AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kj
May 01, 2011 - May 31, 2011
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
RAY,
I understand your position but anytime you go to a Software company's
website and they are asking for volunteers to help debug their products???
If you looking to design parts to have machined or plasma cut, the main
concern you should have is the Post Processing what CNC are your suppliers
using and what CAD systems do they have Post Processing tools for. My
thinking is I am building a plane not debugging software. Take Care happy
building.
Jim Wickert
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rayj
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 10:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cad programs
Thanks to all who commented my CAD search. I looked at many of the
solid modeling programs and there is just no quick and easy way to get
up and running, so I guess I'll just commit to BRL CAD and start
applying myself. My choice of BRL is in large part driven by my hope
that it will play nice with EMC for CNC work.
I think for the drawings needed to design the wiring for an airplane
Bob's selection of TurboCad is the best bang for the $time$ investment.
Here are some of the programs I looked at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/free-cad/
http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/index.html
http://brlcad.org/
http://www.salome-platform.org/
And of course TurboCad
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
My philosophy is that changing to an LED strip is the easy way to go. You can fix
the EL problems, but does it make sense?
--------
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=338625#338625
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Eric, you might well be right -- I was looking on ebay last night, and
you can buy a reel of SMD LEDs, about 5m overall, for about 20 or
so... Seems like pretty good value to me.
What's the best way to dim them though? I guess they're pretty bright
to start off with.
James
On 2 May 2011 13:25, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> My philosophy is that changing to an LED strip is the easy way to go. You can
fix the EL problems, but does it make sense?
>
> --------
> 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=338625#338625
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cad programs |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Turbocad is a good way to go. I think it hooks to a CadCam package too for CNC.
A word on learning software--don't throw away the manual, but don't read it either.
Instead, start drawing something you want, and refer to the manual when you
need to.
When you've advanced (with some struggling) just a little way, you can sit down
with the manual and try each and every basic function on screen.
I have found it instructive for newcomers to invent every way to draw a circle.
Keep them as a collection on a separate drawing.
PS: I use DesignCad, but if they vanish, I'd use TurboCad. BRLCad looks neat, but
not for newcomers. If cost were not an issue, Solidworks might be what I'd
use.
--------
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=338627#338627
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I didn't mean surface mount leds, but LED ribbons or "flexstrips". Ebay has them
as well as Deal Extreme (my favorite).
There is a mistaken idea that LEDs need Pulse-Width-Modulation or Quantum Heisenberg
Compensators or some such....all untrue. Dimming them is just a matter of
changing the dc voltage to them. Any dimmer, even a resistor, zener or potentiometer
will do.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338629#338629
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
Cruising around on E-Bay I've seen dimmers for the led light strips and
have always thought I need to get them for the plane. Time will tell
Dick
#606/N20DG
In a message dated 5/2/2011 7:40:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
james(at)etravel.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Kilford
Eric, you might well be right -- I was looking on ebay last night, and
you can buy a reel of SMD LEDs, about 5m overall, for about =A320 or
so... Seems like pretty good value to me.
What's the best way to dim them though? I guess they're pretty bright
to start off with.
James
On 2 May 2011 13:25, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
> My philosophy is that changing to an LED strip is the easy way to go.
You can fix the EL problems, but does it make sense?
>
> --------
> 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=338625#338625
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Yep, absolutely. This is the sort of thing I've seen:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/5M-White-SMD-3020-Waterproof-300p-LEDs-Strip-Light-Lamp-/260769350652
James
On 2 May 2011 13:55, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> I didn't mean surface mount leds, but LED ribbons or "flexstrips". Ebay has them
as well as Deal Extreme (my favorite).
>
> There is a mistaken idea that LEDs need Pulse-Width-Modulation or Quantum Heisenberg
Compensators or some such....all untrue. Dimming them is just a matter
of changing the dc voltage to them. Any dimmer, even a resistor, zener or potentiometer
will do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Honeywell switches |
Hi Guys
Can someone (Bob) please confirm that a Honeywell switch designated 2TL1-2G
is 'locked' in the off position
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/manual/catalog/c30136.pdf
Regards
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honeywell switches |
At 06:54 AM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys
>
>Can someone (Bob) please confirm that a Honeywell switch designated
>2TL1-2G is 'locked' in the off position
>
>http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/manual/catalog/c30136.pdf
The "G" configuration is free to move between the
mid and anti-keyway position but will fall into
a locking detent if moved to the keyway side. Extraction
from the keyway side requires the operator to pull
up on the spring loaded cap before the switch can
be moved. You will note that a "G" switch is the same
as an "F" switch except that the locking detent is
on the anti-keyway side.
