AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jr
August 20, 2010 - September 03, 2010
own personal contacts in the FSDO, or you may be able to find a FAAST te
am rep who can go to bat for you with the FSDO. Wearing both Tech Counsel
or and FAAST hats I can talk to my FAAST FAA rep, who has an office in th
e local FSDO, but works for the regional FSDO. He has the experience and
contacts on the inside to at least get answers, and if they aren't satisf
actory, then you can bring in the big guns. But it often does work to sol
ve things at the lowest possible level, before people get their heels dug
in defending their position. Especially when a colleague can gently say
to the inspector, you know that memo was rescinded last year, maybe while
you were on vacation. That way everyone saves face.
>> Kelly
>>
>>
>> On 8/19/2010 7:29 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas
>>>
>>> Let me offer an alternative view. I just recently had my project cer
tificated, working through the Van Nuys FSDO. The folks in the Van Nuys
office held up my certification for months, having pulled out of the arch
ives a memo restricting flights of experimentals from my home airport. T
he memo had long since been cancelled, but when I applied for my certific
ation through my DAR, they simply responded with a "No." They did not of
fer any alternatives, just ,"No". They actually told my DAR that I could
appeal the decision, but the chances for a different outcome was nil. I
had to engage the National EAA for help, and two months later, the FSDO
finally relented.
>>>
>>> Further, the FSDO refused to issue a repairman certificate until I ha
d completed my 40 hour flight test period, for which they had no authorit
y at all.
>>>
>>> My experience indicates that the FSDO is not your friend. Your milea
ge may vary.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
At 05:19 AM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>If the higher resolution is still unacceptable, let me know and I
>can e-mail you an even higher resolution photo.
>Ron Parigoris
I can get what I need from the photos.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Searching for Mr. GoodTool |
>I want to order replacement tips for the Amp 91285-1 tool but am
>confused on the ones to order. I believe I should order the YELLOW,
>RED and BROWN tips for normal density 20AWG machined (crimped) D-Sub pins.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/AMP_Tyco/91285-1_Extraction_Tool.pdf
It's less expensive to order the whole new tool
which DigiKey offers for $12.15 See:
http://tinyurl.com/2cy6sky
Unless you're ordering LOTS of replacement
blades for a production effort, you'll find that
single quantities of the three blades costs you
about 3x more than the whole new tool.
>What is the POSTED tip (BLUE and BLACK tip)?
Is for the wire-wrap/ECB-SolderIn type pins
illustrated in figures 5 and 6 of the instructions
for use of the tool.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OT starting build |
>
>By the way, my airworthiness inspector was so clueless that I had to
>point him to the FAA website for the correct wording for the oplims
>and pretty much had to write them myself for their approval.
I could tell you story about my experience with
a FSDO in NJ while trying to assist a Twin Comanche
owner install a Z-14 architecture while making the
airplane about 40 pounds lighter.
Then there's the saga Alaskan L-40 Fiasco
of some years back . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/Alaskan_L-40_Fiasco/
I've observed no signs that things are getting
any better. Over 40+ years observation
of FAA transactions in the TC aircraft world,
the expense of getting a repair, a product
improvement or a new idea to market becomes more
costly every year.
If the practices of 1980, 1990, or 2000
were demonstrated to be higher risk ("Go forth
young man and make aviation SAFER"), then perhaps
growth of the certification mountain would
be understandable and justified. But out of
tens of thousands of devices of my design
produced by my employers over the last 40
years, I'll bet not one has failed in a manner
that caused loss of an airframe or life. Further,
had today's cert standards been applied to those
products, its a sure bet that the numbers of such
devices still in service would be no greater
than it has proven to be without such standards.
Such are the virtues of failure tolerant design.
I further observe that folks in charge of making
decisions on behalf the FAA are increasingly ignorant
of the technology, processes and hazard assessment
over which they preside.
Present trends plotted into the future do
not bode well when experience and common sense
are replaced by policy and procedure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio Panel hookup |
| From: | "aadamson" <adamson_alan(at)hotmail.com> |
I've seen this referenced on one other forum, but no responses, so I figured I'd
try it here.
I've got an SL30 and SL40 that I'm trying to wire to a PSE 8000/9000 type audio
panel.
The radio's each have the following
Mic
Mic lo
Phone
Phone lo
tx key
The audio panel however only has
Mic
Phone
Com lo
tx key
Basically there is only one ground or lo for the radio on each at the audio panel.
So do you use it to connect both the mic lo *and* the phone lo?
Secondly, if connecting multiple unswitched outputs that all have their own output
adjustment levels, do you still need to connect a 100ohm, 1/2w resistor in
series with their output at the audio panel?
Thanks in advance,
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309557#309557
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane Power IR Alternator Implementation in Z-13/8 |
At 10:27 AM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
I'm thinking about using one of these as the belt driven alternator in Z-13/8:
http://www.plane-power.com/AL12-EI60.htm
It's their experimental, internally regulated alternator that also
comes with built in crowbar over voltage protection. I'm not sure
that I have a full understanding of the OV protection and control
issues of IR alternators and how they pertain to this unit.
I have 3 primary questions- one for the AEC and two for Plane Power,
though I welcome any insight about all three from the AEC readers.
So first, is it correct to say that Z24, Z24A, and the associated
text on page Z-5 apply to IR alternators as they come off of the auto
parts shelf, and not really to this unit?
Correct . . . The P-P devices are not off-the-shelf
automotive.
Based on their conceptual wiring picture here:
http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI60%20Installation.pdf
Primary Question 1: How would I make the wiring connections in Z13/8
with this unit? Should their field enable lead go to the 2-3 DC
Power Master Switch with the 5A crowbar in the same place as Z13/8
depicts it? Also, what about that other optional alternator off lead
(see 3 below)?
I think I understand that the battery dump issue (described at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf)
is a problem in Z13/8 because we would like to occasionally
(preflight, first flight of the day, etc?) turn the primary
alternator and master off, and turn the ebus alternate feed on to
test those associated switching systems. Is that correct?
No. "Battery Dump" is defined as the sudden reduction
of heavy alternator loads wherein the major portion
of that load included battery recharge current and
it's the BATTERY that's being disconnected. There
are no operational procedures that call for such
a "test". Further, the way the Z-figures are drawn,
such a test could not be conducted for the battery
is always disconnected AFTER the alternator is shut down.
Primary Question 2: Will it do any physical damage to anything to
turn off the 2-3 DC Power Master Switch while the engine is running
(assuming that I need to)?
It has been a legacy design goal for all TC aircraft
to configure the system such that an alternator (or
generator) may be turned on or off at any time under
any conditions without hazard to other components
in the system. An alternator that is controlled
by breaking the field lead without breaking the
b-lead MEETS this design goal. So, no . . . the P-P
alternator may be turned on or off at anytime without
concern for hazard to any compoent.
Primary Question 3: Does opening their Alternator Field Enable Switch
fully shut down the alternator field?
Yes
If the crowbar protection circuit pops that 5A CB, I should hope that
opening that switch
"switch"??? Do you mean "breaker"? Yes, opening that
breaker offers a quiet, orderly and benign disabling
of the alternator.
. . . would completely shut down the alternator field too. If so,
then what does that other "optional alternator off" lead do?
That's not a control, it's an indicator light which
has some limited ability to annunciate alternator failure
and has been used in cars for decades. However, active
notification of low voltage by an independent sensing
system is the legacy approach to watching for and
announcing alternator failure.
Would I need to hook it up at all, and/or would I need to still
hook it up with a switch in the line? Is there a failure mode in the
other circuit that would require me to turn off a switch in the
second line to shut the alternator off?
You can drop the P-P product directly into any
of the z-figures by simply eliminating any illustrated
external regulators and/or crowbar ov protection
modules.
I was going to call plane power to ask them a few of these questions
but I need to make sure that I know what to ask about. Thanks in advance.
I've discussed Plane-Power design philosophy with
them at length. It's a certainty that their answers
will be along the same lines as that which I've offered
above.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
At 11:58 PM 8/19/2010, you wrote:
That particular Terminal Feed Through Connector is only rated 250A
@48VDC. You would probably be better served purchasing the 400A
@48VDC version from Blue Sea Systems.
http://bluesea.com/products/2206
They also carry both Black and Red and they are identical to the ones
on Ebay except in a larger amperage rating and slightly larger
physical size. I wouldn't be surprised if they were cheaper from Blue
Sky either. $11/each seems kinda pricey to me.
Emacs!
But are price, voltage and current ratings the only
features of concern? You're going to poke a substantial
hole in a "firewall" that's ostensibly configured
to keep products of a fuel-fed fire out of the cockpit.
Then you propose to plug that hole with some form of
plastic.
Here's a trip to the assembly line of one manufacturer
that has spent several decades of time, talent and
resources developing techniques for bringing stuff
through the fire wall but without compromising
fire wall integrity.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
I'll further quote from AC43-13 which is one of
many documents where we are admonished to be aware
of the flame retarding characteristics of devices
that penetrate the firewall:
11-232. TYPES OF CONNECTORS.
Connectors must be identified by an original
identification number derived from MIL
Specification (MS) or OAM specification.
Figure 11-35 provides some examples of MS
connector types. Several different types are
shown in figures 11-36 and 11-37.
a. Environmental Classes. Environment-
resistant connectors are used in applications
where they will probably be subjected to
fluids, vibration, thermal, mechanical shock,
corrosive elements, etc. Firewall class connectors
incorporating these same features
should, in addition, be able to prevent the
penetration of the fire through the aircraft
firewall connector opening and continue to
function without failure for a specified period
of time when exposed to fire.
So unless you're changing the name of of
your firewall to "engine compartment aft
bulkhead", I'll suggest there is value in
attending to maintenance of firewall
integrity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio Panel hookup |
| From: | "aadamson" <adamson_alan(at)hotmail.com> |
Answered my first question and for those that might need to know.
Yes, on the radios to audio panel, you connect the to "lo"'s together and then
to the phone low on the audio panel.
As for the unswitched audio's.... I'm still checking on that one.
Alan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309562#309562
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Leyden" <jndleyden(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
Ooops!
You are absolutely correct. I misread what he was asking for and
thought he
meant the aft bulkhead and not the engine firewall. But, before I would
discount the use of the connectors that had been previously mentioned I
would still contact the manufacturer and inquire as to the
serviceability of
that particular connector. You might find that it actually fits the
bill
perfectly.
Jim
_____
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, August 20, 2010 3:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations
At 11:58 PM 8/19/2010, you wrote:
That particular Terminal Feed Through Connector is only rated 250A
@48VDC.
You would probably be better served purchasing the 400A @48VDC version
from
Blue Sea Systems.
http://bluesea.com/products/2206
They also carry both Black and Red and they are identical to the ones on
Ebay except in a larger amperage rating and slightly larger physical
size. I
wouldn=12t be surprised if they were cheaper from Blue Sky either.
$11/each
seems kinda pricey to me.
Emacs!
But are price, voltage and current ratings the only
features of concern? You're going to poke a substantial
hole in a "firewall" that's ostensibly configured
to keep products of a fuel-fed fire out of the cockpit.
Then you propose to plug that hole with some form of
plastic.
Here's a trip to the assembly line of one manufacturer
that has spent several decades of time, talent and
resources developing techniques for bringing stuff
through the fire wall but without compromising
fire wall integrity.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
I'll further quote from AC43-13 which is one of
many documents where we are admonished to be aware
of the flame retarding characteristics of devices
that penetrate the firewall:
11-232. TYPES OF CONNECTORS.
Connectors must be identified by an original
identification number derived from MIL
Specification (MS) or OAM specification.
Figure 11-35 provides some examples of MS
connector types. Several different types are
shown in figures 11-36 and 11-37.
a. Environmental Classes. Environment-
resistant connectors are used in applications
where they will probably be subjected to
fluids, vibration, thermal, mechanical shock,
corrosive elements, etc. Firewall class connectors
incorporating these same features
should, in addition, be able to prevent the
penetration of the fire through the aircraft
firewall connector opening and continue to
function without failure for a specified period
of time when exposed to fire.
So unless you're changing the name of of
your firewall to "engine compartment aft
bulkhead", I'll suggest there is value in
attending to maintenance of firewall
integrity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator putting out too much amperage |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> My questions are this: Will the high amperage fry my radios and EFIS even though
it shows it is only putting out 13.6 volts.
No it will not. Chances are that the ammeter is lying to you. Even if it is telling
the truth and the alternator is putting out high amperage, that high current
is only being delivered to equipment that asks for it. Your electronics
will only use the current that they were designed to use, regardless of the alternator
current output (as long as there is not an over-voltage condition).
The exception is defective equipment that asks for more current than normal.
In that case, it is not the alternator's fault for delivering too much current.
It is the defective equipment's fault for asking for too much. Even if some
device fails and draws too much current, that will not cause other devices to
use higher current.
It is highly unlikely that there is actually 40amps of current being used by
anything on your aircraft. First of all, it would probably blow a fuse. If there
is no fuse, 40amps times 13.6volts = over 500 watts. That is a lot of heat
and it would be very noticeable.
Like Bob and Neal suggested, most likely the current sensor is the wrong size
or the ammeter is not calibrated correctly. Good luck, Jim.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309588#309588
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
Any idea where you can get such a fitting Bob? The ones I see at ACS look
like they would cut insulation.
Thanks, Tim
_____
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, August 20, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations
At 11:58 PM 8/19/2010, you wrote:
That particular Terminal Feed Through Connector is only rated 250A @48VDC.
You would probably be better served purchasing the 400A @48VDC version from
Blue Sea Systems.
http://bluesea.com/products/2206
They also carry both Black and Red and they are identical to the ones on
Ebay except in a larger amperage rating and slightly larger physical size. I
wouldn't be surprised if they were cheaper from Blue Sky either. $11/each
seems kinda pricey to me.
Emacs!
But are price, voltage and current ratings the only
features of concern? You're going to poke a substantial
hole in a "firewall" that's ostensibly configured
to keep products of a fuel-fed fire out of the cockpit.
Then you propose to plug that hole with some form of
plastic.
Here's a trip to the assembly line of one manufacturer
that has spent several decades of time, talent and
resources developing techniques for bringing stuff
through the fire wall but without compromising
fire wall integrity.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
I'll further quote from AC43-13 which is one of
many documents where we are admonished to be aware
of the flame retarding characteristics of devices
that penetrate the firewall:
11-232. TYPES OF CONNECTORS.
Connectors must be identified by an original
identification number derived from MIL
Specification (MS) or OAM specification.
Figure 11-35 provides some examples of MS
connector types. Several different types are
shown in figures 11-36 and 11-37.
a. Environmental Classes. Environment-
resistant connectors are used in applications
where they will probably be subjected to
fluids, vibration, thermal, mechanical shock,
corrosive elements, etc. Firewall class connectors
incorporating these same features
should, in addition, be able to prevent the
penetration of the fire through the aircraft
firewall connector opening and continue to
function without failure for a specified period
of time when exposed to fire.
So unless you're changing the name of of
your firewall to "engine compartment aft
bulkhead", I'll suggest there is value in
attending to maintenance of firewall
integrity.
Bob . . .
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
At 09:06 PM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
>Any idea where you can get such a fitting Bob? The ones I see at ACS
>look like they would cut insulation.
>Thanks, Tim
>
Which ACS catalog number are you looking at?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
These:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/firewallshields.php
I like the idea of the 90=B0 bend but have not seen anything close.
Tim
_____
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, August 20, 2010 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations
At 09:06 PM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
Any idea where you can get such a fitting Bob? The ones I see at ACS
look
like they would cut insulation.
Thanks, Tim
Which ACS catalog number are you looking at?
Bob . . .
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables and Firewall Penetrations |
Tim... (if I may interrupt here, Bob...)
Those ACS fittings you are referring to, Tim, are designed to
take grommets inside the holes (except the small one which
already has a rubber backing) to prevent damage to the wire.
From the description on the ACS page:
/Both types of shield ... accommodate rubber grommets up to
outside diameter. Actual hole size in 2 piece shields is slightly
larger than indicated to prevent chafing cable...Use grommets
that fit tightly around the cable or wire to insure a good seal./
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 8/21/2010 12:02 AM, Tim Andres wrote:
>
> These:
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/firewallshields.php
>
> I like the idea of the 90 bend but have not seen anything close.
>
> Tim
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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, August 20, 2010 7:15 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery cables and Firewall
> Penetrations
>
> At 09:06 PM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
>
> Any idea where you can get such a fitting Bob? The ones I see
> at ACS look like they would cut insulation.
> Thanks, Tim
>
>
> Which ACS catalog number are you looking at?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 11:35:00
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plane Power IR Alternator Implementation in Z-13/8 |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Bob, thanks for your help! Your answer clarifies many of my questions. I
was surprised by your answer about the test. Did I understand correctly
that there is never a time to intentionally turn off the primary alternator
and battery for the purpose of testing the SD-8 and it's associated
circuitry's ability to supply the Ebus?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> At 10:27 AM 8/20/2010, you wrote:
> I'm thinking about using one of these as the belt driven alternator in
> Z-13/8:
>
> http://www.plane-power.com/AL12-EI60.htm
>
> It's their experimental, internally regulated alternator that also comes
> with built in crowbar over voltage protection. I'm not sure that I have a
> full understanding of the OV protection and control issues of IR alternators
> and how they pertain to this unit.
>
> I have 3 primary questions- one for the AEC and two for Plane Power, though
> I welcome any insight about all three from the AEC readers.
>
> So first, is it correct to say that Z24, Z24A, and the associated text on
> page Z-5 apply to IR alternators as they come off of the auto parts shelf,
> and not really to this unit?
>
> Correct . . . The P-P devices are not off-the-shelf
> automotive.
>
>
> Based on their conceptual wiring picture here:
> http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI60%20Installation.pdf
>
> Primary Question 1: How would I make the wiring connections in Z13/8 with
> this unit? Should their field enable lead go to the 2-3 DC Power Master
> Switch with the 5A crowbar in the same place as Z13/8 depicts it? Also,
> what about that other optional alternator off lead (see 3 below)?
>
> I think I understand that the battery dump issue (described at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf)
> is a problem in Z13/8 because we would like to occasionally (preflight,
> first flight of the day, etc?) turn the primary alternator and master off,
> and turn the ebus alternate feed on to test those associated switching
> systems. Is that correct?
>
> No. "Battery Dump" is defined as the sudden reduction
> of heavy alternator loads wherein the major portion
> of that load included battery recharge current and
> it's the BATTERY that's being disconnected. There
> are no operational procedures that call for such
> a "test". Further, the way the Z-figures are drawn,
> such a test could not be conducted for the battery
> is always disconnected AFTER the alternator is shut down.
>
>
> Primary Question 2: Will it do any physical damage to anything to turn off
> the 2-3 DC Power Master Switch while the engine is running (assuming that I
> need to)?
>
> It has been a legacy design goal for all TC aircraft
> to configure the system such that an alternator (or
> generator) may be turned on or off at any time under
> any conditions without hazard to other components
> in the system. An alternator that is controlled
> by breaking the field lead without breaking the
> b-lead MEETS this design goal. So, no . . . the P-P
> alternator may be turned on or off at anytime without
> concern for hazard to any compoent.
>
>
> Primary Question 3: Does opening their Alternator Field Enable Switch fully
> shut down the alternator field?
>
>
> Yes
>
> If the crowbar protection circuit pops that 5A CB, I should hope that
> opening that switch
>
> "switch"??? Do you mean "breaker"? Yes, opening that
> breaker offers a quiet, orderly and benign disabling
> of the alternator.
>
> . . . would completely shut down the alternator field too. If so, then
> what does that other "optional alternator off" lead do?
>
> That's not a control, it's an indicator light which
> has some limited ability to annunciate alternator failure
> and has been used in cars for decades. However, active
> notification of low voltage by an independent sensing
> system is the legacy approach to watching for and
> announcing alternator failure.
>
>
> Would I need to hook it up at all, and/or would I need to still hook it up
> with a switch in the line? Is there a failure mode in the other circuit
> that would require me to turn off a switch in the second line to shut the
> alternator off?
>
> You can drop the P-P product directly into any
> of the z-figures by simply eliminating any illustrated
> external regulators and/or crowbar ov protection
> modules.
>
> I was going to call plane power to ask them a few of these questions but I
> need to make sure that I know what to ask about. Thanks in advance.
>
> I've discussed Plane-Power design philosophy with
> them at length. It's a certainty that their answers
> will be along the same lines as that which I've offered
> above.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
Last year we made the decision to make the 'Connection more
utilitarian and accessible by
offering electronic versions. This was not done without some
considerations of risk.
In the Internet age, a popular/useful file "released into the wild"
may suddenly propagate with
amazing speed. Such is the case with the AeroElectric Connection. The
.pdf version has been
picked up on a host of file-sharing services and now enjoys
circulation numbers in the tens of
thousands of copies.
There's an obvious down-side. This means that the publication side of
the AeroElectric Connection ceases
to be as strong source of revenue. The up-side is that the
simple-ideas and recipes for success described
therein enjoy much wider circulation to the benefit of the OBAM
aviation community as a whole.
Coincidentally, I have just read a book called "The Future of a
Radical Price - Free" wherein
the author describes economic and marketing models that exploit
giving certain value away in
order to promote the exchange of other value. This business model
has been operating on the
Internet for years and continues to grow . . . which demonstrates its
value. Consideration of his
advice combined with previous events cited marks a milestone in my
own experiences and
prompts a new modus operandi for the AeroElectric Connection.
Beginning immediately, the printed copy price of the 'Connection will
drop to $23 postage
paid (media mail) in the us. $30 overseas (priority mail). Buying
the printed book will be
more convenient and probably less expensive than printing 300+ pages
on your own printer.
The PDF file has been loaded to the website for download at no charge.
The Revision 13 to the 'Connection will offer a complete update and
re-formatting of the book.
Most chapters including the Z-figures will make direct references to
a range of products and services
offered by the AeroElectric Connection. There are big plans for
expanding our design, manufacturing
and consulting services on behalf of the OBAM aviation community. We
will probably bring Appendix C
(catalog and source-book of products) back.
Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who
feels short changed by the
price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers
a guarantee of perceived
value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make
it right with you. All of
our dealers will be getting shipments of additional books equal to
1/2 their present inventory
to adjust their return on investment for having purchased quantities
of the book.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jasco Alternator and Panel Ground Questions |
| From: | "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
Thanks, Bob. Your book sure takes alot of the mystery out of the wiring process
- I'm already on my second highlighter!
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309623#309623
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane Power IR Alternator Implementation in Z-13/8 |
At 09:02 AM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>Bob, thanks for your help! Your answer clarifies many of my
>questions. I was surprised by your answer about the test. Did I
>understand correctly that there is never a time to intentionally
>turn off the primary alternator and battery for the purpose of
>testing the SD-8 and it's associated circuitry's ability to supply the Ebus?
Sure, you can do that. BATTERY DUMP is dependent upon
sequences of events. First you have to have a heavily
loaded alternator (engine rpm high, discharged battery
that is demanding and receiving most of the alternator's
output). Then you unhook the battery while leaving the
alternator on line. The effect is much like the tug of
war game where one of the opposing sides suddenly releases
their grip on the rope when the other side is concentrating
on a max effort. There's no way that the other side can
keep from falling on their butts.
The folks who design regulators must strive for a magic
compromise between stability (SLOW response) and
and accuracy (HIGH gain). In engineering-speak this
is often referred to as "damping ratio". See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/damping_ratio.gif
Here you see the time versus temperature plots for
various servo-systems tailored to hold a mass at
some constant temperature. Raising the temperature
of a large mass takes a lot of watts. But the device
controlling the heater has to be fitted with some
anticipatory features. If you're pouting out kilojoules
of heat into kilograms of mass, you'd better start
throttling things back as the system approaches
the desired temperature.
You can slow things way down and have an "over damped"
system that is free of oscillations and overshoot.
On the other hand, a high gain/ fast response characteristic
may bring the temperature to the set point faster
and with more accuracy, but tendency to overshoot
and "wiggle" about the set-point is greater. This
system is said to be "under damped".
Now, imagine a controller that is optimally damped
(middle curve). Consider what happens if the heater
is turned on but sometime along the temperature rise
cycle, you suddenly reduce the mass being heated
by say 90%. What's a poor controller to do? Now
unable to detect the loss of mass, the probability
for overshoot and oscillation is huge.
The battery is electrical "mass" which your
regulator expects to be in place all the time.
Hence the design goal that calls for alternators
not to be switched on/off without a battery being
on line too.
If you study what happens while sitting at
the controls and flipping switches, there's no
way you can produce that sudden reduction of "mass".
Alternators are never switched on/off without
a battery being tied to the bus.
Hence the design goals are satisfied and risks
to the system are reduced to insignificance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
If you don't mind a suggestion. Look at the Rotax model for distributing its
engine manuals. They are free, but they are locked. You cannot cut or copy
text out of them. If you want to send some significant point to someone, you
have to re-type it. I think it assures that the manuals will not be
corrupted either by accident or malicious intent. Just a thought.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> *Last year we made the decision to make the 'Connection more utilitarian
> and accessible by
> offering electronic versions. This was not done without some considerations
> of risk.
>
> In the Internet age, a popular/useful file "released into the wild" may
> suddenly propagate with
> amazing speed. Such is the case with the AeroElectric Connection. The .pdf
> version has been
> picked up on a host of file-sharing services and now enjoys circulation
> numbers in the tens of
> thousands of copies.
>
> There's an obvious down-side. This means that the publication side of the
> AeroElectric Connection ceases
> to be as strong source of revenue. The up-side is that the simple-ideas and
> recipes for success described
> therein enjoy much wider circulation to the benefit of the OBAM aviation
> community as a whole.
>
> Coincidentally, I have just read a book called "The Future of a Radical
> Price - Free" wherein
> the author describes economic and marketing models that exploit giving
> certain value away in
> order to promote the exchange of other value. This business model has been
> operating on the
> Internet for years and continues to grow . . . which demonstrates its
> value. Consideration of his
> advice combined with previous events cited marks a milestone in my own
> experiences and
> prompts a new modus operandi for the AeroElectric Connection.
>
> Beginning immediately, the printed copy price of the 'Connection will drop
> to $23 postage
> paid (media mail) in the us. $30 overseas (priority mail). Buying the
> printed book will be
> more convenient and probably less expensive than printing 300+ pages on
> your own printer.
> The PDF file has been loaded to the website for download at no charge.
>
> The Revision 13 to the 'Connection will offer a complete update and
> re-formatting of the book.
> Most chapters including the Z-figures will make direct references to a
> range of products and services
> offered by the AeroElectric Connection. There are big plans for expanding
> our design, manufacturing
> and consulting services on behalf of the OBAM aviation community. We will
> probably bring Appendix C
> (catalog and source-book of products) back.
>
> Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who feels
> short changed by the
> price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers a
> guarantee of perceived
> value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make it
> right with you. All of
> our dealers will be getting shipments of additional books equal to 1/2
> their present inventory
> to adjust their return on investment for having purchased quantities of the
> book.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who
feels short changed by the
price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers a
guarantee of perceived
value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make it
right with you
Bob . . .
