink necessary?
Using a 25a bridge rectifier for dual power sources for EFI. The
injectors might pull 10a, worst case. For normal ops, 6a.
Is heat sinking necessary for the rectifer?
Thanks,
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303922#303922
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HLMP-2685 multi-LEDs off LR3C |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Bob,
Just to feed back to you and anyone on the list who might fancy using
the HLMP-2685 as a snazzy LED alt. warn. light for the LR3C regulator,
I'd like to report the following:
It works quite well putting the 8 LEDs of the HLMP in two parallel
banks of 4 resistors in series, i.e. four LEDs on one side, in series,
put in parallel with the other four LEDs on the other side, those also
put in series. I put a current-limiting resistor of 440 ohms works
well. In fact, it was two 220 ohm resistors in series, but then I
don't have much of a resistor selection...
This arrangement seems to check out okay, and looks to be about the
right brightness. I might tweak it a little bit at some point. When
the warning light is "off", I can't discern any light from the HLMP,
and indeed on the bench I can discern no light from it at 6.0V. For
day time it looks good, though it might also be too bright for night
time use.
FWIW!
Thanks for your guidance on this matter.
James
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM, James Kilford wrote:
> Bob,
>
> That's great, thank you. It gives me a good place from which to experiment.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://parts.digikey.com/1/parts/681506-led-lt-bar-hi-eff-red-8led-dip-hlmp2685.html
>>>
>>> I'd like to hook one of these to the LR3C regulator instead of the
>>> supplied filament lamp, so that it can go into the annunciator panel
>>> too.
>>>
>>> I've been trying to trace a schematic of Bob's, which I'm sure I've
>>> seen, of how to use an LED instead of a filament lamp with the LR3C,
>>> as a starting point. I can't find it, and the resistor values would
>>> be different in any case, so can anyone throw any light on to how to
>>> use one of these 8-LED devices with the LR3C?
>>
>> The schematic I published is at:
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LR3_LV_Led_1.jpg
>>
>> Your application will take some experimentation.
>> You can try paralleling all the LEDs and seeing how
>> well you can excite the array and still have uniform
>> illumination. You may find that you need to treat
>> them as separate LEDs.
>>
>> Just be aware that LR3 lamp driver is never completely
>> "OFF". The off current is too low to get any light
>> from a bulb but it will cause an LED to glow at a
>> reduced intensity. Hence the paralleling resistor to
>> get the LED to mimic a lamp more closely.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matronics.com access? |
| From: | Dale Ellis <rv8builder.kd0m(at)gmail.com> |
No problem from here
no not archive
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> Is anyone having trouble accessing http://matronics.com
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
Bob,
My interface circuit which brings a line level output through an impedance
matching transformer to the mic input of the aircraft radio may need to go
through a capacitor to block the DC bias voltage coming from the radio from
getting to the output of the matching transformer. Do you agree with this
method and can you recommend a value for this cap?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Microphone levels
-->
At 03:04 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>-->
>
> Bob,
>
>Would you expect that the microphone output level from a standard
>Aviation headset to be similar/ or even the same as a standard handheld
>audio microphone as used with a professional sound board?
No. Aircraft microphones are victim to legacy compatibility
standards that emulate the original carbon granule microphones
(like those in telephones through the 70s).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_microphone
The audio output is not only very high (as much as 1 vrms) it is
generated with a power supply delivered by the transmitter.
Hence, most aircraft microphones have active electronics so
that modern TINY voltage microphones can dress up like
a carbon mic.
> I don't own an audio
>meter but just need to be close for a non-aircraft related project.
Sound boards are generally set up to accept 100 mV pk-pk
(30 mV rms) output from dynamic mics delivered on twisted pairs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
At 01:07 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Using a 25a bridge rectifier for dual power sources for EFI. The
>injectors might pull 10a, worst case. For normal ops, 6a.
>Is heat sinking necessary for the rectifer?
yes . . . but simply mounting it to a metallic
surface on the airplane will be sufficient.
10A on any one leg of the device will dissipate
about 7 watts of heat that is easily managed by
most metal surface mounting situations.
Doing in-situ temperature measurements on the
molded bridge rectifier is VERY difficult. There's
no thermally integral metal surface available for
sampling. You'd need to bury a tiny-wire thermocouple
in the mounting under the rectifier assembly.
You can measure the temperature of the sheet metal
directly opposite the rectifier and make some
assumptions about thermal resistance of the
mounting . . . but it's more fuss than you'd
probably want to experience. 10A doesn't present
much of a challenge to a device with a metal
heat-sink interface. Use a little 'heat sink'
grease under it when mounting.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102858
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-31B Ground Power Contactor Diode |
At 01:39 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>In Z-31B, I'm using a continuous duty contactor with one coil post,
>like the one shown in the diagram and labled"Existing Battery
>Contactor", for a Grd. Pwr. Contactor.
>
>I'm unsure about where to place and how to orient the diode for a GP
>jack when using the CD contactor.
The banded end of the diode connects to the
"BAT" terminal of the contactor which in turn
faces incoming power from the ground power
connector.
The other end of the diode goes to the small
coil terminal which is switched to ground
to energize the contactor and bring ground
power onto the bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
At 02:58 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>My interface circuit which brings a line level output through an impedance
>matching transformer to the mic input of the aircraft radio may need to go
>through a capacitor to block the DC bias voltage coming from the radio from
>getting to the output of the matching transformer. Do you agree with this
>method and can you recommend a value for this cap?
Some experimentation is probably called for. You
need to find a resistor value that becomes a
'dummy microphone'. The resistor probably wants
to have 2-3 volts dropped across it while the
transmitter is 'talking'.
Then make sure the effective output impedance and
signal level of your transmit audio source can
drive the necessary signal into this load . . .
3 v pk-pk is probably a good upper bound to
strive for. Then pick a capacitor who's reactance
at say 100Hz is about 1/10 that of the sum of
dummy load resistor + source output impedance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
At 14:36 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>signal level of your transmit audio source can
> drive the necessary signal into this load . . .
> 3 v pk-pk is probably a good upper bound to
> strive for.
Without grabbing my scope, 3Vpp --sounds-- a bit hot for a mic input.
Is that value a typo?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
At 04:46 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>At 14:36 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>>signal level of your transmit audio source can
>> drive the necessary signal into this load . . .
>> 3 v pk-pk is probably a good upper bound to
>> strive for.
>
>Without grabbing my scope, 3Vpp --sounds-- a bit hot for a mic input.
Nope. That's what can come out of an aircraft microphone
the emulates the legacy carbon mic. Of course, REAL
carbon microphones are exceedingly rare in service now.
Just for grins, put your scope on the mic line of
a headset and see what kinds of signals can be
seen there. They may have migrated down over the
years . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Microphone levels |
At 04:46 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>At 14:36 7/6/2010, you wrote:
>>signal level of your transmit audio source can
>> drive the necessary signal into this load . . .
>> 3 v pk-pk is probably a good upper bound to
>> strive for.
>
>Without grabbing my scope, 3Vpp --sounds-- a bit hot for a mic input.
Nope. That's what can come out of an aircraft microphone
the emulates the legacy carbon mic. Of course, REAL
carbon microphones are exceedingly rare in service now.
Just for grins, put your scope on the mic line of
a headset and see what kinds of signals can be
seen there. They may have migrated down over the
years . . .
P.s. Just checked some links as follows:
http://www.capitalavionics.com/tip_0909.asp
http://tinyurl.com/24g4wjf
and a number of others that 'specd' aircraft
mics for sensitivity, current draw, bias voltage
but failed to call out the output voltage
present when those specs are being satisfied.
I think it was DO170 that talks industry
specifics.
I did see an anecdotal reference to 100-500 mv
which would translate to 300-1500 mv pk-pk.
Same ball park. We used to design for 3v pk-pk
to have zero risk of clipping . . . at least in
THAT part of the circuit!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Glen and Bob, Thanks.
I used a .063 alum washer for a stand-off from my composite structure which allows
air to the metal backside of the rectifier. I will add a larger surface area
piece of alum w/recommended grease.
The injectors are 55#/hr and my 6 cyl engine, with a bsfc of .55 lbs./hr/hp, will
have a max fuel consumption of 132 lbs/hr so these injectors will only see
a 40% duty cycle. At 75% they draw 9W each or 54 W, so my normal ops should draw
about 2.5 amps. So my initial guess of 6a is too high. The 10 amp circuit
recommended by the EFI mfgr is to cover all the bases including low voltage and
higher power than my engine makes.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304047#304047
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
At 11:29 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>Glen and Bob, Thanks.
>
>I used a .063 alum washer for a stand-off from my composite
>structure which allows air to the metal backside of the rectifier. I
>will add a larger surface area piece of alum w/recommended grease.
Okay, recommend something on the order of 10 square inches
of .062 aluminum. If you wanted to make it "tighter" on
real-estate, you could bend the edges up so that the
diode still sits on a flat spot, but the overall width
is reduced.
>The injectors are 55#/hr and my 6 cyl engine, with a bsfc of .55
>lbs./hr/hp, will have a max fuel consumption of 132 lbs/hr so these
>injectors will only see a 40% duty cycle. At 75% they draw 9W each
>or 54 W, so my normal ops should draw about 2.5 amps. So my initial
>guess of 6a is too high. The 10 amp circuit recommended by the EFI
>mfgr is to cover all the bases including low voltage and higher
>power than my engine makes.
Hmmmm . . . maybe you don't need to do anything with
the diode. Wait until you're able to run the engine
and take some measurements of your own. It sounds
like it might be just fine with zero-heat sink.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
As far as I know, the granddaddy of all-lithium battery uses is the Tesla
=0ARoadster.- Of course, they run the entire car on the battery, so it's
a very =0Adifferent beast.- I do know, though, that they get their batte
ries made by =0APanasonic.- Given that, I'd say it's a very good bet that
Panasonic makes the =0Abest lithium batteries available.- Cost is not a
huge issue for a $110K car, so =0Athey weren't scrimping.=0A=0AMay be worth
looking into.- You might be able to assemble your own from =0APanasonic
parts.- Hey, we're experimentals, right?=0A-=0ADoug Ilg=0AGrumman Tiger
N74818, College Park-Airport (KCGS), Maryland=0AChallenger II LSS LW (N6
41LG-reserved)-- kit underway at Laurel Suburban (W18)=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
A while back Bill Dube mentioned he was offering a A-123 cell battery for aircraft
use.
Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304079#304079
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon D10A sound |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
I have a Dynon D10A with a homemade AOA and PS PMA4000 audio panel with unswitched
audio inputs.
For those who have tried, is it worth it hooking up D10A audio to audio panel?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304080#304080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D10A sound |
If you have an AoA which works yes, it gives you a nice alert!
br Wrener
On 07.07.2010 22:16, rparigoris wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rparigoris"
>
> I have a Dynon D10A with a homemade AOA and PS PMA4000 audio panel with unswitched
audio inputs.
>
> For those who have tried, is it worth it hooking up D10A audio to audio panel?
>
> Thx.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304080#304080
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
| From: | "N38CW" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
Yep, it's a bit pricey...
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1039902_porsches-1700-starter-battery-option-for-boxster-spyder-911-gt3
--------
Bill Settle
RV-8 Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304092#304092
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
> Does anyone on the list have a 3 1/8" panel punch that you might be
> willing
> to loan out? I have a set of Greenly Punches but do not have one this
> large. I need to punch about 3 instrument holes in my panel and I feel
> the
> punch is the best way to go. The panel is light gauge aluminum, so will
> be
> very easy to punch. I have considered using a hole saw, but I have never
> been able to make a nice clean hole with this method.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Roger Curtis
> Upton, MA
> I have one you would be welcome to borrow. 3-1/8 on one side, 2-1/4 on
> the
> other. Kind of heavy but maybe one of those "if it fits it ships" USPS
> boxes wouldn't be too much.
>
> Allen Fulmer
> Alexander City, AL 35010
Allen,
Thank you for the loan of your punch. I can't immagine, short of
setting the panel up on a milling machine, making instrument holes
as nice, smooth, round, easy, and precisely placed, as can be
accomplished with the simple punch.
This is what it is all about, "Builders helping Builders"
Great forum!
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
=0AIf my math is right, that works out to $77.00/pound. Not quite up to th
e rumored $100,000/pound that Formula 1 is willing to pay but still out of
my budget.... :-(=0A =0AJon=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "N38CW
" =0ASent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:47pm=0ATo: a
eroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lithium Ba
tle@bellsouth.net>=0A=0AYep, it's a bit pricey...=0A=0Ahttp://www.motorauth
ority.com/blog/1039902_porsches-1700-starter-battery-option-for-boxster-spy
der-911-gt3=0A=0A--------=0ABill Settle=0ARV-8 Fuselage=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead
this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=
=========0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D10A sound |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
"If you have an AoA which works yes, it gives you a nice
alert!"
Thx. Werner
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
It is sometimes good to imagine what can go wrong. Generally high
impedance injectors run around 12 ohms resistance. If one or more
injector driver fails on, the engine will likely keep running unless
subsequently a fuse pops or a diode fails due to the extra current. I'd
consider making sure the diode had some heat sinking and was capable of
feeding all six injectors at 100% duty cycle which is likely 7+ amps at
14+ volts.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:29 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Glen and Bob, Thanks.
>>
>> I used a .063 alum washer for a stand-off from my composite structure
>> which allows air to the metal backside of the rectifier. I will add a
>> larger surface area piece of alum w/recommended grease.
>
> Okay, recommend something on the order of 10 square inches
> of .062 aluminum. If you wanted to make it "tighter" on
> real-estate, you could bend the edges up so that the
> diode still sits on a flat spot, but the overall width
> is reduced.
>
>> The injectors are 55#/hr and my 6 cyl engine, with a bsfc of .55
>> lbs./hr/hp, will have a max fuel consumption of 132 lbs/hr so these
>> injectors will only see a 40% duty cycle. At 75% they draw 9W each or
>> 54 W, so my normal ops should draw about 2.5 amps. So my initial
>> guess of 6a is too high. The 10 amp circuit recommended by the EFI
>> mfgr is to cover all the bases including low voltage and higher power
>> than my engine makes.
>
> Hmmmm . . . maybe you don't need to do anything with
> the diode. Wait until you're able to run the engine
> and take some measurements of your own. It sounds
> like it might be just fine with zero-heat sink.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
At 05:47 PM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>It is sometimes good to imagine what can go wrong. Generally high
>impedance injectors run around 12 ohms resistance. If one or more
>injector driver fails on, the engine will likely keep running unless
>subsequently a fuse pops or a diode fails due to the extra current.
>I'd consider making sure the diode had some heat sinking and was
>capable of feeding all six injectors at 100% duty cycle which is
>likely 7+ amps at 14+ volts.
Would that not be a multiple failure scenario? . . .
and would the engine run with 5 of the 6 injectors
turned on hard?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
Normally injectors are sized such that full on only represents about 30%
extra fuel over full power. (sized primarily to give better idle
control) So yes in most cases an engine will run at aircraft cruise
power or higher with all injectors locked full on. I would consider one
or more locked on injectors a single failure. Older ecu's batch fire
injectors and share drivers. But yes you'd need to go into ecu and
wiring specifics to determine whether a single failure could lock more
than one injector on. 100% extra fuel (twice normal flow) on my subaru
makes the exhaust system quite hot but does not stop the engine. Rare
but injectors do occasionally fail on. A minor concern admittedly.
Similarly for multiple coil ignitions. Rare but I've seen single coils
short out internally and draw continuous current. I'm just suggesting
that some headroom or safety margin in the sizing and fusing of such
circuits is a good idea and that would include any diodes.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 05:47 PM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> It is sometimes good to imagine what can go wrong. Generally high
>> impedance injectors run around 12 ohms resistance. If one or more
>> injector driver fails on, the engine will likely keep running unless
>> subsequently a fuse pops or a diode fails due to the extra current.
>> I'd consider making sure the diode had some heat sinking and was
>> capable of feeding all six injectors at 100% duty cycle which is
>> likely 7+ amps at 14+ volts.
>
> Would that not be a multiple failure scenario? . . .
> and would the engine run with 5 of the 6 injectors
> turned on hard?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
I love it - Porsche throws in a lead acid battery just in case it gets a bit chilly
for the lithium. At 13 pounds it's not a huge savings on the RG jobs.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Finley
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lithium Battery Option
If my math is right, that works out to $77.00/pound. Not quite up to the rumored
$100,000/pound that Formula 1 is willing to pay but still out of my budget....
:-(
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: "N38CW" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:47pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lithium Battery Option
Yep, it's a bit pricey...
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1039902_porsches-1700-starter-battery-option-for-boxster-spyder-911-gt3
--------
Bill Settle
RV-8 Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Ken,
Thank you for your illumination of some issues surrounding EFI. The Simple Digital
Systems EFI is the one I'm using. Your comments have explained why SDS said
that I might want to consider using a 15 amp circuit. It never made sense to
me until I read your comments about sizing for all 6 injectors locking on (100%
duty cycle). The bridge diode that I'm using is rated for 25a @ 200v so there
seems to be sufficient headroom.
My injectors are low impedance type and SDS supplies a 3 x 4 x 1/8" aluminum piece
with 3 gold anodized resistors??(I'm guessing) that have fins radiating around
them. Installation instructions say this piece can get "quite hot at higher
duty cycles".
It seems that the SDS EFI 'wants' to have high impedance injectors. Are there advantages
to a high impedance architecture?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304179#304179
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Sink necessary? |
John
Port injectors are usually high impedance and they are by far the most
common injector. They simplify control issues and drive circuits and are
the only ones that I've played with. Suitable mosfet (transistor)
switches are very cheap and don't have large heat sinking requirements.