Referring to the 2-position order guide we see that
the -2 switch is a 4-terminal device with no contacts
closed when the handle is in the keyway position. So
yes, it is locked-off.
Now, you could order a -3, 6-terminal On-On switch.
This configuration gives you the option of wiring
for the locked position to be OFF, or some alternate
ON function. Further, depending on supplier stock
for the switch, you can use either a "F" or "G" locking
configuration in a -3 switch by turing the switch over
in the mounting hole.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honeywell switches |
Thank you Bob: your views and knowledge in the answers you give is, as
always received with gratitude
John (over the pond - RV9a wings, looking forward to the eventual wiring)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Honeywell switches
>
>
> At 06:54 AM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hi Guys
>>
>>Can someone (Bob) please confirm that a Honeywell switch designated
>>2TL1-2G is 'locked' in the off position
>>
>>http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/manual/catalog/c30136.pdf
>
> The "G" configuration is free to move between the
> mid and anti-keyway position but will fall into
> a locking detent if moved to the keyway side. Extraction
> from the keyway side requires the operator to pull
> up on the spring loaded cap before the switch can
> be moved. You will note that a "G" switch is the same
> as an "F" switch except that the locking detent is
> on the anti-keyway side.
>
> Referring to the 2-position order guide we see that
> the -2 switch is a 4-terminal device with no contacts
> closed when the handle is in the keyway position. So
> yes, it is locked-off.
>
> Now, you could order a -3, 6-terminal On-On switch.
> This configuration gives you the option of wiring
> for the locked position to be OFF, or some alternate
> ON function. Further, depending on supplier stock
> for the switch, you can use either a "F" or "G" locking
> configuration in a -3 switch by turing the switch over
> in the mounting hole.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
HFT sent me a 20% off coupon with no limit on sale items so I treated myself
to one of their Hydraulic Crimping Tools (part no 66150) for $39.95. When I
got it home I was surprised at how small the crimping dies were. I'm not
sure they're sized for the wire, much less the connector.
The picture shows the AWG 4 dies with an Amp # 4 connector.
Does anyone have experience using this tool? I'd like to hear from you
before I make up my mind whether to keep the tool or not.
Rick Girard
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
At 05:31 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>HFT sent me a 20% off coupon with no limit on sale items so I
>treated myself to one of their Hydraulic Crimping Tools (part no
>66150) for $39.95. When I got it home I was surprised at how small
>the crimping dies were. I'm not sure they're sized for the wire,
>much less the connector.
>The picture shows the AWG 4 dies with an Amp # 4 connector.
>Does anyone have experience using this tool? I'd like to hear from
>you before I make up my mind whether to keep the tool or not.
Go ahead and put a terminal onto a 4AWG wire
and see what it looks like. I might have you send
me the installed terminal and I'll slice it open
for microscopic examination. How many die sets
come with the tool?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
>
>Does anyone have experience using this tool? I'd like to hear from
>you before I make up my mind whether to keep the tool or not.
Did you check out the reviews on the website?
http://www.harborfreight.com/hydraulic-wire-crimping-tool-66150.html
One reviewer suggested that the dies remind him more
of tools for installing wire-rope fittings than for
copper wire. Other folks have reported good results
but universal disappointment on the squash-ears that
result from having too much copper in the mash-up.
Put some terminals on an enlighten us with your
own perceptions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 2, 0, 00
Rick
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 05:31 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>
>> HFT sent me a 20% off coupon with no limit on sale items so I treated
>> myself to one of their Hydraulic Crimping Tools (part no 66150) for $39.95.
>> When I got it home I was surprised at how small the crimping dies were. I'm
>> not sure they're sized for the wire, much less the connector.
>> The picture shows the AWG 4 dies with an Amp # 4 connector.
>> Does anyone have experience using this tool? I'd like to hear from you
>> before I make up my mind whether to keep the tool or not.
>>
>
> Go ahead and put a terminal onto a 4AWG wire
> and see what it looks like. I might have you send
> me the installed terminal and I'll slice it open
> for microscopic examination. How many die sets
> come with the tool?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall pass through |
I am changing my batteries from in front of the firewall to behind the seat.
The existing firewall pass through bolts are 1/4" . Will this still be
sufficient for bringing power from inside back to the engine compartment?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wed, May 4, 2011 4:58:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper
At 05:31 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
> HFT sent me a 20% off coupon with no limit on sale items so I treated myself
to
>one of their Hydraulic Crimping Tools (part no 66150) for $39.95. When I got it
>home I was surprised at how small the crimping dies were. I'm not sure they're
>sized for the wire, much less the connector.