As I recall, I paid $35 for my book, which is a $12 difference from
todays price. I feel that I have gotten at least an order of magnitude
more in value from this forum and the Aeroelectric website, so... lets
call it even.
What you do is much appreciated, hope you stay with us for a long time
to come.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
Bob
I just wanted to pass on my thanks for all you do for our community. I followed
your diagrams and ideas on my Glasair and the electrical has been a non issue
for the years I have been flying. Exactly what I wanted. The info and
assistance I recieved was worth far more than the cost of your book.
Thanks again
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 8:35:25 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection
Last year we made the decision to make the 'Connection more utilitarian and
accessible by
offering electronic versions. This was not done without some considerations of
risk.
In the Internet age, a popular/useful file "released into the wild" may suddenly
propagate with
amazing speed. Such is the case with the AeroElectric Connection. The .pdf
version has been
picked up on a host of file-sharing services and now enjoys circulation numbers
in the tens of
thousands of copies.
There's an obvious down-side. This means that the publication side of the
AeroElectric Connection ceases
to be as strong source of revenue. The up-side is that the simple-ideas and
recipes for success described
therein enjoy much wider circulation to the benefit of the OBAM aviation
community as a whole.
Coincidentally, I have just read a book called "The Future of a Radical Price -
Free" wherein
the author describes economic and marketing models that exploit giving certain
value away in
order to promote the exchange of other value. This business model has been
operating on the
Internet for years and continues to grow . . . which demonstrates its value.
Consideration of his
advice combined with previous events cited marks a milestone in my own
experiences and
prompts a new modus operandi for the AeroElectric Connection.
Beginning immediately, the printed copy price of the 'Connection will drop to
$23 postage
paid (media mail) in the us. $30 overseas (priority mail). Buying the printed
book will be
more convenient and probably less expensive than printing 300+ pages on your
own printer.
The PDF file has been loaded to the website for download at no charge.
The Revision 13 to the 'Connection will offer a complete update and
re-formatting of the book.
Most chapters including the Z-figures will make direct references to a range of
products and services
offered by the AeroElectric Connection. There are big plans for expanding our
design, manufacturing
and consulting services on behalf of the OBAM aviation community. We will
probably bring Appendix C
(catalog and source-book of products) back.
Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who feels short
changed by the
price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers a guarantee
of perceived
value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make it right
with you. All of
our dealers will be getting shipments of additional books equal to 1/2 their
present inventory
to adjust their return on investment for having purchased quantities of the
book.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
At 10:55 AM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>If you don't mind a suggestion. Look at the Rotax model for
>distributing its engine manuals. They are free, but they are locked.
>You cannot cut or copy text out of them. If you want to send some
>significant point to someone, you have to re-type it. I think it
>assures that the manuals will not be corrupted either by accident
>or malicious intent. Just a thought.
Yeah, I'll be doing that. But by the next time a new revision
hits the www, there will be uncountable opportunities for
accidental or malicious adventure for what's already out there.
Such is the risk of being an inhabitant of our planet!
Interestingly enough, I had several experiences at OSH many
years ago where somebody walked up to the booth with a binder
that contained a 'Connection that was obviously copied.
Many of the pages were not "square". I never bothered to
inquire and it really didn't matter. Knowing the circumstances
would not have altered the reality. Best thing was to move
on and build good airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
At 11:05 AM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who
>feels short changed by the
>price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers
>a guarantee of perceived
>value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make
>it right with you
>
>Bob . . .
>
>As I recall, I paid $35 for my book, which is a $12 difference from
>todays price. I feel that I have gotten at least an order of
>magnitude more in value from this forum and the Aeroelectric
>website, so... lets call it even.
>
>What you do is much appreciated, hope you stay with us for a long
>time to come.
Thank you my friend. That's the plan.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
At 11:34 AM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>Bob
>I just wanted to pass on my thanks for all you do for our
>community. I followed your diagrams and ideas on my Glasair and the
>electrical has been a non issue for the years I have been
>flying. Exactly what I wanted. The info and assistance I recieved
>was worth far more than the cost of your book.
>Thanks again
Thank YOU! I'm pleased that the work is
useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <dave(at)coltnet.net> |
| Subject: | New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
Bob,
I purchased your book a few years back for 35 dollars. I am currently
updated through rev 12 (I think). I appreciate what you do for the OBAM
community so much that I will probably
buy your new format and rev 13 book just to do my part in helping keep
the revenue stream flowing.
Thanks for everything
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tray Connectors...A Bad Idea. |
At 07:44 AM 8/18/2010, you wrote:
>
>I am sure the notion of sliding a piece of electronics into a tray
>with the connector on the back has some informative design history,
>but it is a horrible idea for aircraft (and even cars). In general
>you should avoid it and replace the connector with a hanging one
>where the connections aren't attached to two separately moving bodies.
It's true that connectors at the rear of
slide-in accessories mating with connectors
on captive trays have extra-ordinary design
requirements. And there were a few radios
wherein the designers had to learn the
weaknesses in the worst way - field experience.
Many of the first radios for GA aircraft didn't
even mount on the panel. Take this cute little
feller . . .
http://tinyurl.com/29sfmdd
This radio was battery powered and not intended
to be mounted solidly to the airplane. See the
leather carrying handle? One sat it in the seat,
plugged in an antenna, headphones and mic and voila!
You had an airborne radio communications system.
The antenna was in fact, a device adapted from a
car radio installation. You talked on a VHF frequency
determined by which crystal you plugged into the
panel (see slots for two other frequencies)
and listened for the ground facility to
reply over the local radio range, LF beacon
or marker transmitter.
Not too many years after, folks began to find
ways to mount these new fangled devices to the
panel and it didn't take long to realize that
it was MUCH easier to do installation and maintenance
if the mounting tray and harness was captive
to the airplane and the radio simply slides into
the tray. Exemplar radios included this device.
http://tinyurl.com/29hm578
You can see the head of the radio-to-tray
jackscrew at the upper edge of the LF receiver
bezel.
http://tinyurl.com/2c5hu4w
The other end of the jackscrew can be seen
here along with the Cinch-Jones connectors
that mated with connectors captive to the
tray. These connectors are still in production.
http://tinyurl.com/yhm37ow
At the same time, other manufacturers elected
not to participate in that adventure. As I
recall, this radio's installation tray
http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct
did not capture the mating connectors. The
maintenance person had to crawl under the
panel to mate/de-mate harnesses with the
radio.
Even today, the installed size and wire-count
of some radios . . .
http://tinyurl.com/2u58jrb
doesn't offer practical tray designs and
their mating harness connectors are captive
directly to the radio chassis.
Aircraft radios did suffer a sort of "dark
ages" when connectors intended to engage card-
edge fingers were pressed into service on
new designs. King radio (and others) built a
LOT of devices that used this genre' of wire
to board connector:
Emacs!
That accepted pins looking like this:
Emacs!
At Cessna in 1963 or so, we did an audio distribution
board that mounted some relays and provided a sort
of junction box for integrating a stack of radios
into the single-engine product line.
The card-edge connector was imply not designed to
perform well in the aircraft environment. The
in-house experiment only lasted a few years. Recall
that good connection science calls for low surface
area, high-pressure contact between pin and socket.
The thin, gold-plated fingers of soft copper and the
wide, low pressure springs in the pins simply did
not rise to the task. Further, these connectors are
probably the most fragile interconnect devices
ever. They are entirely suited for SOME limited
applications and are still made . . . but you won't
(or at least shouldn't) find them in a product
destined for use in an airplane.
These connectors are not well contained. Dust
laden with moisture, oils, and grit can accumulate
over time. There's no wire support to keep harness
wiggles from "working" the pins in their housings.
I'd venture a guess that 90+ percent of my
observations of "connector grief" with panel mounted
radios in light aircraft have involved a variant
of a card-edge-to-wire product.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd recommend a
great migration to modifying any radio that's still
in service utilizing this connector style. It
would probably be useful to install new pins in
all the holes. Clean the card edge fingers
with a solvent wetted swab (resist any
temptation to buff with ANY form of abrasive),
that gold plating is VERY thin! Then provide
bundle support for the wires close to where
they exit the connector housing.
Beyond this example of mis-applied technologies,
I think the researcher will find that tray
mounted harness connectors have enjoyed secure,
happy and long lived associations with their
radio mounted mates. The design has been widely
practiced over the full range of avionics from
the present day descendant of the Mitchell Airboy up
to and including electro-whizzies in military
and spacecraft.
The magic happens when the connector pin-socket
combinations are truly crafted to the task,
harnesses don't hang from the pin's insulation
grip, housings do a good job of shielding pins
from the environmental crud, and finally, the
radio is properly captive in the tray by proper
tightening of the retaining hardware.
By the way, if any of you are interested in a
little museum trip down Avionics Lane, I'll invite
you to look over the collection of pictures here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/
Some of us grey beards have had the pleasure
of cranking on a few of these very same knobs.
My first flying lesson in a rudder-pedal fitted
included a how-to session on one of these:
http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tray Connectors...A Bad Idea. |
Bob-you are the man. Your knowledge and *understanding* of both electrical
issues and their history of development is truly remarkable and seldom seen
nowadays in any field. Old School of the best kind.
A tip-of-the-hat from
Ralph Finch
Davis, California, USA
RV-9A QB-SA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tray Connectors...A Bad Idea. |
I knew when this was posted it would generate an interesting dialog but
didn't expect an avionics history lesson. Great stuff! Thanks Bob and
Eric.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 07:44 AM 8/18/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am sure the notion of sliding a piece of electronics into a tray
>> with the connector on the back has some informative design history,
>> but it is a horrible idea for aircraft (and even cars). In general
>> you should avoid it and replace the connector with a hanging one
>> where the connections aren't attached to two separately moving bodies.
>
> It's true that connectors at the rear of
> slide-in accessories mating with connectors
> on captive trays have extra-ordinary design
> requirements. And there were a few radios
> wherein the designers had to learn the
> weaknesses in the worst way - field experience.
>
> Many of the first radios for GA aircraft didn't
> even mount on the panel. Take this cute little
> feller . . .
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/29sfmdd*
>
> This radio was battery powered and not intended
>
snippety snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Tray Connectors...OOPS. |
Somehow the image for the card-edge-finger pin
got replace by a second housing image. Here's
the corrected piece.
B . . .
>I am sure the notion of sliding a piece of electronics into a tray
>with the connector on the back has some informative design history,
>but it is a horrible idea for aircraft (and even cars). In general
>you should avoid it and replace the connector with a hanging one
>where the connections aren't attached to two separately moving bodies.
It's true that connectors at the rear of
slide-in accessories mating with connectors
on captive trays have extra-ordinary design
requirements. And there were a few radios
wherein the designers had to learn the
weaknesses in the worst way - field experience.
Many of the first radios for GA aircraft didn't
even mount on the panel. Take this cute little
feller . . .
http://tinyurl.com/29sfmdd
This radio was battery powered and not intended
to be mounted solidly to the airplane. See the
leather carrying handle? One sat it in the seat,
plugged in an antenna, headphones and mic and voila!
You had an airborne radio communications system.
The antenna was in fact, a device adapted from a
car radio installation. You talked on a VHF frequency
determined by which crystal you plugged into the
panel (see slots for two other frequencies)
and listened for the ground facility to
reply over the local radio range, LF beacon
or marker transmitter.
Not too many years after, folks began to find
ways to mount these new fangled devices to the
panel and it didn't take long to realize that
it was MUCH easier to do installation and maintenance
if the mounting tray and harness was captive
to the airplane and the radio simply slides into
the tray. Exemplar radios included this device.
http://tinyurl.com/29hm578
You can see the head of the radio-to-tray
jackscrew at the upper edge of the LF receiver
bezel.
http://tinyurl.com/2c5hu4w
The other end of the jackscrew can be seen
here along with the Cinch-Jones connectors
that mated with connectors captive to the
tray. These connectors are still in production.
http://tinyurl.com/yhm37ow
At the same time, other manufacturers elected
not to participate in that adventure. As I
recall, this radio's installation tray
http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct
did not capture the mating connectors. The
maintenance person had to crawl under the
panel to mate/de-mate harnesses with the
radio.
Even today, the installed size and wire-count
of some radios . . .
http://tinyurl.com/2u58jrb
doesn't offer practical tray designs and
their mating harness connectors are captive
directly to the radio chassis.
Aircraft radios did suffer a sort of "dark
ages" when connectors intended to engage card-
edge fingers were pressed into service on
new designs. King radio (and others) built a
LOT of devices that used this genre' of wire
to board connector:
[]
That accepted pins looking like this:
[]
At Cessna in 1963 or so, we did an audio distribution
board that mounted some relays and provided a sort
of junction box for integrating a stack of radios
into the single-engine product line.
The card-edge connector was imply not designed to
perform well in the aircraft environment. The
in-house experiment only lasted a few years. Recall
that good connection science calls for low surface
area, high-pressure contact between pin and socket.
The thin, gold-plated fingers of soft copper and the
wide, low pressure springs in the pins simply did
not rise to the task. Further, these connectors are
probably the most fragile interconnect devices
ever. They are entirely suited for SOME limited
applications and are still made . . . but you won't
(or at least shouldn't) find them in a product
destined for use in an airplane.
These connectors are not well contained. Dust
laden with moisture, oils, and grit can accumulate
over time. There's no wire support to keep harness
wiggles from "working" the pins in their housings.
I'd venture a guess that 90+ percent of my
observations of "connector grief" with panel mounted
radios in light aircraft have involved a variant
of a card-edge-to-wire product.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd recommend a
great migration to modifying any radio that's still
in service utilizing this connector style. It
would probably be useful to install new pins in
all the holes. Clean the card edge fingers
with a solvent wetted swab (resist any
temptation to buff with ANY form of abrasive),
that gold plating is VERY thin! Then provide
bundle support for the wires close to where
they exit the connector housing.
Beyond this example of mis-applied technologies,
I think the researcher will find that tray
mounted harness connectors have enjoyed secure,
happy and long lived associations with their
radio mounted mates. The design has been widely
practiced over the full range of avionics from
the present day descendant of the Mitchell Airboy up
to and including electro-whizzies in military
and spacecraft.
The magic happens when the connector pin-socket
combinations are truly crafted to the task,
harnesses don't hang from the pin's insulation
grip, housings do a good job of shielding pins
from the environmental crud, and finally, the
radio is properly captive in the tray by proper
tightening of the retaining hardware.
By the way, if any of you are interested in a
little museum trip down Avionics Lane, I'll invite
you to look over the collection of pictures here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/
Some of us grey beards have had the pleasure
of cranking on a few of these very same knobs.
My first flying lesson in a rudder-pedal fitted
included a how-to session on one of these:
http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tray Connectors...A Bad Idea. |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob.
And prior to that ultra modern Mitchel VHF set, we used Bill Lear's
portable in a small suitcase which transmitted on 3105kc and allowed us to
receive the "Beam" on low frequency. It even had a built in loop antenna. We
could rotate the whole radio and get a bearing to or from the station. With a
little judicious maneuvering, we could figure out whether the station was
ahead or behind us in a as little as ten minutes or so.
The biggest problem with it was finding a long wire antenna. With such an
antenna, we could talk to a tower from as far as fifteen miles away. Great
stuff.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/21/2010 1:29:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 07:44 AM 8/18/2010, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
I am sure the notion of sliding a piece of electronics into a tray with
the connector on the back has some informative design history, but it is a
horrible idea for aircraft (and even cars). In general you should avoid it
and replace the connector with a hanging one where the connections aren't
attached to two separately moving bodies.
It's true that connectors at the rear of
slide-in accessories mating with connectors
on captive trays have extra-ordinary design
requirements. And there were a few radios
wherein the designers had to learn the
weaknesses in the worst way - field experience.
Many of the first radios for GA aircraft didn't
even mount on the panel. Take this cute little
feller . . .
_http://tinyurl.com/29sfmdd_ (http://tinyurl.com/29sfmdd)
This radio was battery powered and not intended
to be mounted solidly to the airplane. See the
leather carrying handle? One sat it in the seat,
plugged in an antenna, headphones and mic and voila!
You had an airborne radio communications system.
The antenna was in fact, a device adapted from a
car radio installation. You talked on a VHF frequency
determined by which crystal you plugged into the
panel (see slots for two other frequencies)
and listened for the ground facility to
reply over the local radio range, LF beacon
or marker transmitter.
Not too many years after, folks began to find
ways to mount these new fangled devices to the
panel and it didn't take long to realize that
it was MUCH easier to do installation and maintenance
if the mounting tray and harness was captive
to the airplane and the radio simply slides into
the tray. Exemplar radios included this device.
_http://tinyurl.com/29hm578_ (http://tinyurl.com/29hm578)
You can see the head of the radio-to-tray
jackscrew at the upper edge of the LF receiver
bezel.
_http://tinyurl.com/2c5hu4w_ (http://tinyurl.com/2c5hu4w)
The other end of the jackscrew can be seen
here along with the Cinch-Jones connectors
that mated with connectors captive to the
tray. These connectors are still in production.
_http://tinyurl.com/yhm37ow_ (http://tinyurl.com/yhm37ow)
At the same time, other manufacturers elected
not to participate in that adventure. As I
recall, this radio's installation tray
_http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct_ (http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct)
did not capture the mating connectors. The
maintenance person had to crawl under the
panel to mate/de-mate harnesses with the
radio.
Even today, the installed size and wire-count
of some radios . . .
_http://tinyurl.com/2u58jrb_ (http://tinyurl.com/2u58jrb)
doesn't offer practical tray designs and
their mating harness connectors are captive
directly to the radio chassis.
Aircraft radios did suffer a sort of "dark
ages" when connectors intended to engage card-
edge fingers were pressed into service on
new designs. King radio (and others) built a
LOT of devices that used this genre' of wire
to board connector:
That accepted pins looking like this:
At Cessna in 1963 or so, we did an audio distribution
board that mounted some relays and provided a sort
of junction box for integrating a stack of radios
into the single-engine product line.
The card-edge connector was imply not designed to
perform well in the aircraft environment. The
in-house experiment only lasted a few years. Recall
that good connection science calls for low surface
area, high-pressure contact between pin and socket.
The thin, gold-plated fingers of soft copper and the
wide, low pressure springs in the pins simply did
not rise to the task. Further, these connectors are
probably the most fragile interconnect devices
ever. They are entirely suited for SOME limited
applications and are still made . . . but you won't
(or at least shouldn't) find them in a product
destined for use in an airplane.
These connectors are not well contained. Dust
laden with moisture, oils, and grit can accumulate
over time. There's no wire support to keep harness
wiggles from "working" the pins in their housings.
I'd venture a guess that 90+ percent of my
observations of "connector grief" with panel mounted
radios in light aircraft have involved a variant
of a card-edge-to-wire product.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd recommend a
great migration to modifying any radio that's still
in service utilizing this connector style. It
would probably be useful to install new pins in
all the holes. Clean the card edge fingers
with a solvent wetted swab (resist any
temptation to buff with ANY form of abrasive),
that gold plating is VERY thin! Then provide
bundle support for the wires close to where
they exit the connector housing.
Beyond this example of mis-applied technologies,
I think the researcher will find that tray
mounted harness connectors have enjoyed secure,
happy and long lived associations with their
radio mounted mates. The design has been widely
practiced over the full range of avionics from
the present day descendant of the Mitchell Airboy up
to and including electro-whizzies in military
and spacecraft.
The magic happens when the connector pin-socket
combinations are truly crafted to the task,
harnesses don't hang from the pin's insulation
grip, housings do a good job of shielding pins
from the environmental crud, and finally, the
radio is properly captive in the tray by proper
tightening of the retaining hardware.
By the way, if any of you are interested in a
little museum trip down Avionics Lane, I'll invite
you to look over the collection of pictures here:
_http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/
_ (http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/) Some of us grey beards have
had the pleasure
of cranking on a few of these very same knobs.
My first flying lesson in a rudder-pedal fitted
included a how-to session on one of these:
_http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct_ (http://tinyurl.com/3xklhct)
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates |
I was asked to forward this information on in case you guys hadn't
heard....
Please be advised - not only does Lowrance NOT make/sell any more
Aviation GPS units, you cannot get
a Jeppeson navdata update for them either! I just looked at the LEI site
- no updates since April.
I then sent a note to Jeppeson to see if they would supply any data
updates for Lowrance units.
Below is the query and dismal answer:
========
Subject: Data updates
It appears that Lowrance no longer supplies the Jepp updates for their
1000 and 2000C GPS units.
Will these updates be supplied by you for downloading?
========
Their response:
Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for the long delay in
responding to you
Unfortunately, we have stopped all support on all Lowrance Units
Lowrance has shut down there Aviation Group and we have no further word
if they will continue!
When they shut down, we stopped all Navdata Production for those units.
I myself, have the Airmap 2000c and now it's a good paperweight!
I'm forced to buy a Garmin
Sorry Sir
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Tray Connectors...A Bad Idea. |
At 02:01 PM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob-you are the man. Your knowledge and *understanding* of both electrical
>issues and their history of development is truly remarkable and seldom seen
>nowadays in any field. Old School of the best kind.
Thank you Ralph. Unfortunately, it just may be
'old school'. Now that I'm "out in the wild" myself
I'm observing what might just be a cultural shift
in the reverence for history. Most folks exposures
to the study of history involves the memorization
of names, places, dates and events.
I've benefited from the study of practical history.
What recipes for success have been demonstrated in
the past . . . and what can we glean from those stories
for (1) not having to re-invent the wheel, (2) discovery
of those timeless, simple-ideas that are equally
applicable but perhaps in a different recipe? A sort
of connect-the-dots exercise that improves upon one's
situational awareness.
To forsake an understanding the past leads
to a sort of intellectual entropy. Even as the
magnitude of activity increases, so does the
quantity of smoke and steam. Smoke from by-products
of combustion, steam as a manifestation of energy
needed to convert water to vapor. Both byproducts
representing value expended never to be recovered.
Sharing of practical history amongst folks on this
and similar lists goes a long way to the reduction
of smoke and steam while maximizing the value of
what happens in our workshops. It's my pleasure
to exercise these talents but without the list,
that exercise is at risk of becoming only more
smoke and steam. I thank you all for being there.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Aircraft radios of yesteryear |
At 04:02 PM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob.
>
>And prior to that ultra modern Mitchel VHF set, we used Bill Lear's
>portable in a small suitcase which transmitted on 3105kc and allowed
>us to receive the "Beam" on low frequency. It even had a built in
>loop antenna. We could rotate the whole radio and get a bearing to
>or from the station. With a little judicious maneuvering, we could
>figure out whether the station was ahead or behind us in a as little
>as ten minutes or so.
If you ever run across any pictures, literature or
stories about that era, I'd be pleased to get
links/sources.
>
>The biggest problem with it was finding a long wire antenna. With
>such an antenna, we could talk to a tower from as far as fifteen
>miles away. Great stuff.
Yeah, I wrote and illustrated an Accessory Kit for
Cessna to put a Sun H.F. transceiver . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/Sun_Air_2.jpg
in the Military 185 (U17) aircraft at the Pawnee Plant.
We had a fixed wire that ran from cabin top to vertical
fin and then out to the right wing tip. Then a trailing
wire in the tailcone. For folks interested in such things
you can see the kit instructions at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/AK-U-17-3B.pdf
I'd forgotten about a ground adjustable loading
coil installation behind the baggage compartment
for making the fixed wire match the various installed
crystals. Of course, if one was flying in a situation
that allowed use of the trailing wire, you could run
it out and tune it by watching the panel mounted antenna
ammeter. Pretty heady stuff for HF in a small
airplane in 1968.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft radios of yesteryear |
Good Evening 'Lectric Bob,
You may have recalled that most of the early straight 35 Bonanzas came from
the factory with an automatically extending and retracting trailing
antenna. It extended at around 100 MPH and retracted at the same speed when
slowing down. It can be seen on some of the advertising copy for the early
machines. It had a small wind sock cone that mounted between the stabilators on
a mast about six inches high. Next time you see a 1947 or 48 Bonanza take a
look back there. Chances are you will see the remnants of the mast where
it was sawed off after the trailing antenna was an abandoned. Unfortunately,
an awful lot of them got ripped off by catching on an airport fence when
folks made their approach just a bit too fast. The FCC did take away our
3105 frequency and designated 3023.5 in lieu thereof. Not sure just when that
was but I think it was about 1948. Back when we were using 3105, the air
carriers were using 6210. When we went to 3023.5 the frequency for air
carriers was changed as well but I have forgotten what that frequency was.
I will see what I can locate in some of my WWII text books.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/21/2010 4:55:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 04:02 PM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob.
And prior to that ultra modern Mitchell VHF set, we used Bill Lear's
portable in a small suitcase which transmitted on 3105kc and allowed us to
receive the "Beam" on low frequency. It even had a built in loop antenna. We
could rotate the whole radio and get a bearing to or from the station. With a
little judicious maneuvering, we could figure out whether the station was
ahead or behind us in a as little as ten minutes or so.
If you ever run across any pictures, literature or
stories about that era, I'd be pleased to get
links/sources.
The biggest problem with it was finding a long wire antenna. With such an
antenna, we could talk to a tower from as far as fifteen miles away. Great
stuff.
Yeah, I wrote and illustrated an Accessory Kit for
Cessna to put a Sun H.F. transceiver . . .
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/Sun_Air_2.jpg
_ (http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/Sun_Air_2.jpg) in the
Military 185 (U17) aircraft at the Pawnee Plant.
We had a fixed wire that ran from cabin top to vertical
fin and then out to the right wing tip. Then a trailing
wire in the tailcone. For folks interested in such things
you can see the kit instructions at:
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/AK-U-17-3B.pdf
_ (http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/AK-U-17-3B.pdf) I'd
forgotten about a ground adjustable loading
coil installation behind the baggage compartment
for making the fixed wire match the various installed
crystals. Of course, if one was flying in a situation
that allowed use of the trailing wire, you could run
it out and tune it by watching the panel mounted antenna
ammeter. Pretty heady stuff for HF in a small
airplane in 1968.
Bob . . .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce B. Bell" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft radios of yesteryear |
My A-35 1949 Bonanza (D-1730) had one. Came out the factory door June
1948.
;
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft radios of yesteryear
Good Evening 'Lectric Bob,
You may have recalled that most of the early straight 35 Bonanzas came
from the factory with an automatically extending and retracting trailing
antenna. It extended at around 100 MPH and retracted at the same speed
when slowing down. It can be seen on some of the advertising copy for
the early machines. It had a small wind sock cone that mounted between
the stabilators on a mast about six inches high. Next time you see a
1947 or 48 Bonanza take a look back there. Chances are you will see the
remnants of the mast where it was sawed off after the trailing antenna
was an abandoned. Unfortunately, an awful lot of them got ripped off by
catching on an airport fence when folks made their approach just a bit
too fast. The FCC did take away our 3105 frequency and designated 3023.5
in lieu thereof. Not sure just when that was but I think it was about
1948. Back when we were using 3105, the air carriers were using 6210.
When we went to 3023.5 the frequency for air carriers was changed as
well but I have forgotten what that frequency was.
I will see what I can locate in some of my WWII text books.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/21/2010 4:55:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 04:02 PM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob.