I allow just over 1 millisec opening delay for mine when calculating and
the 90 volt spike when I turn them off is not much of a problem.
Large injectors for throttle body injection or very high power engines
are more likely to be low impedance. Larger injectors need more energy
to activate them. I have not used them but they are not uncommon in the
aftermarket. Low impedance ones will open faster I believe but you
typically throttle back the current to a hold open value. That likely
extends life but it also lets them close faster. The higher current and
higher voltage spikes of low impedance injectors complicates things.
Your power resistors would be there to reduce the hold open current.
There are other methods like pulse width modulation, flyback circuits,
etc. There are hardware and software methods of accomplishing all this
but it is simpler with the high impedance (lower current) injectors.
I'm pleased if I helped a bit. SDS does good work and they likely have
better explanations of this on their extensive website so definitely
follow their recommendations.
Ken
jonlaury wrote:
>
>
> Ken, Thank you for your illumination of some issues surrounding EFI.
> The Simple Digital Systems EFI is the one I'm using. Your comments
> have explained why SDS said that I might want to consider using a 15
> amp circuit. It never made sense to me until I read your comments
> about sizing for all 6 injectors locking on (100% duty cycle). The
> bridge diode that I'm using is rated for 25a @ 200v so there seems to
> be sufficient headroom. My injectors are low impedance type and SDS
> supplies a 3 x 4 x 1/8" aluminum piece with 3 gold anodized
> resistors??(I'm guessing) that have fins radiating around them.
> Installation instructions say this piece can get "quite hot at higher
> duty cycles". It seems that the SDS EFI 'wants' to have high
> impedance injectors. Are there advantages to a high impedance
> architecture?
>
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack L Bell <jack(at)comconn.com> |
| Subject: | Quick splice connectors? |
I've begun wiring, and have always hated cutting a good wire
to splice into it. I've found no reference to the quick
splices in any of the aircraft parts catalogs, so before
giving up, and cutting the ignition CDI wires to connect
the kill switches (That alone feels all sorts of wrong to me..),
I thought I'd ask the question: Has anyone used a splice
such as http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d266.html
in their wiring?
Thanks,
-Jack
Austin, TX
Avid Catalina (getting there..)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick splice connectors? |
>I thought I'd ask the question: Has anyone used a splice
>such as http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d266.html
>in their wiring?
Keep in mind that the design goal for bringing
two wires together is "gas tightness". I.e.
give the joining the same environmental resistance
to effects of moisture and oxygen as if they were one
piece of metal. Detailed discussions of these goals
and some of the recipes for achieving them are
discussed at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
The splices you've cited are not crafted to
these design goals. I've seen those used on aircraft
that traveled to various air shows . . . but
the question to be asked is not "have you used
them?" but "what studies have shown them to be
of the same caliber as legacy products and
processes that have been proven to be essentially
zero risk?"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Quick splice connectors? |
Jack;
Absolutely not!
These were developed, I believe, as a "quick'n'dirty", temporary connection
in the automotive industry for such applications as a one time trailer
hook-up for say a rental trailer. Personal (bad) experience is that they are
unreliable and in a very short time the nice one piece original wire will
corrode through where this so called "splice" damaged the insulation. I
wouldn't use them for anything let alone on an aircraft.
They certainly don't provide the nice solid "gas tight" joint that the
properly crimped PIDG terminals provide. Where and how would you propose to
use such a connection?
I don't follow the reference to having to cut the CDI wires. The power
supply to a CDI ignition, I would have thought, would involve a supply wire
and a ground wire just like any other accessory. No?? If they need to be
"spliced" then a proper PIDG splice is the way to go. See
http://tinyurl.com/2575j6g or http://tinyurl.com/27zackn
Now all of this is my personal opinion and others may differ, but for what
it may be worth, there you have it.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack L Bell
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 5:08 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Quick splice connectors?
>
>
>
>
> I've begun wiring, and have always hated cutting a good wire
> to splice into it. I've found no reference to the quick
> splices in any of the aircraft parts catalogs, so before
> giving up, and cutting the ignition CDI wires to connect
> the kill switches (That alone feels all sorts of wrong to me..),
> I thought I'd ask the question: Has anyone used a splice
> such as http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d266.html
> in their wiring?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jack
> Austin, TX
> Avid Catalina (getting there..)
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Quick splice connectors? |
> Absolutely not!
>
> These were developed=2C I believe=2C as a "quick'n'dirty"=2C temporary co
nnection
> in the automotive industry for such applications as a one time trailer
> hook-up for say a rental trailer.
> Bob McC
Jack=2C
I was going to respond to your question regarding the splices you asked a
bout=2C but then I read Bob McC's email. He said essentially the same thin
g I was going top say. These splices are what the (U-Haul=2C Ryder=2C etc)
trailer hook-up guys grab=2C to keep from doing a proper splicing job. Th
ey're quick=2C they corrode=2C and they're virtually useless on anything of
long term dependability.
I've used them=2C but NEVER on an airplane. Basically=2C they're junk.
My opinion....
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack L Bell <jack(at)comconn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick splice connectors? |
>Keep in mind that the design goal for bringing
>two wires together is "gas tightness". I.e.
>give the joining the same environmental resistance
>to effects of moisture and oxygen as if they were one
>piece of metal. Detailed discussions of these goals
>and some of the recipes for achieving them are
>discussed at:
That whole concept of gas tightness is what led me down the
path of those connectors: I figured leaving the wire intact
in the first place was better than cutting, then rejoining
the wire. I'd looked at the mechanical support from the
better connectors, and didn't see any disadvantage there,
but had not considered the galvanic reaction from
dissimilar metals. That might be a problem in an amphibian.
The entire plan was to follow the whole theory of the kill switch
in the first place- if it fails, the engine keeps running.
I'll go down a modified solder-lap approach. I'm *much*
more comfortable with solder joints than crimp joints,
and will support them with a double heat-shrink cover.
(Lead exposure? What might a few years of soldering circuit
boards by hand add in the way of exposure? I figure that's
why I'm always on a diet..)
Thanks again,
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sharmon32" <sharmon32(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick splice connectors? |
Jack :
They use those splices at the U-haul trailer place. They will screw
up your trailer wiring in about one year they are junk. I would never
put anything like that in my plane. I would trim the insulator back
real careful and solder the wire you want to connect then use some of
that plastic stuff coat in and cover it with shrink wrap. STeve Not a
wiring expert
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: "Jack L Bell" <jack(at)comconn.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Quick splice connectors?
>
>
>
> I've begun wiring, and have always hated cutting a good wire
> to splice into it. I've found no reference to the quick
> splices in any of the aircraft parts catalogs, so before
> giving up, and cutting the ignition CDI wires to connect
> the kill switches (That alone feels all sorts of wrong to me..),
> I thought I'd ask the question: Has anyone used a splice
> such as http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d266.html
> in their wiring?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jack
> Austin, TX
> Avid Catalina (getting there..)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick splice connectors? |
>I'll go down a modified solder-lap approach. I'm *much*
>more comfortable with solder joints than crimp joints,
>and will support them with a double heat-shrink cover.
>(Lead exposure? What might a few years of soldering circuit
>boards by hand add in the way of exposure? I figure that's
>why I'm always on a diet..)
The "exposure" is nil. There are some folks
who believe that the mere proximity of a toxin
opens a channel of ethereal osmosis that drives
up risk. It's healthy for them not to study
potential toxicity of every substance in our
daily lives . . . the American Psychological
Association would have to name a new phobia . . .
or perhaps they already have.
I've been soldering various items together
for over 50 years. I have a lifetime stock
of 63/37 solder in many forms and intend to
use it until the lead finally kills me . . .
or my heart does. My money is not on the lead.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Long and short hot feeders |
Reviewing the Z-14 diagram, there is no fuse protection from the panel
switch turning on or off the main battery contactor. In my airplane with a
battery in back, this means a 7 foot always hot lead. Should I be concerned?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Option |
N38CW wrote:
>
> Yep, it's a bit pricey...
>
> http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1039902_porsches-1700-starter-battery-option-for-boxster-spyder-911-gt3
Perhaps something like this:
http://elitepowersolutions.com/products/product_info.php?cPath=16&products_id=74
It might not have enough urge, though.
--Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Circuit protection |
I have my electrical plan in the final draft and will post it here soon. But
first I have a few questions. I will have breakers for a few items, the
ignition, fuel pump, landing brake, nose lift, alternator field and pitch
trim.
1. I am using a Plane Power alternator with the integrated over-volt
protection. I see no need for a breaker in this case, why not use a fuse?
2. The nose lift (EZ type A/C) requires unswitched power to the lift
and a 10A CB in the panel. This will be a long run and needs protection back
at the Bat Bus also. I plan to use a fusible link for this. I also need
unswitched power for the ignition (1 mag, 1 EI) and clock power. I thought I
would pull the unswitched lead forward with a fusible link at the bat bus,
then branch out to the nose lift, EI, and clock power. Something tells me
there is a problem with this. I can't put my finger on it other than I can
hear Bob saying a bat bus is at the battery. The EI probably needs a
dedicated circuit. But if the feeder was protected/sized to 15 amps, and
knowing the lift only draws heavy loads when the A/C is on the ground I
thought it should be ok. Thoughts?
3. The rest of the breakers on the panel will be fed from the E bus and
some from the Main bus, both of which are some 30"' away. At what point
(length) do I need to protect those feeder circuits using fuses or fusible
links?
Thanks in advance, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
I am building an all wood electrically dependent aircraft and the plan is to
use, essentially, the Z-19 RB wiring scheme. What are the thoughts on the
ground wire? It will be a "Fat wire" going from tail section to the
firewall. It is a single wire, and single point of failure! Should I
install this single ground wire making sure it is done with the utmost care,
and say these cables never fail and forget about it, except for regular
inspections to insure its integrity, or should I add a parallel ground,
somehow, to keep my electrically dependent engine purring??
Thoughts, suggestions, please??
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long and short hot feeders |
At 10:13 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>Reviewing the Z-14 diagram, there is no fuse protection from the
>panel switch turning on or off the main battery contactor. In my
>airplane with a battery in back, this means a 7 foot always hot
>lead. Should I be concerned?
What's the failure mode? If that wire gets shorted
to ground, what happens? If that wire gets shorted
to the battery, what happens? Are their any failure
modes you can deduce that would cause a hazardous
level of current to flow in that wire?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long and short hot feeders |
At 10:13 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
Reviewing the Z-14 diagram, there is no fuse protection from the
panel switch turning on or off the main battery contactor. In my
airplane with a battery in back, this means a 7 foot always hot lead.
Should I be concerned?
What's the failure mode? If that wire gets shorted
to ground, what happens? If that wire gets shorted
to the battery, what happens? Are their any failure
modes you can deduce that would cause a hazardous
level of current to flow in that wire?
Bob . . .
This may be a low probability, but what if the coil in the
contactor were to short? Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit protection |
At 11:10 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>I have my electrical plan in the final draft and will post it here
>soon. But first I have a few questions. I will have breakers for a
>few items, the ignition, fuel pump, landing brake, nose lift,
>alternator field and pitch trim.
>
> * I am using a Plane Power alternator with the integrated
> over-volt protection. I see no need for a breaker in this case, why
> not use a fuse?
Because it's a crowbar ov protection system that
MIGHT nuisance trip for conditions as yet undiscovered.
> * The nose lift (EZ type A/C) requires unswitched power to the
> lift and a 10A CB in the panel. This will be a long run and needs
> protection back at the Bat Bus also. I plan to use a fusible link for this.
Please don't use fusible links for any other application
than those illustrated in the Z-figures. Your gear motor
circuit would be happier with a breaker. Where is the battery
located in the airplane?
> * I also need unswitched power for the ignition (1 mag, 1 EI)
> and clock power. I thought I would pull the unswitched lead forward
> with a fusible link at the bat bus, then branch out to the nose
> lift, EI, and clock power. Something tells me there is a problem
> with this. I can't put my finger on it other than I can hear Bob
> saying a bat bus is at the battery. The EI probably needs a
> dedicated circuit. But if the feeder was protected/sized to 15
> amps, and knowing the lift only draws heavy loads when the A/C is
> on the ground I thought it should be ok. Thoughts?
How about a fuse for each battery bus feed system
in a fuse holder mounted right at the battery contactor?
> * The rest of the breakers on the panel will be fed from the E
> bus and some from the Main bus, both of which are some 30"' away.
> At what point (length) do I need to protect those feeder circuits
> using fuses or fusible links?
Not sure what the 30" refers to. The E-bus and main
busses are separated by 30"?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long and short hot feeders |
>
>
> This may be a low probability, but what if the coil in the
> contactor were to short?
The wire in the contactor opens up. It's small gage
wire total enclosed in a metal container.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 RB ground? |
At 01:01 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>I am building an all wood electrically dependent aircraft and the
>plan is to use, essentially, the Z-19 RB wiring scheme. What are
>the thoughts on the ground wire? It will be a "Fat wire" going from
>tail section to the firewall. It is a single wire, and single point
>of failure! Should I install this single ground wire making sure it
>is done with the utmost care, and say these cables never fail and
>forget about it, except for regular inspections to insure its
>integrity, or should I add a parallel ground, somehow, to keep my
>electrically dependent engine purring??
Fat wires are generally considered as robust as
prop bolts and wing struts. Of course, weak links
come in choice of hardware and installation technique.
However, using 5/16" or larger hardware torqued to
recommended values and reasonable care in installing
terminals will cover you nicely.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Circuit protection |
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Circuit protection
At 11:10 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
I have my electrical plan in the final draft and will post it here soon. But
first I have a few questions. I will have breakers for a few items, the
ignition, fuel pump, landing brake, nose lift, alternator field and pitch
trim.
1. I am using a Plane Power alternator with the integrated over-volt
protection. I see no need for a breaker in this case, why not use a fuse?
Because it's a crowbar ov protection system that
MIGHT nuisance trip for conditions as yet undiscovered. OK, that makes
sense.
1. The nose lift (EZ type A/C) requires unswitched power to the lift
and a 10A CB in the panel. This will be a long run and needs protection back
at the Bat Bus also. I plan to use a fusible link for this.
Please don't use fusible links for any other application
than those illustrated in the Z-figures. Your gear motor
circuit would be happier with a breaker. Where is the battery
located in the airplane? On the main spar, perhaps 8' away.
1. I also need unswitched power for the ignition (1 mag, 1 EI) and
clock power. I thought I would pull the unswitched lead forward with a
fusible link at the bat bus, then branch out to the nose lift, EI, and clock
power. Something tells me there is a problem with this. I can't put my
finger on it other than I can hear Bob saying a bat bus is at the battery.
The EI probably needs a dedicated circuit. But if the feeder was
protected/sized to 15 amps, and knowing the lift only draws heavy loads when
the A/C is on the ground I thought it should be ok. Thoughts?
How about a fuse for each battery bus feed system
in a fuse holder mounted right at the battery contactor? I can do that, I
was trying to eliminate a couple of wires.
1. The rest of the breakers on the panel will be fed from the E bus and
some from the Main bus, both of which are some 30"' away. At what point
(length) do I need to protect those feeder circuits using fuses or fusible
links?
Not sure what the 30" refers to. The E-bus and main
busses are separated by 30"?
The CB's on the panel are 30" away from the Main & Ebus, where they feed
from. So I need to protect those feeds as they go to the CB's right?
Thanks, Tim
Bob . . .
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:36:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Circuit protection |
>
>
>The CB's on the panel are 30" away from the Main & Ebus, where they
>feed from. So I need to protect those feeds as they go to the CB's right?
>Thanks, Tim
The definition of a BUS is where the breakers and/or
fuse holders all come together. For example,
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/bus_bars_1.jpg
All of those straps or "bars" between the breakers IS
one kind of bus or another. In other words, where
ever your breakers/fuses live is where the bus lives
be it the E-bus, main bus, battery bus, etc. There
are no "feeders" between a bus and the protection that
taps that bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Long and short hot feeders |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
DCS317,
> this means a 7 foot always hot lead. Should I be concerned?
>
No. Every time the master switch is turned on, it shorts this wire to ground.
If this wire is accidentally shorted to ground, the main contactor coil restricts
the current flow. The contactor will energize and you will lose the ability
to shut it off. The danger of fire or smoke is minimal. If installed with
secure terminations and care to prevent mechanical damage, then there should
be no problem.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304388#304388
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset and mic shield question |
At 03:16 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I have a PS Engineering PMA 4000.
>See:
>Page #21:
>http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PMA4000_IM.pdf
>
>Each 2 or 3 conductor cable has the shield connected to a different
>pin on the 25 pinb P1 Bottom Unit Connector.
>
>If pin 1, 2 , 6 and 7 were to touch each other at my D-sub
>connector, what trouble (if any) might that cause?
None. All their shields are open at the far end, i.e.
only shields and not part of the audio path. "audio LO"
connections in virtually all such systems is a common
signal ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Deceptive Voltage? |
7/11/2010
Hello Bob Nuckolls and other Electrical Gurus,
Suppose you ran your battery down by spinning your first time to be started
O-540 Lycoming engine with the starter in order to preoil the engine in your
nearly finished RV-10. And maybe you did some other things that ran the
battery down.
Then you connected your small amperage output battery charger to the battery
and you attempted to start the Shower of Sparks equipped engine without
success. The engine was cranked OK, but the starting vibrator just was not
putting out.
A check of the system voltage in appropriate points with a separate volt
meter while cranking the engine showed 13 plus volts.
Is it possible that the voltage being seen was in fact the voltage being put
out by the battery charger as it attempted to recharge the run down battery,
but the amperage being put out by the run down battery and battery charger
together just was not enough current flow to run the starting vibrator as
well as crank the engine?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another battery maintainer/charger question |
| From: | "edleg" <ed_legault(at)yahoo.com> |
This subject is off topic of building/running airplanes, but it is still an interesting
(to me, anyways) question/subject. One of my hobbies that gets in the
way of aircraft building is my long time ham radio interests.