> The picture shows the AWG 4 dies with an Amp # 4 connector.
> Does anyone have experience using this tool? I'd like to hear from you before
I
>make up my mind whether to keep the tool or not.
Go ahead and put a terminal onto a 4AWG wire
and see what it looks like. I might have you send
me the installed terminal and I'll slice it open
for microscopic examination. How many die sets
come with the tool?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall pass through |
Jim,
Are the =BC bolts built into a firewall device designed specifically for pa
ssing cables through? If so, does it have a rating? I've seen similar in th
e racing world where they bolt the connection through. These work perfectly
fine so long as you have the correct device intended for the job.
The below uses a 3/8 bolt, but there are many variations on this product. I
f you go this route be sure to protect the exposed bolt from contact with o
ther gremlins. Some come with covers.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&biw=1403&bih=738&q=fir
ewall+battery+terminals&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=15926373037678662275&sa=X
&ei=YrXCTYqEI-rj0QGkkqXtAw&ved=0CEMQ8wIwAw#
Glenn E. Long
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Robinson
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:10 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall pass through
I am changing my batteries from in front of the firewall to behind the seat
. The existing firewall pass through bolts are 1/4" . Will this still be
sufficient for bringing power from inside back to the engine compartment?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall pass through |
>
>http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&biw=1403&bih=738&q=firewall+battery+terminals&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=15926373037678662275&sa=X&ei=YrXCTYqEI-rj0QGkkqXtAw&ved=0CEMQ8wIwAw#
Emacs!
Fire wall feed-thru products like this are electrically
adequate and VERY convenient. Just be aware that plastic
insulators would not pass muster in the TC aircraft
world with respect to maintaining fire wall integrity.
Admittedly, fuel fed fires under the cowl are VERY
rare events . . . and we know that those-who-know-more-
about-airplanes-than-we-do are fond of writing rules
for mitigating the rarest of risks.
A lighter, less elegant but time honored and much tested
approach is to bring unbroken wires through the fire wall
protected by shielded grommets and sealed with a fillet
of fire-putty on the engine side.
It's your airplane . . . your call.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
At 09:07 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 2, 0, 00
>
>Rick
Yeah, went to the website and looked it up.
That's a pretty good range. Too bad they
didn't make those hex shaped holes tailored
more closely to the real-world of terminals.
But then, we have no knowledge of what the
designers were handed for design goals . . .
nor the market demands that drove the decision
to fabricate the tool.
I'll be interested in seeing what your test
crimps look like.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
FYI
T&B has a rental program for tools like this. Might be a better choice than
using a universal crimper.
http://www.tnb.com/ps/con/contractor.cgi?action=tool&ca=corp
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper
>
>
> At 09:07 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>>12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 2, 0, 00
>>
>>Rick
>
> Yeah, went to the website and looked it up.
> That's a pretty good range. Too bad they
> didn't make those hex shaped holes tailored
> more closely to the real-world of terminals.
>
> But then, we have no knowledge of what the
> designers were handed for design goals . . .
> nor the market demands that drove the decision
> to fabricate the tool.
>
> I'll be interested in seeing what your test
> crimps look like.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EL lighting-wire causing noise |
If it is quiet I can look up the resistor values that I used to adjust
the voltages to something more suitable. I think full dim for my EL
inverter cube was around 5 or 6 volts so I altered the design a bit to
still have full range adjustment on the knob.
Ken
On 5/5/2011 10:50 AM, James Kilford wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Kilford
>
> Thanks Ken,
>
> I've a couple in the electronics box from when I made some dimmed map
> lights. I'll give that a try.
>
> James
>
> On 5 May 2011 01:35, Ken wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>>
>> FWIW my EL lights are powered through the homemade analog dimmer circuit on
>> the aeroelectric pages and there is no noise evident at any brightness. I
>> think the circuit used a LM317 regulator.
>> Ken
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall pass through |
Concerning firewall pass-through trinkets...I found a company called Precis
ion =0AGrommets and they will custom make these in a variety of materials a
nd sizes. =0AHere is a blip on how I put them in my Kitfox=C2- =0Ahttp://
www.azshowersolutions.com/Engine13.html=0AI was very happy with their servi
ce and product.=0ADan=0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "longg(at)pjm.com" <longg(at)pjm.com>=0A
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 7:37:12 AM
=0A>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall pass through=0A>=0A>=0A>Ji
m,=0A>=C2-=0A>Are the =C2=BC bolts built into a firewall device designed
specifically for passing =0A>cables through? If so, does it have a rating?