And prior to that ultra modern Mitchell VHF set, we used Bill Lear's
portable in a small suitcase which transmitted on 3105kc and allowed us
to receive the "Beam" on low frequency. It even had a built in loop
antenna. We could rotate the whole radio and get a bearing to or from
the station. With a little judicious maneuvering, we could figure out
whether the station was ahead or behind us in a as little as ten minutes
or so.
If you ever run across any pictures, literature or
stories about that era, I'd be pleased to get
links/sources.
The biggest problem with it was finding a long wire antenna. With
such an antenna, we could talk to a tower from as far as fifteen miles
away. Great stuff.
Yeah, I wrote and illustrated an Accessory Kit for
Cessna to put a Sun H.F. transceiver . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Radios/Sun_Air_2.jpg
in the Military 185 (U17) aircraft at the Pawnee Plant.
We had a fixed wire that ran from cabin top to vertical
fin and then out to the right wing tip. Then a trailing
wire in the tailcone. For folks interested in such things
you can see the kit instructions at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/AK-U-17-3B.pdf
I'd forgotten about a ground adjustable loading
coil installation behind the baggage compartment
for making the fixed wire match the various installed
crystals. Of course, if one was flying in a situation
that allowed use of the trailing wire, you could run
it out and tune it by watching the panel mounted antenna
ammeter. Pretty heady stuff for HF in a small
airplane in 1968.
Bob . . .
List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Vern
We purchased an adapter cable and an external PTT switch when we purchased our
VXA700.
We ohmed out the harness and it indeed has two separate switches, one connects
mic high when you push PTT, and the other switch grounds PTT high.
I have a schematic for VXA 700 that Vertex support sent us, it does not include
enough information to figure out why the harness would use two switches to do
what they are doing.
After several calls and finally cornered the support guy, he bowed out by saying
Vertex doesn't make the harness and can't comment on it. He said the VXA 700
is not intended to be hooked up to an audio panel.
I know that when we hook up the VXA 700 to our PMA4000 audio panel and use the
harness I have with external PTT switch it works fine.
I talked to PS Engineering and told him I wanted to use the mini DPDT relay as
you can see on the right side near coin on second pic I posted to replicate two
mechanical switches. I asked him if he thought it was OK to supply power to
the coil of relay and have PMA4000 do the grounding when I push the PTT that is
located on sticks and he thought that would be fine.
Someone knows why my harness uses two separate switches to transmit. Vertex support
does not know why. PS Engineering does not know why. I do not know why.
I do know that the two switch arrangement works fine. My partner is an EE and thinks
it best we replicate what we do know. His gut feeling is leaving mic connected
all the time may not be a good thing to do. Perhaps someone could speculate
why they may do this? Built into unit is a speaker and mic.
Anyway there's our reasoning how and why we connected the four wire Vertex plug
to our audio panel.
You mention it may be a good idea to install a diode across the relay coil. We
already finished harness and it would be a big effort to open up harness and get
close to relay to install diode.
You can see size of relay against a penny on the right side:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=81445&g2_imageViewsIndex=1
You can enlarge the pic to full size by selecting full size on top right of screen.
The specifics are listed on schematic about the relay we are using. There
is no mA draw of coil on information we have but it is not very much of a draw.
Could get information off the data sheet.
My question to you is what potential problem or problems could be caused by not
using a diode across the coil of this mini relay?
Do you think I should try harness as it is wired and if we experience a problem/s
you describe, then install a diode?
Or perhaps go half way between the two and install a diode about 6" away from the
relay? BTW we are supplying power to the relay coil through a 324 wire that
is about 20# long.
I also have some snapjacks on hand if you think that a better choice.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309694#309694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ron, I don't know why either, exactly, except that the PTT switch that Icom
sold me for my A22 is set up the same way with two switches. Somewhere I got
the idea is that one switch is NC and the other is NO. The NC is connected
to the transmitter, the NO to the reciever. When the button is just sitting
there doin' nothin', the transmitter is grounded and the receiver is open.
Push the switch and the opposite happens the receiver is grounded out and
the transmitter is open. The idea is to prevent the receiver and the
transmitter from forming a feedback loop.
Feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, there's a good
chance I don't, but I seem to remember someone on this forum 'splainin' it
that way somewhere in the distant past.
Interesting that the VXA 220 uses a single switch in exactly the manner Bob
described when I wrote in asking for help just this last May.
Rick
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:52 PM, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi Vern
>
> We purchased an adapter cable and an external PTT switch when we purchased
> our VXA700.
>
> We ohmed out the harness and it indeed has two separate switches, one
> connects mic high when you push PTT, and the other switch grounds PTT high.
>
> I have a schematic for VXA 700 that Vertex support sent us, it does not
> include enough information to figure out why the harness would use two
> switches to do what they are doing.
>
> After several calls and finally cornered the support guy, he bowed out by
> saying Vertex doesn't make the harness and can't comment on it. He said the
> VXA 700 is not intended to be hooked up to an audio panel.
>
> I know that when we hook up the VXA 700 to our PMA4000 audio panel and use
> the harness I have with external PTT switch it works fine.
>
> I talked to PS Engineering and told him I wanted to use the mini DPDT relay
> as you can see on the right side near coin on second pic I posted to
> replicate two mechanical switches. I asked him if he thought it was OK to
> supply power to the coil of relay and have PMA4000 do the grounding when I
> push the PTT that is located on sticks and he thought that would be fine.
>
> Someone knows why my harness uses two separate switches to transmit. Vertex
> support does not know why. PS Engineering does not know why. I do not know
> why.
>
> I do know that the two switch arrangement works fine. My partner is an EE
> and thinks it best we replicate what we do know. His gut feeling is leaving
> mic connected all the time may not be a good thing to do. Perhaps someone
> could speculate why they may do this? Built into unit is a speaker and mic.
>
> Anyway there's our reasoning how and why we connected the four wire Vertex
> plug to our audio panel.
>
> You mention it may be a good idea to install a diode across the relay coil.
> We already finished harness and it would be a big effort to open up harness
> and get close to relay to install diode.
>
> You can see size of relay against a penny on the right side:
>
> http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=81445&g2_imageViewsIndex=1
>
> You can enlarge the pic to full size by selecting full size on top right of
> screen. The specifics are listed on schematic about the relay we are using.
> There is no mA draw of coil on information we have but it is not very much
> of a draw. Could get information off the data sheet.
>
> My question to you is what potential problem or problems could be caused by
> not using a diode across the coil of this mini relay?
>
> Do you think I should try harness as it is wired and if we experience a
> problem/s you describe, then install a diode?
>
> Or perhaps go half way between the two and install a diode about 6" away
> from the relay? BTW we are supplying power to the relay coil through a 324
> wire that is about 20# long.
>
> I also have some snapjacks on hand if you think that a better choice.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309694#309694
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Rick
If your Icom has two switches and is making one connection and breaking another
when you push the PTT, it is different than my Vertex that makes two connections.
On my Vertex VXA700 when you push the PTT one switch connects the mic high to pin
3 (mic high), this is a normal opened switch.
The other switch connects mic low to pin 2 (PTT high), this is a normal opened
switch.
Thus my single relay is a double pole relay that just makes two connections when
the PTT is depressed.
My double pole relay is doing exactly the same thing as pressing the premade harness
PTT I have, when the PTT is depressed, two individual single pole switches
make.
Would you mind taking an ohm meter to your set up and report back if in fact one
switch is making and one breaking?
If it is in fact like my Vertex where both switches make, I will give Icom and
pick their brains!
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309709#309709
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i have a 2 yr old 2000 that will fly for the first time this fall. what
would you recommend for getting the latest update available for vfr?
lowrance?
bob noffs
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere <
dalamphere(at)comcast.net> wrote:
> I was asked to forward this information on in case you guys hadn't
> heard....
>
> Please be advised - not only does Lowrance NOT make/sell any more Aviation
> GPS units, you cannot get
> a Jeppeson navdata update for them either! I just looked at the LEI site -
> no updates since April.
> I then sent a note to Jeppeson to see if they would supply any data updates
> for Lowrance units.
>
> Below is the query and dismal answer:
>
> =================================
> To: Support@JeppDirect
> Subject: Data updates
>
> It appears that Lowrance no longer supplies the Jepp updates for their 1000
> and 2000C GPS units.
>
> Will these updates be supplied by you for downloading?
>
> =================================
>
> Their response:
>
> *Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for the long delay in
> responding to you*
>
> *Unfortunately, we have stopped all support on all Lowrance Units*
>
> *Lowrance has shut down there Aviation Group and we have no further word
> if they will continue!*
>
> *When they shut down, we stopped all Navdata Production for those units. *
>
> *I myself, have the Airmap 2000c and now it's a good paperweight! *
>
> *I'm forced to buy a Garmin*
>
> **
>
> *Sorry Sir*
>
> *========================*
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates |
Bob,
That's what I am trying to warn about, there are NO updates available
from Lowrance or Jeppeson for the 2000!!!
Us Lowrance owners are out in the cold, unless there is some boot-leg
hacker somewhere that figures out something else...
Bummer!
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates
i have a 2 yr old 2000 that will fly for the first time this fall.
what would you recommend for getting the latest update available for
vfr? lowrance?
bob noffs
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere
wrote:
I was asked to forward this information on in case you guys hadn't
heard....
Please be advised - not only does Lowrance NOT make/sell any more
Aviation GPS units, you cannot get
a Jeppeson navdata update for them either! I just looked at the LEI
site - no updates since April.
I then sent a note to Jeppeson to see if they would supply any data
updates for Lowrance units.
Below is the query and dismal answer:
========
To: Support@JeppDirect
Subject: Data updates
It appears that Lowrance no longer supplies the Jepp updates for
their 1000 and 2000C GPS units.
Will these updates be supplied by you for downloading?
========
Their response:
Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for the long delay in
responding to you
Unfortunately, we have stopped all support on all Lowrance Units
Lowrance has shut down there Aviation Group and we have no further
word if they will continue!
When they shut down, we stopped all Navdata Production for those
units.
I myself, have the Airmap 2000c and now it's a good paperweight!
I'm forced to buy a Garmin
Sorry Sir
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Sure Ron, happy to help. I'll do it this afternoon when it's too hot to be
outside anyway. What can I say, I'm a woose for this hot muggy weather.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:16 AM, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi Rick
>
> If your Icom has two switches and is making one connection and breaking
> another when you push the PTT, it is different than my Vertex that makes two
> connections.
>
> On my Vertex VXA700 when you push the PTT one switch connects the mic high
> to pin 3 (mic high), this is a normal opened switch.
>
> The other switch connects mic low to pin 2 (PTT high), this is a normal
> opened switch.
>
> Thus my single relay is a double pole relay that just makes two connections
> when the PTT is depressed.
>
> My double pole relay is doing exactly the same thing as pressing the
> premade harness PTT I have, when the PTT is depressed, two individual
> single pole switches make.
>
> Would you mind taking an ohm meter to your set up and report back if in
> fact one switch is making and one breaking?
>
> If it is in fact like my Vertex where both switches make, I will give Icom
> and pick their brains!
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309709#309709
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Bob, I bought the book a few years ago, and thought it was
extraordinarily good value. Recently though I've been feeling as
though I've been short-changing you, because I've asked so many
questions recently and you've always answered them with an obvious
amount of time and care.
Could you invite people to donate on a "donation-ware" basis? It's
fairly common in software development -- you give something away for
free and ask good folk to send a donation if they find it useful. It
seems like an equitable way of doing business.
I saw you have a PayPal setup for your online catalogue. Why not
allow people to just randomly send you a few quid when they feel full
of joy after hearing their master contactor clunk for the first time?
Perhaps a page about it in the online version.
Alternatively, presumably anyone could buy an hour's time on your
online system, though that sets the price in stone, and I think that
donation-ware works best when people send what they can afford, or
just what they feel like sending.
FWIW.
James
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> At 11:34 AM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> Bob
>> I just wanted to pass on my thanks for all you do for our community. I
>> followed your diagrams and ideas on my Glasair and the electrical has been a
>> non issue for the years I have been flying. Exactly what I wanted. The
>> info and assistance I recieved was worth far more than the cost of your
>> book.
>> Thanks again
>
> Thank YOU! I'm pleased that the work is
> useful.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates |
I found this out at OSH this year. Went to the Jepp tent to get an
update and was told that Lowrance did not have a contract with Jepp and
they could not do anything with my card. I don't know if, as a class of
owners, there is anything that can be done legally, but I do know
morally, Lowrance leaves a lot to be desired. Good business people don't
just sever support without a warning and support for at least three
years or so.
I do also know that I will tell everyone I know NOT to buy Lowrance for
their marine or other needs. Put doubt in their minds! Will Lowrance be
there when you need them???? I found out!
Kevin Boddicker
Luana, IA
TriQ 200 N7868B
On Aug 22, 2010, at 6:09 AM, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
> Bob,
>
> That's what I am trying to warn about, there are NO updates available
from Lowrance or Jeppeson for the 2000!!!
> Us Lowrance owners are out in the cold, unless there is some boot-leg
hacker somewhere that figures out something else...
>
> Bummer!
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bob noffs
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates
>
> i have a 2 yr old 2000 that will fly for the first time this fall.
what would you recommend for getting the latest update available for
vfr? lowrance?
> bob noffs
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere
wrote:
> I was asked to forward this information on in case you guys hadn't
heard....
>
> Please be advised - not only does Lowrance NOT make/sell any more
Aviation GPS units, you cannot get
> a Jeppeson navdata update for them either! I just looked at the LEI
site - no updates since April.
> I then sent a note to Jeppeson to see if they would supply any data
updates for Lowrance units.
>
> Below is the query and dismal answer:
>
> ========================
=========
> To: Support@JeppDirect
> Subject: Data updates
> It appears that Lowrance no longer supplies the Jepp updates for their
1000 and 2000C GPS units.
>
> Will these updates be supplied by you for downloading?
>
> ========
>
> Their response:
>
> Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for the long delay in
responding to you
>
> Unfortunately, we have stopped all support on all Lowrance Units
>
> Lowrance has shut down there Aviation Group and we have no further
word if they will continue!
>
> When they shut down, we stopped all Navdata Production for those
units.
>
> I myself, have the Airmap 2000c and now it's a good paperweight!
>
> I'm forced to buy a Garmin
>
>
> Sorry Sir
>
> ========================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ron, I am completely wrong in my memories about the Icom PTT for their
headset adapter (Icom part no. OPC-499). The plug is a monaural 1/8" (two
contacts). This switch is connected to the microphone socket only. When the
PTT is open the three contacts of the microphone socket are open to each
other. When the switch is pressed the middle contact is connected to the
ground contact.
So, essentially I was completely full of c*** with my memories last night.
Sorry for the misdirection.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Sure Ron, happy to help. I'll do it this afternoon when it's too hot to be
> outside anyway. What can I say, I'm a woose for this hot muggy weather.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:16 AM, rparigoris wrote:
>
>> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>
>> Hi Rick
>>
>> If your Icom has two switches and is making one connection and breaking
>> another when you push the PTT, it is different than my Vertex that makes two
>> connections.
>>
>> On my Vertex VXA700 when you push the PTT one switch connects the mic high
>> to pin 3 (mic high), this is a normal opened switch.
>>
>> The other switch connects mic low to pin 2 (PTT high), this is a normal
>> opened switch.
>>
>> Thus my single relay is a double pole relay that just makes two
>> connections when the PTT is depressed.
>>
>> My double pole relay is doing exactly the same thing as pressing the
>> premade harness PTT I have, when the PTT is depressed, two individual
>> single pole switches make.
>>
>> Would you mind taking an ohm meter to your set up and report back if in
>> fact one switch is making and one breaking?
>>
>> If it is in fact like my Vertex where both switches make, I will give Icom
>> and pick their brains!
>>
>> Ron Parigoris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309709#309709
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Kolb Mk IIIC
> 582 Gray head
> 4.00 C gearbox
> 3 blade WD
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be
> unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
> - G.K. Chesterton
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
At 09:37 PM 8/21/2010, you wrote:
>Gee Bob,
>
>I would have to second that. Your book and this web site are worth
>a lot more than I paid for it. I would be more inclined to send a
>donation than ask for a refund. The service you render here has
>undoubtedly saved lives and airframes. I think that referencing
>back to B & C is a really reasonable idea.
I hope you're right . . . for that is my intent.
But I am obligated to make the offer. You may recall
some years back when products I offered were cited
by some individuals as poorly designed, a source
of great consternation and even damage to airplanes
suffered by numerous 'victims'.
The assertions fell apart when I reminded my
antagonists of our no questions asked, lifetime
guarantee of satisfaction for any product or service.
I had received no claims for adjustment under
our warranty. In fact, I offered a cash reward on
top of a refund of purchase price for any dissatisfied
customer who would come forth with their story.
Nobody did.
I'm certain that the vast majority of folks on
this list and in the OBAM aircraft community understand
the value of what we all do for each other here.
At the same time, there is a need to erect honorable
defenses against a few folks who can be exceedingly
troublesome.
Thank you all for your support and votes of
confidence. I'll strive to remain worthy of your
offers by growing the value of my offerings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
At 08:10 AM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
Bob, I bought the book a few years ago, and thought it was
extraordinarily good value. Recently though I've been feeling as
though I've been short-changing you, because I've asked so many
questions recently and you've always answered them with an obvious
amount of time and care.
I don't think it's all that one-sided. I too
find great value in participating here on
the List. The exercise hones my own ability
to utilize time, talent and resources well.
It's a situation not unlike that which I tried
to explain to my bosses when I asked for the
funds to finance a few Kaypro II computers,
printers and software for the GP-180 engineering
group. We had three computers in the group . . .
all personally owned and brought in from home.
I also wanted to buy all hazards insurance on
the computers and let the guys take them home
at night. The argument was that they would acquire
a lot of skill in their use but not while on
the timeclock!
In spite of their amazement and gratification
for the work I produced on MY Kaypro, they
were reluctant or just unable to make the
connection between an ability to do a task,
the uniqueness of the computer as a tool,
an acquisition of skill in its use because
it was interesting or even fun . . . and that
folks were willing to learn it on their own time.
My participation here has been most useful
in my professional endeavors. The ability to
teach is a skill that can always be improved
upon and our conversations here have more
value than might be immediately obvious. Every
great golfer needs to hit balls every day.
Every good teacher needs to exercise those
skills every day too.
Could you invite people to donate on a "donation-ware" basis? It's
fairly common in software development -- you give something away for
free and ask good folk to send a donation if they find it useful. It
seems like an equitable way of doing business.
I've considered that. Certainly the 'Connection
could be offered in the same business model
as donor supported shareware.
I saw you have a PayPal setup for your online catalogue. Why not
allow people to just randomly send you a few quid when they feel full
of joy after hearing their master contactor clunk for the first time?
Perhaps a page about it in the online version.
The 'Connection is at a fork in the road . . .
several forks.
Alternatively, presumably anyone could buy an hour's time on your
online system, though that sets the price in stone, and I think that
donation-ware works best when people send what they can afford, or
just what they feel like sending.
I have added one-on-one, fee-for-service consulting
to the website catalog and I do have a couple
such projects in the works. Your suggestions
are on-point and worthy of deliberation in
planning for the future. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Bob,
The connection has been invaluable to me and countless others.
I'm happy that you have embraced the new reality of distribution, and I
think it will pay big rewards, no matter how you measure them.
I would like to put in a vote in favor of not trying to lock your document.
It will only frustrate legitimate users, and since there are easily
available tools to unlock any kind of "DRM", the people that want to "steal"
your work will not in any way be inconvenienced.
I would argue that if someone wants to share a snippet of an idea from your
excellent tome by doing a copy/paste from a section of the document,
requiring that they retype the text adds negative value to the world, and
can also result in problematic typos.
Thanks again for all the help you have provided me in the wiring of my
aircraft, and more usefully, understanding electricity!
--
Mickey Coggins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
>
>I would argue that if someone wants to share a snippet of an idea
>from your excellent tome by doing a copy/paste from a section of the
>document, requiring that they retype the text adds negative value to
>the world, and can also result in problematic typos.
>--
>Mickey Coggins
Point taken. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates |
Lowrance makes good products with quite good user interfaces. However,
they have pulled that exact same trick with (at least) two of their
street models, with no prior warning. Ever since Thales bought out
Lowrance, this has occurred.
David M.
Kevin Boddicker wrote:
> I found this out at OSH this year. Went to the Jepp tent to get an
> update and was told that Lowrance did not have a contract with Jepp
> and they could not do anything with my card. I don't know if, as a
> class of owners, there is anything that can be done legally, but I do
> know morally, Lowrance leaves a lot to be desired. Good business
> people don't just sever support without a warning and support for at
> least three years or so.
> I do also know that I will tell everyone I know NOT to buy Lowrance
> for their marine or other needs. Put doubt in their minds! Will
> Lowrance be there when you need them???? I found out!
> Kevin Boddicker
> Luana, IA
> TriQ 200 N7868B
>
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 6:09 AM, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>> That's what I am trying to warn about, there are *NO* *updates
>> available from Lowrance or Jeppeson for the 2000*!!!
>> Us Lowrance owners are out in the cold, unless there is some boot-leg
>> hacker somewhere that figures out something else...
>> Bummer!
>> Dave
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* bob noffs
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:20 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Lowrance Airmap GPS Updates
>>
>> i have a 2 yr old 2000 that will fly for the first time this
>> fall. what would you recommend for getting the latest update
>> available for vfr? lowrance?
>> bob noffs
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David & Elaine Lamphere
>> > wrote:
>>
>> I was asked to forward this information on in case you guys
>> hadn't heard....
>> Please be advised - not only does Lowrance NOT make/sell any
>> more Aviation GPS units, you cannot get
>> a Jeppeson navdata update for them either! I just looked at
>> the LEI site - no updates since April.
>> I then sent a note to Jeppeson to see if they would supply
>> any data updates for Lowrance units.
>> Below is the query and dismal answer:
>> =================================
>> To: Support@JeppDirect
>> Subject: Data updates
>>
>> It appears that Lowrance no longer supplies the Jepp updates
>> for their 1000 and 2000C GPS units.
>>
>> Will these updates be supplied by you for downloading?
>>
>> ========
>>
>> Their response:
>>
>> *Thank you for contacting us. We apologize for the long delay
>> in responding to you*
>>
>> *Unfortunately, we have stopped all support on all Lowrance
>> Units*
>>
>> *Lowrance has shut down there Aviation Group and we have no
>> further word if they will continue!*
>>
>> *When they shut down, we stopped all Navdata Production for
>> those units.*
>>
>> *I myself, have the Airmap 2000c and now it's a good
>> paperweight! *
>>
>> *I'm forced to buy a Garmin*
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Sorry Sir*
>>
>> *========================*
>>
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> 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/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
Perceived Value? Then I need to send you another check!
Stan Sutterfield
Anyone who has recently purchased a book or CD at current prices who
feels short changed by the
price reduction is encouraged to drop us a line. Our warranty offers
a guarantee of perceived
value for the lifetime of any product. Drop us a note and we'll make
it right with you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed |
FYI The David Clark PTT switch works the same way-disconnects the MIC until
the PTT is pushed. I don't know why this is essential... it might be that
for battery powered equipment, it reduces current drain (the mic bias) until
required. Sometimes it becomes "because that's the way we've always done
it". Bob may know better.
As for the relay snubber, the diode can be added somewhere else. It's a low
power relay, so the amount of coil energy involved is small-- a regular
diode works fine.
Good Luck
V
--------------------------------------------------
From: "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Vertex VXA700 information needed
>
>
> Hi Vern
>
> We purchased an adapter cable and an external PTT switch when we purchased
> our VXA700.
>
> We ohmed out the harness and it indeed has two separate switches, one
> connects mic high when you push PTT, and the other switch grounds PTT
> high.
>
> I have a schematic for VXA 700 that Vertex support sent us, it does not
> include enough information to figure out why the harness would use two
> switches to do what they are doing.
>
> After several calls and finally cornered the support guy, he bowed out by
> saying Vertex doesn't make the harness and can't comment on it. He said
> the VXA 700 is not intended to be hooked up to an audio panel.
>
> I know that when we hook up the VXA 700 to our PMA4000 audio panel and use
> the harness I have with external PTT switch it works fine.
>
> I talked to PS Engineering and told him I wanted to use the mini DPDT
> relay as you can see on the right side near coin on second pic I posted to
> replicate two mechanical switches. I asked him if he thought it was OK to
> supply power to the coil of relay and have PMA4000 do the grounding when I
> push the PTT that is located on sticks and he thought that would be fine.
>
> Someone knows why my harness uses two separate switches to transmit.
> Vertex support does not know why. PS Engineering does not know why. I do
> not know why.
>
> I do know that the two switch arrangement works fine. My partner is an EE
> and thinks it best we replicate what we do know. His gut feeling is
> leaving mic connected all the time may not be a good thing to do. Perhaps
> someone could speculate why they may do this? Built into unit is a speaker
> and mic.
>
> Anyway there's our reasoning how and why we connected the four wire Vertex
> plug to our audio panel.
>
> You mention it may be a good idea to install a diode across the relay
> coil. We already finished harness and it would be a big effort to open up
> harness and get close to relay to install diode.
>
> You can see size of relay against a penny on the right side:
> http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=81445&g2_imageViewsIndex=1
>
> You can enlarge the pic to full size by selecting full size on top right
> of screen. The specifics are listed on schematic about the relay we are
> using. There is no mA draw of coil on information we have but it is not
> very much of a draw. Could get information off the data sheet.
>
> My question to you is what potential problem or problems could be caused
> by not using a diode across the coil of this mini relay?
>
> Do you think I should try harness as it is wired and if we experience a
> problem/s you describe, then install a diode?
>
> Or perhaps go half way between the two and install a diode about 6" away
> from the relay? BTW we are supplying power to the relay coil through a 324
> wire that is about 20# long.
>
> I also have some snapjacks on hand if you think that a better choice.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309694#309694
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 06:35:00
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall shields... yet again |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric |
Connection
At 06:23 PM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>Perceived Value? Then I need to send you another check!
No. We made a deal and I'm happy with it.
If you got more than you bargained for
then I'm more pleased still.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V |
| From: | "sblack" <scott-black(at)sympatico.ca> |
I installed a b&c alt on an o200 with the PMR1C-14. After about 10 hrs on it with
no problems one morning, after the airplane sat out in the rain, the voltage
started going right up to 16V at takeoff power tripping the crowbar OV protection.
I have not played with the setpoint since it was working fine at the beginning
(stayed just under 14v) so it should not have changed. I can't see that
water got into the regulator as it is potted in epoxy or similar. My battery
acts fine, takes a charge in a reasonable amount of time and my volt meter is
correct as I checked it with another and the crowbar goes off and just the right
voltage. What could cause this?
--------
Scott Black
Montreal
Jodel F11 O-200
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309831#309831
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
All I can do is offer to return the favor, Bob, if you ever need any machine
work for a project, I'd be happy to help. My little Kolb continues to fly
along with zero electrical issues. Security like that is absolutely
priceless, IMHO.
Rick Girard
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:23 PM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>
> Perceived Value? Then I need to send you another check!
>
>
> No. We made a deal and I'm happy with it.