I recently obtained a new RV/Marine deep cycle battery to provide emergency 12vdc
power for my vhf/uhf station and hf station on low power. I bought a nice battery
box to put the thing in (a rather heavy battery -- "105 Ahr"). Mounted
a small dc-to-ac inverter on the lid along with some 12vdc outlets and also a
new Schumacher SE-1-12s (1.5 amp) maintainer/charger.
Everything works fairly well except for two troubling things:
1. the maintainer/charger is very loud, even in the maintainer mode -- actually
louder than my other two regular 6/2 amp and 10/2 amp battery chargers.
2. the "float" voltage that is maintained is at 12.96 vdc as measured by two different
digital (fluke brand) volt meters. Seems a little bit low when reading
the other posts here.
So... Bob and the other electron experts: is there a relatively (physically) small
maintainer/charger that doesn't always sound like a loud battery charger (oxymoron???)
when in the maintainer mode, and is the float voltage high enough?
Thanks,
-Ed-
NX6ED
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304520#304520
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Another battery maintainer/charger question |
Ed -
My little Schumacher 1562 1.5-amp charger/maintainer is silent - at least,
if it makes any noise, I've never noticed it, even in the wee hours with the
house & shop quiet.
Neal
N8ZG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of edleg
Everything works fairly well except for two troubling things:
1. the maintainer/charger is very loud, even in the maintainer mode --
actually louder than my other two regular 6/2 amp and 10/2 amp battery
chargers.
2. the "float" voltage that is maintained is at 12.96 vdc as measured by two
different digital (fluke brand) volt meters. Seems a little bit low when
reading the other posts here.
So... Bob and the other electron experts: is there a relatively (physically)
small maintainer/charger that doesn't always sound like a loud battery
charger (oxymoron???) when in the maintainer mode, and is the float voltage
high enough?
Thanks,
-Ed-
NX6ED
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Deceptive Voltage? |
At 05:36 PM 7/11/2010, you wrote:
7/11/2010
Hello Bob Nuckolls and other Electrical Gurus,
Suppose you ran your battery down by spinning your first time to be
started O-540 Lycoming engine with the starter in order to preoil the
engine in your nearly finished RV-10. And maybe you did some other
things that ran the battery down.
Then you connected your small amperage output battery charger to the
battery and you attempted to start the Shower of Sparks equipped
engine without success. The engine was cranked OK, but the starting
vibrator just was not putting out.
A check of the system voltage in appropriate points with a separate
volt meter while cranking the engine showed 13 plus volts.
This number appears bogus. A battery is incapable
of delivering energy at more than about 12.5 volts
lightly loaded . . . a few amps. Given that most
batteries offer an internal resistance on the order
of .007 to .010 ohms, a 200A starter draw would be
expected to drop the battery terminal voltage by
perhaps 2 volts. So a terminal voltage of 10.5 or
lower is expected.
Is it possible that the voltage being seen was in fact the voltage
being put out by the battery charger as it attempted to recharge the
run down battery, but the amperage being put out by the run down
battery and battery charger together just was not enough current flow
to run the starting vibrator as well as crank the engine?
No, if the engine cranked at some speed you would
EXPECT to start it, then the battery is fine. The
shower-of-sparks system is designed to do two things:
(1) increased intensity of the sparking energy by
offering a repeating train of battery-supported
sparks and (2) DELAYING the delivery of ANY sparks
until just after TDC such that potential for kickback
is eliminated.
If your engine cranks but doesn't start, the battery
is fine and the SOS system is suspect. This article might
be of value in your quest for making all things right
with the world:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
When connecting a ground to the engine - I am wondering if braided bonding
straps and flexible wire (aka welding wire) are equally applicable?
I am also wondering how much slack is appropriate regards length.
For example if I measure 15" from firewall stud to engine stud - how much e
xtra length should used to allow for engine movement?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another battery maintainer/charger question |
Ed,
The little maintainer should be dead silent. I suspect the step down
transformer inside the unit is bad. I would try to return it to the store
for an exchange or send it back to the manuf. They should be good about
replacing it.
The float voltage should be approx. 13.1 to 13.4 volts. There are probably
internal adjustments "if" you can pop the case. However, if the transformer
is faulty/vibrates at 60/120 Hz. then it needs to be swapped with a good
one.
David
_________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Another battery maintainer/charger question
>
> Ed -
> My little Schumacher 1562 1.5-amp charger/maintainer is silent - at least,
> if it makes any noise, I've never noticed it, even in the wee hours with
> the
> house & shop quiet.
>
> Neal
> N8ZG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of edleg
>
> Everything works fairly well except for two troubling things:
> 1. the maintainer/charger is very loud, even in the maintainer mode --
> actually louder than my other two regular 6/2 amp and 10/2 amp battery
> chargers.
> 2. the "float" voltage that is maintained is at 12.96 vdc as measured by
> two
> different digital (fluke brand) volt meters. Seems a little bit low when
> reading the other posts here.
>
> So... Bob and the other electron experts: is there a relatively
> (physically)
> small maintainer/charger that doesn't always sound like a loud battery
> charger (oxymoron???) when in the maintainer mode, and is the float
> voltage
> high enough?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ed-
> NX6ED
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
I am again offering B&B style beds in the classic brick Oshkosh house
that I rent each year for EAA members. The house comes with central air
for those hot or humid nights, newly remodeled kitchen, big screen HDTV
(with video input for your daily shots), fresh towels, cold beer and
toiletry service. I will transport campers each day To/From Airventure
2010. Available from Saturday, July 24th through Sunday, August for
$250 per occupant = nine nights and days.
Send me an email with your phone number and I will promptly call back to
secure your First class accomodations. It is way beyond camping on the
field in a tent or staying in a Dorm at the UW-OSH.
John Cox
johnwcox at pacificnw.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine ground |
At 10:31 AM 7/12/2010, you wrote:
>When connecting a ground to the engine I am
>wondering if braided bonding straps and flexible
>wire (aka welding wire) are equally applicable?
yes
>
>I am also wondering how much slack is appropriate regards length.
enough slack that there is no tension and/or
sharp bends adjacent to end terminals.
>
>For example if I measure 15 from firewall stud
>to engine stud how much extra length should
>used to allow for engine movement?
It isn't the enginge that moves a lot, it's the
nice floppy wire that moves. Add a couple or
three inches and don't ask wire to change directions
sharply next to the ends.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Microair 760 bench test fixture |
I've placed a Microair 760 bench test fixture
up on Ebay as item number 150466479723
This can be used to operate your radio on the
bench out of the airplane . . . or in the airplane
independently of ship's wiring. Handy diagnostic/
test tool for this radio.
If you have an xcom 760 radio, this test fixture
can be easily adapted to operate that radio by re-arranging
some wires in the connector.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter location on rear battery installations |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Bob,
With respect to:
> Small aircraft do not get circuit protection in
> the battery feeders to the starter and distribution
> busses.
Why does the battery feeder to the distribution buss not get protected?
Thanks,
-Tom
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304645#304645
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Deceptive Voltage? |
7/13/2010
Hello Again Bob Nuckolls, Thank you for the prompt response copied below,
but my specific electrical theory question about the battery charger output
voltage possibly masking the battery's output voltage capability was not
answered.
In response to the statement: "...... a separate volt meter while cranking
the engine showed 13 plus volts."
You wrote: "This number appears bogus. A battery is incapable of delivering
energy at more than about 12.5 volts.........."
But what about the battery charger that is connected to the system, turned
on, and providing a higher than normal battery output voltage in its attempt
to recharge the battery while the engine was being cranked and the volt
meter readings were taken?
My electrical theory question is: "Could that battery charger output voltage
be affecting the reading obtained by the separate volt meter and indicate
that the battery is more capable than it really is in putting out amperage?"
Thank you.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: Thank you also for writing and passing on the link to the article about
Shower of Sparks.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
I will pass that along to the RV-10 builder and his helpers.
==========================================================
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Deceptive Voltage?
At 05:36 PM 7/11/2010, you wrote:
7/11/2010
Hello Bob Nuckolls and other Electrical Gurus,
Suppose you ran your battery down by spinning your first time to be
started O-540 Lycoming engine with the starter in order to preoil the
engine in your nearly finished RV-10. And maybe you did some other
things that ran the battery down.
Then you connected your small amperage output battery charger to the
battery and you attempted to start the Shower of Sparks equipped
engine without success. The engine was cranked OK, but the starting
vibrator just was not putting out.
A check of the system voltage in appropriate points with a separate
volt meter while cranking the engine showed 13 plus volts.
This number appears bogus. A battery is incapable
of delivering energy at more than about 12.5 volts
lightly loaded . . . a few amps. Given that most
batteries offer an internal resistance on the order
of .007 to .010 ohms, a 200A starter draw would be
expected to drop the battery terminal voltage by
perhaps 2 volts. So a terminal voltage of 10.5 or
lower is expected.
Is it possible that the voltage being seen was in fact the voltage
being put out by the battery charger as it attempted to recharge the
run down battery, but the amperage being put out by the run down
battery and battery charger together just was not enough current flow
to run the starting vibrator as well as crank the engine?
No, if the engine cranked at some speed you would
EXPECT to start it, then the battery is fine. The
shower-of-sparks system is designed to do two things:
(1) increased intensity of the sparking energy by
offering a repeating train of battery-supported
sparks and (2) DELAYING the delivery of ANY sparks
until just after TDC such that potential for kickback
is eliminated.
If your engine cranks but doesn't start, the battery
is fine and the SOS system is suspect. This article might
be of value in your quest for making all things right
with the world:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Deceptive Voltage? |
OC
The thing is the battery voltage during cranking is the highest possible
voltage in the system during cranking. The charger voltage must be
pulled down to the same value unless you are measuring near the charger
and there is is high resistance between where you are measuring the
voltage and the battery. That would mean you have a second wiring issue.
So Bob really did answer the question. The 13 volt reading is
bogus/wrong/not related to you shower of sparks problem and is
meaningless/impossible unless you have the above mentioned second issue
or a large (100 amp ?) charger. Hope that helps a bit.
The answer to your electrical theory question is "No"
BTW I do enjoy your posts.
Ken
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 7/13/2010
>
> Hello Again Bob Nuckolls, Thank you for the prompt response copied
> below, but my specific electrical theory question about the battery
> charger output voltage possibly masking the battery's output voltage
> capability was not answered.
>
> In response to the statement: "...... a separate volt meter while
> cranking the engine showed 13 plus volts."
>
> You wrote: "This number appears bogus. A battery is incapable of
> delivering energy at more than about 12.5 volts.........."
>
> But what about the battery charger that is connected to the system,
> turned on, and providing a higher than normal battery output voltage in
> its attempt to recharge the battery while the engine was being cranked
> and the volt meter readings were taken?
>
> My electrical theory question is: "Could that battery charger output
> voltage be affecting the reading obtained by the separate volt meter and
> indicate that the battery is more capable than it really is in putting
> out amperage?" Thank you.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
> to gather and understand knowledge."
>
> PS: Thank you also for writing and passing on the link to the article
> about Shower of Sparks.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
>
> I will pass that along to the RV-10 builder and his helpers.
>
> ==========================================================
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Deceptive Voltage?
>
>
>
> At 05:36 PM 7/11/2010, you wrote:
>
> 7/11/2010
>
> Hello Bob Nuckolls and other Electrical Gurus,
>
> Suppose you ran your battery down by spinning your first time to be
> started O-540 Lycoming engine with the starter in order to preoil the
> engine in your nearly finished RV-10. And maybe you did some other
> things that ran the battery down.
>
> Then you connected your small amperage output battery charger to the
> battery and you attempted to start the Shower of Sparks equipped
> engine without success. The engine was cranked OK, but the starting
> vibrator just was not putting out.
>
> A check of the system voltage in appropriate points with a separate
> volt meter while cranking the engine showed 13 plus volts.
>
> This number appears bogus. A battery is incapable
> of delivering energy at more than about 12.5 volts
> lightly loaded . . . a few amps. Given that most
> batteries offer an internal resistance on the order
> of .007 to .010 ohms, a 200A starter draw would be
> expected to drop the battery terminal voltage by
> perhaps 2 volts. So a terminal voltage of 10.5 or
> lower is expected.
>
>
> Is it possible that the voltage being seen was in fact the voltage
> being put out by the battery charger as it attempted to recharge the
> run down battery, but the amperage being put out by the run down
> battery and battery charger together just was not enough current flow
> to run the starting vibrator as well as crank the engine?
>
> No, if the engine cranked at some speed you would
> EXPECT to start it, then the battery is fine. The
> shower-of-sparks system is designed to do two things:
> (1) increased intensity of the sparking energy by
> offering a repeating train of battery-supported
> sparks and (2) DELAYING the delivery of ANY sparks
> until just after TDC such that potential for kickback
> is eliminated.
>
> If your engine cranks but doesn't start, the battery
> is fine and the SOS system is suspect. This article might
> be of value in your quest for making all things right
> with the world:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Deceptive Voltage? |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
> But what about the battery charger that is connected to the system, turned on,
and providing a higher than normal battery output voltage in its attempt to
recharge the battery while the engine was being cranked and the volt meter readings
were taken?
>
> My electrical theory question is: "Could that battery charger output voltage
be affecting the reading obtained by the separate volt meter and indicate that
the battery is more capable than it really is in putting out amperage?"
My apologies, I did miss that one. A battery charger is simply another energy
source. It has characteristics common to all energy sources in terms of potential
power, open circuit voltage, ability to deliver current (internal impedance),
noise, etc. A charge may be considered equivalent to a noisy battery (because
its got artifacts of internal electronics noise and/or rectified ac mains)
with a high internal impedance. The charger can produce no more output current
than its designers provided. Unless the charger is specifically designed for
cranking engines . . . see:
http://tinyurl.com/385snfg
then the effects of an operating charger on system voltage while cranking is insignificant.
It's not unlike paralleling a 60A alternator with an SD-8 alternator.
As long as you don't draw more than 8-10A, and SD-8 with a HIGHER regulation
setpoint might happily assume all the load and boost the voltage high enough
to cause the larger alternator to simply relax.
But as soon as the demand (in this case a cranking motor) exceeds the load carrying
capabilities of the source with the higher setpoint (in this case a charger),
the voltage sags to the point where the battery is willing and able to shoulder
some load . . . in this case, about 12.5 volts or lower. So the short answer
is, unless were talking about a boss-hogg charger that is capable of supporting
engine cranking loads at 13.0 volts (I don't think such a critter exists),
then the cited reading raises some questions as to measurement technique,
quality of the instrument, etc. I would not dispute what the individuals observed
but I will suggest that the reported readings raise more questions than they
answer and beg some explanation that will come from data we do not yet have.
I will suggest that the voltmeter be tested against another instrument believed
to be good. They should agree to within a 0.2 volts or so at 13v. Then connect
the voltmeter right at the battery terminals to watch the battery's ability
to pick up the cranking loads. Do the test with the charger connected, then repeat
with the charger disconnected. I suspect that voltage readings while cranking
under the two conditions will be under 12.5 volts and not significantly different
from each other.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304665#304665
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
At 05:53 AM 7/13/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>With respect to:
>
>
> > Small aircraft do not get circuit protection in
> > the battery feeders to the starter and distribution
> > busses.
>
>
>Why does the battery feeder to the distribution buss not get protected?
Because fat wires in dc electrical systems are
exceedingly hard to burn, hence there is no
value added in attempting to protect them. The
legacy design goals for DC systems in most vehicles
don't call for adding circuit protection to wires
until they become so small compared to the potential
energy sources (1000+ amps from a hard faulted battery)
that wiring protection is called for.
A fat wire in an airplane that's allowed to hat-dance
up to a chunk of airframe will probably burn a hole
in the airframe without opening the upstream
circuit protection. I've seen a 8AWG wire protected with
40A breaker burn an elevator cable in two without so
much as generating bad smells, blinking the lights
or popping a breaker.
Hence design goals and installation that suggest extra
attention to the insulation and support of fat wires combined
with a crew-controlled shut-off right at the battery
i.e. battery contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LV warn light snafu? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I powered up my electrical system for the first time a couple days ago. No smoke.
Yeah! I have a Jabiru 3300 with their provided voltage regulator of some Japanese
make, I believe. The master switch is a sequential on (off, bat, bat +
alt) wired as shown in the attached schematic. I used Bobs Z-16 and Z-21 as the
basis for my system.
>From what I can tell, all but the LV warning light seems to work as I expected.
I wired the green voltage regulator wire to a panel mounted LED like shown in
the Jab manual on page 23 and 24.
At first, I left the two alternator output leads disconnected. When I turned on
the master to the middle 'bat' position, the LV warn LED came on nice and bright.
I figured this was normal, since the alternator is disconnected both by the
master switch and also by the two alt output leads being disconnected. But
when I flipped the master fully up to bat + alt, the light went out. I thought
it would have stayed on, since the alternator output leads are still disconnected.
So I connected the alternator output leads with jumpers, one to the COM terminal
on the alternator disconnect relay and the other to the LTBLU wire of the voltage
regulator. This time, when I turned the master to the first 'bat' position,
there was nothing. No light. Likewise in the 'bat + alt' position. Nada. And
with the master switch in the bat only position, disconnecting either of the
alternator output leads caused the red LED LV warn light to come on again. But
as before, it went out when the master switch is flipped to add the alternator.
I also noticed that when the LED LV warn light was on and then the master switched
off, it took several seconds for the light to fade and eventually go out.
But when the light went by switching the master from 'bat' to 'bat + alt', the
light went out immediately. I know the regulator is connected to a filter capacitor,
so I assume the battery charges up the capacitor when the master is on
'bat' and the charge bleeds out through the LED LV warn light when the battery
is disconnected.
You can download a PDF file I've attached or look at the smaller file inline below.
Most of the stuff is native Adobe, so there's much higher resolution available.
And it's in color! Otherwise, there's no difference.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304692#304692
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_electrical_schematic_643.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_electrical_schematic_112.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 200G wiring with OVR |
| From: | "AVick" <ajvick49(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
We are installing a B&C 200G PM alternator along with B&C's regulator and OVR.
I was planing on copying the layout for the SD-8 in Z-10/8.( just that part since
this is the only alternator for our simple Continental O-200 installation).
The 200G alternator is rated for about 12 amps. Can I stay with the 15 amp
in-line fuse or should I increase it to 20 amps?
I am connecting the in-line fuse at the starter contactor since my battery is
behind the seat and the battery contactor is behind the seat.
Why the differences between Z-13/ 8 and Z-10/8 for the SD-8 wiring?
1) Z-13 has 20AWG fuse link instead of the 15amp in-line fuse at the battery contactor
2) Z-13 has diodes on the S704-1 relay
3) Z13 has resistor across the capacitor
4) Z13 has bridge rectifier (?)and resistor to a LCL off of the alternator. What
is that for? What does LCL stand for?
Should I incorporate these in my installation?
5) Not sure how to tie-in a Low-Voltage indicator light in with either option.
Suggestions
6) I am installing a battery buss( fuse block) next to my main buss (fuse block)
under the panel The feed for the battery buss is a 10 awg wire from the battery
behind the seat to the panel. I was not planing on protecting that wire with
a in-line fuse. Should I?
It will be routed with the + & - fat wires . I would rather keep the two busses
together. Other option would be to put the battery buss behind the seat and than
I would have to run more wires toward the panel for , clock, aux power, cabin
lights etc. but they are all fused .
Thanks for your help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304710#304710
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LV warn light snafu? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, I think I found the problem. There will be an inline fuse between the COM
lead of the alternator disconnect relay and the RDAC for a tach signal. I have
the end into the COM lead just fine, but the other end was touching the firewall,
effectively grounding it. Once I took care of that, the LV light came on
exactly how I expected it to, both in 'bat only' as well as in the 'bat + alt'
positions.
In troubleshooting this, I started checking out numbers with my Fluke 83 VOM. The
wires and switches showed resistances of 0.2 to 0.4. The resistance across
the alt relay coil was 91 ohms. Voltage drops across the 3 reversing diodes were
all a little over 0.5V. There was no continuity across the crowbar OVM.
I should have connected the alternator output leads again before declaring a success.
I'll do that when I get out in the shop again.
And finally, assuming I've got the LV warn light problem fixed, is there anything
I can do to test the electrical system?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304731#304731
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter location on rear battery installations |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Thanks for that Bob. As often is the case, at least with me, the answer to one
question leads to more questions.
> Because fat wires in dc electrical systems are
> exceedingly hard to burn, hence there is no
> value added in attempting to protect them.
When you say "protect them", I'm not sure what you mean. Not knowing any better,
I might want to protect things near the high current path, or the battery itself,
from melting. Your thoughts?
> Hence design goals and installation that suggest extra
> attention to the insulation and support of fat wires combined
> with a crew-controlled shut-off right at the battery
> i.e. battery contactor.
Got it. But again, another question, this time about the wire supplying the main
battery buss, for example in Z-11. This is neither fused, nor does it go through
the contactor. So it isn't shut-off-able. What's the worst case if this
shorts to ground. Will the wire just burn through as if it were a fuseable
link? What if someone used a heavier wire, anticipating a more robust e-bus?
Please pardon my ignorance, and thanks so much for your patience.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304740#304740
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
Bob; this question is similar to what I was asking a few days ago but I'm n
ot =0Asure we were on the same page, probably my fault. For example the Z8
I'm using =0Adoes not show any protection device between the main bus and t
he contactor,-in =0Amy case that is a 7'~8' run from the rear mounted bat
tery to the Instrument =0Apanel where the main bus-is located.- The E b
us is protected-from both ends with =0Afuses in your drawing and I unders
tand why but do not understand why there is no =0Aprotection on the-feede
r to the main bus/fuse block=0AThanks, Tim Andres=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___________
_____________________=0AFrom: tomcostanza <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com>
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, July 14, 2010 3:50:05 A
M=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ANL current limiter location on rear ba
stanza" =0A=0A=0AThanks for that Bob.- As
often is the case, at least with me, the answer to one =0Aquestion leads to
more questions.=0A=0A=0A> Because fat wires in dc electrical systems are
=0A> exceedingly hard to burn, hence there is no =0A> value added in attemp
ting to protect them.=0A=0A=0AWhen you say "protect them", I'm not sure wha
t you mean.- Not knowing any =0Abetter, I might want to protect things ne
ar the high current path, or the =0Abattery itself, from melting.- Your t
houghts?=0A=0A=0A> Hence design goals and installation that suggest extra
=0A> attention to the insulation and support of fat wires combined =0A> wit
h a crew-controlled shut-off right at the battery =0A> i.e. battery contact
or. =0A=0A=0AGot it.- But again, another question, this time about the wi
re supplying the =0Amain battery buss, for example in Z-11.- This is neit
her fused, nor does it go =0Athrough the contactor.- So it isn't shut-off
-able.- What's the worst case if =0Athis shorts to ground.- Will the wi
re just burn through as if it were a fuseable =0Alink?- What if someone u
sed a heavier wire, anticipating a more robust e-bus?=0A=0APlease pardon my
ignorance, and thanks so much for your patience.=0A=0A--------=0AClear Ski
es,=0ATom Costanza=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://f
orums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304740#304740=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter location on rear battery |
installations
At 05:50 AM 7/14/2010, you wrote:
Thanks for that Bob. As often is the case, at least with me, the
answer to one question leads to more questions.
BN: Because fat wires in dc electrical systems are
exceedingly hard to burn, hence there is no
value added in attempting to protect them.
When you say "protect them", I'm not sure what you mean. Not knowing
any better, I might want to protect things near the high current
path, or the battery itself, from melting. Your thoughts?
The idea of adding "protection" to any wire goes
toward risk reduction. Risk of expense for making
easily avoided repairs, risk of experiencing a
hazardous condition. When a wire is strung through
the innards of a type certificated airplane, there's
a standard waltz tune played called "Failure Mode
Effects Analysis" or FMEA for short. This exercise
considers all the potentials for increased risk and
the return on investment for adding "protection" or
risk reduction.
The fat wires in the engine cranking path and major
bus feeders were deduced to first be capable of
very high reliability. Further, when installed with
good materials and practice, they were very low risks
to the airframe even if insulation integrity was lost.
Finally, history has demonstrated that when insulation
integrity of fat wires is lost, it's likely that the
fault condition will be relatively "soft" . . . i.e.
it will arc a lot over time releasing a lot of total
energy . . . but at current levels too low to open
the traditional protective devices. Hence the part
23 rule:
------------
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
------------
It was just such a fault that is believed to have
brought down Swissair Flt 111 by setting some combustible
insulation on fire after some not-designed-for-prime-time-
insulation cracked and precipitated a "soft" arcing event.
Rather than rewire thousands of airplanes with parsecs
of better wire, the Dispensers of Great Wisdom decided
that a new form of breaker was called for. Hence all
our friends at Klixon, Eaton, et. als. rushed off to
the lab to build little microprocessor based digital
signal detectors into the breakers and train them to
"listen" for soft faults.
Now, if you'd like to protect your ship's battery wire
for such events, I'm sure that somebody makes the breaker
for the job . . . but it will be big, heavy, expensive,
and probably run the lifetime of your airplane never
being called upon to trip.
> Hence design goals and installation that suggest extra
> attention to the insulation and support of fat wires combined
> with a crew-controlled shut-off right at the battery
> i.e. battery contactor.
Got it. But again, another question, this time about the wire
supplying the main battery buss, for example in Z-11. This is
neither fused, nor does it go through the contactor. So it isn't
shut-off-able. What's the worst case if this shorts to ground. Will
the wire just burn through as if it were a fuseable link? What if
someone used a heavier wire, anticipating a more robust e-bus?
Check the definition of an E-Bus. Just how "robust"
do you anticipate? See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf
for recommendations concerning e-bus feeders FUSED
at greater than say 10A. In other words, if your e-bus
alternate feed path gets too big, then a crew-controlled,
mini-contactor is called for. The battery bus is another
critter. Since battery busses are located AT the battery,
their feeders are short. See that (*) on the battery
bus feeder wires? So yes, if that wire sees a fault
hard enough to smoke it, the rule 23.1357(a)(2) suggests
no hazard is presented if the wire is short because
smoke-risk is low and the event will be short lived
due to small gage of wire. At the same time, we want
that path to be very robust (low parts count and well
installed) so that reliability is high.
Please pardon my ignorance, and thanks so much for your patience.
TA: Bob; this question is similar to what I was asking a few days ago
but I'm not sure we were on the same page, probably my fault. For
example the Z8 I'm using does not show any protection device between
the main bus and the contactor, in my case that is a 7'~8' run from
the rear mounted battery to the Instrument panel where the main bus
is located. The E bus is protected from both ends with fuses in your
drawing and I understand why but do not understand why there is no
protection on the feeder to the main bus/fuse block
BN: Because that should be a "fat" wire well installed.
This same pathway falls under the FAR23 category cited
above. Legacy design goals have supported the notion
for many decades and hundreds of thousands of airplanes.
You won't find this pathway fuse or breaker protected
in any type certificated SE aircraft on a par with your
grandpa's C-170. The e-bus alternate feed wire is
longer, smaller gage and capable of being fault-powered
from either end. Further, we don't want a fault on the
alternate feed path wire to open both the alternate and
normal feed paths. Hence NO protection in the normal path
and SHORT wires there too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LV warn light snafu? |
>I should have connected the alternator output leads again before
>declaring a success. I'll do that when I get out in the shop again.
Sounds like you've done a righteous job of
chasing the bugs out . . .
>And finally, assuming I've got the LV warn light problem fixed, is
>there anything I can do to test the electrical system?
Sounds like the next step is an engine-run with
the alternator delivering power.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ANL Alternator Fuse Substitution |
Bob
Is it advisable to substitute a MaxiFuse for the ANL
Alternator Fuse? The MaxiFuse can be wired in-line with the
alternator wire such that it's clamped along with the
alternator 8AWG wire as it routes along the engine mount-
versus mounting the ANL fuse holder on the firewall which is
not as desirable. Is it possible to size the MaxiFuse
to provide the same level of nuisance tripping immunity, and
8AWG alternator wire protection, as the ANL fuse
would? I'm using the 40A B&C alternator.
Sam Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL Alternator Fuse Substitution |
At 06:29 PM 7/14/2010, you wrote:
Bob
Is it advisable to substitute a MaxiFuse for the ANL
Alternator Fuse? The MaxiFuse can be wired in-line with the
alternator wire such that it's clamped along with the
alternator 8AWG wire as it routes along the engine mount-
versus mounting the ANL fuse holder on the firewall which is
not as desirable. Is it possible to size the MaxiFuse
to provide the same level of nuisance tripping immunity, and
8AWG alternator wire protection, as the ANL fuse
would? I'm using the 40A B&C alternator.
Absolutely. Of course, the ANL current limiters
are exceedingly robust. One NEVER nuisance trips
a current limiter. However, the lowly fuse like
the MAXI series can be sized to stay in place
on a 40A alternator. You'd want to de-rate about
25% based on the absolute max that a cold alternator
can produce. Let's call it 50A. So the MAX70
would do be optimal. But if that's hard
to find, a 60A or and 80A would be okay too
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell" <lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net> |
I am disappointed that Van's refuses to provide wire lists for RV12
harnesses and the RV12 Control panel connectors. It will make it very
difficult to do maintenance.
Has anybody developed wire lists for the RV12.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LV warn light snafu? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
It was a big relief for sure to figure that out. It'll be at least a few months
before engine startup. My goal is to get it in the air next year. I do have
another electrical question that I'll post on a different thread, though.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304884#304884
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Facet Boost Pump Fuses |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I'm wondering what size fuse to use for my Facet 40104 boost pump. I talked to somebody in their engineering department and he said 3 is recommended. I told him I'd heard of a couple people blowing 3A fuses in a 40105. They replaced it with a 5A and had no further problems. For some reason Facet is stingy with documentation. They list 20 or more pumps and give only their psi and gph ranges individually, then lump them all together and say they draw an average of 1.6A. The 04 I have is the smallest, with the 05 only slightly bigger. http://www.facet-purolator.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=7&id=16&Itemid=31
I asked if putting a 5A in would work. The Facet dude said it probably would work,
but it'd increase the chance of wrecking the coil, but wouldn't get hot enough
to start a fire. I have 15-20' round trip of 20awg wire going to it, so I
know a 5A fuse would protect the wire. I plan on using this as a boost pump for
my mechanical, turning it on before startup, check the pressure, then some
seconds later crank the engine. It would then be turned off at altitude and back
on for landing. The boost pump is near the bottom of the cowl, ~1' below the
mechanical pump. They are in series with no recirculation, so it would be pumping
with no flow until cranking.
The fuses I'm thinking of are the fast ATO/ATC style. I could go with slower 3AG
fuses, if there is a any advantage in doing this. I assume that if the Facet
is pumping against a closed valve a couple feet downstream it would in a few
seconds reach its max current draw. I haven't heard of anyone wrecking their boost
pump, just a few that blew 3A fuses.
I'm waiting for Facet to return my emailed questions. I also could bench test this
pump with my VOM and see what the current draw really is.
Suggestions?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304897#304897
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Z Figure Inconsistencies |
I think the following questions relate to the current string with the
subject: "ANL current limiter location on rear battery Installations."
I think that item number 1. below relates to Bob's answer in the above
string where he comments: "The e-bus alternate feed wire is
longer, smaller gage and capable of being fault-powered
from either end."
And item number 2. below relates to an inconsistency with Bob's answer in
the above string where he comments: "Further, we don't want a fault on the
alternate feed path wire to open both the alternate and
normal feed paths. Hence NO protection in the normal path
and SHORT wires there too."
RESEND - Originally sent on 21 June & 24 June when Bob N. was tied up with
his monster garage sale.
I find some inconsistencies regarding E-Bus feeds and I can't understand the
physics that might drive the decision for these differences. Or are they
just items that need to be updated in the future?
1. The wire from the E-Bus Alternate Feed Switch (or relay) to the
E-Bus:
In most cases this wire connects to the E-Bus directly at the bolt, with no
protection between the E-Bus bolt and the other end. In two cases it is
different. In Z10-8 it connects at the E-Bus through a fuse on the E-Bus.
In Z13-8 it connects to the E-Bus bolt through a Fuselink at the bolt. It
seems to me that this wire will likely be more than 6 inches (especially
when coming from a panel mounted switch). It seems to me that this wire
should be protected at the E-Bus when the E-Bus is hot from the Main Bus
Feed and the E-Bus Alternate Feed is open. However, I don't know which is
the favored method (Fuse or Fuselink).
2. The wire from the Main Bus to the E-Bus main feed Diode:
In all cases except one this wire comes directly from the Main Bus Bolt to
the Diode, with no protection (in most cases it is marked to be less than 6
inches). In the Z19 figures, this wire comes from the Main Bus through a
fuse on the Main Bus and then to the main feed Diode. Is this because it is
assumed that this wire will likely be longer than 6 inches? If the E-Bus
and Main Bus could be close to each other and the Diode could this wire be
as in the other Z figures?
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical Item |
Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
breaker for a mission critical item.
Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell me
on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm not
worried about one more $20 breaker.
Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a situation
of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose. Flaps fix that
problem in that they provide the option of being able to modify the wing
cord such that you can see a bit of the runway during landing. So, all
is well when the flap motor has electrons.
No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no emergency
dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and fly it in.
My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have to
fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that option
with a breaker on the panel?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
While ANL current limiters are currently at the top of this list, thought I'd relate
my experience with the holders of these devices.
If you are considering the inexpensive, clear acrylic torpedo-shape holders, DON'T.
The design uses a screw to pinch the fat wire in the supplied metal wire end/ANL
end. Once the ANL device is in place and your wire ends are clamped down (I
elected to solder mine), you screw the two plastic end pieces to the body and
end up with an enclosed, transparent housing.
Sounds good, looks good, but the wire terminal anti-rotation device failed on both
ends on two units and the ANL fuse broke. These units are OK for the auto
stereo systems they're designed for, but totally inadequate for holding on to
a wire that's being thrashed about by an engine on a dynafocal mount.
I ended up using scrap 1/8" fiberglass lamination and two AN screws/nuts to make
an easy simple, small, light, strong and cheap homegrown replacement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304907#304907
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
wouldn't the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor
CB?
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>
> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
> breaker for a mission critical item.
>
> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell me
> on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm not
> worried about one more $20 breaker.
>
> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a situation
> of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose. Flaps fix that
> problem in that they provide the option of being able to modify the wing
> cord such that you can see a bit of the runway during landing. So, all
> is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>
> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no emergency
> dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and fly it in.
>
> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have to
> fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that option
> with a breaker on the panel?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Glenn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
The plan is as I defined below. Find a long runway. If I have a CB I get
at least one chance to reset. Is it worth one chance?
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
wouldn't the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor
CB?
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>
> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
> breaker for a mission critical item.
>
> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
me
> on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm not
> worried about one more $20 breaker.
>
> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
situation
> of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose. Flaps fix
that
> problem in that they provide the option of being able to modify the
wing
> cord such that you can see a bit of the runway during landing. So, all
> is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>
> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
emergency
> dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and fly it in.