> If you got more than you bargained for
> then I'm more pleased still.
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics Master switch |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Before everyone yawns and says, "Not another question about avionics master switches",
I'll ask you to indulge me.
Suppose I had a "friend", who was paranoid about blowing-up his $10,000 WAAS gps,
and $20,000 glass panel, and hadn't read Bob's epistles about fault tolerance
specs, etc. But this "friend" didn't want the single point failure of an avionics
master switch. Suppose also, that he had a progressive master switch
(Off - Batt only/alternator field off - On/alternator field on). Why couldn't
this "friend" shut down by turning off the master switch before shutting down
the engine? Is this the bugaboo that the non-Aeroelectric crowd fears? ie.
Is the sudden collapse of the alternator field the culprit everyone fears, or
is it the limbo-like state of the alternator as the engine rpm winds down after
pulling the mixture they fear? Would this procedure raise more concerns than
it eased?
I once had an instructor that shut off the alternator field and looked for a hiccup
on the ammeter as part of a pre-takeoff check (avionics on at this point).
This was the same instructor that "enlightened" me about the reason for shutting
off all avionics before starting and before shutting down the engine.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309853#309853
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
You confirmed that there is indeed an over-voltage condition. The voltage regulator
is not doing its job, for whatever reason. The rain may or may not be a
factor. Perhaps the regulator got too hot at some point. If you can not adjust
the output voltage to within normal range, then the voltage regulator should
be replaced.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309876#309876
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
There is another possibility, depending on where in the circuit the voltage regulator
measures the voltage. If there is a high resistance in the field circuit,
the regulator might be seeing a lower voltage than is at the main bus. In
that case, the regulator would tell the alternator to put out more. Make sure
that all of the connections in the electrical system are secure, especially
in the regulator sense and field circuits.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309881#309881
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | testing of backup alternator |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com |
Bob, your recently responded to a couple of posts from Jared Yates, who
was
asking (in part) about testing of the backup alternator in a Z-13/8 sys
tem.
Cant speak for Jared, but Im not sure his real question was effectively
answered and I am interested in this as well,, so thought I would follo
w
up. How do I go about assuring myself that my SD-8 will work as advert
ised
when called upon? Can I just turn off the master, flip on the switches
for
the SD-8 and the e-bus alternate feed, and wait to see if I get a low
voltage warning light on my engine monitor? Can I do this on the groun
d at
idle, or do I need to have the RPM elevated? Feeling a bit boneheaded
about this, but would be more boneheaded to not ask, and find out later
my
SD-8 was providing no backup at all.
thanks for your service
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master switch |
At 05:45 AM 8/23/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Before everyone yawns and says, "Not another question about avionics
>master switches", I'll ask you to indulge me.
>
>Suppose I had a "friend", who was paranoid about blowing-up his
>$10,000 WAAS gps, and $20,000 glass panel, and hadn't read Bob's
>epistles about fault tolerance specs, etc. But this "friend" didn't
>want the single point failure of an avionics master switch. Suppose
>also, that he had a progressive master switch (Off - Batt
>only/alternator field off - On/alternator field on). Why couldn't
>this "friend" shut down by turning off the master switch before
>shutting down the engine? Is this the bugaboo that the
>non-Aeroelectric crowd fears? ie. Is the sudden collapse of the
>alternator field the culprit everyone fears, or is it the limbo-like
>state of the alternator as the engine rpm winds down after pulling
>the mixture they fear? Would this procedure raise more concerns than it eased?
No, the #1 "radio killer" is supposed to be the starter.
Have you read?
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf
If one really wants an Avionics Master, it's
easily added in series with the normal feed-path
diode without major impact to failure mode effects
analysis.
There are but four energy sources that the designer
needs to consider when configuring the electrical
system.
(1) Battery: Limited total energy but capable
of great current due to low internal impedance.
(2) Engine Driven Power: Usually an alternator
capable of great total energy but current limited
due magnetics and internal impedances.
(3) Direct Lightning Strikes: Most light aircraft
designers don't strive for resistance to lightning
strokes. Lots of current, arcing, but again, not
as much energy in the stroke as your alternator puts
out in twenty minutes or so or the battery can deliver
in a complete dumping of charge.
(4) All other reactive sources are low energy,
short duration events, routinely trapped off as
a matter of design and qualification.
Risks from battery and alternator faults have
been easily managed by proper wire sizes, fuse/breaker
sizes, ov-protection on the alternator. Legacy
design goals call for designing to expect, withstand
and make graceful recovery from events that lie within
this envelope
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_Trans.jpg
I can tell you that starting the engine does not
exceed this recommendation.
We also limit abnormal events to this envelope
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_OV.jpg
. . . which is no big deal.
>I once had an instructor that shut off the alternator field and
>looked for a hiccup on the ammeter as part of a pre-takeoff check
>(avionics on at this point). This was the same instructor that
>"enlightened" me about the reason for shutting off all avionics
>before starting and before shutting down the engine.
He was simply repeating the mantra handed down to
him by his teachers. I have gone on spike hunting
expeditions on airplanes from C-150 to BeechJets
and failed to see anything that exceeded the design
goal limits . . . in fact, aside from starter inrush
brownout . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_3.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_1.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
The rest of the things you see on the bus are exceedingly
un-exciting.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Safari_Bus_Noise_1.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Safari_Bus_Noise_2.gif
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V |
At 10:23 PM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>I installed a b&c alt on an o200 with the PMR1C-14. After about 10
>hrs on it with no problems one morning, after the airplane sat out
>in the rain, the voltage started going right up to 16V at takeoff
>power tripping the crowbar OV protection. I have not played with the
>setpoint since it was working fine at the beginning (stayed just
>under 14v) so it should not have changed. I can't see that water got
>into the regulator as it is potted in epoxy or similar. My battery
>acts fine, takes a charge in a reasonable amount of time and my volt
>meter is correct as I checked it with another and the crowbar goes
>off and just the right voltage. What could cause this?
Only a failure within the PMR1C-14. Suggest you
return it to B&C for a checkup.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric |
Connection
At 10:17 PM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
>All I can do is offer to return the favor, Bob, if you ever need any
>machine work for a project, I'd be happy to help.
Do you have a mill with a digital readout?
> My little Kolb continues to fly along with zero electrical issues.
> Security like that is absolutely priceless, IMHO.
Great news!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V |
At 09:19 AM 8/23/2010, you wrote:
>
>There is another possibility, depending on where in the circuit the
>voltage regulator measures the voltage. If there is a high
>resistance in the field circuit, the regulator might be seeing a
>lower voltage than is at the main bus. In that case, the regulator
>would tell the alternator to put out more. Make sure that all of
>the connections in the electrical system are secure, especially in
>the regulator sense and field circuits.
The PMR1C-14 is a more robust version of the
rectifier/regulators supplied with the majority
of 20A or smaller PM alternators. VERY simple,
and senses voltage right at the output lead of
the regulator.
If this particular regulator is misbehaving, it's
unlikely that the problem lies outside the device.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
At 01:46 PM 8/23/2010, you wrote:
>Bob, your recently responded to a couple of posts from Jared Yates,
>who was asking (in part) about testing of the backup alternator in a
>Z-13/8 system. Cant speak for Jared, but Im not sure his real
>question was effectively answered and I am interested in this as
>well,, so thought I would follow up. How do I go about assuring
>myself that my SD-8 will work as advertised when called upon? Can I
>just turn off the master, flip on the switches for the SD-8 and the
>e-bus alternate feed, and wait to see if I get a low voltage warning
>light on my engine monitor? Can I do this on the ground at idle, or
>do I need to have the RPM elevated? Feeling a bit boneheaded about
>this, but would be more boneheaded to not ask, and find out later my
>SD-8 was providing no backup at all.
You can turn alternators on/off at any time under
any conditions without regard to system safety
or hazard to other components.
The SD-8 does need a lot of RPM to produce full
output. I doubt that you want to run a full-throttle
preflight. During mag test you can turn the main
alternator off and the SD-8 on. If the loadmeter
shows ANY significant output, the alternator is
probably fine even if low voltage warnings continue
and the SD-8 output is less than 8-10 amps that you
can expect at cruise.
You can also wait until airborne and go to the SD-8 supported
E-bus mode to test the system under more realistic conditions
before you get too far from home.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeffrey Bougher <jsbougher(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally not
good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is that there
is a lot of knowledge on this board.
I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and
portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I lose
GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal back,
sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is intermittent.
When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite.
Sometime around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until
taxiway, so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to
acquire.
Two recent sample flights.
Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about
same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430 picks up
satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't pick up
satellites until back on the ground.
Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes into
flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396
reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
Notes:
* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had
similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both
occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on the
430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH more
consistent now.
* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if there
was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station reported no
problems.
* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a
lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on
battery and it makes no difference.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Jeff,
First, you need to upgrade the antenna on the 430 to a WAAS antenna and ensure
the antenna cable length is correct for proper performance of the 430.
Now, on to the GPS signal problem. Some questions:
1. What are you using for the 396 antenna? Rod attached to the 396 or a remote
antenna? If a remote antenna, what type?
2. Are the two units using a single antenna or do each have their own antenna?
3. How and where is/are the antenna/s located and mounted?
4. How is/are the antenna/s cabling routed? Looking for pinches or other defects
in routing which could cause intermittent failures.
5. What is the condition of the antenna cable connection to the GPS units?
Perhaps answers to these will help the troubleshoot.
Good luck,
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=60232
http://www.biplaneforumgallery.com/index.php?cat=10046
Europa Flying!
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208
Home: 940-497-2123
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:54, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally not
good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is that
there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and portable
Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I lose GPS
signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal back, sometimes
I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is intermittent. When
I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime
around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway,
so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
>
> Two recent sample flights.
> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about
same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430 picks up satellites
and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't pick up satellites
until back on the ground.
>
> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes into
flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396 reacquires
satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
>
> Notes:
> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had similar
occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both occurrences
were an hour or more into flight.
> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on the
430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH more consistent
now.
> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if there
was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station reported no problems.
> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a lowish
cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on battery
and it makes no difference.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
Something else that you might want to look at is the antenna cable length;
in the MGL instrument this is a very specific length that comes already
prepared with the antenna. The instructions say not to cut this but to
bundle it; some people do cut the cable and shorten it but this seriously
degrades the performance of the GPS as the cable is a tuned length.
Not sure if this applies to other GPS makes but its likely, so check that
the cable is as per the original factory specification.
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Borger
Sent: 24 August 2010 03:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
Jeff,
First, you need to upgrade the antenna on the 430 to a WAAS antenna and
ensure the antenna cable length is correct for proper performance of the
430.
Now, on to the GPS signal problem. Some questions:
1. What are you using for the 396 antenna? Rod attached to the 396 or a
remote antenna? If a remote antenna, what type?
2. Are the two units using a single antenna or do each have their own
antenna?
3. How and where is/are the antenna/s located and mounted?
4. How is/are the antenna/s cabling routed? Looking for pinches or other
defects in routing which could cause intermittent failures.
5. What is the condition of the antenna cable connection to the GPS units?
Perhaps answers to these will help the troubleshoot.
Good luck,
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=60232
http://www.biplaneforumgallery.com/index.php?cat=10046
Europa Flying!
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208
Home: 940-497-2123
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:54, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally
not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is
that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and
portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I
lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal
back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is
intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal
on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not
really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS
seems to always be able to acquire.
Two recent sample flights.
Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at
about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430
picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't
pick up satellites until back on the ground.
Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes
into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396
reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
Notes:
* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had
similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both
occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on
the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH
more consistent now.
* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if
there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station
reported no problems.
* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a
lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on
battery and it makes no difference.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jeff
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
I don't think it would affect the 396, but I don't understand why your
avionics shop would leave the original antenna in place. It is not the
same as the antenna for the 430W and I'm surprised it works at all.
John Grosse
Jay Hyde wrote:
>
> Something else that you might want to look at is the antenna cable
> length; in the MGL instrument this is a very specific length that
> comes already prepared with the antenna. The instructions say not to
> cut this but to bundle it; some people do cut the cable and shorten it
> but this seriously degrades the performance of the GPS as the cable is
> a tuned length.
>
> Not sure if this applies to other GPS makes but its likely, so check
> that the cable is as per the original factory specification.
>
> Jay
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Robert Borger
> *Sent:* 24 August 2010 03:05 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
>
> Jeff,
>
> First, you need to upgrade the antenna on the 430 to a WAAS antenna
> and ensure the antenna cable length is correct for proper performance
> of the 430.
>
> Now, on to the GPS signal problem. Some questions:
>
> 1. What are you using for the 396 antenna? Rod attached to the 396 or
> a remote antenna? If a remote antenna, what type?
>
> 2. Are the two units using a single antenna or do each have their own
> antenna?
>
> 3. How and where is/are the antenna/s located and mounted?
>
> 4. How is/are the antenna/s cabling routed? Looking for pinches or
> other defects in routing which could cause intermittent failures.
>
> 5. What is the condition of the antenna cable connection to the GPS units?
>
> Perhaps answers to these will help the troubleshoot.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Bob Borger
>
> Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
>
> http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=60232
>
> http://www.biplaneforumgallery.com/index.php?cat=10046
>
> Europa Flying!
>
> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
>
> Corinth, TX 76208
>
> Home: 940-497-2123
>
> Cel: 817-992-1117
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:54, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
>
>
> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
> generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I
> have learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430
> and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes
> and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get
> GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal
> back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't
> show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS
> back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but
> ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
>
> Two recent sample flights.
> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS
> at about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes,
> 430 picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396
> doesn't pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>
> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40
> minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour -
> 1:15, the 396 reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until
> back on ground.
>
> Notes:
> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and
> had similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I
> recall, both occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying
> on the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems
> MUCH more consistent now.
> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center
> if there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on
> station reported no problems.
> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was
> under a lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only
> on battery and it makes no difference.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> * *
> * *
> *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/contribution*
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
The most common cause of loss of satellites (besides military jamming)
is com or nav frequencies that interfere from other radios in the
cockpit. The AC20-138A for GPS install calls out the frequencies that
must be tested before a unit can be signed off in the aircraft.
On 8/24/2010 7:24 AM, John Grosse wrote:
>
>
> I don't think it would affect the 396, but I don't understand why your
> avionics shop would leave the original antenna in place. It is not the
> same as the antenna for the 430W and I'm surprised it works at all.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Jay Hyde wrote:
>>
>> Something else that you might want to look at is the antenna cable
>> length; in the MGL instrument this is a very specific length that
>> comes already prepared with the antenna. The instructions say not to
>> cut this but to bundle it; some people do cut the cable and shorten
>> it but this seriously degrades the performance of the GPS as the
>> cable is a tuned length.
>>
>> Not sure if this applies to other GPS makes but its likely, so check
>> that the cable is as per the original factory specification.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Robert Borger
>> *Sent:* 24 August 2010 03:05 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> First, you need to upgrade the antenna on the 430 to a WAAS antenna
>> and ensure the antenna cable length is correct for proper performance
>> of the 430.
>>
>> Now, on to the GPS signal problem. Some questions:
>>
>> 1. What are you using for the 396 antenna? Rod attached to the 396
>> or a remote antenna? If a remote antenna, what type?
>>
>> 2. Are the two units using a single antenna or do each have their own
>> antenna?
>>
>> 3. How and where is/are the antenna/s located and mounted?
>>
>> 4. How is/are the antenna/s cabling routed? Looking for pinches or
>> other defects in routing which could cause intermittent failures.
>>
>> 5. What is the condition of the antenna cable connection to the GPS
>> units?
>>
>> Perhaps answers to these will help the troubleshoot.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> Bob Borger
>>
>> Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
>>
>> http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=60232
>>
>> http://www.biplaneforumgallery.com/index.php?cat=10046
>>
>> Europa Flying!
>>
>> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
>>
>> Corinth, TX 76208
>>
>> Home: 940-497-2123
>>
>> Cel: 817-992-1117
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2010, at 5:54, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
>> generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I
>> have learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>>
>> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin
>> 430 and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45
>> minutes and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously.
>> Sometimes I get GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I
>> get GPS signal back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS
>> page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around
>> touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so
>> don't know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to
>> acquire.
>>
>> Two recent sample flights.
>> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS
>> at about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30
>> minutes, 430 picks up satellites and maintains through rest of
>> flight. The 396 doesn't pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>>
>> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40
>> minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour
>> - 1:15, the 396 reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires
>> until back on ground.
>>
>> Notes:
>> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and
>> had similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I
>> recall, both occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
>> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still
>> flying on the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but
>> it seems MUCH more consistent now.
>> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center
>> if there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on
>> station reported no problems.
>> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was
>> under a lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous
>> events.
>> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running
>> only on battery and it makes no difference.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> *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/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Jeff, I've had interference issues when two GPS active patch antennas were
co-located on the glareshield - neither would acquire until one was turned
off or moved a good bit away. I figured out what was up when I added the
second GPS antenna (for an APRS tracker) and the Garmin 296 suddenly went
"blind." Locating the tracker GPS puck antenna in the aft baggage area
(perhaps 3.5 feet line of sight from the Garmin antenna) has completely
solved the issue. Just a thought. Not sure why your problem only appears
once airborne - that is most curious.
Bill Boyd
RV-6A
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally
> not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is
> that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and
> portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I
> lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal
> back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is
> intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal
> on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not
> really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS
> seems to always be able to acquire.
>
> Two recent sample flights.
> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at
> about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430
> picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't
> pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>
> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes
> into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396
> reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
>
> Notes:
> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had
> similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both
> occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on
> the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH
> more consistent now.
> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if
> there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station
> reported no problems.
> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a
> lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on
> battery and it makes no difference.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
First, the 430W antenna is not compatible with the 430 and the fact that you
had a problem before pretty much narrows it down to a bad and/or incorrect
antenna. Where are your antennas located? What else is in close proximity to
the them? I would suggest you make sure you have the correct antenna for
each unit and it is placed where it will not be next to other electrical
devices and has a good view of the sky. Fiberglass should only attenuate the
signal very slightly and for our purposes can be considered not there.
Assuming there is not some kind of special coatings on the glass. I'm just
guessing here but could you have the 2 antennas mixed up?
Tim Andres
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Bougher
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally
not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is
that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and
portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I
lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal
back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is
intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal
on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not
really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS
seems to always be able to acquire.
Two recent sample flights.
Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at
about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430
picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't
pick up satellites until back on the ground.
Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes
into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396
reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
Notes:
* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had
similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both
occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on
the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH
more consistent now.
* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if
there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station
reported no problems.
* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a
lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on
battery and it makes no difference.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jeff
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:34:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, my old Bridgeport has a DRO, but I just use dial indicators on my lathe
when I have to work to better than a thousandth or so.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:17 PM 8/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>> All I can do is offer to return the favor, Bob, if you ever need any
>> machine work for a project, I'd be happy to help.
>>
>
> Do you have a mill with a digital readout?
>
> My little Kolb continues to fly along with zero electrical issues.
>> Security like that is absolutely priceless, IMHO.
>>
>
> Great news!
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher
wrote:
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have
learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin
430 and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45
minutes and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes
I get GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS
signal back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it
doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I
get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so don't know
when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
Thanks,
Jeff
My thought would be to operate your GPS on it's inernal battery,
and when it fails, turn off your master switch to kill everything
electrical, so the only thing still running is the engine. If the GPS
comes back, then it is probably something in the panel, if it doesn't
start working then the problem may be in the GPS. If it is in the
panel, you can then go through a process of elimination by restoring
power to the panel and shutting down each electronic device
individually until the problem goes away.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeffrey Bougher <jsbougher(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
Nope, separate antennas. This is what baffles me. The only think they share in
common is that they are GPSs, they are made by Garmin and they are in my plane
:^). That is why I made sure on one trip that the 396 was not even plugged into
the cigarette lighter - still lost signal at same time as 430.
Jeff
________________________________
From: S. Ramirez <simon(at)synchdes.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Bougher
Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 7:24:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
Since both units drop out at the same time, Jeff, I will assume that
they share the same antenna and thus lose signal somehow, probably due
to vibration. Can you please confirm that the 430 and 396 are
using the same antenna?
Thanks.
Simon Ramirez
Oviedo, FL USA
On 8/24/2010 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I
have learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
>I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430
>and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes
>and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get
>GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal
>back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't
>show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS
>back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but
>ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
>
>Two recent sample flights.
>Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS
>at about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes,
>430 picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396
>doesn't pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>
>Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40
>minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour
-
>1:15, the 396 reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until
>back on ground.
>
>Notes:
>* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and
>had similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I
>recall, both occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
>* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying
>on the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems
>MUCH more consistent now.
>* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center
>if there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on
>station reported no problems.
>* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was
>under a lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous
>events.
>* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only
>on battery and it makes no difference.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
I had a similar problem with my 496. It worked perfectly, but every once in a
while would lose sall atellites and they would stay gone (no signal bars) for
minutes at a time - even many minutes.
I didn't spend a lot of time worrying about it since my plane is VFR and I can
live without the GPS in the local area. One time I was far from home and it happened
and that is how I stumbled on the problem. I had to revert to VOR navigation
and while I was tuning the NAV radio I noticed that I could make the GPS
signal come back. I noticed that when I tuned the NAV2 VOR receiver in my
plane to 114.1 (or any frequency around it) that would completely kill the GPS.
All other VOR frequencies worked fine. Sometimes it would be completely killed,
and sometimes small bars would remain.
What must be happening is that the local oscialltor in the TKM nav radio must have
a harmonic that lands right on the GPS frequency. You could watch the signal
bars go away on the GPS when you tuned the NAV radio. The handheld antenna
on the 496 wasn't helping things, since I was able to show that that was how
the interference was getting into the GPS.
I suspect some other piece of equipment in your plane is interfering with your
GPS. When the GPS(s) fail, start turning things off or tuning them to different
frequencies. You'll find it.
Good Luck,
dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Bougher" <jsbougher(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:53:49 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
Nope, separate antennas. This is what baffles me. The only think they share in
common is that they are GPSs, they are made by Garmin and they are in my plane
:^). That is why I made sure on one trip that the 396 was not even plugged into
the cigarette lighter - still lost signal at same time as 430.
Jeff
From: S. Ramirez <simon(at)synchdes.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Bougher
Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 7:24:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
Since both units drop out at the same time, Jeff, I will assume that they share
the same antenna and thus lose signal somehow, probably due to vibration. Can
you please confirm that the 430 and 396 are using the same antenna?
Thanks.
Simon Ramirez
Oviedo, FL USA
On 8/24/2010 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally not
good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is that there
is a lot of knowledge on this board.
I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and portable
Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I lose GPS signal
on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal back, sometimes
I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is intermittent. When I look
at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around
touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so don't
know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
Two recent sample flights.
Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same
time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430 picks up satellites
and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't pick up satellites
until back on the ground.
Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes into
flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396 reacquires
satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
Notes:
* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had similar
occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both occurrences
were an hour or more into flight.
* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on the 430
antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH more consistent
now.
* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if there
was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station reported no problems.
* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a lowish
cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on battery
and it makes no difference.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Mitchell <rmitch1(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
Also the coax on the 430w is much higher quality shielding than that a called out
in the 430 install. If you don't have the 430w antenna, you really don't have
a 430w!
Bob Mitchell
Twin comanche 42tp
Garmin 430w
Garmin 496
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 24, 2010, at 4:40 PM, dave.gribble(at)mchsi.com wrote:
>
> I had a similar problem with my 496. It worked perfectly, but every once in
a while would lose sall atellites and they would stay gone (no signal bars) for
minutes at a time - even many minutes.
>
> I didn't spend a lot of time worrying about it since my plane is VFR and I can
live without the GPS in the local area. One time I was far from home and it
happened and that is how I stumbled on the problem. I had to revert to VOR navigation
and while I was tuning the NAV radio I noticed that I could make the
GPS signal come back. I noticed that when I tuned the NAV2 VOR receiver in my
plane to 114.1 (or any frequency around it) that would completely kill the GPS.
All other VOR frequencies worked fine. Sometimes it would be completely
killed, and sometimes small bars would remain.
>
> What must be happening is that the local oscialltor in the TKM nav radio must
have a harmonic that lands right on the GPS frequency. You could watch the signal
bars go away on the GPS when you tuned the NAV radio. The handheld antenna
on the 496 wasn't helping things, since I was able to show that that was how
the interference was getting into the GPS.
>
> I suspect some other piece of equipment in your plane is interfering with your
GPS. When the GPS(s) fail, start turning things off or tuning them to different
frequencies. You'll find it.
>
>
> Good Luck,
>
> dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Bougher" <jsbougher(at)yahoo.com>
> To: "S. Ramirez" , aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:53:49 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
>
>
>
> Nope, separate antennas. This is what baffles me. The only think they share
in common is that they are GPSs, they are made by Garmin and they are in my plane
:^). That is why I made sure on one trip that the 396 was not even plugged
into the cigarette lighter - still lost signal at same time as 430.
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> From: S. Ramirez <simon(at)synchdes.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Cc: Jeffrey Bougher
> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 7:24:46 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
>
> Since both units drop out at the same time, Jeff, I will assume that they share
the same antenna and thus lose signal somehow, probably due to vibration.
Can you please confirm that the 430 and 396 are using the same antenna?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez
> Oviedo, FL USA
>
>
> On 8/24/2010 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
>
>
>
> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and generally not
good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I have learned is that
there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430 and portable
Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes and I lose GPS
signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get GPS signal back, sometimes
I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal back it is intermittent. When
I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime
around touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway,
so don't know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
>
> Two recent sample flights.
> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about
same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes, 430 picks up satellites
and maintains through rest of flight. The 396 doesn't pick up satellites
until back on the ground.
>
> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40 minutes into
flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour - 1:15, the 396 reacquires
satellites. The 430 never reacquires until back on ground.
>
> Notes:
> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and had similar
occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I recall, both occurrences
were an hour or more into flight.
> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying on the
430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems MUCH more consistent
now.
> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center if there
was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on station reported no problems.
> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was under a lowish
cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only on battery
and it makes no difference.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeffrey Bougher <jsbougher(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
Wow, thanks for all the comments and suggestions ... I had to get a notepad out
to write them all down. I think I have answers to most questions. To
troubleshoot, two suggestions that I'm definitely going to follow are:
1) Move the 396 antenna further from 430 antenna - I'll stick in armpit pocket
in back seat - nothing but think fiberglass and some fabric between it and sky.
2) Next time it occurs, try changing radio frequencies one by one, I will
include transponder. If this doesn't work, try killing each radio sequentially
to see if that helps.
3) If above doesn't work, kill all electric and see if 396 picks up satellites.
Now, to answer a few questions and see if this brings more light to the problem:
* When I had 430W upgrade, I got new antenna. The puck mount is a smidge
different so I need to modify mount on plane. Avionics shop said 430 would work
fine with old antenna, but it wouldn't be a 430W.
* The 430 antenna is mounted directly under the front access panel. It is
probably within 1 foot of battery and ELT antenna. The 396 antenna is a Garmin
remote antenna and sits on the glare shield - maybe 2 feet horizontally from the
430 antenna.