>
> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have to
> fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that option
> with a breaker on the panel?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Glenn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
And further to that =2C how or why would either a fuse or breaker open such
that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker opens t
hen likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the protective d
evice to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to restore flap functi
onality anyway. Protective devices normally only operate for just cause=2C
and if you don't repair the root cause resetting the device accomplishes no
thing other than an additional trip.
Bob McC
> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
> Date: Thu=2C 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Crit
ical Item
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
om>
>
> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
> wouldn't the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor
> CB?
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> Ottawa=2C Canada
>
>
>
> On Thu=2C Jul 15=2C 2010 at 11:14=2C wrote:
> >
> > Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
> > breaker for a mission critical item.
> >
> > Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell me
> > on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm not
> > worried about one more $20 breaker.
> >
> > Problem: My aircraft=2C Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
> > flaps=3B not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a situati
on
> > of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose. Flaps fix tha
t
> > problem in that they provide the option of being able to modify the win
g
> > cord such that you can see a bit of the runway during landing. So=2C al
l
> > is well when the flap motor has electrons.
> >
> > No=2C there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no emergen
cy
> > dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and fly it in.
> >
> > My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have to
> > fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that option
> > with a breaker on the panel?
> >
> > Thanks=2C
> >
> > Glenn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wschertz(at)comcast.net |
http://compulider.com.br/about.php
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
Thanks,
Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were quite
sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
motor?
That makes my decision easy.
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker
opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause resetting
the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
Bob McC
> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> -->
>
> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why wouldn't
> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> Ottawa, Canada
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
> >
> > Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
> > breaker for a mission critical item.
> >
> > Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
> > me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
> > not worried about one more $20 breaker.
> >
> > Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
> > flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
> > situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
> > Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
> > to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
> > during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
> >
> > No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
> > emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
fly it in.
> >
> > My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
> > to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
> > option with a breaker on the panel?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Glenn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
To muddy the waters, I have reset the landing gear breaker on a twin comanche,
which tripped because the wrong lube in the system had gotten cold and stiff,
thus working the motor a bit too hard.
You are the only one who can make the decision.
On Jul 15, 2010, at 14:23, wrote:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were quite
> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
> motor?
>
> That makes my decision easy.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker
> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause resetting
> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>
>
>
> Bob McC
>
>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> -->
>>
>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why wouldn't
>
>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> Ottawa, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>
>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>
>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>
>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>
>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>
>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>
>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>
>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
> fly it in.
>>>
>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
FWIW
Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were quite
> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
> motor?
>
> That makes my decision easy.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker
> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause resetting
> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>
>
> Bob McC
>
>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>> -->
>>
>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why wouldn't
>
>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> Ottawa, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>
>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>
>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>
>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>
>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>
>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>
>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>
>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
> fly it in.
>>>
>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
Thanks All,
Yes, I tend to agree - there must be some value (and a lot of memorable
stories) in being able to reset flaps at least once. Sure, if a problem
exists, or I see smoke - forget it, but for all the reasons mentioned
it's worth $20.
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
FWIW
Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were
quite
> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
> motor?
>
> That makes my decision easy.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or
breaker
> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause
resetting
> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>
>
> Bob McC
>
>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>> -->
>>
>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
wouldn't
>
>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> Ottawa, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>
>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>
>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>
>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>
>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>
>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>
>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>
>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
> fly it in.
>>>
>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
I have chosen to mainly use fuses on my (non-flying) RV10 with a Z-14.
I do have 4 breakers in no particular order:
#1 & #2 for 2 LRC3 regulators
#3 for the autopilot which I consider a quick dis-connect switch
#4 for the flaps
I don't think a no-flap landing in '10 is a big deal but I came up with
the same scenarios (high speed deployment, ice) which 'could' blow the
circuit protection and justify a reset.
My fuses are on two panels in the right seat leg well wall.
I've been flying my Maule for over 10 years and 1300+ hours and never
had a breaker pop. My thinking goes something like, "it probably won't
happen in my lifetime, if it does on a CAVU day, land it and don't risk
a fire, if does happen on a dark and stormy, use the backups to land it
since you have like 3 layers of them"
But I'm not flying it yet
Bill "Polyurethaning" Watson
Durham, NC
ray wrote:
>
> FWIW
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might
> be cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
>
> I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
>> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were quite
>> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
>> motor?
>>
>> That makes my decision easy.
>>
>> Glenn E. Long
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>>
>>
>> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
>> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker
>> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
>> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
>> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
>> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause resetting
>> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>>> Critical Item
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>> -->
>>>
>>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why wouldn't
>>
>>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin Horton
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>>
>>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>>
>>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>>
>>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>>
>>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>>
>>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
>> fly it in.
>>>>
>>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Glenn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
| From: | Franz Fux <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi All,
The one thing to consider is the fact that there is no harm done in landing
with the flaps retracted. Therefore I see very little value in having the
ability to reset the breaker or change the fuse if the flaps don't extend.
Now of course we can look at the scenario where the flaps are extended
already and the breaker or fuse blew during a full extension or when trying
to retract. This would most likely be in a case during a go around in which
case all hands are busy to fly the airplane anyway and the PIC should not
distract himself with other things .
Franz
RV7A-450h
On 15/07/10 12:30 PM, "longg(at)pjm.com" wrote:
>
> Thanks All,
>
> Yes, I tend to agree - there must be some value (and a lot of memorable
> stories) in being able to reset flaps at least once. Sure, if a problem
> exists, or I see smoke - forget it, but for all the reasons mentioned
> it's worth $20.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> FWIW
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
>
> cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
>
> I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
>> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were
> quite
>> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
>> motor?
>>
>> That makes my decision easy.
>>
>> Glenn E. Long
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>>
>>
>> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
>> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or
> breaker
>> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
>> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
>> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
>> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause
> resetting
>> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>>> Critical Item
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>> -->
>>>
>>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
> wouldn't
>>
>>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin Horton
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>>
>>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>>
>>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>>
>>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>>
>>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>>
>>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
>> fly it in.
>>>>
>>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Glenn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Franz Fux
Director of Operations
Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd.
Bell 2 Lodge
P.O. Box 1237
Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6
CANADA
Office Contact
T: (250) 558-7980
F: (250) 558-7981
Lodge Contact
T: (250) 275-4770
F: (250) 275-4912
http://www.bell2lodge.com
---
LAST FRONTIER Heliskiing
www.lastfrontierheli.com
---
And for some of the best Steelhead Fishing in the world at Bell 2 Lodge
www.steelhead-fishing.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
I am also building a Legacy and I feel that there may be a possibility that
the motor could be overloaded - more particularly with the landing gear
which is hydraulic. Here the motor drives a hydraulic pack and I think that
one may get an overload which could be due to a bit of dirt in the fluid or
something like that. One reset may (?) allow this to be cleared and you can
try again. Of course you also have the option, when needing to lower the
gear, of a dump valve that allows the gear to swing free and down.
It seems to me that flap loss in a Legacy can be a big deal so one reset
should be allowed. The guy I am building for is an airline pilot and he
wants to see breakers. After much persuasion I managed to convert him to
the fuse options but threw in a bone with it; flaps and gear could have
breakers.
My philosophy is that if it is possible to overload the circuit, such as
with a motor, then a CB is permissible. If it is a non-varying load, such
as a light, no reset.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Franz Fux
Sent: 15 July 2010 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
Hi All,
The one thing to consider is the fact that there is no harm done in landing
with the flaps retracted. Therefore I see very little value in having the
ability to reset the breaker or change the fuse if the flaps don't extend.
Now of course we can look at the scenario where the flaps are extended
already and the breaker or fuse blew during a full extension or when trying
to retract. This would most likely be in a case during a go around in which
case all hands are busy to fly the airplane anyway and the PIC should not
distract himself with other things .
Franz
RV7A-450h
On 15/07/10 12:30 PM, "longg(at)pjm.com" wrote:
>
> Thanks All,
>
> Yes, I tend to agree - there must be some value (and a lot of memorable
> stories) in being able to reset flaps at least once. Sure, if a problem
> exists, or I see smoke - forget it, but for all the reasons mentioned
> it's worth $20.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ray
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> FWIW
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
> overload resulting in a blown CB?
>
> Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
>
> cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
>
> I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
>> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were
> quite
>> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
>> motor?
>>
>> That makes my decision easy.
>>
>> Glenn E. Long
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
>> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>>
>>
>> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
>> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or
> breaker
>> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
>> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
>> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
>> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause
> resetting
>> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>>> Critical Item
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>> -->
>>>
>>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
> wouldn't
>>
>>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin Horton
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>>
>>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>>
>>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>>
>>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>>
>>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>>
>>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
>> fly it in.
>>>>
>>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Glenn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>> ===========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Franz Fux
Director of Operations
Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd.
Bell 2 Lodge
P.O. Box 1237
Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6
CANADA
Office Contact
T: (250) 558-7980
F: (250) 558-7981
Lodge Contact
T: (250) 275-4770
F: (250) 275-4912
http://www.bell2lodge.com
---
LAST FRONTIER Heliskiing
www.lastfrontierheli.com
---
And for some of the best Steelhead Fishing in the world at Bell 2 Lodge
www.steelhead-fishing.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Boost Pump Fuses |
At 09:36 AM 7/15/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>
>I asked if putting a 5A in would work. The Facet dude said it
>probably would work, but it'd increase the chance of wrecking the
>coil, but wouldn't get hot enough to start a fire.
That is . . . shall we say . . . no . . . I'll be civil.
First, supply fuse (at least in an airplane) is never
intended to protect devices . . . only wiring.
>I have 15-20' round trip of 20awg wire going to it, so I know a 5A
>fuse would protect the wire. I plan on using this as a boost pump
>for my mechanical, turning it on before startup, check the
>pressure, then some seconds later crank the engine. It would then be
>turned off at altitude and back on for landing. The boost pump is
>near the bottom of the cowl, ~1' below the mechanical pump. They are
>in series with no recirculation, so it would be pumping with no flow
>until cranking.
If it's 20AWG, put a 7A fuse in an don't loose
any sleep over it. Having too robust a feeder
protection cannot put anything inside the pump
at risk.
>The fuses I'm thinking of are the fast ATO/ATC style. I could go
>with slower 3AG fuses, if there is a any advantage in doing this. I
>assume that if the Facet is pumping against a closed valve a couple
>feet downstream it would in a few seconds reach its max current
>draw. I haven't heard of anyone wrecking their boost pump, just a
>few that blew 3A fuses.
>
>I'm waiting for Facet to return my emailed questions. I also could
>bench test this pump with my VOM and see what the current draw really is.
We had a thread on this topic some months ago. The
current draw by solenoid pumps is pulsed. I cited
a number of patents that go back to the 50s or earlier.
The first devices had mechanical contacts that pulsed
the coil when the fuel pumping piston approached end
of stroke thus pulling the piston back against a spring
for another stroke. The energy consumption of these
pumps WAS somewhat dependent in fuel flow. You could
hear the stroke-rate go up as flow increased.
Modern pumps are all solid state, no switches and
simply pulse the coil so many times per minute irrespective
of flow rate. If the flow is high, the piston strokes
long in the bore. If the flow is low, the piston barely
moves with each pulsed and tends to stay in the max
compressed end of the stroke.
Trying to get any sort of current measurement on
on of these things by watching a meter is meaningless.
It will be all over the place. A true ENERGY
measurement must be made with some RMS type ammeter
having a very long time constant . . . or a fast
data acquisition system that will secure a sufficiently
verbose data stream to do bit-wise integration of
current values.
I've got that on my list of things to do . . . in fact,
there's a Facet pump on my bench loaned to me by a
generous Lister for that purpose. I tried to get
real engineering data from Facet on several occasions
with no success. I'm doubtful that anyone there
even understood the question.
Nonetheless, the have been building a really slick,
trouble-free product for a very long time. You don't
have to know how it all works to serve great hamburgers,
fries and a shake . . . just follow directions. It's
the ISO way.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
| From: | rgent1224(at)aol.com |
It happens in flight
Can't reset the breaker or replace the fuse
you know this application has but one remedy
install a mechanical AOA and learn how to use it
Always be proficient in no flap landings to a point where it will not be
a big deal to do it. Practice it four or five times a month to maintain
the proficiency
Now chew my a__ for saying this
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Thu, Jul 15, 2010 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Criti
cal Item
FWIW
Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an overload
resulting in a blown CB?
Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an overload
resulting in a blown CB?
Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were quite
> sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a flap
> motor?
>
> That makes my decision easy.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or breaker
> opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed causing the
> protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't going to
> restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices normally only
> operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root cause resetting
> the device accomplishes nothing other than an additional trip.
>
>
>
> Bob McC
>
>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> -->
>>
>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why wouldn't
>
>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> Ottawa, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>
>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>
>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>
>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>
>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>
>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>
>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>
>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
> fly it in.
>>>
>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ============
> ============
> ============
> ============
>>
>>
>>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical Item |
| From: | "khorton" <kevin01(at)kilohotel.com> |
[quote="raymondj(at)frontiernet.n"Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest,
or ????) that might be
cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
[/quote]
Sure, some conditions could be cleared by multiple attempts to reset CBs. If the
CB has popped for a good reason, multiple attempts to reset it could start
an electrical fire (witness the Air Canada DC-9 accident in Cincinatii many years
ago, where multiple CB reset attempts started an in-flight fire which killed
many people). I'd rather do a zero flaps landing than do multiple CB resets
and risk an in-flight fire. If a zero flap landing is more risky than an in-flight
fire, then there is a problem somewhere.
Kevin Horton
--------
Kevin Horton RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305011#305011
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | Facet Boost Pump Fuses |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Facet Boost Pump Fuses
>
> -->
>
> At 09:36 AM 7/15/2010, you wrote:
> >-->
> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >
> >I asked if putting a 5A in would work. The Facet dude said
> it probably
> >would work, but it'd increase the chance of wrecking the coil, but
> >wouldn't get hot enough to start a fire.
>
> That is . . . shall we say . . . no . . . I'll be civil.
> First, supply fuse (at least in an airplane) is never
> intended to protect devices . . . only wiring.
>
>
> >I have 15-20' round trip of 20awg wire going to it, so I
> know a 5A fuse
> >would protect the wire. I plan on using this as a boost pump for my
> >mechanical, turning it on before startup, check the pressure, then
> >some seconds later crank the engine. It would then be turned off at
> >altitude and back on for landing. The boost pump is near the
> bottom of
> >the cowl, ~1' below the mechanical pump. They are in series with no
> >recirculation, so it would be pumping with no flow until cranking.
>
> If it's 20AWG, put a 7A fuse in an don't loose
> any sleep over it. Having too robust a feeder
> protection cannot put anything inside the pump
> at risk.
>
Would this reasoning not lead to running "really" robust feeders/fuses, and
then a fuel pump (or other device) with and internal problem that is
generating a lot of heat (fire/smoke)?
I agree that we're not trying to 'save/protect' the pump, rather trying to
prevent smokeing wires, but a smokeing load can be a big problem, too.
-john-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
>My philosophy is that if it is possible to overload the circuit, such as
>with a motor, then a CB is permissible.
It is POSSIBLE that any circuit in the airplane can
become overloaded. It's also possible that any circuit
in the airplane can become simply inoperable. I would
presume that worrisome things like landing gear have
some means for extension that are not dependent on
power . . .is this not the case in your airplane?
> If it is a non-varying load, such as a light, no reset
????? what's non-varying have to do with it? If its
a system/device that's exceptionally useful in reducing
risk for comfortable termination of flight, then it's
customary to have a plan-B for dealing with the loss
of that system.
If it's "critical", then you better have a back up
for total loss of that system irrespective off
root cause. To limit the failure studies to nuisance
tripping of a breaker leaves a lot of rocks un-turned.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ducati regulator question |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
I am building an RV-12. Because I am registering as E-LSA, I must build it EXACTLY
according to plans using the pre-assembled wiring harness and control board,
essentially a plug and play system. The schematic may be viewed here:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-12/User_Manuals/MM-R1.pdf on page 173 of the 185 page of the Adobe document.
My question concerns the 22awg wire that connects the main bus to the "C" terminal
of the Ducati voltage regulator. First of all, there is no fuse protection
for this 3-foot wire that passes through the firewall. One half of the master
switch is in series with this wire. I thought the "C" terminal was for voltage
sensing. It seems that it is being used as an ON-OFF control for the regulator
on the RV-12. If terminal "C" really is a voltage-sense input, then it
would seem that if the master switch were shut off while the engine was running,
that the regulator would see a low input (0 volts) and put out a higher voltage,
resulting in an over-voltage situation. Another concern is the 22,000f
25vdc capacitor on the control board which is on the cabin side of the firewall.
If the regulator fails and can not be shut off, an over-voltage situation
could smoke the capacitor with no way to shut the power off to it. So here are
my questions:
Does terminal "C" of the Ducati regulator act as an ON-OFF control?
If the regulator fails and allows over-voltage, will opening input to terminal
"C" shut off the regulator output?
Thanks,
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305065#305065
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
I am trying to hook up a Vertex VXA700 handheld as a second Com to my PS Engineering
PSA4000 audio panel.
Here is link to owners manual (1.01MB):
http://www.vertexstandard.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd=DisplayProducts&ProdCatID 4&encProdID=CDA841ED5B9711A5833A60A9115F5EDE&DivisionID=2&isArchived=1
As per manual on page 65 I have a CT-96 headset cable. The problem is I want the
audio panel to allow the Pilot and Co-Pilot PTT to transmit on Com 2 (Vertex)
when I select Com 2.
Does anyone have a schematic how to wire the CT-96 headset cable to accomplish
this task?
I do have as shown on page 65 the external PTT switch.
This is not a simple device that goes in series with the mic jack and pulls PTT
wire to ground. It has two switches that I believe could be replicated with
a relay that has the coil powered and could look for ground through the PTT pin
of Com 2 on the PMA 4000. I think when the external PTT switch/es are pushed,
it disables the handhelds internal mic while connecting to the mic on headset.
Vertex was not of much assistance. They sent over a Service manual and a diagram
of CT-96, which have errors. When I asked another question that would have solved
my issue, Vertex said they don't make the external PTT and couldn't help
me any further.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305075#305075
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical Item |
I've been flying my Lancair Legacy for over three years and 350 hours.
I do not agree with your characterization of a no flap landing in a
Legacy. I wouldn't fly it if I thought it was unsafe to land without
flaps. You're right that you need a higher landing speed and a longer
runway, but at least where I fly, there are a dozen suitable runways
within my normal fuel reserve. The last time I did a no flap landing,
for practice, was on a 6,000' runway at sea level and I don't think I
used more than half the runway. But it is something that needs to be
practiced because you're right that it's much easier with flaps than
without.
There are plenty of single points of failure in the flap system and the
fuse or circuit breaker is only one of them. I'd recommend a
comfortable Plan B if any of them caused a flap system failure.
By the way, I have a 7 amp ATO/ATC fuse protecting my wing flap circuit.
During construction, I installed a 5 amp fuse based on measurements of
the flap motor's current draw. However, once I started flying, I found
that I could sometimes blow the fuse if I instantly reversed the flap
direction. For example, let's say I'm on the ground running the before
takeoff checklist and lowering the flaps to 10 degrees. I overshoot a
little and immediately move the flap lever to the up position to get
back to 10 degrees. That immediate reversal of flap movement sometimes
blew the 5 amp fuse. I replaced it with a 7 amp fuse and have not had a
problem since; about three years and over 300 hours.
Another poster expressed concern about circuit protection for the
landing gear. That's near the bottom of my worries, because the backup
gear extension system relies on gravity and proper installation and
lubrication of the landing gear system. I practice the alternate
landing gear extension from time to time and perhaps that's why I'm so
comfortable with it. My hydraulic pump is protected by a 40 amp ANL
current limiter, which I don't believe the pump could possibly blow,
absent some failure that would disable the system anyway.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | Ducati regulator question |
begin SPECULATION
While it may have a "sense" function, it is probably the power source for
the internal electronics.
Without the source, the internal electronics won't startup, and the
regulator will remain dormant.
end SPECULATION
This configuration, with a motorcycle regulator, was used on the early
Jabiru engines and in that application powering the regulator without having
the engine running would burn out the regulator and the alternator.
-john-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of user9253
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:31 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ducati regulator question
>
> -->
>
> I am building an RV-12. Because I am registering as E-LSA, I
> must build it EXACTLY according to plans using the
> pre-assembled wiring harness and control board, essentially a
> plug and play system. The schematic may be viewed here:
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-12/User_Manuals/M
> M-R1.pdf on page 173 of the 185 page of the Adobe document.
> My question concerns the 22awg wire that connects the main
> bus to the "C" terminal of the Ducati voltage regulator.
> First of all, there is no fuse protection for this 3-foot
> wire that passes through the firewall. One half of the
> master switch is in series with this wire. I thought the "C"
> terminal was for voltage sensing. It seems that it is being
> used as an ON-OFF control for the regulator on the RV-12. If
> terminal "C" really is a voltage-sense input, then it would
> seem that if the master switch were shut off while the engine
> was running, that the regulator would see a low input (0
> volts) and put out a higher voltage, resulting in an
> over-voltage situation. Another concern is the 22,000f
> 25vdc capacitor on the control board which is on the cabin
> side of the firewall. If the regulator fails and can not be
> shut off, an over-voltage situation could smoke the capacitor
> with no way to shut the power off to it. So here are my questions:
> Does terminal "C" of the Ducati regulator act as an ON-OFF control?
> If the regulator fails and allows over-voltage, will opening
> input to terminal "C" shut off the regulator output?
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305065#305065
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Facet Boost Pump Fuses |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
Nice to get some background on how the pump works.
Facet told me in an email 5A would be fine, I see from Table 11-3 of AC43.13-1B
a 5A fuse would work, and you say 7A is peachy. So I'm happy and will think no
more about this issue.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305105#305105
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dc_wire_and_circuit_protector_chart_784.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Ducati regulator question |
At 01:35 PM 7/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>begin SPECULATION
>While it may have a "sense" function, it is probably the power source for
>the internal electronics.
>Without the source, the internal electronics won't startup, and the
>regulator will remain dormant.
>end SPECULATION
Seems reasonable. Here's a schematic someone sent me of
what was believed to be at least one version of a Ducati
PM alternator rectifier/regulators. It's typical of
many other diagrams I've seen:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/regul_912.jpg
The "C" lead is indeed a voltage sense lead. Further,
it powers the regulation + SCR control circuits.
>This configuration, with a motorcycle regulator, was used on the early
>Jabiru engines and in that application powering the regulator without
having
>the engine running would burn out the regulator and the alternator.
>
While this lead exercises ON/OFF control of the R/R, it's
not in a position to do serious harm if left powered
while the engine is not running. It's worst risk is
that over a long period of time, it might run a battery
down with what amounts to perhaps tens of milliamps
of steady current draw.
> > I am building an RV-12. Because I am registering as E-LSA, I
> > must build it EXACTLY according to plans using the
> > pre-assembled wiring harness and control board, essentially a
> > plug and play system. The schematic may be viewed here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/2d4b9j8
> > on page 173 of the 185 page of the Adobe document.
> > My question concerns the 22awg wire that connects the main
> > bus to the "C" terminal of the Ducati voltage regulator.
> > First of all, there is no fuse protection for this 3-foot
> > wire that passes through the firewall.
Yes . . . this is not in agreement with legacy esign
goals for aircraft . . .
> > One half of the
> > master switch is in series with this wire. I thought the "C"
> > terminal was for voltage sensing. It seems that it is being
> > used as an ON-OFF control for the regulator on the RV-12. If
> > terminal "C" really is a voltage-sense input, then it would
> > seem that if the master switch were shut off while the engine
> > was running, that the regulator would see a low input (0
> > volts) and put out a higher voltage, resulting in an
> > over-voltage situation.
You'd be correct if this were not ALSO a power supply
wire for the R/R . . .
> Another concern is the 22,000=C2=B5f
> > 25vdc capacitor on the control board which is on the cabin
> > side of the firewall. If the regulator fails and can not be
> > shut off, an over-voltage situation could smoke the capacitor
> > with no way to shut the power off to it.
Also correct . . .
> > here are my questions:
> > Does terminal "C" of the Ducati regulator act as an ON-OFF control?
Yes
> > If the regulator fails and allows over-voltage, will opening
> > input to terminal "C" shut off the regulator output?
Very probably. Further, given that the output capability
for the Rotax (and all PM) alternator is relatively low,
the voltage is not going to climb precipitously . . .
If you had an ACTIVE NOTIFICATION of high voltage, this
would probably suffice to offer timely crew notification.
Alternatively, you could add active OV protection like that
illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
I would further suggest, active notification of low voltage
is a good thing too.
Finally, a 3A fuse in series with the "C" lead would be in
conformity with legacy design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Boost Pump Fuses |
> If it's 20AWG, put a 7A fuse in an don't loose
> any sleep over it. Having too robust a feeder
> protection cannot put anything inside the pump
> at risk.
>
Would this reasoning not lead to running "really" robust feeders/fuses, and
then a fuel pump (or other device) with and internal problem that is
generating a lot of heat (fire/smoke)?
I agree that we're not trying to 'save/protect' the pump, rather trying to
prevent smoking wires, but a smoking load can be a big problem, too.
Most devices we use in our airplanes are considered
not flight worthy if they exhibit any failure mode that
becomes a hazard source for combustion . . . emitting
smoke is frowned upon too. The "really robust" feeders
was more rhetorical than anything else . . . after all,
with a fuse block, one has the option of selecting the
optimal fuse for each application . . . and easily
changing it if later circumstances suggest it's a
good idea. Specifically, with the FACET being a low
energy device totally enclosed in a metal box. The
risks are nil . . .
Emacs!
Although I seem to recall that G. Richter suggested
that the entire airplane could be configured with an
array of one-size-fits-all, self-resetting PTC polyswitches
soldered to a nifty etched circuit board product he
offered. But when it's so easy to achieve the elegant
solution, why not do it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical Noise Prevention |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I'm finishing up my electrical wiring and am wondering about noise. I'm not sure
what types there are, nor do I know all the sources. I have heard the alternator
and the transmitting radio can cause problems. Also heard that anything with
a pulsing signal could also be a source.
I have a 3 or 4 100-150 Mhz ferrite RF suppressors from MGL http://www.mglavionics.com/EMI_suppressor_for_VHF_frequencies.pdf. It sounds like MGL recommends putting them on any output from the radio, but not the antenna.
I've heard that twisting the feeder line to the noise maker with it's ground coming
back from the device (or having the wires next to each other) will help cancel
out EMF generated noise.
My schematic is posted in another thread: http://www.matronics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72713. The two alternator leads are about 1' long and are wrapped together until one separates to go to the regulator and the other to the alt disconnect relay, which is right next to the regulator. The regulator output wire goes ~6" to a 10k micro (10 mili?) F 50V filter capacitor.
I forgot to label the left and right mag wires, which are dangling out the bottom
center of the pic. The engine instruments will be 6 cht's, 6 egt's, fuel pressure
sender, fuel flow sensor, OT, OP, carb temp, and tach. All these will plug
into the RDAC above the battery. A shielded data cable goes from there back
to the EFIS.
All the wires go through the firewall in either of two firewall penetations, then
join together going to the right side, then back to the instrument panel and
into a wire wrap along a light channel 'tray' along the bottom of the instrument
panel. The pic shows the panel rotated 90 degrees in the open position.
Most of the wires hanging loose are grounds. They'll be bundled together in the
final installation, and if needed, close to the panel feed wires already wrapped.
Besides the mag wires (which are shielded), the only wire with pusling would
be the boost pump. The radio (which may be a handheld) and strobe/nav/pos
lights are not in. I know strobes are notorious noise makers. I have the shielded
cable installed already in the wings.
How does this look to you? Thanks again for taking your time helping me :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305153#305153
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cabin_wiring_labeled_836.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/firewall_electrical_components_labeled_828.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator question |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Bob & John,
Thanks for replying. You answered my questions. Now I have a better understanding
of the Ducati regulator.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305164#305164
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
At 11:20 PM 7/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I'm finishing up my electrical wiring and am wondering about noise.
>I'm not sure what types there are, nor do I know all the sources. I
>have heard the alternator and the transmitting radio can cause
>problems. Also heard that anything with a pulsing signal could also
>be a source.
>How does this look to you? Thanks again for taking your time helping me :-)
Suppliers of product to the TC aircraft world
are encouraged if not commanded to worship
at that altars of the gods of blissful
system integration. Catechisms for these
orders are documented in RTCA DO-160,
Mil-Std-810, Mil-Std-704 just to name the
most prevalent.
By the time the system integrator is tasked
with finding a place to bolt it in and wire
it up to make it work, 99.99% of concerns
for unhappy experience are already addressed.
Even when the hardware has not been admitted
to the social A-List for the aviation community,
the risks for noise issues are relatively low.
A single point ground for all the instrument
panel mounted goodies and paying attention
to the manufacturer's installation instructions
goes a long way to crafting a noise free future.
Ferrite beads are found useful only when the
original designer of a potential noise
antagonist/victim didn't do their homework.
To assume that they would be useful before you've
identified a real noise issue is probably not
a good use of time . . . Fly the airplane
first . . . the ferrites can probably
be willed to the neighbor kid as slingshot
ammo.
Bob . . .
>--------
>Dan
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305153#305153
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/cabin_wiring_labeled_836.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/firewall_electrical_components_labeled_828.jpg
>
>
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>07/17/10 01:35:00
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305278#305278
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
At 11:20 PM 7/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>How does this look to you? Thanks again for taking your time helping me :-)
>
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/cabin_wiring_labeled_836.jpg
In this picture you show a "main bus" . . . what is this?
Normally, the main bus is a contiguous connection by means
of unbroken bar or strip to the power feed side of an array
of breakers or fuses. I.e., this component is already in existence
inside a fuse block . . . or is fabricated and configured
like the bus bars in this photo:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_1.jpg
You also show a panel ground that appears to be on
the side of the fuselage. Is this a floating tie point
for the collection of all ground wires off the panel mounted
accessories? In the various z-figures, I suggest a gathering
of the grounds on what's called a "panel" or "avionics ground
bus". This is intended to offer a single point ground for a fist full
of wires and centrally located to the serviced accessories
(on the panel itself). Further, it is NOT grounded to the
panel structure . . . but serves as a handy way to extend
lots of grounds to the fire wall ground in fewer wires. For
a panel ground, you'd need something like:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
and wired like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
where I show 5 strands of 20AWG running from the panel ground
to the fire wall ground. This provides redundant, low resistance
connection (roughly 2 mOhms/Ft equal to 13AWG) between the
two busses. The 5 strands and panel ground provides a much
handier way to deal with grounds on the panel mounted
accessories.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> In this picture you show a "main bus" . . . what is this?
This is a fuse block fed by a 10awg line from the battery contactor. I had incorrectly
called it a 'bus'. Now I know better.
> You also show a panel ground that appears to be on
> the side of the fuselage. Is this a floating tie point
> for the collection of all ground wires off the panel mounted
> accessories?
The panel ground is made of a section of 'forest of tabs'. I took one 48 tab forest
and cut it into 3 pieces. One is on the hot side of the firewall and is connected
to another section on the cool side via a 5/16" SS bolt. I forget the
exact numbers, but when I measured the resistance of the SS, it was only slightly
higher than brass. I chose SS because of its higher melting point.
A 10awg ground goes from the inside firewall ground to another section of tab forest
for the panel ground. The panel ground is on the outside (lower side) of
the cover to the main fuse block a few inches from the side of the fuselage.
The cover will be piano hinged to the underside of the glareshield. In the pics,
the glareshield is removed, so I've used a bent piece of metal to put the blocks
in about the same position.
Next step is to wrap all the wires together in a spiral wrap starting from where
teh bundle enters the tray on the right side of the fuselage. Feeders and grounds
will branch off where shown.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305327#305327
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ground_blocks_951.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | To balun or not to balun, that IS the question |
>
>Comments/Questions: I'm installing new VOR antenna and cable and
>have a balun question. I see and have studied the balun on your
>page,
>http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html.
>
>However the connection arrangement for the old cable arrangement is
>the same as in in AC 43.13-2B, Pg 29
>http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2043.13-2B.pdf
>. It shows the center conductor NOT attached to an antenna pole.
>
>I plan to use a Garmin SL30 radio. Which balun connection is
>best? (and hopefully why?!) I haven't been able to find anything
>to support either arrangement, so maybe they're functionally equivalent???
There are a variety of ways to fabricate a balun
and some are preferred depending on the impedance
matching task (1:1 vs 4:1). The balun shown in 43-13
is one way to do it but I selected the device I published
because it was easier to build.
One has to be cautious of 43-13 data. For example,
on pages 28 and 29 they make references to "airframe
ground" . . . on p28, they suggest 4 connections to
the airframe.
From a radio frequency performance these grounds are
not necessary/helpful. On a type certificated airplane
one is not allowed to placard the airplane thusly:
WARNING: THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT QUALIFIED TO
WITHSTAND DIRECT LIGHTNING STRIKES OF ANY
MAGNITUDE. FLIGHT INTO OR IN VICINITY OF
CONVECTIVE WEATHER OFFERS SUBSTANTIAL RISK
OF HAZARD FROM LIGHTNING AND OTHER UGLY
FORCES. ONE IS STRONGLY ADVISED TO REDUCE
RISK BY MAINTAINING COMFORTABLE SPACING FROM
SUCH CONDITIONS.
So, the dedicated acolyte to all things FAR will
feel compelled to add "airframe grounds" to things
that stick out in the breeze on plastic airplanes.
This is irrespective of the fact that at least
couple dozen paragraphs describing "Lightning Quality
Grounds" is necessary to assist the reader in crafting
effective connections for such purposes.
In any case, either balun is a 1:1 line impedance
transformer so it's your choice. Don't worry about
the "airframe ground" . . . unless you enjoy
the excitement of Mother Nature's roller coaster
rides.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical Noise Prevention |
Hi Bob and thanks for the help.
I am trying to understand your comment re: grounds below. Why is the 5X20
AWG better than a single large wire? And why separate panel and avionics
grounds? In my case I had planned either a DB 25 or forest of tabs approach
on the front of the (glass) panel with all local ground needs tied in there,
then a suitable ground run back to the battery. With a rear mounted battery
do you then recommend the 5X20AWG run all the way to the back?
For reference I am building an all electric COZY.
Thanks, Tim Andres
I suggest a gathering
of the grounds on what's called a "panel" or "avionics ground
bus". This is intended to offer a single point ground for a fist full
of wires and centrally located to the serviced accessories
(on the panel itself). Further, it is NOT grounded to the
panel structure . . . but serves as a handy way to extend
lots of grounds to the fire wall ground in fewer wires. For
a panel ground, you'd need something like:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
and wired like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf
where I show 5 strands of 20AWG running from the panel ground
to the fire wall ground. This provides redundant, low resistance
connection (roughly 2 mOhms/Ft equal to 13AWG) between the
two busses. The 5 strands and panel ground provides a much
handier way to deal with grounds on the panel mounted
accessories.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I have discovered the PWM Dimmer I have will not work on at least some of my
Garmin equipment. Instead I think I will just use the built in sensing
circuits that is available for this purpose. The equipment in question is
the GNS 430W, GTX 327, PSA 5000EX and Icom A210. Along with GRT HS displays.