* The 430 antenna has a pretty straight shot directly to radio. Cable was
fabricated by avionics shop. It was replaced about 5 years ago when I had
complete GPS failure due to bad wire ... mode this time is different
(intermittent). The 396 antenna is also 5 years old, but in a little worse
shape since it is not mounted and gets handled much more. The
* The 396 antenna sits immediately next to the XM antenna on the glare shield.
Both are routes somewhat haphazardly around the edge of the glareshield. I
would say they are trapped between edge of glareshield and sidewall, but they
are not pinched. The 396 cable has never been modified
Final note, my experience means that I don't really trust GPS. I've stayed
pretty good at flying VORs and always have 2 flight plans on my knee board -
direct and VOR. Fortunately, I have a DME which makes VOR flying much easier.
Unfortunately I don't have an RNAV like I used to have in my Cessna. I LOVED
the RNAV and was going to put one in my Velocity, but had several people tell me
they were maintenance nightmares. So far, the 430 has been the most troublesome
part of my aircraft ownership experience. When it works it is all sugar and
sunshine, when it goes out, it back to the VORs.
On 8/24/2010 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I
have learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>
>I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin 430
>and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45 minutes
>and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously. Sometimes I get
>GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I get GPS signal
>back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS page, it doesn't
>show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around touchdown I get GPS
>back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so don't know when, but
>ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to acquire.
>
>Two recent sample flights.
>Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS
>at about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30 minutes,
>430 picks up satellites and maintains through rest of flight. The 396
>doesn't pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>
>Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40
>minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour
-
>1:15, the 396 reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires until
>back on ground.
>
>Notes:
>* The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and
>had similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I
>recall, both occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
>* The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still flying
>on the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but it seems
>MUCH more consistent now.
>* I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center
>if there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on
>station reported no problems.
>* Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was
>under a lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous
>events.
>* I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running only
>on battery and it makes no difference.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
| From: | "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com> |
Ive installed my senders (resistance type) and routed the 4.7v excitation and the
required resistor to the sender
Heres my question:
How is it safe to route 4.7 volts to a fuel tank with current traveling through
the tank? Spark kaboom?
Is there something Im missing?
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310086#310086
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
I'd note that in the case of the 430W antenna (I understand you are
using 430 antenna), a minimum level for the antenna coax is specified.
A straight shot may not be ideal. The length of cable in all GPS
antenna seems to be something to pay attention to (either reference
installation manual or leave supplied coax alone and coil as required).
I'm amazed at your experience because it's so different from mine. I've
been using GPS since the very beginning (racing gliders adopted it day
one because it circumvented some competitive rules regarding on board
navigation). Equipped my Maule with a certified Garmin 300XL (crude by
430 standards), got my rating, and logged plenty of actual behind it.
Still have a 396 in the Maule which was a signicant upgrade to the 300XL
panel. All of the above has performed flawlessly from day 1. The 300XL
was professionally installed. The rest of it was pretty ad hoc. I'm
looking forward to limiting my ground based NAV to proficiency work in
an almost flying RV10.
You are really going to like your setup once you get it working reliably.
Bill
Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
> Wow, thanks for all the comments and suggestions ... I had to get a
> notepad out to write them all down. I think I have answers to most
> questions. To troubleshoot, two suggestions that I'm definitely going
> to follow are:
> 1) Move the 396 antenna further from 430 antenna - I'll stick in
> armpit pocket in back seat - nothing but think fiberglass and some
> fabric between it and sky.
> 2) Next time it occurs, try changing radio frequencies one by one, I
> will include transponder. If this doesn't work, try killing each
> radio sequentially to see if that helps.
> 3) If above doesn't work, kill all electric and see if 396 picks up
> satellites.
>
> Now, to answer a few questions and see if this brings more light to
> the problem:
> * When I had 430W upgrade, I got new antenna. The puck mount is a
> smidge different so I need to modify mount on plane. Avionics shop
> said 430 would work fine with old antenna, but it wouldn't be a 430W.
> * The 430 antenna is mounted directly under the front access panel.
> It is probably within 1 foot of battery and ELT antenna. The 396
> antenna is a Garmin remote antenna and sits on the glare shield -
> maybe 2 feet horizontally from the 430 antenna.
> * The 430 antenna has a pretty straight shot directly to radio. Cable
> was fabricated by avionics shop. It was replaced about 5 years ago
> when I had complete GPS failure due to bad wire ... mode this time is
> different (intermittent). The 396 antenna is also 5 years old, but in
> a little worse shape since it is not mounted and gets handled much
> more. The
> * The 396 antenna sits immediately next to the XM antenna on the glare
> shield. Both are routes somewhat haphazardly around the edge of the
> glareshield. I would say they are trapped between edge of glareshield
> and sidewall, but they are not pinched. The 396 cable has never been
> modified
>
> Final note, my experience means that I don't really trust GPS. I've
> stayed pretty good at flying VORs and always have 2 flight plans on my
> knee board - direct and VOR. Fortunately, I have a DME which makes
> VOR flying much easier. Unfortunately I don't have an RNAV like I
> used to have in my Cessna. I LOVED the RNAV and was going to put one
> in my Velocity, but had several people tell me they were maintenance
> nightmares. So far, the 430 has been the most troublesome part of my
> aircraft ownership experience. When it works it is all sugar and
> sunshine, when it goes out, it back to the VORs.
>
> On 8/24/2010 6:54 AM, Jeffrey Bougher wrote:
>> I fly a purchased Velocity. I'm about 1/3 through Bob's book and
>> generally not good with electrical issues - hence the book. What I
>> have learned is that there is a lot of knowledge on this board.
>>
>> I have the following problem. On the ground, panel mounted Garmin
>> 430 and portable Garmin 396 work fine. Take-off and fly for 20-45
>> minutes and I lose GPS signal on both almost simultaneously.
>> Sometimes I get GPS signal back, sometimes I don't. Sometimes when I
>> get GPS signal back it is intermittent. When I look at the 396 GPS
>> page, it doesn't show ANY signal on ANY satellite. Sometime around
>> touchdown I get GPS back ... I'm not really looking until taxiway, so
>> don't know when, but ON the ground GPS seems to always be able to
>> acquire.
>>
>> Two recent sample flights.
>> Depart both GPSs working, then 40 minutes into flight, both drop GPS
>> at about same time. This is a 2:20 flight. After another 30
>> minutes, 430 picks up satellites and maintains through rest of
>> flight. The 396 doesn't pick up satellites until back on the ground.
>>
>> Return flight, both GPSs working on ground. Sometime around 30-40
>> minutes into flight, both drop GPS at about same time. After 1 hour
>> - 1:15, the 396 reacquires satellites. The 430 never reacquires
>> until back on ground.
>>
>> Notes:
>> * The 396 is new to me. I had borrowed it previously on occasion and
>> had similar occurrence twice. This was a few years back and, if I
>> recall, both occurrences were an hour or more into flight.
>> * The 430 was recently upgraded from 430 to 430W, but I'm still
>> flying on the 430 antenna. As stated above, had problem before, but
>> it seems MUCH more consistent now.
>> * I had flight following on one of these occurrences and asked center
>> if there was know problem. Answer was NO and about 3 planes on
>> station reported no problems.
>> * Both flights above, there was much humidity in the air and I was
>> under a lowish cloud deck. I don't recall conditions on previous events.
>> * I've tried using 396 plugged into cigarette lighter and running
>> only on battery and it makes no difference.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 08/23/10 |
| From: | kent(at)cybermesa.com |
Er
------Original Message------
From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 08/23/10
Sent: Aug 24, 2010 00:55
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 10-08-23&Archive=AeroElectric
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 10-08-23&Archive=AeroElectric
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 08/23/10: 9
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:46 AM - Avionics Master switch (tomcostanza)
2. 06:40 AM - Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V (user9253)
3. 07:19 AM - Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V (user9253)
4. 11:49 AM - testing of backup alternator (Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com)
5. 09:38 PM - Re: Avionics Master switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:38 PM - Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V (Robert L. Nuckolls,
III)
7. 09:41 PM - Re: Re: New operations model for the AeroElectric Connection
(Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:51 PM - Re: Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V (Robert L. Nuckolls,
III)
9. 09:56 PM - Re: testing of backup alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master switch
From: "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com>
Before everyone yawns and says, "Not another question about avionics master switches",
I'll ask you to indulge me.
Suppose I had a "friend", who was paranoid about blowing-up his $10,000 WAAS gps,
and $20,000 glass panel, and hadn't read Bob's epistles about fault tolerance
specs, etc. But this "friend" didn't want the single point failure of an avionics
master switch. Suppose also, that he had a progressive master switch
(Off - Batt only/alternator field off - On/alternator field on). Why couldn't
this "friend" shut down by turning off the master switch before shutting down
the engine? Is this the bugaboo that the non-Aeroelectric crowd fears? ie.
Is the sudden collapse of the alternator field the culprit everyone fears, or
is it the limbo-like state of the alternator as the engine rpm winds down after
pulling the mixture they fear? Would this procedure raise more concerns than
it eased?
I once had an instructor that shut off the alternator field and looked for a hiccup
on the ammeter as part of a pre-takeoff check (avionics on at this point).
This was the same instructor that "enlightened" me about the reason for shutting
off all avionics before starting and before shutting down the engine.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309853#309853
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: B&C alt voltage goes right up to 16V
From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
You confirmed that there is indeed an over-voltage condition. The voltage regulator
is not doing its job, for whatever reason. The rain may or may not be a
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis & Anne Glaeser" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
That type of circuit, especially at the low voltage and current levels, is
not a spark hazard.
There are thousands of planes that have been flying for many years with this
type of fuel level sender. Stick 'em in and worry about the cost of the gas
you're trying to ignite instead :-)
Dennis
--------------------------------
From: MHerder
Date: Wed Aug 25 - 7:16 AM
Ive installed my senders (resistance type) and routed the 4.7v excitation
and the
required resistor to the sender
Heres my question:
How is it safe to route 4.7 volts to a fuel tank with current traveling
through
the tank? Spark kaboom?
Is there something Im missing?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
At 09:13 AM 8/25/2010, you wrote:
>"MHerder"
>
>Ive installed my senders (resistance type) and
>routed the 4.7v excitation and the required resistor to the sender
>
>Heres my question:
>
>How is it safe to route 4.7 volts to a fuel tank
>with current traveling through the tank? Spark kaboom?
>
>Is there something I'm missing?
Cars have been running "current" into the fuel
tanks for monitoring liquid level for a lot of
years. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Circa_1923_Fuel_Gage.pdf
While the stuff in the tank is indeed
combustible, the range of conditions over which
it becomes hazardous in storage does have
boundaries.
As long as there is any liquid fuel
in a tank, the vapor above the liquid
is close to saturated. I.e., a long
ways away from the ideal stoichiometric
ratio where ignition is easiest and the
burning most violent.
Further, even in ideal ratios of fuel
and oxygen, the ignition source has to present
a minimum packet of energy in order to trigger
the chain reaction that is burning or even
an explosion. Devices incapable of delivering
these energy levels (adjusted for headroom) are
called "intrinsically safe" . . . meaning
that there are no combinations where the total
system becomes hazardous.
For example, the energy that flows in components
of a capacity fuel sensor falls in the intrinsically
safe category. Variable resistors adjusted by floats
and paired with the right gages are also intrinsically
safe.
But assuming you put a real "sparker" in the
tank, you're still not going to get a hazardous
mixture until after all the liquid has evaporated
and the remaining vapors are sufficiently diluted
so as to approach the "oh s#$t" ratio. This just
doesn't happen accidently in small airplanes.
Doesn't happen in big airplanes either. This is
why a "spark in the tank" hypothesis for any
explosion aboard airplanes is unsupported
by the physics or any demonstrable experiment.
That "unusable fuel" has two important functions.
(1) provide a low-spot for moisture collection
and (2) keep the vapor in the tank saturated.
So the short answer to your question is, don't
worry about it.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Morrow <danfm01(at)butter.toast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
Bob's answer with respect to explosive dangers with 100LL in the fuel
tank is correct of course. If there is anyone out there thinking of
diesel power, be aware that the situation with respect to jet fuel is
different. Jet fuel vapor can easily reach explosive concentrations in a
fuel tank and special venting requirements are usually recommended. See
www.deltahawkengines.com/questi00.shtml#fuel for a discussion.
On 08/26/2010 06:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:13 AM 8/25/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ive installed my senders (resistance type) and routed the 4.7v
>> excitation and the required resistor to the sender
>>
>> Heres my question:
>>
>> How is it safe to route 4.7 volts to a fuel tank with current
>> traveling through the tank? Spark kaboom?
>>
>> Is there something I'm missing?
>
> Cars have been running "current" into the fuel
> tanks for monitoring liquid level for a lot of
> years. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Circa_1923_Fuel_Gage.pdf
>
>
> While the stuff in the tank is indeed
> combustible, the range of conditions over which
> it becomes hazardous in storage does have
> boundaries.
>
> As long as there is any liquid fuel
> in a tank, the vapor above the liquid
> is close to saturated. I.e., a long
> ways away from the ideal stoichiometric
> ratio where ignition is easiest and the
> burning most violent.
>
> Further, even in ideal ratios of fuel
> and oxygen, the ignition source has to present
> a minimum packet of energy in order to trigger
> the chain reaction that is burning or even
> an explosion. Devices incapable of delivering
> these energy levels (adjusted for headroom) are
> called "intrinsically safe" . . . meaning
> that there are no combinations where the total
> system becomes hazardous.
>
> For example, the energy that flows in components
> of a capacity fuel sensor falls in the intrinsically
> safe category. Variable resistors adjusted by floats
> and paired with the right gages are also intrinsically
> safe.
>
> But assuming you put a real "sparker" in the
> tank, you're still not going to get a hazardous
> mixture until after all the liquid has evaporated
> and the remaining vapors are sufficiently diluted
> so as to approach the "oh s#$t" ratio. This just
> doesn't happen accidently in small airplanes.
>
> Doesn't happen in big airplanes either. This is
> why a "spark in the tank" hypothesis for any
> explosion aboard airplanes is unsupported
> by the physics or any demonstrable experiment.
>
> That "unusable fuel" has two important functions.
> (1) provide a low-spot for moisture collection
> and (2) keep the vapor in the tank saturated.
>
> So the short answer to your question is, don't
> worry about it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | testing of backup alternator |
Erich,
I didn't catch how many replies you had on this one. On my system I have
a Dynon which monitors voltage internally and externally. Since I have
the internal battery option, I can sit there with the SD-8 running (no
interruption to the Dynon) and monitor the voltage activity on the
master/essential bus via the Dynon. The key here is having something to
monitor your system voltage that is not tied to switches and other
things you've just lost when the alternator blows. That can come in many
forms. I've seen some inexpensive LED panel voltage monitors that would
do nicely.
They're a nice feature to have when your world changes from inside the
cockpit. A continued downward trend is warning enough to get down
immediately. On the other hand you may feel you have enough output from
the SD-8 to continue on to the next best/safest alternator shop (Pep
Boys).
Hopefully if you've reached that mode you've begun shutting off the
air-conditioning, portable fridge, DVD etc. and are just running the
minimums.
On my ship the minimums take about 3-4 amps, Dynon, 1-radio, portable
gps.
Yes, the SD-8 seems to takes about a 1000 rpm to produce any sort of
useable output. That may vary on your installation. If it's a sunny day
I also have a solar charger to setup on the panel. That will at least
power the GPS. And we're fly'n.
Maybe the real question is whether it is worth real world testing - in
my mind, absolutely. It's a great idea to test it in the air (better
than on the ramp while your CHT's go through the roof) to see how much
endurance you ultimately have. I would like to do the full test one day
soon. Perhaps on a closed course over friendly terrain.
I think most folks will wait for an emergency to perform the real test.
In most cases that will be too late. It takes a bit of stomach to shut
things down and really stretch the limit. I'm ok with that. You will
want to land and re-start the main alternator after the test. From what
I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these alternators
in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
Best,
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: testing of backup alternator
Bob, your recently responded to a couple of posts from Jared Yates, who
was asking (in part) about testing of the backup alternator in a Z-13/8
system.
Cant speak for Jared, but Im not sure his real question was effectively
answered and I am interested in this as well,, so thought I would follow
up. How do I go about assuring myself that my SD-8 will work as
advertised when called upon? Can I just turn off the master, flip on
the switches for the SD-8 and the e-bus alternate feed, and wait to see
if I get a low voltage warning light on my engine monitor? Can I do
this on the ground at idle, or do I need to have the RPM elevated?
Feeling a bit boneheaded about this, but would be more boneheaded to not
ask, and find out later my
SD-8 was providing no backup at all.
thanks for your service
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 08/26/2010 03:17 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> From what
> I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these alternators
> in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
Would absolutely love to see some real data to back up this claim...
Can you point us to any references?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
Join us on the New England Aviation Forums - http://forum.deej.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
At 03:15 PM 8/26/2010, you wrote:
>
>On 08/26/2010 03:17 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> > From what
> > I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these alternators
> > in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
>
>
> Would absolutely love to see some real data to back up this claim...
>Can you point us to any references?
I've been testing alternators and generators on airplanes,
laboratory test stands and an odd assortment of vehicles
for 40+ years. We turn them on, off, no-load, full-load,
you name it. Whether or not there's a battery on line.
See chapter on engine driven power sources in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
Having said that, there MAY be regulator characteristics
(whether internal in or external) that present poor transient
response without a battery on line. Indeed, this is one
of the situations described by "load dump" in automotive
parlance and "battery dump" in aviation parlance. Depending
on how wildly the system behaves without a battery, SOME
devices may be at risk if they're tied to the bus. This
INCLUDES poorly designed regulators. This was the problem
reported but not understood a few years back when some
folks experienced alternator/regulator damage when switching
a Z-24 system off with the alternator loaded. However,
this is the exception.
Bottom line is, as long as the battery stays tied to the
alternator's b-lead, there's nothing you can do with
switches on the panel that will hurt anything . . .
In other words, transients generated by such activities
do not exceed NORMAL operating transients as described
in Mil-STD-704 and DO-160. Even with Z-24 configuration,
an internally regulated alternator worth your hard-earned
dollars is not at-risk for inadvertent switch positioning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
I definitely failed a John Deere PM regulator just by starting the
engine on the ground with a totally dead battery. An immediate over
voltage caused the crowbar OV module to trip the AC relay off, and the
regulator evermore put out max voltage after the battery was recharged.
I never have had a large capacitor in that system which might have
helped. It was a sealed battery and they don't accept current for some
time (if ever) when totally discharged. Undoubtedly the same failure
would occur with a disconnected battery.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 03:15 PM 8/26/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> On 08/26/2010 03:17 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>> > From what
>> > I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these alternators
>> > in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
>>
>>
>> Would absolutely love to see some real data to back up this
>> claim...
>> Can you point us to any references?
>
> I've been testing alternators and generators on airplanes,
> laboratory test stands and an odd assortment of vehicles
> for 40+ years. We turn them on, off, no-load, full-load,
> you name it. Whether or not there's a battery on line.
> See chapter on engine driven power sources in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
>
> Having said that, there MAY be regulator characteristics
> (whether internal in or external) that present poor transient
> response without a battery on line. Indeed, this is one
> of the situations described by "load dump" in automotive
> parlance and "battery dump" in aviation parlance. Depending
> on how wildly the system behaves without a battery, SOME
> devices may be at risk if they're tied to the bus. This
> INCLUDES poorly designed regulators. This was the problem
> reported but not understood a few years back when some
> folks experienced alternator/regulator damage when switching
> a Z-24 system off with the alternator loaded. However,
> this is the exception.
>
> Bottom line is, as long as the battery stays tied to the
> alternator's b-lead, there's nothing you can do with
> switches on the panel that will hurt anything . . .
>
> In other words, transients generated by such activities
> do not exceed NORMAL operating transients as described
> in Mil-STD-704 and DO-160. Even with Z-24 configuration,
> an internally regulated alternator worth your hard-earned
> dollars is not at-risk for inadvertent switch positioning.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 questions |
At 11:52 PM 8/26/2010, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I know you're a very busy man, so I hope I'm not imposing too much
>by asking you a couple of questions. I'm hoping you can help shed
>some light on these issues, for which I've been unable to find answers:
No problem, it's what we do.
>
>1. My RV-8 will utilize a Z-12-based architecture, including a 60A
>main alternator, and a 20A backup alternator from B&C mounted on the
>vacuum pad. I am using the standard LR-3 and SB-1 alternator
>controllers. My first question is: Does the "Aux Alternator" switch
>normally stay ON during flight, so that the Aux alternator actually
>provides power to the Main Bus all the time? Or should the switch
>stay OFF, only to be switched on by the pilot in the event of a Main
>alternator failure?
The SB-1 alternator is specifically designed for STANDBY service
and is normally installed with a setpoint down around 13.5 volts.
Therefore, the second alternator installed for standby service is
not intended to either share loads with the main alternator nor
is it intended to charge the ship's battery.
It's your option, you can leave it ON or OFF at all times for normal
flight . . . if left ON, the SB-1 regulator will interpret the
normal bus voltage of 14+ volts as "too high" and will completely
relax thus driving the SB alternator field voltage to zero.
In the event of main alternator shut down for any reason, the
bus voltage would normally fall to battery support levels
that start at about 12.5 volts and goes down from there.
If the SB alternator is ON, this depression in bus votlage
will cause the SB-1 regulator to wake up and bring the
standby alternator into service. It will annunciate the fact
by illuminating the SB ALT loaded light. If total loads on
the SB alternator exceed 20A, the SB-1 will flash the warning
light . . . the pilot is advised to reduce ship's electrical
loads until flashing stops.
If left OFF, you'll get a LO VOLTS warning light that
prompts you to turn the sb alternator ON and
then do the load-shedding exercise.
>
>2. My interpretation of the Z-12 architecture indicates that in the
>event of a Main alternator failure, it would be the pilot's job to
>manually load-shed the electrical system so that the total load was
>below 20A. This is because the Aux alternator would feed the Main
>Bus (and thence the Endurance Bus), so in the event of an Aux
>alternator-only operation, most of the Main Bus items would have to
>be turned off (or not used). My Endurance Bus will pull about 10A,
>so I'd like to feed the Endurance Bus directly from the Aux
>alternator (in addition to the normal feed path from the Main Bus).
>That way, I could perform a quick, pre-selected load-shed operation
>merely by turning off the Main Alternator switch and turning on the
>Aux Alternator switch. (And, of course, I'd also have the E-Bus
>Alternate feed from the Batt Bus, as a last-ditch backup.) So my
>second question is: Is this a reasonable modification to the Z-12
>architecture? My goal is a simple, robust system, but I'd like the
>convenience and pilot friendliness of a dirt-simple "load shed"
>procedure, rather than a manual load-shed -- and having to ration
>power to the Main Bus items.
Then you're not talking about Z-12 (originally crafted to
be a drop-in for type certificated aircraft that (1) doesn't
have an e-bus and (2) would be exceedingly difficult under
FAA rules to shuffle bus structures around. The system you're
describing looks more like this
http://tinyurl.com/24j8gh4
This is a more robust version of Z-13/8 where the 20A
alternator is installed primarily to support an electrically
dependent engine. No e-bus is shown because if you have
a robust second alternator, there's no likelihood of needing
to operate battery-only . . . that's two major failures on
a single tank of fuel. Hence the simple direct connection
for the sb alternator to the battery such that battery
contactor failures are covered.
"Last ditch" ???? You're spending too much time worrying
about things that only happen in Hollywood's notions of
how airplanes work. Modern alternators properly integrated
into your airplane are very low failure rate items.
It is unlikely that you will EVER find experience a
pressing need to drop to SB alternator or a battery-only
ops mode over the lifetime of your airplane. In 25 years
of working with the OBAM aviation community, I've had
but a handful of readers report that the s/b alternator
or e-bus ops were found useful and functioned as advertised.
If the airplane you're flying now is a TC aircraft, then
it has no e-bus, no sb alternator, might even be a rented
airplane where you have little knowledge of and zero
control over ship's maintenance. This has always been
my personal situation having never owned an airplane.
So when I walk up to the airplane, I do it with the
mind set that I don't care if the electrical system
is going to work 100.0% of the time or not. I've got
stuff in my flight bag that will allow me to operate
any of the airplanes I fly in "J-3 mode" with a goal
of aviating to airport of intended destination whether
or not anything on the panel works.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
No matter what electrical system is installed in your
OBAM aircraft, the stuff in your flight bag should be
similarly selected. If you've got smelly stuff in the
cockpit that's suspiciously like wire or electrical
accessory smoke, you might just want to shut everything
off, dig out the REAL stand-by goodies and keep on truck'n.
Actually, I've not turned a panel mounted nav radio
on since I purchased my first hand-held GPS in '95.
The $100 Magellans do 99% of everything I need the
nav radio to do . . . how far, which direction,
and ETA.
Your questions give the distinct impression that
you don't have much trust in the hardware for which
you're crafting an architecture. Lack of trust comes
from some combination of three conditions:
(1) You KNOW you're installing certified junk on
an airplane constrained by regulation to be forever
less than the best we know how to do.
(2) You don't personally possess a demonstrable,
experience-based data set the confirms the reliability
enjoyed by the OBAM aircraft community.
(3) Your understanding of the system is diluted
with a lot of extraneous noise exemplified by the
majority of dark-n-stormy-night stories in the
flying rags and the nail-biter scenarios dreamed
up by Hollywood writers to make the actors look
like the gods of failure mitigation.
If you're crafting an airplane with an electrically
dependent engine where all the engine support
comes from the battery bus, then Z-08 is recommended.
If your engine is not electrically dependent
then Z-12 as depicted is recommended.
When and if that low voltage warning light ever
comes on, know that this is NOT an emergency
You can finish your cup of coffee and decide
what, if anything, you plan to do about it.
The point is, there IS A PLAN that probably
requires repositioning less than a half dozen
switches until the light stops flashing.
Hence, I'll suggest that your quest for "dirt
simple" responses to a "last ditch" scenario
are probably not a good investment of emotional
capital or time.
You need to tell us more about what equipment
is installed on what kind of engine for the
advice to me more specific.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
At 07:28 AM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>
>I definitely failed a John Deere PM regulator just by starting the
>engine on the ground with a totally dead battery.
>An immediate over voltage caused the crowbar OV module to trip the
>AC relay off,
Hmmm . . . It may be that the JD rectifier/regulator
has some feature a bit short on robustness . . . but
the scenario you describe is not one that immediately
suggests this. It's a certainty that yard maintenance
equipment is quite often jump-started into a dead battery.
>and the regulator evermore put out max voltage after the battery was
>recharged.
This my have been an isolated failure. Have you replaced
the r/r and found that everything works as expected?
>I never have had a large capacitor in that system which might have helped.
This would not have made any difference.
>It was a sealed battery and they don't accept current for some time
>(if ever) when totally discharged. Undoubtedly the same failure
>would occur with a disconnected battery.
Maybe, but does the owner's manual for any item
of JD equipment caution against operations with
a completely discharged but otherwise good battery?
I'm not sure you have enough data about the
manufacturer's design goals to arrive at this
conclusion. Certainly the scenario you describe
happens many times on perhaps thousands of mowers
and tractors every summer . . . if they were blowing
up R/R like popcorn, I have to believe there would
be some scrambling around in the JD engineering
community to fix it.