I have read elsewhere that the Garmin stuff is fine using the auto dimming,
Anyone have experience with this for or against this decision?
Thanks, Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> 5 strands of 20AWG running from the panel ground
> to the fire wall ground.
Good question, Tim.
I had missed that point. I have a single 10awg wire going from my panel ground
to the firewall, not 5 smaller ones. I used 10awg for my main feeder, so chose
the same size for the ground.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305427#305427
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
....just a quick note on personal experience. In the past 50 years or
so, I
(my aircraft) have been struck three times ' thrice too much.
The first was in Vampire fighter on descent to landing at about 20,000
feet
in dense cloud.
Fortunately I was head-down when the light erupted. There was an
instantaneous =92bang=92 followed by a howl which dropped in audio
frequency
when I abruptly reduced power to slow. On the ground, a service panel
had
been blown off ( fuselage was molded wood construction).
Time two was DC-9 enroute the south over S Carolina, in cloud at
31,000..
Bolt of lightning came almost horizontal from passing within about five
miles of a thunderhead (on radar). I saw it out of corner of my eye
coming
in from F/O=92s window. Big bang, no hole found, but followed by cabin
crew
who must know what happened, thus setting off the passengers.
Time three was on final at Heathrow, when unforecasted Cb struck left
side
at rudder pedal level. No system fault found but a neat =BD=94
buttonhole-style
blown through the alu skin. L-1011s are tough.
As a slow learner I determined never to pass within 15 miles of a
thunderhead, except 25 miles when at the freezing level and never had
another attack.
FWIW.
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Electrical Noise Prevention |
At 08:25 PM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob and thanks for the help.
>I am trying to understand your comment re: grounds below. Why is the 5X20
>AWG better than a single large wire?
Single wire is single point of failure . . . although
it can also be argued that 5 parallel paths offers the
POTENTIAL for an undetected, latent failure. Further,
at higher frequencies, multiple parallel strands are
lower impedance connection than a single strand (or
one thin, wide strap would be good too). The most
compelling reason was to offer a high probability
for installation success . . . the D-sub connector
accepts 20AWG wires. Going with a single, larger
conductor leaves it up to the installer to fabricate
the joint between the ground wire and the avionics
ground bus.
The short answer is "no single reason . . . but
several significant reasons". But those reasons
are rooted in the features of a D-sub based
ground bus. Other configurations change the
selection of ingredients that go into YOUR
recipe for success.
>And why separate panel and avionics grounds?
Sorry about the vague vernacular. For the purposes
of this discussion, let's use Figure Z15, View B
and move the battery from the nose back to the
rear spar and ground it to the firewall ground
stud. An avionics ground is on the panel sheet
and intended to bring small power/signal wires
to a common ground. The "panel" ground is captive
to the airplane and would take care of grounding
airframe accessories not generally associated with
music, bells, lights and pointers.
> In my case I had planned either a DB 25 or forest of tabs approach
>on the front of the (glass) panel with all local ground needs tied in there,
>then a suitable ground run back to the battery. With a rear mounted battery
>do you then recommend the 5X20AWG run all the way to the back?
The 5x20 configuration presumes a tractor airplane with a forest-of-tabs
on one or both sides of firewall.
>For reference I am building an all electric COZY.
Okay, where are your panel equipment power distribution
busses located? How about doing a sketch on where the
power and ground busses are located along with a list
of loads on each bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
At 08:45 AM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
>
>
> > 5 strands of 20AWG running from the panel ground
> > to the fire wall ground.
>
>
>Good question, Tim.
>
>I had missed that point. I have a single 10awg wire going from my
>panel ground to the firewall, not 5 smaller ones. I used 10awg for
>my main feeder, so chose the same size for the ground.
Since you're not using a d-sub avionics ground, leave
the 10AWG in place.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Redundant Power switching |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
If I bring separate bus power legs to a DPST to feed a single load, is the current
shared (i.e. halved) on the two poles/switches?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305471#305471
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Accessible breaker for Mission Critical |
Item
AOA's are great and I agree with the need. They should be careful
calibrated and even then while helpful, don't bet the bank on them.
Per my original email if you fly a Lancair there is no such thing as a
proficient no flaps landing. It's simply risky. Certainly it can be done
in an emergency. Take whatever precaution you need to ensure the flaps
are working or as I indicated earlier, find a long runway.
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rgent1224(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
It happens in flight
Can't reset the breaker or replace the fuse you know this application
has but one remedy install a mechanical AOA and learn how to use it
Always be proficient in no flap landings to a point where it will not be
a big deal to do it. Practice it four or five times a month to maintain
the proficiency Now chew my a__ for saying this Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Thu, Jul 15, 2010 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
Critical Item
FWIW
Could attempting to deploy flaps at too high a speed result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could attempting to deploy flaps with an ice buildup result in an
overload resulting in a blown CB?
Could there be any other conditions (bird's nest, or ????) that might be
cleared during flight or by multiple attempts to deploy flaps?
I'm in favor of a resettable CB.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
On 07/15/2010 01:23 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ok, so we're all in agreement that either resetting a breaker or
> replacing a fuse on flaps in flight is completely futile? And were
> quite sure no one in history has recovered from a popped breaker on a
> flap motor?
>
> That makes my decision easy.
>
> Glenn E. Long
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
> Critical Item
>
>
> And further to that , how or why would either a fuse or breaker open
> such that resetting would get the flaps working. If the fuse or
> breaker opens then likely the flap motor or its wiring has failed
> causing the protective device to operate and therefore resetting isn't
> going to restore flap functionality anyway. Protective devices
> normally only operate for just cause, and if you don't repair the root
> cause resetting the device accomplishes nothing other than an
additional trip.
>
>
>
> Bob McC
>
>> From: khorton01(at)rogers.com
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:23:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Accessible breaker for Mission
>> Critical Item
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> -->
>>
>> What is your plan to deal with failure of the flap motor? Why
>> wouldn't
>
>> the same plan be appropriate to deal with an open flap motor CB?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> Ottawa, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:14, wrote:
>>>
>>> Goal: to determine if there is added value in being able to reset a
>>> breaker for a mission critical item.
>>>
>>> Assumptions: I have plenty of fuse busses in my airplane (don't sell
>
>>> me on the fuse vs. breaker crap) and only a couple of breakers. I'm
>>> not worried about one more $20 breaker.
>>>
>>> Problem: My aircraft, Lancair Legacy is not designed to land without
>
>>> flaps; not even just for fun. If you do you put yourself in a
>>> situation of a high speed landing with no visibility over the nose.
>>> Flaps fix that problem in that they provide the option of being able
>
>>> to modify the wing cord such that you can see a bit of the runway
>>> during landing. So, all is well when the flap motor has electrons.
>>>
>>> No, there is no Piper J bar on a Legacy. Electric only and no
>>> emergency dump option. The only option is to find a long runway and
> fly it in.
>>>
>>> My question: Am I at negative odds using a fuse which I might have
>>> to fish for if my flaps go out during flight or do I replace that
>>> option with a breaker on the panel?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
>>
>>
>>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
====================================
====================================
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical Noise Prevention |
Thanks Bob! That makes sense especially when using the D sub.
In my case the fuse blocks will probably be under the Right seat, about a
30" run up to the avionics and various switches. I'm looking into using a
swing down panel to hold the fuse blocks under the panel, but it looks
complicated. There will be 5 breakers in the panel as well. The ground bus
will be in front of the panel in an undetermined location but close to the
avionics stack.
I'm still working on the drawing and will post it soon.
>For reference I am building an all electric COZY.
Okay, where are your panel equipment power distribution
busses located? How about doing a sketch on where the
power and ground busses are located along with a list
of loads on each bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Power switching |
Shared, yes. Halved, not likely. How much of the load each pole of the
switch provides depends on the resistance in each leg. Furthermore, if
you are trying to get by with a switch that is not rated per pole for
your total load you will be overloading it. It is very unlikely that
both poles will switch simultaneously so there will be momentary full
loads on one of the poles. Depending on how many times you plan to
operate the switch and what the load is you may have a problem.
If you are doing it with a properly rated switch to provide a redundant
source of power, you have just created a single point of failure - the
switch.
My $0.02.
Dick Tasker
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> If I bring separate bus power legs to a DPST to feed a single load, is the current
shared (i.e. halved) on the two poles/switches?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305471#305471
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Power switching |
| From: | joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
Either leg of the switch has the ampacity of the overcurrent protection
device rating available, when either or the sum of both legs reach that
value, the overcurrent device will trip.
It is still the sum of the total load
that will trip the breaker, not how you divide it downstream of the
overcurrent protection.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> If I bring separate bus power legs to a DPST to feed a single load, is the
> current shared (i.e. halved) on the two poles/switches?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305471#305471
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Power switching |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Dick and Joe, thanks for your input.
Dick, I will have two switches. The plan is to use the DPST to switch legs of 6-7A
and 2A. One switch is a Honeywell AML 34, rated at 125v/15a @ 60% power factor.
The back-up is a Honeywell AML 31, 125v/10a @ 60% In a similar chart for
another switch, Honeywell specifies "Resistive", along with % power factor so
I'm assuming that the %power factor is for inductive loads. The 6-7 A load is
for electronic fuel injectors which I believe are solenoids and hence, inductive
loads.
Joe, I didn't quite follow how the loads on the switch legs are additive. Each
pole/switch is separate from the other in the switch and are fed from fuses on
separate buses.
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305605#305605
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I would appreciate anyone's comments on my electrical schematic.
I'm unsure about the placement of the over voltage module for the Ground Power
jack. I used a single post continuous duty contactor which I had and it necessitated
some changes in Bob's Z-31 drawing.
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305607#305607
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_155.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
For some reason I can only see page two of the PDF - cutting off some
portion to the left of the main battery bus on your schematic. Page one
is blank.
Dick Tasker
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> I would appreciate anyone's comments on my electrical schematic.
> I'm unsure about the placement of the over voltage module for the Ground Power
jack. I used a single post continuous duty contactor which I had and it necessitated
some changes in Bob's Z-31 drawing.
>
> Thanks
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305607#305607
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_155.pdf
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
I'm having trouble getting a reading from Klaus's Plasma III box (RPM
pulse) to my Dynon. Either Klaus or Dynon is telling me fish stories.
I'm looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15 connector
and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me to test values
passing through DB15 the connector.
This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
If they do exist, what are they called?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I know what happened. I'll put it up again.
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305615#305615
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
How about a jumper cable where you crimp two wires to each pin. Then you
could take the extra wires out to a test plug.
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: longg(at)pjm.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a do-hicky thingy
I'm having trouble getting a reading from Klaus's Plasma III box (RPM
pulse) to my Dynon. Either Klaus or Dynon is telling me fish stories.
I'm looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15
connector and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me to
test values passing through DB15 the connector.
This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
If they do exist, what are they called?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
The fancy version, for those with more $$$ than time
http://www.breakoutboxes.com/
At 11:46 7/20/2010, you wrote:
>I'm looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15
>connector and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me
>to test values passing through DB15 the connector.
>
> This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
>
> Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
>
> If they do exist, what are they called?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corrected Electrical Schematic for Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
The complete schematic is on page 1.
Disregard page 2.
There's some glitch in my TurboCad v. 11 that makes a truncated page 2 when saving
files as .pdf
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305620#305620
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_186.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
On 7/20/2010 1:46 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> Im having trouble getting a reading from Klauss Plasma III box (RPM
> pulse) to my Dynon. Either Klaus or Dynon is telling me fish stories.
>
> Im looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15
> connector and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me to
> test values passing through DB15 the connector.
>
> This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
>
> Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
>
> If they do exist, what are they called?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Glenn
>
Google 'inline db15 breakout connector'.
1st one I hit on was:
http://www.winfordeng.com/products/brk15mf.php
If you do a bit more digging (try Black Box), you can probably find one
that is just 3 dB connectors back to back to side, allowing insertion
in-line with existing cables/chassis and giving you probe access on the
3rd connector
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
Thanks Ron,
Yeah, that's a pain 'cause Klaus has those wires shrunk in there tighter
than you know what...
Today I learned something from one of our subscribers. It's called a
Break Out Box.
http://device-connect.com/product/hdbreakout/hdbreakout.php
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Raby
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a do-hicky thingy
How about a jumper cable where you crimp two wires to each pin. Then you
could take the extra wires out to a test plug.
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: longg(at)pjm.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a do-hicky thingy
I'm having trouble getting a reading from Klaus's Plasma III box (RPM
pulse) to my Dynon. Either Klaus or Dynon is telling me fish stories.
I'm looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15
connector and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me to
test values passing through DB15 the connector.
This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
If they do exist, what are they called?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
http://www.winfordeng.com/products/brk15mf.php
http://www.bipom.com/products/us/3376564.html (which seems to be the
same as above)
These used to be readily available for troubleshooting RS232 cables but
I cannot seem to find any but those above.
As someone else mentioned, you can make your own with either solder or
crimp DB15 connectors by just including a second wire connected to each
DB15 interconnect wire.
Dick Tasker
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble getting a reading from Klaus's Plasma III box (RPM
> pulse) to my Dynon. Either Klaus or Dynon is telling me fish stories.
>
> I'm looking for a gadget that fits as a pass through to a DB15
> connector and has stubs or leads off the side so it would allow me to
> test values passing through DB15 the connector.
>
> This sounds reasonable but I have no idea if such things exist?
>
> Any ideas on where I might find something like this?
>
> If they do exist, what are they called?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Glenn
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Hamer" <s.hamer(at)verizon.net> |
test
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
OK
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hamer
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test
test
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Noise Prevention |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> Since you're not using a d-sub avionics ground, leave
> the 10AWG in place.
>
Goodie!
Another person told me they'd expect noise if the P-leads are in the same bundle
to the panel. That's how I've got them. But I don't have any audio system hooked
up yet. Those wires would cross the P-leads or at a right angle.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305689#305689
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for a do-hicky thingy |
At 02:33 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Ron,
>
>Yeah, that's a pain 'cause Klaus has those wires shrunk in there tighter
>than you know what...
>
>Today I learned something from one of our subscribers. It's called a
>Break Out Box.
Yeah, I've got a fist full of those that have proven
handy in my business for over 50 years. When you're
working with low current D-sub signals, here's a little
trick . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Quck_n_Dirty_Breakout.jpg
A piece of ribbon cable and some munch-on connectors
can be assemble in a variety of useful combinations.
A M-F patch cable of appropriate length can be
'enhanced' with a female connector either between the
ends . . . or on a "flying tail". Last time I built
one of these was to look at some signals on a black-box
buried about 3' away from anyplace I could get access
to in flight.
I took a 4' piece of ribbon cable and munched the
M-F pair on one end about 4" apart. On the other
end, I put a female connector to serve as an array
of tiny "pin jacks" where ir proved easy to eavesdrop
on what was happening at the other end of the cable.
If I were in better shape for being unpacked and sorted
out, I could send you the break-out adapter shown in
the picture. If you can't get ribbon cable and connectors
locally, a friend of mine in Wichita could assemble one
for you from inventory (Lloyd's Electronics) and mail
it to you. The whole thing goes together in about 5 minutes
for about five dollars.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
The crowbar over-voltage module needs to be in parallel with contactor coil, not
in series as drawn. The way that it is now and in the event of an over-voltage
condition, even if the module shorts out, the circuit breaker will not trip
because the contactor coil will limit the current. Another way to look at is,
if the over-voltage module is replaced with a solid piece of wire, the contactor
will still function and the circuit breaker will not trip.
Also, the diode needs to be in series with the contactor coil to prevent reverse
polarity damage from the ground power. See Bob's drawing Z-31B.
Joe
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z31K.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305725#305725
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Power switching |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> If I bring separate bus power legs to a DPST to feed a single load, is the current
shared (i.e. halved) on the two poles/switches?
The simple answer to your question is, no, not necessarily.
I agree with the other posts above. The problem is that it is not clear exactly
how the circuit is wired and what is trying to be accomplished. If you can
post an electrical drawing of your circuit, it will be helpful. Do not be too
concerned about switch ratings as long as they are in the ballpark. If a switch
handles 10 percent more current than its rating, that does not mean that it
will be destroyed. Its life will be shortened but that might not matter. Supposing
that the life of a switch is rated at 10,000 cycles and due to higher
than rated current, it only lasts for 5,000 cycles. It will still last as long
as the airplane. Now I am not saying that switch ratings should be ignored.
But a switch will not blow up if slightly overloaded. I would use a switch
with the proper rating if available.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305742#305742
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | 9024 Development status |
The ECB layout has been checked against the
schematic and we'll order proof-of-concept boards
tonight.
The package of choice turned out to be a 15-pin,
d-sub connector shell. The board assembly solders
right to the pins of the connector and the shell
snaps over the assembly.
Emacs!
The draft software description is done. My software
guy says he can comb it out for me over the next few
days.
Depending on parts selection and installed
software, this particular design can become perhaps
a dozen different products. First release of the 9024
will offer a quad function device. The user will select
the desired function with jumpers in the mating
connector. This allows the owner/operator to stock
one spare device for up to four different applications
on the airplane
This one will be fun to put together. It's got up to
25 components soldered to two sides of a .8" x 1.1"
board!
Progress is happening . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corrected Electrical Schematic for Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
After review by a group member, he pointed out that my alt#2 B lead was always
hot because it was connected to the upstream side of the battery contactor. As
it 's a relatively long fat wire, he suggested a separate contactor for it.
As I was figuring where to install it, I thought that the ground power contactor
is doing nothing most of its life and could serve as the #2 alt B lead contactor
as well.