Obviously, my earlier comment to this thread
pertained only to wound-field alternators. The
permanent magnet devices with rectifier/regulators
are another breed of cat.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | testing of backup alternator |
DJ,
I do not but, based on Bob's generally reliable response I don't have to
worry about pilot tales to complete my testing. As Bob indicated unless
the battery is completely dead (not gonna happen in my case -on purpose
- caus' the Lightspeed requires min 5 volts to run), I can safely switch
on and off. That gives me the added comfort of continuing my flight say
if the alt CB pops momentarily and I want to turn off the Alt to reset
it. Naturally I'll only do that once in unknown circumstances.
In most cases I could run a very long distance with the SD-8.
One easy way to provide proof for yourself is to go out and do the
tests. If so worried, turn off everything else first. If you don't know
the limits of your machine, you don't know your machine.
I'll be out testing.
Glenn E. Long
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: testing of backup alternator
On 08/26/2010 03:17 PM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> From what
> I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these
alternators
> in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
Would absolutely love to see some real data to back up this
claim...
Can you point us to any references?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
Join us on the New England Aviation Forums - http://forum.deej.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 08/27/2010 10:31 AM, longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> One easy way to provide proof for yourself is to go out and do the
> tests. If so worried, turn off everything else first. If you don't know
> the limits of your machine, you don't know your machine.
Hi Glenn,
I've turned on and off the alternator with the engine running many
times without incident. In particular, I was taking mild exception with
your statements:
>> From what
>> I understand it's not recommended to re-start some of these
> alternators
>> in flight. It may blow off the cowling and your firewall may melt.
which I do not believe are true, and was asking if there were any
references where this had actually happened. I've certainly never heard
of a cowling blowing off nor a firewall melting due to someone turning
on their alternator... :-)
Could be you were trying to be sarcastic, in which case I was hoping no
one was actually thinking you were serious, and wanted to attempt to
stop more Old Wives Tales on this topic... :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
Join us on the New England Aviation Forums - http://forum.deej.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: testing of backup alternator |
Yes a replacement regulator has worked perfectly for several hundred
hours. You make a good point about the lawn equipment and dead
batteries so maybe it was a one off failure. From what I've seen over
the years though I think a dead flooded cell battery (as found in all
the lawn equipment that I've seen) might have absorbed enough current to
prevent the failure. So my theory is that the sealed AGM battery was
the critical factor. It was a totally discharged battery. Anyway thought
it might save someone a hundred dollars and some hassle to mention my
experience.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 07:28 AM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> I definitely failed a John Deere PM regulator just by starting the
>> engine on the ground with a totally dead battery.
>> An immediate over voltage caused the crowbar OV module to trip the AC
>> relay off,
>
> Hmmm . . . It may be that the JD rectifier/regulator
> has some feature a bit short on robustness . . . but
> the scenario you describe is not one that immediately
> suggests this. It's a certainty that yard maintenance
> equipment is quite often jump-started into a dead battery.
>
>
>> and the regulator evermore put out max voltage after the battery was
>> recharged.
>
> This my have been an isolated failure. Have you replaced
> the r/r and found that everything works as expected?
>
>> I never have had a large capacitor in that system which might have
>> helped.
>
> This would not have made any difference.
>
>> It was a sealed battery and they don't accept current for some time
>> (if ever) when totally discharged. Undoubtedly the same failure would
>> occur with a disconnected battery.
>
> Maybe, but does the owner's manual for any item
> of JD equipment caution against operations with
> a completely discharged but otherwise good battery?
> I'm not sure you have enough data about the
> manufacturer's design goals to arrive at this
> conclusion. Certainly the scenario you describe
> happens many times on perhaps thousands of mowers
> and tractors every summer . . . if they were blowing
> up R/R like popcorn, I have to believe there would
> be some scrambling around in the JD engineering
> community to fix it.
>
> Obviously, my earlier comment to this thread
> pertained only to wound-field alternators. The
> permanent magnet devices with rectifier/regulators
> are another breed of cat.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
This has been an interesting discussion to read through. I've had similar experiences
with a Garmin 296 that had me baffled for a while. I first used my unit
extensively on a Florida to Boston cross country flight in a LongEZ. Maybe I
experienced a very brief lost of signal, but it was of no consequence. The unit
provided excellent service.
Then I started using it in a C172 and noticed a troubling occurence of dropouts.
Tried new software, and different antenna. Eventually, I got to associate the
dropouts with specific routes, some of which had known large ground antenna
installations, so I thought it was just groundstation intereference. But no one
I talked to seem to be experiencing GPS problems in the area. I have used the
unit in another Cessna and while the dropouts were not at all as frequent, they
still occurred unpredictably. I had lost faith in my GPS.
I had learned from various sources that the navcoms could jam the GPS. So after
reading this thread, I finally took the time to check this out. I had just come
back from a flight during which the GPS performed flawlessly. While on the
tiedown, with engine and everything running, I started to tune in the various
com frequencies I use in my area. With the GPS screen set to show the sat reception
bars, I quickly found that the bars would quickly pulse down to nothing
when the frequency was set between 119.200 to 119.5. This was even without transmitting
and it was dramatic. As it turns out, I am usually tuned within this
frequency range when flying the routes I had associated with GPS loss.
Since the G296 seems to work well in the LongEz, but with dropouts in the Cessna,
the problem is with the Cessna radio and not the GPS. Not surprisingly, different
radio installations have different RF signatures and tolerances. Maybe
the Cessna radio is out of spec, maybe not, but it is good to know finally, what
is causing my dropouts. Now if I'm lost and the GPS drops out, I know I can
change frequencies or turn off the avionics and get re-oriented.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310285#310285
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Interesting stuff. That's worth everyone with a GPS tucking away in
the "for future reference" part of the brain. Thanks for taking the
time to report this info.
James
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Radioflyer wrote:
>
> This has been an interesting discussion to read through. I've had similar experiences
with a Garmin 296 that had me baffled for a while. I first used my unit
extensively on a Florida to Boston cross country flight in a LongEZ. Maybe
I experienced a very brief lost of signal, but it was of no consequence. The unit
provided excellent service.
>
> Then I started using it in a C172 and noticed a troubling occurence of dropouts.
Tried new software, and different antenna. Eventually, I got to associate
the dropouts with specific routes, some of which had known large ground antenna
installations, so I thought it was just groundstation intereference. But no
one I talked to seem to be experiencing GPS problems in the area. I have used
the unit in another Cessna and while the dropouts were not at all as frequent,
they still occurred unpredictably. I had lost faith in my GPS.
>
> I had learned from various sources that the navcoms could jam the GPS. So after
reading this thread, I finally took the time to check this out. I had just
come back from a flight during which the GPS performed flawlessly. While on the
tiedown, with engine and everything running, I started to tune in the various
com frequencies I use in my area. With the GPS screen set to show the sat reception
bars, I quickly found that the bars would quickly pulse down to nothing
when the frequency was set between 119.200 to 119.5. This was even without transmitting
and it was dramatic. As it turns out, I am usually tuned within this
frequency range when flying the routes I had associated with GPS loss.
>
> Since the G296 seems to work well in the LongEz, but with dropouts in the Cessna,
the problem is with the Cessna radio and not the GPS. Not surprisingly, different
radio installations have different RF signatures and tolerances. Maybe
the Cessna radio is out of spec, maybe not, but it is good to know finally,
what is causing my dropouts. Now if I'm lost and the GPS drops out, I know I can
change frequencies or turn off the avionics and get re-oriented.
>
> --Jose
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310285#310285
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 questions (corrections) |
At 08:38 AM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>At 11:52 PM 8/26/2010, you wrote:
>>Bob,
>>
>>I know you're a very busy man, so I hope I'm not imposing too much
>>by asking you a couple of questions. I'm hoping you can help shed
>>some light on these issues, for which I've been unable to find answers:
>
> No problem, it's what we do.
>>
>>1. My RV-8 will utilize a Z-12-based architecture, including a 60A
>>main alternator, and a 20A backup alternator from B&C mounted on
>>the vacuum pad. I am using the standard LR-3 and SB-1 alternator
>>controllers. My first question is: Does the "Aux Alternator" switch
>>normally stay ON during flight, so that the Aux alternator actually
>>provides power to the Main Bus all the time? Or should the switch
>>stay OFF, only to be switched on by the pilot in the event of a
>>Main alternator failure?
>
> The SB-1 REGULATOR is specifically designed for STANDBY service
> and is normally installed with a setpoint down around 13.5 volts.
> Therefore, the second alternator installed for standby service
USING THE SB-1 is not intended to either share loads with the main
alternator nor is it intended to charge the ship's battery.
> It's your option, you can leave it ON or OFF at all times for normal
> flight . . . if left ON, the SB-1 regulator will interpret the
> normal bus voltage of 14+ volts as "too high" and will completely
> relax thus driving the SB alternator field voltage to zero.
>
> In the event of main alternator shut down for any reason, the
> bus voltage would normally fall to battery support levels
> that start at about 12.5 volts and goes down from there.
> If the SB alternator is ON, this depression in bus votlage
> will cause the SB-1 regulator to wake up and bring the
> standby alternator into service. It will annunciate the fact
> by illuminating the SB ALT loaded light. If total loads on
> the SB alternator exceed 20A, the SB-1 will flash the warning
> light . . . the pilot is advised to reduce ship's electrical
> loads until flashing stops.
>
> If left OFF, you'll get a LO VOLTS warning light that
> prompts you to turn the sb alternator ON and
> then do the load-shedding exercise.
ONE COULD RAISE THE SET-POINT ON AN SB-1 TO 14.4
VOLTS WHEREUPON IT WOULD BE CAPABLE OF BATTERY
MAINTENANCE. IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD LEAVE THE
AUX ALTERNATOR OFF FOR NORMAL FLIGHT, TURN ON ONLY
AFTER AN LV WARNING PROMPTED YOU. Y0U WOULD STILL
HAVE THE AID FOR LOAD SHEDDING . . . YOU ONLY
GIVE UP THE AUTO-SWITCHING FEATURE THE SB-1 WAS
DESIGNED TO SUPPORT.
>>
>>2. My interpretation of the Z-12 architecture indicates that in the
>>event of a Main alternator failure, it would be the pilot's job to
>>manually load-shed the electrical system so that the total load was
>>below 20A. This is because the Aux alternator would feed the Main
>>Bus (and thence the Endurance Bus), so in the event of an Aux
>>alternator-only operation, most of the Main Bus items would have to
>>be turned off (or not used). My Endurance Bus will pull about 10A,
>>so I'd like to feed the Endurance Bus directly from the Aux
>>alternator (in addition to the normal feed path from the Main Bus).
>>That way, I could perform a quick, pre-selected load-shed operation
>>merely by turning off the Main Alternator switch and turning on the
>>Aux Alternator switch. (And, of course, I'd also have the E-Bus
>>Alternate feed from the Batt Bus, as a last-ditch backup.) So my
>>second question is: Is this a reasonable modification to the Z-12
>>architecture? My goal is a simple, robust system, but I'd like the
>>convenience and pilot friendliness of a dirt-simple "load shed"
>>procedure, rather than a manual load-shed -- and having to ration
>>power to the Main Bus items.
>
> Then you're not talking about Z-12 (originally crafted to
> be a drop-in for type certificated aircraft that (1) doesn't
> have an e-bus and (2) would be exceedingly difficult under
> FAA rules to shuffle bus structures around. The system you're
> describing looks more like this
>
>http://tinyurl.com/24j8gh4
>
> This is a more robust version of Z-13/8 where the 20A
> alternator is installed primarily to support an electrically
> dependent engine. No e-bus is shown because if you have
> a robust second alternator, there's no likelihood of needing
> to operate battery-only . . . that's two major failures on
> a single tank of fuel. Hence the simple direct connection
> for the sb alternator to the battery such that battery
> contactor failures are covered.
>
> "Last ditch" ???? You're spending too much time worrying
> about things that only happen in Hollywood's notions of
> how airplanes work. Modern alternators properly integrated
> into your airplane are very low failure rate items.
>
> It is unlikely that you will EVER find experience a
> pressing need to drop to SB alternator or a battery-only
> ops mode over the lifetime of your airplane. In 25 years
> of working with the OBAM aviation community, I've had
> but a handful of readers report that the s/b alternator
> or e-bus ops were found useful and functioned as advertised.
>
> If the airplane you're flying now is a TC aircraft, then
> it has no e-bus, no sb alternator, might even be a rented
> airplane where you have little knowledge of and zero
> control over ship's maintenance. This has always been
> my personal situation having never owned an airplane.
>
> So when I walk up to the airplane, I do it with the
> mind set that I don't care if the electrical system
> is going to work 100.0% of the time or not. I've got
> stuff in my flight bag that will allow me to operate
> any of the airplanes I fly in "J-3 mode" with a goal
> of aviating to airport of intended destination whether
> or not anything on the panel works.
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
>
> No matter what electrical system is installed in your
> OBAM aircraft, the stuff in your flight bag should be
> similarly selected. If you've got smelly stuff in the
> cockpit that's suspiciously like wire or electrical
> accessory smoke, you might just want to shut everything
> off, dig out the REAL stand-by goodies and keep on truck'n.
>
> Actually, I've not turned a panel mounted nav radio
> on since I purchased my first hand-held GPS in '95.
> The $100 Magellans do 99% of everything I need the
> nav radio to do . . . how far, which direction,
> and ETA.
>
> Your questions give the distinct impression that
> you don't have much trust in the hardware for which
> you're crafting an architecture. Lack of trust comes
> from some combination of three conditions:
>
> (1) You KNOW you're installing certified junk on
> an airplane constrained by regulation to be forever
> less than the best we know how to do.
>
> (2) You don't personally possess a demonstrable,
> experience-based data set the confirms the reliability
> enjoyed by the OBAM aircraft community.
>
> (3) Your understanding of the system is diluted
> with a lot of extraneous noise exemplified by the
> majority of dark-n-stormy-night stories in the
> flying rags and the nail-biter scenarios dreamed
> up by Hollywood writers to make the actors look
> like the gods of failure mitigation.
>
> If you're crafting an airplane with an electrically
> dependent engine where all the engine support
> comes from the battery bus, then Z-08 is recommended.
> If your engine is not electrically dependent
> then Z-12 as depicted is recommended.
>
> When and if that low voltage warning light ever
> comes on, know that this is NOT an emergency
> You can finish your cup of coffee and decide
> what, if anything, you plan to do about it.
> The point is, there IS A PLAN that probably
> requires repositioning less than a half dozen
> switches until the light stops flashing.
>
> Hence, I'll suggest that your quest for "dirt
> simple" responses to a "last ditch" scenario
> are probably not a good investment of emotional
> capital or time.
>
> You need to tell us more about what equipment
> is installed on what kind of engine for the
> advice to me more specific.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob, you said:
> That "unusable fuel" has two important functions.
> (1) provide a low-spot for moisture collection
> and (2) keep the vapor in the tank saturated.
I spent a lot of time and effort to make sure that every drop in my fuel tanks
was usable except for the debris sumps. The mains and header can be pumped dry
except for sump fuel (4-6 ounces).
Is the small amount of fuel in the sumps enough to keep a 12' long wing tank vapor-saturated?
I wasn't ever worried about this before, but now that it's out on the line, just
want to be sure I'm not committing a major oversight.
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310335#310335
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
You don't have to run the tanks dry.
John Grosse
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> Bob, you said:
>
>
>> That "unusable fuel" has two important functions.
>> (1) provide a low-spot for moisture collection
>> and (2) keep the vapor in the tank saturated.
>>
>
>
> I spent a lot of time and effort to make sure that every drop in my fuel tanks
was usable except for the debris sumps. The mains and header can be pumped dry
except for sump fuel (4-6 ounces).
>
> Is the small amount of fuel in the sumps enough to keep a 12' long wing tank
vapor-saturated?
>
> I wasn't ever worried about this before, but now that it's out on the line, just
want to be sure I'm not committing a major oversight.
>
> J
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310335#310335
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
At 09:07 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob, you said:
>
> > That "unusable fuel" has two important functions.
> > (1) provide a low-spot for moisture collection
> > and (2) keep the vapor in the tank saturated.
>
>
>I spent a lot of time and effort to make sure that every drop in my
>fuel tanks was usable except for the debris sumps. The mains and
>header can be pumped dry except for sump fuel (4-6 ounces).
>
>Is the small amount of fuel in the sumps enough to keep a 12' long
>wing tank vapor-saturated?
Are these 'sumps' part of the tank envelope
or are they 'low spot' water separators plumbed
to the tank through a fuel line?
>I wasn't ever worried about this before, but now that it's out on
>the line, just want to be sure I'm not committing a major oversight.
I may have stubbed my toe on speaking of the
"importance" of unusable fuel. I don't think
that the designers deliberately shoot for a
volume of unusable fuel just to meet some rule
of thumb for reducing risk of explosion. I
think it has just worked out that for most airplane
tanks, the lowest spot in the tank was against the
skin and that same spot becomes a good place to
put a water drain. Obviously, plumbing a fuel
line into the same location would look pretty ugly
hanging out the bottom of the airplane. So fuel
lines tend to tap through the tank wall at the lowest
practical point . . . but obviously above the
tank's low spot thus giving rise to "unusable
fuel".
I'm sure there are many instances of gasoline
tanks on vehicles that are plumbed such that
the total contents can be consumed by the engine.
But unless the same tank is force-ventilated
the vapor space mixture will remain very rich
for long periods of time. But even after it
becomes 'leaner', you still need an ignition
source for the combination to become hazardous.
I remember reading about WWII military fuel
systems where a major consideration was taking
a tracer through an empty fuel tank. At Cessna,
we fitted some military airplane tanks with an
open cell foam filler. While the foam reduced
tank useful volume by about 5%, it had the
effect of sucking the heat out of a flame front
such that taking a tracer through a tank of
stoichiometric mixture would not produce an
explosion.
It's hard to get an explosion to happen on
purpose. I recall some conversations with a
fellow who ran a test lab telling us about
getting a mixture tuned up "just right" for
the purposes of testing our motors for explosion
proofing. He described a chamber with a hinged
lid, foam gaskets all around the edges, and just enough
weight to get a good seal.
The chamber was fitted with mixing fans, a
source of hydrocarbon (I think it was Butane),
a source of ignition (spark plug through the
wall), and equipment to allow us to run a motor
inside.
After putting what is believed to be the
right amount of butane in the chamber, the
motor run tests are conducted. When the
prescribed tests are finished, he then sparks
the mixture for the purpose of proving that
the atmosphere was and is still hazardous.
If things went right, the vapor lit off,
the lid flies open and you get this fireball
out the top. If things don't go right, nothing
happens and the tests have to be repeated.
Unless you plan to punch holes in your tanks
and mount spark plugs in the holes, the practice
of running the tanks dry offers no great hazard.
If you're using fuel gaging systems that are shown
to be intrinsically safe in a hazardous environment,
you're good to go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
At 09:21 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote:
>
>You don't have to run the tanks dry.
True . . . but if one intends to leave a specific
volume of fuel in the tank, an accurate means
of gaging is indicated.
I just checked out my copy of part 23 where I found:
------------------------------
Sec. 23.971 Fuel tank sump.
(a) Each fuel tank must have a drainable sump with an effective capacity,
in the normal ground and flight attitudes, of 0.25 percent of the tank
capacity, or 1/16 gallon, whichever is greater.
(b) Each fuel tank must allow drainage of any hazardous quantity of water
from any part of the tank to its sump with the airplane in the normal ground
attitude.
(c) Each reciprocating engine fuel system must have a sediment bowl or
chamber that is accessible for drainage; has a capacity of 1 ounce for every
20 gallons of fuel tank capacity; and each fuel tank outlet is located so
that, in the normal flight attitude, water will drain from all parts of the
tank except the sump to the sediment bowl or chamber.
(d) Each sump, sediment bowl, and sediment chamber drain required by
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must comply with the drain
provisions of Sec. 23.999 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
-------------------------------
So in TC airplanes, it would be a violation to design
a tank with zero unusable fuel. This section gives us
some insight into the existence of one or more
drains in each tank plus a low spot drain (usually
the gascolator) at the bottom of the fire wall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | "checkn6" <checkn6(at)yahoo.com> |
I agree, but I am going to go one small step further and do the frequency test
while on the ground the next time I go to the airport. I too have had GPS drop-out
for brief periods and just thought that I had gotten a bum deal on EBAY on
my little hand held Garmin 196. I still have a plan A and plan B since my little
GPS is more for informational purposes only and is really a plan C.
Thanks for starting this thread.
My wife thinks I'm nuts for reading this "boring stuff" but I love learning new
things and once again I found a little gem to check on.
Chris
[quote="james(at)etravel.org"]Interesting stuff. That's worth everyone with a
GPS tucking away in
the "for future reference" part of the brain. Thanks for taking the
time to report this info.
James
While on the tiedown, with engine and everything running, I started to tune in
the various com frequencies I use in my area. With the GPS screen set to show
the sat reception bars, I quickly found that the bars would quickly pulse down
to nothing when the frequency was set between 119.200 to 119.5. This was even
without transmitting and it was dramatic. As it turns out, I am usually tuned
within this frequency range when flying the routes I had associated with GPS
loss.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310382#310382
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Noise in the intercom . . . |
>Comments/Questions: I have alternator noise in my Sigtronics
>intercom. I re-wired and re-routed the harness out of the tunnel
>(Glasair III) to around the cockpit - no help.
>
>I get alternator noise with the intercom on, quiet with it off, and
>/or the ALT CB pulled. I also get aditional noise when the fuel
>pump or flap motor are run (but not always). I'm kinda stumped.
>
>I've [now] been told that pulling the CB can hurt the alternator...true?
No
>Also that a bad diode in the alternator can cause this noise?
Sometimes . . . but if you have other accessories
that cause noise too . . . then the problem is
most likely more general and involves how the
intercom was installed.
>I had the alternator rebuilt to no effect, so I thought that had
>eliminated the alternator, but I could be wrong. I also have
>replaced the (B&C) voltage regulator.
>
>Suggestions and/or help would be appreciated.
I'm sorry to hear that you've tried so many
hopeful and expensive fixes without positive
result. I note that you are not currently
subscribed to the AeroElectric-List.
Early on (after reading your symptoms)
I and others on the list would have steered
you toward an evaluation of your ground
system. The problems you've described are
almost certainly a function of shared
pathways in the ground system for both
victim (intercom) and antagonists (alternator,
flaps, etc).
These issues are also addressed in the
chapters on Grounding and Noise found
in the AeroElectric Connection.
If you do not have a copy of the Connection
you can download it here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
I'll suggest also that you join us on the
List for expanded support of your quest for
solving this problem. Never met a noise dragon
that couldn't be slain.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS-Fuel Sender |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
>
> You don't have to run the tanks dry.
>
True and I probably won't 99% of the time. But I designed this multi-tank fuel
system to be bullet proof if it is just ON. I don't want to inadvertently build
in a gotcha if there's a need or a screw-up that runs a tank dry.
Re Bob's Part 23 quote, by coincidence, my wing and header tanks (with integral,
drainable debris sumps within the tank envelope) are configured in conformance,
as they drain into a 32 oz. sump tank (w/drain) that feeds the pumps.
So now all I have to do is remove the fuel tank spark plugs. :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310391#310391
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: splicing wire? |
At 01:57 PM 8/28/2010, you wrote:
>Good afternoon Bob
>I have a question on splicing wire. I need to lengthen the wires to
>my headset plugs from the intercom. ( NAT intercom). They currently
>go to plugs in the center console. I was originally going to run
>new wires all the way to the intercom. This is proving to be a
>major undertaking. Everything is bundled and nicely tied and very
>difficult to get to. Can I add a length of wire to the existing
>without creating problems? Would there be any considerations I
>would need to address?
Sure. the big guys do it all the time. They use a
product called solder-sleeves. You don't need to get
THAT fancy. I've illustrated a poor-man's solder sleeve
technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Wire_treatment_3.jpg
and a comic book on the technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
If you have some shields to deal with, just bring
their pigtails together as if they were individual
wires.
This technique offers a minimum-bulk methodology
for jointing wires and insulating the splice. If practical,
you might want to trim the lengths of the existing
wires so that the splices don't all bunch up next
to each other in the finished bundle.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: splicing wire? |
Thank you Bob!!
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 1:26:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: splicing wire?
At 01:57 PM 8/28/2010, you wrote:
Good afternoon Bob
>I have a question on splicing wire. I need to lengthen the wires to my headset
>plugs from the intercom. ( NAT intercom). They currently go to plugs in the
>center console. I was originally going to run new wires all the way to the
>intercom. This is proving to be a major undertaking. Everything is bundled and
>nicely tied and very difficult to get to. Can I add a length of wire to the
>existing without creating problems? Would there be any considerations I would
>need to address?
Sure. the big guys do it all the time. They use a
product called solder-sleeves. You don't need to get
THAT fancy. I've illustrated a poor-man's solder sleeve
technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Wire_treatment_3.jpg
and a comic book on the technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
If you have some shields to deal with, just bring
their pigtails together as if they were individual
wires.
This technique offers a minimum-bulk methodology
for jointing wires and insulating the splice. If practical,
you might want to trim the lengths of the existing
wires so that the splices don't all bunch up next
to each other in the finished bundle.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi
I am wiring up my Icom 210 for my little 2 seater plane and plan to use the radios
own internal intercom.
In the wiring diagram there is a intercom switch, but for the life of me I cannot
find what this is used for and if I need to wire it in or not? I though it
was all built inwith this radio?
Any Ideas out there?
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310464#310464
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
I will add another data point concerning radios interfering with GPS
reception.
I recently installed a Garmin 430W in my Cessna 172 (probably doubled
its value, but the unit will be removed for installation into the
airplane I am building).
I worked with an avionics shop that was willing to supervise me doing
much of the work as a learning experience - and it was !
The Garmin installation manual cautions against installing the GPS
antenna within 4 feet of other antennas. The cabin roof of the Cessna
makes that goal impossible to meet.
For simplicity, we chose to re-use the same mounting location as the
old GPS antenna, which is a foot away from the antenna of the King
KX-175B radio.
There are a number of tests required in the Garmin installation
manual, including transmitting with each radio on the following
frequencies for 35 seconds, while watching the satellite reception
screen:
121.150, 121.175, 121.200, 121.225, 121.250
131.200, 131.225, 131.250, 131.275, 131.300, 131.325, 131.350
In my case the 131MHz frequencies interfered. Not just slightly, but
completely killed reception of all GPS satellites. The strength bars
went to zero immediately. The 430W required more than a minute to
recover after unkeying the transmitter.
I swapped the COM antennas between the 430W and the KX-175B. The 430W
produced a cleaner transmission that did not interfere with GPS
reception. The transmissions of the KX-175B, with the antenna now 3
feet away from the GPS antenna, only slightly interfered (lost 10-20%
of signal strength) and did not prevent reception from even the
marginal satellites. So problem simply resolved.
Where I fly, I rarely use frequencies in the 131MHz range, so without
doing this test I might have happily flown for quite a number of
hours, only to be confounded with lack of GPS navigation at some
future point.
I recommend everyone perform this test, since it is so quite and easy to do.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
Keep in mind that it is not just transmitting that creates
interference. Having the radio simply tuned to a frequency and turned
on can also cause the problem. There are also nav frequencies that need
to be checked. They are not in the AC, but this site has more detail of
documented issues for specific radio models:
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/gps.html
On 8/29/2010 7:26 AM, Jeff Page wrote:
>
> I will add another data point concerning radios interfering with GPS
> reception.
>
> I recently installed a Garmin 430W in my Cessna 172 (probably doubled
> its value, but the unit will be removed for installation into the
> airplane I am building).
> I worked with an avionics shop that was willing to supervise me doing
> much of the work as a learning experience - and it was !
>
> The Garmin installation manual cautions against installing the GPS
> antenna within 4 feet of other antennas. The cabin roof of the Cessna
> makes that goal impossible to meet.
> For simplicity, we chose to re-use the same mounting location as the
> old GPS antenna, which is a foot away from the antenna of the King
> KX-175B radio.
>
> There are a number of tests required in the Garmin installation
> manual, including transmitting with each radio on the following
> frequencies for 35 seconds, while watching the satellite reception
> screen:
>
> 121.150, 121.175, 121.200, 121.225, 121.250
> 131.200, 131.225, 131.250, 131.275, 131.300, 131.325, 131.350
>
> In my case the 131MHz frequencies interfered. Not just slightly, but
> completely killed reception of all GPS satellites. The strength bars
> went to zero immediately. The 430W required more than a minute to
> recover after unkeying the transmitter.
>
> I swapped the COM antennas between the 430W and the KX-175B. The 430W
> produced a cleaner transmission that did not interfere with GPS
> reception. The transmissions of the KX-175B, with the antenna now 3
> feet away from the GPS antenna, only slightly interfered (lost 10-20%
> of signal strength) and did not prevent reception from even the
> marginal satellites. So problem simply resolved.
>
> Where I fly, I rarely use frequencies in the 131MHz range, so without
> doing this test I might have happily flown for quite a number of
> hours, only to be confounded with lack of GPS navigation at some
> future point.
>
> I recommend everyone perform this test, since it is so quite and easy
> to do.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
At 06:59 AM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi
>I am wiring up my Icom 210 for my little 2 seater plane and plan to
>use the radios own internal intercom.
>
>In the wiring diagram there is a intercom switch, but for the life
>of me I cannot find what this is used for and if I need to wire it
>in or not? I though it was all built inwith this radio?
I've looked over the operations manual for the A210 and
there IS an intercom built in. However, it can be switched
off and on from front panel controls. It's not clear to me
in my quick trip through the manual what the external
switch is for. My best guess is that it might be a way
that a "back seater" can turn the intercom off and on.
I'd bring a wire out from pin 10 on the radio that's
long enough to gain access to the end AFTER installation.
Tie it up in the wire bundle and hopefully forget it.
If at some time the future it is discovered to be
useful, the task of integrating its function into
your project will be greatly eased.
Perhaps other A210 users on the List can offer more
detailed guidance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-11 Drawing with LR3C Controller? |
| From: | "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi Bob,
Just reading the note in Rev 12A about Fig Z-11 and it says that Z-11 was redrawn
with the B&C combo regulator/OV/LV controller but in my book it doesn't have
it. Is there a revised drawing that I can download somewhere?
thanks,
Dan
warbirds(at)shaw.ca
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310520#310520
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gordon Parker <gptailwind(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
Bob and Chris: I too am trying to use the A 210. I am using a flightcom
intercom seperate from the one built in. I understand that the built in on
e hasto use a push to talk button. And it is not voice activated. BTW Bob
where can I obtain the book you have out. I have been trying to fined out
. Thanks: Gordon
>
kolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 06:59 AM 8/29/2010=2C you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hi
> >I am wiring up my Icom 210 for my little 2 seater plane and plan to
> >use the radios own internal intercom.
> >
> >In the wiring diagram there is a intercom switch=2C but for the life
> >of me I cannot find what this is used for and if I need to wire it
> >in or not? I though it was all built inwith this radio?
>
> I've looked over the operations manual for the A210 and
> there IS an intercom built in. However=2C it can be switched
> off and on from front panel controls. It's not clear to me
> in my quick trip through the manual what the external
> switch is for. My best guess is that it might be a way
> that a "back seater" can turn the intercom off and on.
>
> I'd bring a wire out from pin 10 on the radio that's
> long enough to gain access to the end AFTER installation.
> Tie it up in the wire bundle and hopefully forget it.
> If at some time the future it is discovered to be
> useful=2C the task of integrating its function into
> your project will be greatly eased.
>
> Perhaps other A210 users on the List can offer more
> detailed guidance.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: splicing wire? |
Good Afternoon Bob
I spliced the wires as you suggested. I spliced all wires including the
shield. When all finished I have good intercom between headsets, the co pilot
transmit works good, but the pilot headset has a whine/squeal when
transmitting. What should I look for to correct this?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 1:26:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: splicing wire?
At 01:57 PM 8/28/2010, you wrote:
Good afternoon Bob
>I have a question on splicing wire. I need to lengthen the wires to my headset
>plugs from the intercom. ( NAT intercom). They currently go to plugs in the
>center console. I was originally going to run new wires all the way to the
>intercom. This is proving to be a major undertaking. Everything is bundled and
>nicely tied and very difficult to get to. Can I add a length of wire to the
>existing without creating problems? Would there be any considerations I would
>need to address?
Sure. the big guys do it all the time. They use a
product called solder-sleeves. You don't need to get
THAT fancy. I've illustrated a poor-man's solder sleeve
technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Wire_treatment_3.jpg
and a comic book on the technique here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
If you have some shields to deal with, just bring
their pigtails together as if they were individual
wires.
This technique offers a minimum-bulk methodology
for jointing wires and insulating the splice. If practical,
you might want to trim the lengths of the existing
wires so that the splices don't all bunch up next
to each other in the finished bundle.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Molex Connectors out of production |
Any of you folks who own Icom 200 series transceivers,
I was tracking down connectors for a OBAM aircraft brother
and note that the part is now or soon to be discontinued.
>Comments/Questions: Bob, I'm stumped and I think the answer is
>likely a simple one, but I cannot find it. I have an ICOM A200 radio
>that I bought used, and had it checked out by an avionics shop about
>a year ago. I'm building a Zenith CH 701 and now I cannot find the
>Molex 4338-15 connector that is described in the installation
>manual. I've search the internet and the only place that even lists
>such a part number is in Australia. My guess is this is readily
>available at an electronics store, but I don't know what to call it.
>Can you help me?
The 4338 is a model number. The actual part number you
want is 09-50-6155
I'm told this part is obsolete and the manufacturer
intends to discontinue the part. There is stock at
Newark Electronics.
http://tinyurl.com/29wlrrx
You'll also need pins sold separately
http://tinyurl.com/2arg72m
Good luck. You might want to order spares! Went
present stocks are gone, there won't be any more.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
At 03:37 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
>Bob and Chris: I too am trying to use the A 210. I am using a
>flightcom intercom seperate from the one built in. I understand
>that the built in one has to use a push to talk button. And it is
>not voice activated.
Funny you should offer this assertion. Here's a clip from
the Icom A-210 Manual at
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Radios/Icom_A210/IC-A210_User%27s_Manual.pdf
From page 20
Emacs!
From page 27
Emacs!
They use the words "voice activated" but the switching
is suspicious. Provisions for an external intercom PTT
suggests that it's not really voice activated but in fact
a "hot mic" system that is turned ON by either the
front panel control as described above or ON/OFF by
external PTT switches wired to pin 10. I'd bet that
the built-in feature is indeed a PTT intercom.
Bob. . .
>
>BTW Bob where can I obtain the book you have out. I have been
>trying to fined out. Thanks: Gordon
You can get the bound book -OR- a .pdf version on
CD + bonus Pak of data from our catalog at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
you can download the .pdf version at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Drawing with LR3C Controller? |
At 03:06 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Just reading the note in Rev 12A about Fig Z-11 and it says that
>Z-11 was redrawn with the B&C combo regulator/OV/LV controller but
>in my book it doesn't have it.
I need to fix that note. Z-11 was intended to be the
"poor builder's" elegant solution for an electrical system,
hence the $10 regulator.
> Is there a revised drawing that I can download somewhere?
Z-12 uses the B&C LR series regulators. Just drop
the wiring shown for the main alternator on Z-12
into Z-11.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: splicing wire? |
At 07:54 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bob
>I spliced the wires as you suggested. I spliced all wires
>including the shield. When all finished I have good intercom
>between headsets, the co pilot transmit works good, but the pilot
>headset has a whine/squeal when transmitting. What should I look
>for to correct this?
Is this a new condition that cropped up when you extended
the wires? One side works but the pilot side doesn't . ..
hmmm . . . might be a wiring error of some variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: splicing wire? |
Yes it occurred after the splicing of the wires. Any suggestions where to
look. All the features work, intercom and transmit/receive both pilot and
co-pilot. The problem is in the transmit pilot side only. What type of error
should I be looking for?
Jim
PS Your up late tonight
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 9:47:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: splicing wire?
At 07:54 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
> Good Afternoon Bob
> I spliced the wires as you suggested. I spliced all wires including the
>shield. When all finished I have good intercom between headsets, the co pilot
>transmit works good, but the pilot headset has a whine/squeal when
>transmitting. What should I look for to correct this?
Is this a new condition that cropped up when you extended
the wires? One side works but the pilot side doesn't . ..
hmmm . . . might be a wiring error of some variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gordon Parker <gptailwind(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Molex Connectors out of production |
Bob: I went thru all of this last week. I spent time on the phone with Da
vid Graham(at)Moles.com. Phone 800-786-6539 ext: 555-2125 . He told me that
connector 4338-15 that Icom has in their supplied parts for new transceive
r are now obsolete .The Molex terminals (4366-GL) have a new part number an
d is 8030304 and is available thru MOUSER ELECTRONICS. I ordered somelast
week and was told it would be 5 days before they get any in. There 13 cent
s each.
Might try ICOM direct in Belview Washington. They usually have some of the
se products. Gordon
Any of you folks who own Icom 200 series transceivers=2C
I was tracking down connectors for a OBAM aircraft brother
and note that the part is now or soon to be discontinued.
Comments/Questions: Bob=2C I'm
stumped and I think the answer is likely a simple one=2C but I cannot find
it. I have an ICOM A200 radio that I bought used=2C and had it checked out
by an avionics shop about a year ago. I'm building a Zenith CH 701 and
now I cannot find the Molex 4338-15 connector that is described in the
installation manual. I've search the internet and the only place that
even lists such a part number is in Australia. My guess is this is
readily available at an electronics store=2C but I don't know what to call
it. Can you help me?
The 4338 is a model number. The actual part number you
want is 09-50-6155
I'm told this part is obsolete and the manufacturer
intends to discontinue the part. There is stock at
Newark Electronics.
http://tinyurl.com/29wlrrx
You'll also need pins sold separately
http://tinyurl.com/2arg72m
Good luck. You might want to order spares! Went
present stocks are gone=2C there won't be any more.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 Drawing with LR3C Controller? |
| From: | "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
Ok - that's kinda what I was doing anyway, just thought I'd check for the deluxe
schematic!
thanks,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310590#310590
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
Bob,
I am trying to get on the forum to ask/submit questions, but I cannot. I
registered a few days ago, so I am in the system, but every time I try to
log it, it says I am not a registered user. How can I get this cleared
up?
Thank you.
Jeff
Jeff
Jacksonville, FL
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 29, 2010 11:02 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: re: GPS outage in fiberglass plane
om>
Keep in mind that it is not just transmitting that creates interference.
Having the radio simply tuned to a frequency and turned on can also cause
the problem. There are also nav frequencies that need to be checked. They
are not in the AC, but this site has more detail of documented issues for
specific radio models: http://www.scn.org/~bk269/gps.html
On 8/29/2010 7:26 AM, Jeff Page wrote:
>
> I will add another data point concerning radios interfering with GPS >
reception.
>
> I recently installed a Garmin 430W in my Cessna 172 (probably doubled >
its value, but the unit will be removed for installation into the > airpl
ane I am building).
> I worked with an avionics shop that was willing to supervise me doing >
much of the work as a learning experience - and it was !
>
> The Garmin installation manual cautions against installing the GPS > ant
enna within 4 feet of other antennas. The cabin roof of the Cessna > makes
that goal impossible to meet.
> For simplicity, we chose to re-use the same mounting location as the >
old GPS antenna, which is a foot away from the antenna of the King > KX-1
75B radio.
>
> There are a number of tests required in the Garmin installation > manual
, including transmitting with each radio on the following > frequencies fo
r 35 seconds, while watching the satellite reception > screen:
>
> 121.150, 121.175, 121.200, 121.225, 121.250
> 131.200, 131.225, 131.250, 131.275, 131.300, 131.325, 131.350
>
> In my case the 131MHz frequencies interfered. Not just slightly, but >
completely killed reception of all GPS satellites. The strength bars > we
nt to zero immediately. The 430W required more than a minute to > recover
after unkeying the transmitter.
>
> I swapped the COM antennas between the 430W and the KX-175B. The 430W >
produced a cleaner transmission that did not interfere with GPS > recepti
on. The transmissions of the KX-175B, with the antenna now 3 > feet away
from the GPS antenna, only slightly interfered (lost 10-20% > of signal
strength) and did not prevent reception from even the > marginal satellit
es. So problem simply resolved.
>
> Where I fly, I rarely use frequencies in the 131MHz range, so without >
doing this test I might have happily flown for quite a number of > hours,
only to be confounded with lack of GPS navigation at some > future point.
>
> I recommend everyone perform this test, since it is so quite and easy >
to do.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric List access |
At 06:44 AM 8/30/2010, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I am trying to get on the forum to ask/submit questions, but I
>cannot. I registered a few days ago, so I am in the system, but
>every time I try to log it, it says I am not a registered user. How
>can I get this cleared up?
There are TWO gateways into the Matronics forums.
One is by way of your browser. You don't need an
email service for this activity. Use of this service
requires a SEPARATE account creation using a unique
user name and password.
The other is by means of an e-mail forwarding service . . .
all messages sent to a particular address are sent
out to all subscribers. No log-on or password
required.
You have checked the subscription boxes for
both individual postings and the daily digest
off ALL postings for the day. I'll suggest you
go back to http://matronics.com/subscribe
and UN-check either the digest or real-time
box. I recommend that you un-check the digest
box.
To ASK a question or start a new thread of discussion
you simply craft an email message and send it to:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
To respond to any other posting, you simply hit
the REPLY button on your e-mail client. You are
getting this message because you REPLIED to
a posting on another topic. I've changed the
title of the topic so as to 'unhook' our
conversation from the other one.
Your difficulty is probably based on a an
attempt to use the browser based service while
your subscription is for the email service.
You CAN do both. I occasionally use the browser
based service when I'm away from my personal
computers.
When I checked your subscription status a few
days ago, you WERE signed up for a number of
other forums. I see that you are now subscribed
to ONLY the AeroElectric List. Is this your
intention? You may want to go back and re-check
boxes for forums that were useful to you. Again,
I recommend that you check ONLY the real-time
and not the digest service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Ballin <dballin(at)gmail.com> |
I work on lightsports and we had the Icom 200 now going to the 210. I
talked with them about the "switch". Basically it is a pilot isolate
switch. My understanding, and I would confirm with Icom, is that
without the switch, the intercom is always active which seems like a
good thing, except that both mics are active when one PTT is pushed.
This could lead to some interesting transmissions.
Dan Ballin
X-Air LLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | noise in intercom |
| From: | "kgmjeric" <ericwp(at)okstate.edu> |
Taylorcraft 19 with electrice start, generator, nav lights, transponder, pseII
intercom, strobes, narco 120 radio.
I just added the intercom to the plane. The headset plugs are not grounded as they
are perfectly isolated in plastic mounts on wood in the wing. the wires are
shielded and terminate at the unit only.
At low rpm the intercom LED will flash between red and green back and forth. at
that time the system is unusable. many times at cruise rpm and lower rpm as well
i will hear a rhythmic tick sound, couple a second.
previously i could hear my strobes squeal at low rpm but it was faint and the ground
for them has been improved.
the pse box has a default circuit that only allows the co pilot to function when
there may be a problem. My unit goes to this function when my radio is turned
off. My radio doesnt receive and i have been using a hand held. but i must
keep power to my narco or the led on the intercom goes a yellow ish color and
defaults to co pilot. if i turn the power on the radio on the intercom functions
great but I end up being interrupted with noise or trash it pics up.
any help would be great.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310703#310703
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Splicing small wires |
I cannot pretend to be so wise as some on the net, but I do have a
small note to make when splicing the #18-on-down size wires, especially when
in crowded corners - I seem to specialize in wiring myself into a spiralling
corner.....
In radio I learned long ago you can't find the size you need to join
two wires. I hit upon the model aircraft shops for copper/brass tubing which
is nesting in size around these smaller wires. It's a pain to cut the tubing
and smooth the ends so that fine wire can enter so I do this in tens at one
time when the conditions dictate, either this or reading a good book. For a
couple of bucks and a warder file plus small-tooth saw, you can have a
pocketful of crimpable lengths just lying there waiting for redemption. The
simple crimper slides easily into tight spaces, and we're not welding power
cable here.
Just a thought.
Ferg
Europa XS A064
wiring wiring wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
Bob,
I have one of these units. It works as voice activated to my
satisfaction. It my have some components that I do not understand, but
voice opens the squelch and squelch closes when silent. Many menus to
filter through, but once set it is a fine unit.
Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200
Luaua, IA.
On Aug 29, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:37 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:
>> Bob and Chris: I too am trying to use the A 210. I am using a
flightcom intercom seperate from the one built in. I understand that
the built in one has to use a push to talk button. And it is not voice
activated.
>
> Funny you should offer this assertion. Here's a clip from
> the Icom A-210 Manual at
>
>
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Radios/Icom_A210/IC-A210_User%27s_Manual
.pdf
>
> =46rom page 20
> <232e5fd.jpg>
>
> =46rom page 27
>
> <232e67a.jpg>
>
>
> They use the words "voice activated" but the switching
> is suspicious. Provisions for an external intercom PTT
> suggests that it's not really voice activated but in fact
> a "hot mic" system that is turned ON by either the
> front panel control as described above or ON/OFF by
> external PTT switches wired to pin 10. I'd bet that
> the built-in feature is indeed a PTT intercom.
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
>>
>> BTW Bob where can I obtain the book you have out. I have been trying
to fined out. Thanks: Gordon
>
> You can get the bound book -OR- a .pdf version on
> CD + bonus Pak of data from our catalog at:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
>
> you can download the .pdf version at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Progressive switch for electric trim |
Bob, list,
I was reading through a thread on Van's Air Force today and it got me thinking
about the approaches to elevator trim control. There seemed to be two camps:
People who use (on)-off-(on) type switches who have problems with sensitivity,
and people who have some kind of high/low motor speed switch, either manually controlled
or airspeed controlled with a Vertical Power (or similar) module.
>From a usability versus complexity standpoint, I was imagining a progressive-speed
switch, implemented as a 5-position switch:
(second-up) : fast down trim
(first-up) : slow down trim
center : trim stop
(first-down) : slow up trim
(second-down) : fast up trim
A quick search has not turned up any toggle switches of this kind, which may be
the real problem with this approach. Have you seen this approach elsewhere, or
have any part number suggestions?
Thanks,
--Daniel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Gowland" <brian.gowland(at)mypostoffice.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing small wires |
Splicing small wiresTry rolling a small copper/ brass/ali tube under a
sharp blade, for perfect results in seconds.
Regards
Brian
Hn700 Menestrel 11
----- Original Message -----
From: Fergus Kyle
To: 1AeroElectricLIST
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:17 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Splicing small wires
I cannot pretend to be so wise as some on the net, but I do
have a small note to make when splicing the #18-on-down size wires,
especially when in crowded corners - I seem to specialize in wiring
myself into a spiralling corner.....
In radio I learned long ago you can't find the size you need
to join two wires. I hit upon the model aircraft shops for copper/brass
tubing which is nesting in size around these smaller wires. It's a pain
to cut the tubing and smooth the ends so that fine wire can enter so I
do this in tens at one time when the conditions dictate, either this or
reading a good book. For a couple of bucks and a warder file plus
small-tooth saw, you can have a pocketful of crimpable lengths just
lying there waiting for redemption. The simple crimper slides easily
into tight spaces, and we're not welding power cable here.
Just a thought.
Ferg
Europa XS A064
wiring wiring wiring
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
______________________________________________ =0AThis email has b
een scanned by Netintelligence =0Ahttp://www.netintelligence.com/e
mail
=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Which connection from a Garmin 296 to my Dynon 180? |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Guys. I know some of you have done this. Which wire on a Garmin 296 is the one
that connects to EFIS pin #22 on a Dynon 180? My guess is that it is the DATA
OUT 2(violet) in the Power/Data connector cable. This wire is described as
to autopilot or NMEA device I have already cut (cannibalized) that cable to get
at the power wire so it's already accessible. Thank you.....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310783#310783
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Progressive switch for electric trim |
At 10:05 PM 8/30/2010, you wrote:
Bob, list,
I was reading through a thread on Van's Air Force today and it got me
thinking about the approaches to elevator trim control. There seemed
to be two camps:
People who use (on)-off-(on) type switches who have problems with sensitivity,
and people who have some kind of high/low motor speed switch, either
manually controlled or airspeed controlled with a Vertical Power (or
similar) module.
>From a usability versus complexity standpoint, I was imagining a
progressive-speed switch, implemented as a 5-position switch:
(second-up) : fast down trim
(first-up) : slow down trim
center : trim stop
(first-down) : slow up trim
(second-down) : fast up trim
A quick search has not turned up any toggle switches of this kind,
which may be the real problem with this approach. Have you seen this
approach elsewhere, or have any part number suggestions?
I's aware of no COTS (commercial off the shelf)
switch with this characteristic. There have been
lever operated, sping loaded to center, wafer
switches but those go back a lot of years. I
don't think they were a catalog item.
I've spent a significant portion of my career
working on motor driven trim systems for aircraft,
mostly bizjets. I did get to put the first microprocessor
controlled trim system on Roy Lopresti's M30 prototype
at Mooney. This was a proof of concept controller that
adjusted the servo gain scale factor on a servo/anti-servo
tab. The goal was to provide a constant stick-force/G
response irrespective of IAS.
Initial flight tests were encouraging but the M30
program was scrapped for a host of reasons. We've
had a number of discussions about trim systems here
on the List. A search of the aeroelectric.com website
using the words trim and speed will produce a number
of hits. But in particular, may I suggest you review
the article published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Trim_System_Failures.pdf
The "ideal" trim controller would adjust the motor's
speed linearly over the full range of max to minimum
depending on the airplane's IAS value. After
crafting the trim speed controller for the Lear
55, I wrote and delivered a paper at an SAE
convention where I hypothesized a number of
possibilities for future designs. Two features
of the paper talked about a way to control trim
speed from a single processor in a manner that
precludes a runaway in spite of worst case software
failure. The other was a proposal to adjust motor
speed based on the value of pitot pressure (IAS).
Obviously, there's a huge difference between a
performance of a Lear and an RV. A larger difference
exists between the product development budgets
for the two aircraft.
Setting the "ideal" system aside, what operating
characteristics might offer 90 plus percent of
everything we'd like the trim system to do.
An airplane spends MOST of its flight time in
stable flight at max IAS. This configuration
suggests a very slow trim rate that allows
fine tuning of trim for holding altitude.
A small percentage of flight time is spent
in approach to landing where IAS is on the
order of 90-100 kts and some degree of
flaps are deployed. Here the trim speed needs
to be faster to make timely adjustments to
establish the desired IAS.
On the Lears, the high speed trim was 4x faster
than low speed trim.
I've published a suggested schematic for a
two speed trim system for small aircraft
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Two_Speed_Trim_2.pdf
This is modeled after the system flying on
30 series Lears where speed commands come
from a switch on the flap system. With flaps
full up, low speed is commanded. With flaps
extended more than 10 degrees, high speed
is commanded.
I'm confident that a system crafted after
this model will meet design goals for
crafting a very utilitarian pitch trim
system. The neat thing is that speed
selection is automatically controlled by
flight configuration. I could get this
system qualified on a TC aircraft with
a minimum of bureaucratic fuss.
The controller should be fitted with
screwdriver adjusted trim pots for speed
selection. Over a series of flight tests,
you can optimize system performance to
meet your design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
At 09:11 PM 8/30/2010, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I have one of these units. It works as voice activated to my
>satisfaction. It my have some components that I do not understand,
>but voice opens the squelch and squelch closes when silent. Many
>menus to filter through, but once set it is a fine unit.
THANK YOU! There's no data better than hands-on
data. That's what I would have hoped for. I've got
some REALLY warm spots in my heart for Icom products
that were established back in the days when I was
putting repeaters on 1200 foot towers!
Do you use the external intercom ptt switch?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
No I do not. When the PPT is keyed, BOTH mics are hot. I just tell my passengers
to be quiet when I transmit. While flying alone I cancel the intercom all together.
Just pushing and holding one button on the face of the unit will cancel
the intercom function. Repeat and it is back on.
Kevin
On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 09:11 PM 8/30/2010, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>> I have one of these units. It works as voice activated to my satisfaction. It
my have some components that I do not understand, but voice opens the squelch
and squelch closes when silent. Many menus to filter through, but once set it
is a fine unit.
>
> THANK YOU! There's no data better than hands-on
> data. That's what I would have hoped for. I've got
> some REALLY warm spots in my heart for Icom products
> that were established back in the days when I was
> putting repeaters on 1200 foot towers!
>
> Do you use the external intercom ptt switch?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 radio intercom switch |
At 08:16 AM 8/31/2010, you wrote:
>
>No I do not. When the PPT is keyed, BOTH mics are hot. I just tell
>my passengers to be quiet when I transmit. While flying alone I
>cancel the intercom all together. Just pushing and holding one
>button on the face of the unit will cancel the intercom function.
>Repeat and it is back on.
Good info.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric List access |
Bob,
Wondering why you prefer the real-time emails? I've been using the digest
version for years and I like the one-a-day email. Of course, getting the
postings is delayed a day whereas the real-time ones are received same day.
Seems like the real-time notices would tend to fill up the mailbox.
Maybe I should switch to real-time. Is there a good reason?
Stan Sutterfield
I recommend that you check ONLY the real-time
and not the digest service.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Icom A210/A200 owners |
Hello List=2C
I'm getting very close to hooking up all the components to my instrument
panel=2C
and I'd sure like some advice regarding my Icom A200.=2C to be put into the
2-place
plane I'm building.
I have a SoftComm International ATC-2 potable intercom that I got for my
plane
years ago. I also have a Icom A200 (mobile style). Basically=2C it the sa
me a the regular
A200=2C it's just that it comes more like a CB radio=3B attched mic via a c
oiled cord=2C speaker
that pluds into a 3mm plug recepticle=2C hot/grnd leads for power.