I'd be grateful if any of you could take a look at the attached to see if I'm neglecting
something.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305867#305867
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_w_40a_contactor_126.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
If the feed wire from the main batt bus to the relay is protected by the 10a fuse,
why is it marked " * " ?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305869#305869
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-32 Question |
At 08:17 PM 7/21/2010, you wrote:
>
>If the feed wire from the main batt bus to the relay is protected by
>the 10a fuse, why is it marked " * " ?
>
Because the 10A (or larger) fuse exceeds the legacy
rule-of-thumb for protection size of long, always
hot feeders. Hence the alternate feed source "mini-
contactor" and a short feeder between that contactor
and the battery bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrected Electrical Schematic for Review |
At 08:14 PM 7/21/2010, you wrote:
>
>After review by a group member, he pointed out that my alt#2 B lead
>was always hot because it was connected to the upstream side of the
>battery contactor. As it 's a relatively long fat wire, he suggested
>a separate contactor for it.
>
>As I was figuring where to install it, I thought that the ground
>power contactor is doing nothing most of its life and could serve as
>the #2 alt B lead contactor as well.
>
>I'd be grateful if any of you could take a look at the attached to
>see if I'm neglecting something.
You could do that but the contactor needs to be a 4-terminal
device wired with three diodes like a cross-feed contactor
in Z-14. The way you have it wired now, the contactor may
not be assured a power source for closing it if the alternator
doesn't self-excite. Better that coil power is assured with
the appropriate array of diodes.
Also, you need to fix the ov protection on this contactor
per remarks offered earlier.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-32 Question |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob,
OK, got it.
But now that begs the question of why there is a fusible link between the Ebus
and Alt Feed Switch in Z-13/8 and not one in Z-32 between the contactor and Ebus?
Also, would you comment on my attached schematic (disregard pg 2)? In particular
your thoughts on using the GP contactor as a contactor for Alt # 2.
Is there a prohibition of having both alternators online simultaneously?
Thank you,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305962#305962
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_w_40a_contactor_111.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-32 Question |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob,
I missed your response to "Corrected Electrical Schematic" so disregard that part
of my last post on this subject.
Thanks,
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305963#305963
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Redundant Power switching |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Joe G,
My question was rendered moot by going with two DPST switches, one leg of which
powers the EFI ECU and the other, the Injectors, per Dick Tasker's suggestion
to eliminate the single point of failure.
I was being kind of myopic wondering if a DPST providing dual power sources to
a single load would see 1/2 the load on each leg.
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305968#305968
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
user9253 wrote:
> ...
> Also, the diode needs to be in series with the contactor coil to prevent reverse
polarity damage from the ground power. See Bob's drawing Z-31B.
> Joe
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z31K.pdf
Joe,
I'm doing a separate post of my schematic revisions, titled ...RevA, B, etc.
Made the correction re the OVM.
Re Diodes
Because I'm using a continuous duty contactor with one 8-32 coil post, as drawn,
I asked about placement and orientation. Bob N responded
" The banded end of the diode connects to the
"BAT" terminal of the contactor which in turn
faces incoming power from the ground power
connector."
I thought that my schematic complied with Bob's suggestion???
Is the second diode on the wire to the switch breaker superfluous once the contactor
diode is oriented/located properly?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305977#305977
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corrected Electrical Schematic for Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 08:14 PM 7/21/2010, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> You could do that but the contactor needs to be a 4-terminal
> device wired with three diodes like a cross-feed contactor
> in Z-14. The way you have it wired now, the contactor may
> not be assured a power source for closing it if the alternator
> doesn't self-excite. Better that coil power is assured with
> the appropriate array of diodes.
>
> Also, you need to fix the ov protection on this contactor
> per remarks offered earlier.
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Got the OVM where it's supposed to go. See post "Electrical Schematic for Review,
Rev.A"
I'm not sure what you mean by "self excite". The Ebus Alt Feed Switch provides
power to the field. If the alternator starts outputting voltage, doesn't the B
lead provide power to the coil of the contactor, closing it?. And if the alternator
isn't making any power, does it matter if the contactor closes or not??
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305981#305981
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical System Schematic Review Rev A |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Most current revision
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305982#305982
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_w_40a_contactor_reva_110.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Is the second diode on the wire to the switch breaker superfluous once the contactor
diode is oriented/located properly?
John,
Your GROUND POWER / ALT 2 contactor circuit is looking good now. As for the
diode, the one below the contactor going to the GND PWR 2 amp breaker, it is wired
correctly and will protect against reverse polarity from an exterior battery.
The other diode on the right side of the contactor does not serve any useful
purpose that I can see. It does not hurt anything, except that it is an unnecessary
failure point. If this diode was intended as a coil arc suppression diode,
it is connected to the wrong contactor terminal. It should have been connected
where the O.V. module is now. Not to worry about that, just get rid of
that unnecessary diode because the O.V. module guards against voltage spikes.
I agree that as long as the battery is not dead and the E-BUS ALT FEED switch
is turned on, then the AUX Alternator should work and energize the contactor
coil.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305994#305994
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Joe, thanks.
The correction is on Rev. B that I'll post this morning.
I have one other question and then I think I've got this knocked.
>From the Ebus alt feed contactor to the Ebus, there is a fusible link called for.
My Ebus is fused at 30a at the battery bus and will run at about 20-24 amps
and I'm using an 8AWG wire to keep temps down so the fuse link would be a 12AWG.
I think that I will put a 40a at the batt bus for the 8AWG protection and
to give some head room for the Ebus. Would it be a better design to use a 30a
ANL current limiter in place of the 12AWG Fuselink?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306095#306095
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
At 11:29 AM 7/23/2010, you wrote:
>
>Joe, thanks.
>
>The correction is on Rev. B that I'll post this morning.
>
>I have one other question and then I think I've got this knocked.
>
> >From the Ebus alt feed contactor to the Ebus, there is a fusible
> link called for. My Ebus is fused at 30a at the battery bus and
> will run at about 20-24 amps and I'm using an 8AWG wire to keep
> temps down so the fuse link would be a 12AWG. I think that I will
> put a 40a at the batt bus for the 8AWG protection and to give some
> head room for the Ebus. Would it be a better design to use a 30a
> ANL current limiter in place of the 12AWG Fuselink?
I thing the concept for an E-bus has run off
into the weeds. The original idea for
the e-bus was to craft a plan-b that offered
an option for a system that would take you
comfortably to airport of intended destination . . .
battery only. When vacuum pumps started dropping
like flies, we reasoned that e-bus loads could
take a jump by supplementing a battery with
an 8A engine driven power source. Even then,
sizing of continuous operating loads during
an alternator failure event was still LIMITED.
A modicum of planning was necessary to craft the
optimal plan-b.
Your aux alternator is large enough to run
all normal operating loads of 99% of all OBAM
aircraft flying. Hence, the notion of segmenting
electrical loads into "normal" and "endurance"
camps for the purpose optimizing battery-only
operations is curious.
With a 40A aux alternator one is inclined
to run a battery until it croaks . . .
If you're not running a battery maintenance
program designed to maintain some required reserve
capacity, then the whole idea of an e-bus is moot.
Further, the notion of battery-only operations
for a electrically dependent engine under the best
of conditions is a scenario most system designers
would rather not contemplate.
I'll suggest you stand back and review the
big picture. Consider something like Figure
Z-12 and no e-bus. This is how hundreds of
TC aircraft are configured to integrate robust
alternators into the electrical system.
Before you get deeply distracted with
the details of what fuse or diode goes
where, you need to Work through anticipated
failure modes and see first how ARCHITECTURE
mitigates those failures. Keep in mind that
crafting a preventative maintenance plan
unique to your needs marches hand-in-hand
with architecture and sizing of hardware.
I think you'll find that a Z-12 basis for
your proposed system is simpler, easier to
operate, and better suited to an airplane
with an electrically dependent engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Would it be a better design to use a 30a ANL current limiter in place of the
12AWG Fuselink?
Short answer is no.
The long answer is that I agree with Bob that the electrical system is much more
heavy duty than most airplanes. If you are sure that you need this redundancy
for IFR over hostile terrain or whatever, then this is what I would do. Get
rid of the fuse at the battery bus and mount the E-Bus relay as close to the
battery as possible and use a 14awg wire (fuselink) between the battery bus and
the relay. Put a 30amp ANL at the relay in series with 10awg to the E-bus.
I am not saying that this is the right way to do it, just the way that I would
do it. Your way will work too. Keep in mind that it will difficult to blow
a 40amp ANL fuse or even a 30 amp for that matter. Use double insulation where
the wire passes though the firewall or bulkheads and take care with the installation
and a fuse will never blow, nor will there be smoke. I am heading
for OSH.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306116#306116
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob and Joe,
OK, I got kind of buried in the details and my goal became to build an absolutely
bullet- proof redundant electrical system rather than one that is practical
for my purposes. Also at work was a lack of confidence in my understanding of
electrical theory and principle and a visceral notion that electricity is a
mysterious, unpredictable serpent , so to compensate for that and to gain a level
of comfort, I chose to just overbuild its cage.
After both of your responses and re-reading the purpose of Ebus, I see that somewhere
along the development of my system, I came to view the Main bus as something
that might fail and misconceived the Ebus as a back up. After discussion
offline with a Glasair III builder (using Z-12) and Bobs suggestion to stand
back and review the big picture I can now reason that the MB has switches and
fuses for every circuit and that my apprehension that, despite proper construction,
it could crash altogether is simply unsupportable.
With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly appropriate for my needs and I
will eliminate the Ebus altogether, per Bobs suggestion. The one feature of my
drawn architecture that deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing on the
battery side of the MB contactor. I perceive that this will allow me to use
the Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and eliminate the MB contactor as
a single point of failure in the charging circuit. I seem to remember Bob recommending
a mechanical lock out of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1??
Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306153#306153
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_w_sb_alt_contactor_208.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
At 01:37 PM 7/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob and Joe,
>
>OK, I got kind of buried in the details and my
>goal became to build an absolutely bullet- proof
>redundant electrical system rather than one that is practical for my purposes.
I hope you don't feel that this has been a "wasted" exercise.
The elegant solution is like a fine wine. Not only are the
choices of simple-ideas large and varied, the time that it
takes to hypothesize, assemble and consider the results doesn't
happen like magic. In fact, one must be wary of new designs
offered by anyone in any discipline until that caution is
displaced by understanding.
I'm going into production on the 9024 series devices after
perhaps a year of mulling over the options . . . and I've
been doing this for a long time. The B&C starter was over
6 years in development. I can probably recall many more
examples of how the roots of many products run deep in
man-years of preparation.
>With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly
>appropriate for my needs and I will eliminate
>the Ebus altogether, per Bobs suggestion. The
>one feature of my drawn architecture that
>deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing
>on the battery side of the MB contactor. I
>perceive that this will allow me to use the
>Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and
>eliminate the MB contactor as a single point of
>failure in the charging circuit. I seem to
>remember Bob recommending a mechanical lock out
>of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1??
Not sure where that might have come from. Note that Z-12
as published is illustrative and demonstrative of a minimalist
approach to adding robust aux alternators to a TC aircraft. Note
that unlike the rest of the z-figures, Z-12 shows breakers on
the bus as opposed to fuse blocks. A Z-12 for new design where
crowbar ov protection is proposed might lean toward fuse blocks
but take both B-leads to fat wires under the cowl through
current limiters. Of course, the field supply leads still need
breakers . . . run a 20 pair of 18AWG feeders protected with
22AWG fusible links to their respective alternator control switches.
This might be a Z11-1/2 where you simply add a second alternator
that needs only one more switch (field supply) on the panel.
Eliminate the e-bus. Run ALL electrically dependent engine
loads from the battery bus.
In further "stirring of simple-ideas" I note that another
feature of the e-bus is a plan-b for dealing with a
battery contactor failure. These are rare and can
probably become still more rare if fitted with
power a management module to reduce operating temperature.
Even so, we could consider tying your aux alternator b-lead
to the battery side of the contactor with a Schottky diode
to isolate the always-hot, fat wire between battery and
alternator. In this case, you'd also need to power the
aux alternator field from the battery bus. This variant
would cover the failed-contactor scenario.
Let me ponder this some more. Take a whack at implementing
this using your current CAD skills. By the way, good work
with the CAD drawings.
I'm pretty certain that we're boiling the options down
toward the essence of an elegant solution. The
40A aux alternator offers a Z-12 like architecture
that accommodates more demanding engine support
loads.
Bob . . .
>Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306153#306153
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_w_sb_alt_contactor_208.pdf
>
>
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>- Release Date: 07/24/10 01:36:00
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Low Voltage Warning Light |
Bob,
I am using an LR3 voltage regulator and a B&C 60 A alternator. Is it
acceptable to change out the supplied warning light for a red 12 volt led?
It would be in my direct line of sight so I do not think the lack of
blinking would be an issue. That is if the blinking is a function of the
light and not the regulator. Please let me know if there would be problems
with using an led and if it would blink. TIA Don VS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | New Engine Monitor on eBay |
Morning, Everyone...
Last night I listed my never used or even powered up, still in
the original packing, engine monitor (EMS) for sale on eBay. I'm
replacing it because a friend sold me a unit that has the EMS AND
the EFIS combined instead of just the EMS as this IK Technology
unit has.
This was for my Lycoming O_235, but will work for any 4 cylinder
engine.
This AIM-1 model is now selling for $1499. I have no minimum and
no reserve (well, I guess the minimum is the current bid! ),
so someone is going to get a real deal!
For ALL the details and several pictures, just search eBay for
the item number 350375561835 , or search eBay for IK Tech (so
far, mine is the only item listed with that name).
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil <philwhite9(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
Jon: Your solutions appear similar to my system, and the Schematic is beautiful!
I see there are many Notes referred to on the schematic. Are the notes available?
(I'm still under construction, and don't have your documentation skills.)
Phil
RV10 w/Mazda 20B electrically dependent engine installed
________________________________________________________
Bob and Joe,
"snip"
With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly appropriate for my needs and I
will eliminate the Ebus altogether, per Bobs suggestion. The one feature of my
drawn architecture that deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing on the
battery side of the MB contactor. I perceive that this will allow me to use
the Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and eliminate the MB contactor as
a single point of failure in the charging circuit. I seem to remember Bob recommending
a mechanical lock out of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1??
Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Warning Light |
At 10:11 PM 7/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I am using an LR3 voltage regulator and a B&C 60 A alternator. Is it
>acceptable to change out the supplied warning light for a red 12 volt led?
Yes, but the circuitry in the LR3 was designed
to drive incandescent bulbs. You'll need to
add some resistors to the LED circuit such that
the LED mimics the bulb. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LR3_LV_Led_1.jpg
>It would be in my direct line of sight so I do not think the lack of
>blinking would be an issue. That is if the blinking is a function of the
>light and not the regulator. Please let me know if there would be problems
>with using an led and if it would blink/
The flasher is built into the LR3.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
At 06:23 AM 7/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>Jon: Your solutions appear similar to my system, and the
>Schematic is beautiful! I see there are many Notes referred to on
>the schematic. Are the notes available? (I'm still under
>construction, and don't have your documentation skills.)
>
>Phil
Jon was willing and able to exploit the CAD drawings
published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/
and repeated as ordinary .pdf drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
I might remind List members who were referred to
the AeroElectric-List from other associations that
there is an AeroElectric website at
http://aeroelectric.com/
with some 500 Megabytes of articles, photos,
and drawings including a complete compilation
of sample system architectures extracted from
the back of the book . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Schematic Review |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
[/quote]
I hope you don't feel that this has been a "wasted" exercise.
Not at all. In the course of building my plane, I have spent hours, weeks, years
even, in developing ideas that ended up in the trash. But they are just the
steps that I had to take to get to where I am.
>
> ....
> A Z-12 for new design where
> crowbar ov protection is proposed might lean toward fuse blocks
> but take both B-leads to fat wires under the cowl through
> current limiters. Of course, the field supply leads still need
> breakers . . . run a 20 pair of 18AWG feeders protected with
> 22AWG fusible links to their respective alternator control switches.
>
> Done in my schematic
>
> This might be a Z11-1/2 where you simply add a second alternator
> that needs only one more switch (field supply) on the panel.
> Eliminate the e-bus. Run ALL electrically dependent engine
> loads from the battery bus.
>
> Knee jerk reaction is the all-eggs-in-one-basket apprehension. Granted the failure
modes of the battery/bus seem awfully remote, but what harm is there in
having an essential engine complement on the main bus so that it can run from
a self-excited alternator with the Main contactor open?
>
> In further "stirring of simple-ideas" I note that another
> feature of the e-bus is a plan-b for dealing with a
> battery contactor failure. These are rare and can
> probably become still more rare if fitted with
> power a management module to reduce operating temperature.
> Even so, we could consider tying your aux alternator b-lead
> to the battery side of the contactor with a Schottky diode
> to isolate the always-hot, fat wire between battery and
> alternator. In this case, you'd also need to power the
> aux alternator field from the battery bus. This variant
> would cover the failed-contactor scenario.
>
> In my system this seems like a moot exercise because of the redundant SB Alt/GP
contactor. But for a system that isn't installing a GPJ, the Schottky variant
on the B lead is a nice solution.
>
> Let me ponder this some more. Take a whack at implementing
> this using your current CAD skills. By the way, good work
> with the CAD drawings.
>
> Thanks and here's a " Z11.5" Draft
>
> I'm pretty certain that we're boiling the options down
> toward the essence of an elegant solution. The
> 40A aux alternator offers a Z-12 like architecture
> that accommodates more demanding engine support
> loads.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
> > Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306153#306153
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_w_sb_alt_contactor_208.pdf
June 27, 2010 - July 25, 2010
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jp