Anyway=2C back to my question=3B For those guys that have experience wit
h the built-in
intercom function of the Icom radios=2C would you say that that alone is su
fficient (for a 2-place)=2C
or is the intercom part "lacking"=2C and in need of a separate dedicated in
tercom?
Frankly=2C if the concensus is that the Icom is up to the task=2C I'd rat
her just go ahead and
install a couple of jacks and be done with it. (the intercom part=2C I mean
)
So=2C wuddaya think of the Icom intercom??
Thanks=2C Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Icom A210/A200 owners |
Sheesh=2C I should proof-read more. Overlook the typos. Thanks=2C Mike
From: mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom A210/A200 owners
Date: Tue=2C 31 Aug 2010 09:25:32 -0700
Hello List=2C
I'm getting very close to hooking up all the components to my instrument
panel=2C
and I'd sure like some advice regarding my Icom A200.=2C to be put into the
2-place
plane I'm building.
I have a SoftComm International ATC-2 potable intercom that I got for my
plane
years ago. I also have a Icom A200 (mobile style). Basically=2C it the sa
me a the regular
A200=2C it's just that it comes more like a CB radio=3B attched mic via a c
oiled cord=2C speaker
that pluds into a 3mm plug recepticle=2C hot/grnd leads for power.
Anyway=2C back to my question=3B For those guys that have experience wit
h the built-in
intercom function of the Icom radios=2C would you say that that alone is su
fficient (for a 2-place)=2C
or is the intercom part "lacking"=2C and in need of a separate dedicated in
tercom?
Frankly=2C if the concensus is that the Icom is up to the task=2C I'd rat
her just go ahead and
install a couple of jacks and be done with it. (the intercom part=2C I mean
)
So=2C wuddaya think of the Icom intercom??
Thanks=2C Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Which connection from a Garmin 296 to my Dynon |
180?
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Never mind. My guess was right. Link below
http://www.xenonowners.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:connecting-garmin-gps-to-dynon-efis&catid=10:avionics&Itemid=11
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310846#310846
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | removing bendix king kma 24 |
| From: | joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
I have a bendix king kma 24 that popped the 3 amp cb labeled spkr.The
installation is about 2 years old and was done by a shop.
I would like to remove the KMA 24 to bench test it and would like to know
how to do it .
Thanks
Joe Motis
Cherokee 180
CH 750 from prints.
No archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/A200 owners |
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Mike,
The A200 intercom function has been criticized by many, including Stein Bruch in
print and in forums. Most of the criticism centered around the A200 not being
a voice activated intercom system. A separate broadcast/intercom switch needs
to be mounted and you have to select one or the other and then activate the
PTT switch to communicate.
I combined my A200 with a PS Engineering PM-501 intercom and it works great. I
really like my A200 and have gotten compliments on how clear the transmission
sounds in the air. On the ground, though, i have been told that it is not quite
so clear.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Upgraded 3/19/10
150+ hours and climbing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310909#310909
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/A200 owners |
> The A200 intercom function has been criticized by many> --------
> David Gallagher
Thanks=2C Dave.
I get the impression this opionion about the Icom's intercom is fairly co
mmon.
I guess I'll go ahead and plan on the Softcomm intercom. Thanks.
Mike Welch
Kolb MkIII CX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric List access |
At 10:18 AM 8/31/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Wondering why you prefer the real-time emails? I've been using the
>digest version for years and I like the one-a-day email. Of course,
>getting the postings is delayed a day whereas the real-time ones are
>received same day. Seems like the real-time notices would tend to
>fill up the mailbox.
>Maybe I should switch to real-time. Is there a good reason?
When you're checking into the List many times a day
with some notion of staying current with conversations,
it's best to get the real-time dumps. The digest-
dump is faster, less expensive and more convenient
for people with dial-up . . . especially those who
need to access their ISP via a long-distance call.
I suspect those are now a very tiny proportion of
the List members . . . if not zero.
But one dump per day of the last 24 hours worth
of activity is pretty pedestrian for individuals
who enjoy perhaps several exchanges a day on a
topic.
There's another matter of tiny significance. Neophyte
List subscribers will sometimes reply to a digest-
dump thinking that they're only replying to one item
of interest in the dump but unless they know
to trim out the non-relevant postings, their reply
can be spectacularly verbose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: removing bendix king kma 24 |
At 10:29 PM 8/31/2010, you wrote:
> I have a bendix king kma 24 that popped the 3 amp cb labeled
> spkr.The installation is about 2 years old and was done by a shop.
>I would like to remove the KMA 24 to bench test it and would like to
>know how to do it .
Look for a recessed screw on the face. It may be a
recessed hex drive that requires an allen-wrench.
This is a long screw that accesses a nutplate in
the back of the tray. Back the screw out and
pull the guts from the tray.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Which connection from a Garmin 296 to my Dynon |
180?
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
It looks like the your plan will work.
The RV-12s (all of them) are wired like this:
The Garmin x96 blue wire is connected to EMS pin 19 on the D-180. The FlightDEK-D180
Installation Guide also mentions this on the bottom of page 4-7.
On the RV-12, EFIS pins 9, 10, & 22 are used for communicating with a PC.
So there is more than one way to connect a GPS to the D-180.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310938#310938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | removing bendix king kma 24 |
Yeah I think that one has a tab that rotates 90 as you turn the 3/32 Allen
head screw. After 2~3 turns counterclockwise the unit should slip out of the
tray. Dont unscrew it all the way or it will fall apart.
Tim Andres
-----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: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: removing bendix king kma 24
At 10:29 PM 8/31/2010, you wrote:
> I have a bendix king kma 24 that popped the 3 amp cb labeled
> spkr.The installation is about 2 years old and was done by a shop.
>I would like to remove the KMA 24 to bench test it and would like to
>know how to do it .
Look for a recessed screw on the face. It may be a
recessed hex drive that requires an allen-wrench.
This is a long screw that accesses a nutplate in
the back of the tray. Back the screw out and
pull the guts from the tray.
Bob . . .
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:34:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Which connection from a Garmin 296 to my Dynon |
180?
| From: | "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com> |
Geoff,
Set your 296 Com output to either "Aviation IN/NMEA &VHF Out" or "NMEA In/NMEA
Out." Either will work. Baud rate 0f 9600 was recommended.
Also make sure to go into the 296's advanced com menu and set up for "normal" output
rate. Pages 116-119 of the 296 manual shows these set-up pages.
My Dynon and 296 have worked great together with these settings.
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Upgraded 3/19/10
150+ hours and climbing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310941#310941
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Which connection from a Garmin 296 to my Dynon |
180?
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Guys......Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=310956#310956
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rd2(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: removing bendix king kma 24 |
Here is what I found in my files (sorry, it may be a bit too instructive):
KMA 24 removal
Insert a 3/32, long allen wrench into the center access hole for the locking screw
in the front panel.
Gently engage the screw.
Turn the screw counter-clockwise until the unit disengages from the mounting rack.
Caution
Do not overturn. Do not pull on the knobs. Do not pry the face plate.
Do not touch the connector card at the rear of the unit to avoid electrostatic
damage.
Pull the sides of the unit gently to slide it out from the mounting rack.
KMA 24 installation into rack
Turn (by hand) and push the latch/locking lobe into the unit so the units bottom
is flat and there is no lobe sticking out.
Slide the unit into the rack.
Engage the locking screw so that the latch front lobe touches the rack.
Turn the locking screw clockwise to that the rear lobe engages the rack and starts
pulling the unit into the rack. You can help by gently pushing the sides by
hand.
Caution do not over-tighten you can damage the locking mechanism.
Rumen
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
> At 10:29 PM 8/31/2010, you wrote:
> > I have a bendix king kma 24 that popped the 3 amp cb labeled
> > spkr.The installation is about 2 years old and was done by a shop.
> >I would like to remove the KMA 24 to bench test it and would like to
> >know how to do it .
>
> Look for a recessed screw on the face. It may be a
> recessed hex drive that requires an allen-wrench.
> This is a long screw that accesses a nutplate in
> the back of the tray. Back the screw out and
> pull the guts from the tray.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | removing bendix king kma 24 |
At 10:24 AM 9/1/2010, you wrote:
>
>Yeah I think that one has a tab that rotates 90 as you turn the 3/32 Allen
>head screw. After 2~3 turns counterclockwise the unit should slip out of the
>tray. Dont unscrew it all the way or it will fall apart.
Ahhhh . . . but of course. Folks haven't used the
rear-panel nut plate in 40 years. Sometimes your
sense of history can become distracting of the
present! Good put Tim.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: removing bendix king kma 24 |
| From: | joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks to everyone, as usual, the list beats all.
Anyone care to venture why the speaker 3 amp breaker is popping? Is the am
p
a common failure point? Looked at the schematic and didnt see any thing
remarkable.. Will know more after removing the unit and seeing if it is
ships wiring or the KMA 24 that is popping the CB..Everything else works
normal as far as I can tell wit the unit...
Thanks again to all.
Joe Motis Flying the 180
and building
The CH 750
No archive
On 9/1/10, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:24 AM 9/1/2010, you wrote:
>
>> tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Yeah I think that one has a tab that rotates 90=B0 as you turn the 3/32
>> Allen
>> head screw. After 2~3 turns counterclockwise the unit should slip out of
>> the
>> tray. Don=92t unscrew it all the way or it will fall apart.
>>
>
> Ahhhh . . . but of course. Folks haven't used the
> rear-panel nut plate in 40 years. Sometimes your
> sense of history can become distracting of the
> present! Good put Tim.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | removing bendix king kma 24 |
Does it have a separate fuse for the speaker? In any case I would check
the
2 leads to the speaker from the connector at the back of the tray.
Should be
what, 8 or 16 ohms +/- between the leads? Also, no continuity to
ground. At
least with the unit removed that is. Hopefully you just have a wire with
an
unintentional ground or a bad speaker.
Tim Andres.
(Not an avionics tech and slept in my own bed last night)
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of joe
motis
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: removing bendix king kma 24
Thanks to everyone, as usual, the list beats all.
Anyone care to venture why the speaker 3 amp breaker is popping? Is the
amp
a common failure point? Looked at the schematic and didnt see any thing
remarkable.. Will know more after removing the unit and seeing if it is
ships wiring or the KMA 24 that is popping the CB..Everything else works
normal as far as I can tell wit the unit...
Thanks again to all.
Joe Motis Flying the 180
and building
The CH 750
No archive
On 9/1/10, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 10:24 AM 9/1/2010, you wrote:
Yeah I think that one has a tab that rotates 90=B0 as you turn the 3/32
Allen
head screw. After 2~3 turns counterclockwise the unit should slip out of
the
tray. Don=92t unscrew it all the way or it will fall apart.
Ahhhh . . . but of course. Folks haven't used the
rear-panel nut plate in 40 years. Sometimes your
sense of history can become distracting of the
present! Good put Tim.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
--------------------------------------- browse
enExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://forums.matronics.com/"
target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
Matt Dralle, List Admin.
" href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"
target="_blank">http://w================
======
23:34:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: removing bendix king kma 24 |
| From: | joe motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Tim, good starting points.
Will know more on Friday.
Thanks
Joe
No archive
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> Does it have a separate fuse for the speaker? In any case I would check
> the 2 leads to the speaker from the connector at the back of the tray.
> Should be what, 8 or 16 ohms +/- between the leads? Also, no continuity
to
> ground. At least with the unit removed that is. Hopefully you just have a
> wire with an unintentional ground or a bad speaker.
>
> Tim Andres.
>
> (Not an avionics tech and slept in my own bed last night)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *joe motis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:37 PM
>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: removing bendix king kma 24
>
>
> Thanks to everyone, as usual, the list beats all.
>
> Anyone care to venture why the speaker 3 amp breaker is popping? Is the
> amp a common failure point? Looked at the schematic and didnt see any thi
ng
> remarkable.. Will know more after removing the unit and seeing if it is
> ships wiring or the KMA 24 that is popping the CB..Everything else works
> normal as far as I can tell wit the unit...
>
>
> Thanks again to all.
>
>
> Joe Motis Flying the 180
>
> and building
>
> The CH 750
>
>
> No archive
>
>
> On 9/1/10, *Robert L. Nuckolls, III*
> wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:24 AM 9/1/2010, you wrote:
>
> tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
>
> Yeah I think that one has a tab that rotates 90=B0 as you turn the 3/32 A
llen
> head screw. After 2~3 turns counterclockwise the unit should slip out of
> the
> tray. Don=92t unscrew it all the way or it will fall apart.
>
>
> Ahhhh . . . but of course. Folks haven't used the
> rear-panel nut plate in 40 years. Sometimes your
> sense of history can become distracting of the
> present! Good put Tim.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> --------------------------------------- browse
> enExtLink(window,event,this)" href="
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://forums.matronics.com/"
> target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> " href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" target="_blank">http:/
/w
> ======================
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
.1.1/3106
> - Release Date: 08/31/10 23:34:00
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | one accessory affecting another ?????? |
| From: | "kgmjeric" <ericwp(at)okstate.edu> |
is it common for an intercom to receive different power level based on the radio
being turned on or off? they share a common power wire.
RADIO turned OFF the intercom led is inbetween red and green and defaulting to
co pilot side only
RADIO turned ON the intercom led is bright green and functioning well
when i say turned on or off I mean that the knob on the radio is turned to the
off position or on position the power wire stays hot always
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311034#311034
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one accessory affecting another ?????? |
At 10:30 PM 9/1/2010, you wrote:
is it common for an intercom to receive different power level based
on the radio being turned on or off? they share a common power wire.
RADIO turned OFF the intercom led is inbetween red and green and
defaulting to co pilot side only
RADIO turned ON the intercom led is bright green and functioning well
when i say turned on or off I mean that the knob on the radio is
turned to the off position or on position the power wire stays hot always
Your narration has the "smell" of a noise issue.
I'm not familiar with the 'red/green' thing on the
intercom and you don't say what kind of radio is
involved . . . but here's a WAG.
Many modern radios have inverters to supply special
power for operation of LCD and/or glow-discharge
displays. These are potential antagonists for noise.
Will they PROBABLY meet DO-160 requirements for how
much noise is pushed back onto the power line, the
intercom MIGHT be unusually susceptible. Try operating
the intercom from a separate 12v source, like a
test battery as described in the noise trouble shooting
section of The 'Connection.
If this makes the symptoms go away, consider adding
a line noise filter in the +14v supply to the intercom.
We have a filter you can try . . . if it doesn't do
the job, you can return it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: one accessory affecting another ?????? |
| From: | "kgmjeric" <ericwp(at)okstate.edu> |
I am not having the problem with the radio turned on and it pushing backfeeding
through the power line but that the intercom will only perform with the radio
turned ON
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311070#311070
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one accessory affecting another ?????? |
At 09:32 AM 9/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>I am not having the problem with the radio turned on and it pushing
>backfeeding through the power line but that the intercom will only
>perform with the radio turned ON
Hmmm . . . blew that WAG out of the water. Still,
operating the intercom from a separate power
source like a battery would be an interesting
thing to do. If two boxes are 'talking' to each
other, you need to deduce the propagation pathway.
The experiment would confirm/deny the +14v power
leads as being part of that pathway.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Splicing a shielded cable |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
The dynon instructions call for a 4-conductor shielded cable from the panel to
the remote compass. I'm planning to put the compass box in the wing, but would
like to have a connector at the wing root to facilitate wing removal. What is
the best type of connector to use in that case?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Noise |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
Bob,
More data points:
I installed a portable intercom in my plane. Its plugged in the new Pilot
mic & phone jacks. With only the internal 9v battery powering the unit,
I still get the noise in my headsets, but it is tolerable. Intercom off
= no noise. When I power the portable intercom from ships power the no
ise is louder, but still tolerable...barely.
Any ideas now?
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Noise |
I'd say it's time to look at your headsets.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:17 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
Bob,
More data points:
I installed a portable intercom in my plane. Its plugged in the new
Pilot mic & phone jacks. With only the internal 9v battery powering the
unit, I still get the noise in my headsets, but it is tolerable.
Intercom off = no noise. When I power the portable intercom from ships
power the noise is louder, but still tolerable...barely.
Any ideas now?
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Noise |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
Bruce. Why? Tell me more?
I've used several different type headsets and they all have the same issue
.
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Gray <bgray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 8:41 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
I=99d say it=99s time to look at your headsets.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:17 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
Bob,
More data points:
I installed a portable intercom in my plane. Its plugged in the new Pilot
mic & phone jacks. With only the internal 9v battery powering the unit,
I still get the noise in my headsets, but it is tolerable. Intercom off
= no noise. When I power the portable intercom from ships power the no
ise is louder, but still tolerable...barely.
Any ideas now?
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> http://forums.matronics.com
--> http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
-= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Volkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
I have an SD-8 auxiliary alternator. I am using the Z-13 wiring scheme
which has shunts for the primary and auxiliary alternator. I will be
using
a Dynon EMS. The Dynon has a single input for ammeter. I want to
access
the both shunts in the Z-13 wiring scheme. My initial design was to use
a
DPDT relay connected to the auxiliary alternator switch. With the
switch in
the off position, the primary alternator shunt would be connected to the
EMS. With the switch in the on position the relay would disconnect the
primary and connect the auxiliary alternator shunt.
Question: Is a simpler alternative to hook both shunts to the single EMS
input? And if I did this, would the reading be the sum of the two, if
both
alternators were active at the same time?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same as connecting
the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read the higher of the two
voltages, not the sum. Using a relay will work.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311197#311197
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: one accessory affecting another ?????? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Just my two cents worth but it is important to understand that many regulated power
supplies and regulator ICs require a minimum load (current draw) before they
will regulate.
It is possible that the intercom does not draw enough current to do the job and
a load ohm resistor across the input power but after the on/off switch might
be required.
This load resistor is an important circuit element even with LM317 regulators.
They specify a Min Load Current of a few milliamps, but other supplies can be
several tens of milliamps or more.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311203#311203
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splicing a shielded cable |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
I am building a Van's RV-12 that has a Dynon D-180 with a remote compass located
in the tail. The Van's supplied cable is not shielded. Instead, individual
wires are twisted together. Since shielding is optional, I would not be too
concerned about making a splice at the wing root. This application is not critical
like a coax carrying a radio frequency. Any type of connector should work,
like a D-Sub or even a 4 pin automotive trailer hitch connector. Since Dynon
uses a D-Sub on each end, that would be good choice for the splice.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311204#311204
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Progressive switch for electric trim |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
Automobiles now have a similar switch for electric windows. Pull (or push) the
switch a bit to move the window, then pull (or push) it past a detent to automatically
raise or lower the window.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311205#311205
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
I was planning to use a separate dpdt switch on the instrument panel, but I
like the relay idea. Which relay were you planning to use?
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:08 AM, user9253 wrote:
> >
>
> Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same as
> connecting the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read the higher
> of the two voltages, not the sum. Using a relay will work.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311197#311197
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splicing a shielded cable |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Thanks Joe, that sounds like good information.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:03 AM, user9253 wrote:
> >
>
> I am building a Van's RV-12 that has a Dynon D-180 with a remote compass
> located in the tail. The Van's supplied cable is not shielded. Instead,
> individual wires are twisted together. Since shielding is optional, I would
> not be too concerned about making a splice at the wing root. This
> application is not critical like a coax carrying a radio frequency. Any
> type of connector should work, like a D-Sub or even a 4 pin automotive
> trailer hitch connector. Since Dynon uses a D-Sub on each end, that would
> be good choice for the splice.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311204#311204
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
At 06:08 AM 9/3/2010, you wrote:
>
>Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same
>as connecting the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read
>the higher of the two voltages, not the sum. Using a relay will work.
>Joe
Right on. I'll also suggest that unless the
relay is really desirable from the perspective
of reducing numbers of wires at the panel controls
you might consider using just a DPDT switch
as shown on the third page of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Noise |
At 07:17 PM 9/2/2010, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>More data points:
>I installed a portable intercom in my plane. Its plugged in the new
>Pilot mic & phone jacks. With only the internal 9v battery powering
>the unit, I still get the noise in my headsets, but it is
>tolerable. Intercom off = no noise. When I power the portable
>intercom from ships power the noise is louder, but still tolerable...barely.
Hmmmmm . . . What is the nature of the noise?
whine, rumble, static, does it's pitch or repetition
rate change with engine RPM. Does the noise go
away if EVERYTHING else is off while only the
radio/intercom pair is operating?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Splicing a shielded cable |
At 07:03 PM 9/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>The dynon instructions call for a 4-conductor shielded cable from
>the panel to the remote compass. I'm planning to put the compass box
>in the wing, but would like to have a connector at the wing root to
>facilitate wing removal. What is the best type of connector to use
>in that case?
If the area is expected to stay DRY, then
a machined-pin, D-sub is fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Volkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
I thought about the using the switch directly and may still do that. Using
the relay tied to the switch for the auxiliary alternator set it up so the
shunt selection would occur when the auxiliary alternator was turned on,
eliminating the need to toggle two switches.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
At 06:08 AM 9/3/2010, you wrote:
>
>Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same
>as connecting the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read
>the higher of the two voltages, not the sum. Using a relay will work.
>Joe
Right on. I'll also suggest that unless the
relay is really desirable from the perspective
of reducing numbers of wires at the panel controls
you might consider using just a DPDT switch
as shown on the third page of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom Noise |
Trouble shooting electronic gremlins requires a systematic approach. The
most important thing to remember is to only change one variable at a
time.
If you have swapped headsets and the noise remained, we can rule out bad
headsets.
I would suggest the following decision tree.
1) Test the intercom in another aircraft if possible. If the problem
follows the intercom, the intercom is bad.
2) Test with the engine and ALL other electrical devices OFF except
the intercom. If no noise proceed to 3
3) Repeat 2 with engine running and ALT off.
4) Repeat 2 with engine and ALT on.
5) With engine off, turn on separately each other piece of
electronics.
6) Repeat 5 with engine and ALT on.
Get back to me with the results.
Are you using shielded wire? Is the shield only grounded at one end
(which is correct)?
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
Bruce. Why? Tell me more?
I've used several different type headsets and they all have the same
issue.
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Gray <bgray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 8:41 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
I'd say it's time to look at your headsets.
Bruce
<http://www.glasair.org/> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [
mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:17 PM
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Intercom Noise
Bob,
More data points:
I installed a portable intercom in my plane. Its plugged in the new
Pilot mic & phone jacks. With only the internal 9v battery powering the
unit, I still get the noise in my headsets, but it is tolerable.
Intercom off = no noise. When I power the portable intercom from ships
power the noise is louder, but still tolerable...barely.
Any ideas now?
Jeff Darnall
Jacksonville, FL
904-234-8718
__i__
*-----o--o--(_)--o--o-----*
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> <http://forums.matronics.com/> http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
tp://forums.matronics.com
===================================
_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
So use a 3PDT switch for turning on the aux alternator. One pole switches t
he alternator on/off the other two switch the shunts. ????????
Bob McC
> From: jvolkober(at)comcast.net
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
> Date: Fri=2C 3 Sep 2010 09:15:21 -0700
>
st.net>
>
> I thought about the using the switch directly and may still do that. Usin
g
> the relay tied to the switch for the auxiliary alternator set it up so th
e
> shunt selection would occur when the auxiliary alternator was turned on
=2C
> eliminating the need to toggle two switches.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
L.
> Nuckolls=2C III
> Sent: Friday=2C September 03=2C 2010 8:07 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
>
>
>
> At 06:08 AM 9/3/2010=2C you wrote:
om>
> >
> >Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same
> >as connecting the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read
> >the higher of the two voltages=2C not the sum. Using a relay will work.
> >Joe
>
> Right on. I'll also suggest that unless the
> relay is really desirable from the perspective
> of reducing numbers of wires at the panel controls
> you might consider using just a DPDT switch
> as shown on the third page of:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Spiral Wrapped Panel Wire Bundle |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello!
I've changed the supporting structure for my instrument panel and subpanel for
my Sonex and would like to get some feedback on my ideas for securing the wiring.
The main panel is tilted per plans at 30 degrees and is attached via piano on top
to the glareshield with a piano hinge, on the sides with nutplates, and to
the subpanel with another piano hinge. The subpanel is from a 1/8" thick extruded
angle, which is 1.5" tall and 5/8" deep.
Pic 004 is the only one taken with the panel in the closed position. The others
are with it tilted partially open for viewing. One concern is getting the wires
going to the back of the MGL Enigma EFIS so they aren't dangling down onto
the control cables. Looking at pic 006 you can see two white wires going into
the left side of the EFIS. I'll move these (as well as a blue wire not shown)
into the spiral wrap so they will exit the bundle to the left of the EFIS, about
where the grey cable exits. This leaves only the wires going into the 9 pin
connector. It came delivered with these wires looped around through the ferrite
tube as shown. Orange and green for OAT will go to the red and green wires
coming out of the wrap on the right. White won't be connected to anything. This
leaves the black ground and red supply wires. I didn't make the black ground
long enough, so I'll resplice it. This will allow enough slack to move the ferrite
tube to a better place instead of dangling close to the control cables,
and more importantly, the center flap and brake handles.
So I'm wondering where a good place for this ferrite tube would be. If it needs
to be secured, I could strap it on top of the 9 pin connector with a couple tie
wraps around the outside of the tube. Or turn the tube 90 and run it through
the middle.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311255#311255
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/panel_wire_bundle_006_140.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/panel_wire_bundle_004_128.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spiral Wrapped Panel Wire Bundle |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Another issue is securing the spiral wrapped bundle to the subpanel. I had thought
of simply drilling holes every 6" through the top of the subpanel and cinching
the bundle down with tie wraps. You can see a couple of temporary safety
wire pieces twisted in place in the pics. But instead of doing this, I thought
it would be better to support the bundle with those saddle anchors that can be
riveted on.
The final issue I have is where the spiral wrap drops below the top of the subpanel
on the cabin's left side (right side in pics) and goes between a switch cover
and the vertical face of the subpanel. I can't have it continue on top because
the light with a red and black wire would interfere with it. I figure I
could wrap this area with silicon tape to protect it against the edge of the subpanel.
Or maybe adding another section of spiral wrap over the existing spiral
wrap, making two layers of it.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311257#311257
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/panel_wire_bundle_007_195.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/panel_wire_bundle_008_298.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net> |
Looking to see if anyone has a -service- manual for the Narco 810/811
TSO in their library...
TIA
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Volkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS |
Like this:
I tend to have a habit of taking the long way around the bush.
John
-----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: Friday, September 03, 2010 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
So use a 3PDT switch for turning on the aux alternator. One pole
switches
the alternator on/off the other two switch the shunts. ????????
Bob McC
> From: jvolkober(at)comcast.net
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:15:21 -0700
>
>
> I thought about the using the switch directly and may still do that.
Using
> the relay tied to the switch for the auxiliary alternator set it up so
the
> shunt selection would occur when the auxiliary alternator was turned
on,
> eliminating the need to toggle two switches.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert
L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:07 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Shunts with Dynon EMS
>
>
>
> At 06:08 AM 9/3/2010, you wrote:
> >
> >Do not connect the two shunts in parallel. Doing that is the same
> >as connecting the two alternators in parallel. The Dynon would read
> >the higher of the two voltages, not the sum. Using a relay will work.
August 20, 2010 - September 03, 2010
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jr