I=99ve seen similar in the racing =0A>world where they bolt the conne
ction through. These work perfectly fine so long =0A>as you have the correc
t device intended for the job.=0A>=C2-=0A>The below uses a 3/8 bolt, but
there are many variations on this product. If you =0A>go this route be sure
to protect the exposed bolt from contact with other =0A>gremlins. Some com
e with covers.=0A>=C2-=0A>http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&
biw=1403&bih=738&q=firewall+battery+terminals&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid
=15926373037678662275&sa=X&ei=YrXCTYqEI-rj0QGkkqXtAw&ved=0CEMQ8wIwA
w#=0A>=0A>=C2-=0A>Glenn E. Long=0A>=C2-=0A>From:owner-aeroelectric-list
-server(at)matronics.com =0A>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.
com] On Behalf Of James =0A>Robinson=0A>Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:10
AM=0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re
: Firewall pass through=0A>=C2-=0A>I am changing my batteries from in fro
nt of the firewall to behind the seat.=C2- =0A>The existing firewall pass
through bolts are 1/4" .=C2- Will this still be =0A>sufficient for bring
ing power from inside back to the engine compartment?=0A>Jim=0A>=C2-=0A>J
ames Robinson=0A>Glasair lll N79R=0A>Spanish Fork UT U77=0A>=C2-=0A> =C2
======================= =0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes were |
pretty amazing. . .
I think I used to hear numbers for gross weight on the B-52H
models as topping out near 500K pounds. Here's a rejected take
off test on the 747-8 loaded to nearly a million pounds. This
is what you call "really hot stuff" . . . no pun intended.
http://tinyurl.com/42lrcss
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes were |
pretty amazing. . .
Many years ago, I flew as a Electronic Warfare Officer crew member
aboard the B-52E on the first exploration of the B-52 in a low-level
mission role as well as many hours on "Chrome Dome" nuclear airborne
alert - at the time, it was the most massive airframe to leave the
ground - now seems like a light weight {:>).
So heavy, that on high density altitude days (and there were many in
Western Oklahoma), water injection to the engines were essential to get
a heavily loaded B-52 airborne. An impressive sight in those days to
see this 8 engine monster hurling down the runway with black "smoke"
belching from the engines, the engine roaring and heat mirage distorting
the view from behind from those engines. Hard to believe how long that
airframe has been flying.
But, yes, 1000,000 lb aircraft is almost inconceivable, but does give
credence to that old saying "....that with sufficient power you can get
a brick to fly". But, I guess this video addresses the question "...
Yes, but can you get it stopped?" Impressive for sure.
Thanks for sharing
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
I think I used to hear numbers for gross weight on the B-52H
models as topping out near 500K pounds. Here's a rejected take
off test on the 747-8 loaded to nearly a million pounds. This
is what you call "really hot stuff" . . . no pun intended.
http://tinyurl.com/42lrcss
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall pass through |
Dan,
Those are nice. I've used the wire grip connectors which are also aesthetically
appealing and are readily available at good prices. I normally plug them with
fire-goop from the rear as not to take away from appearances on the front.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall pass through
Concerning firewall pass-through trinkets...I found a company called Precision
Grommets and they will custom make these in a variety of materials and sizes.
Here is a blip on how I put them in my Kitfox http://www.azshowersolutions.com/Engine13.html
I was very happy with their service and product.
Dan
>
>From: "longg(at)pjm.com" <longg(at)pjm.com>
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 7:37:12 AM
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall pass through
>
>
>Jim,
>
>Are the bolts built into a firewall device designed specifically for
>passing cables through? If so, does it have a rating? Ive seen similar
>in the racing world where they bolt the connection through. These work
>perfectly fine so long as you have the correct device intended for the job.
>
>The below uses a 3/8 bolt, but there are many variations on this
>product. If you go this route be sure to protect the exposed bolt from
>contact with other gremlins. Some come with covers.
>
>http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&biw=1403&bih=738&q=firewal
>l+battery+terminals&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=15926373037678662275&sa=X&ei=YrXC
>TYqEI-rj0QGkkqXtAw&ved=0CEMQ8wIwAw#
>
>
>Glenn E. Long
>
>From:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>James Robinson
>Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:10 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall pass through
>
>I am changing my batteries from in front of the firewall to behind the
>seat. The existing firewall pass through bolts are 1/4" . Will this
>still be sufficient for bringing power from inside back to the engine compartment?
>Jim
>
>James Robinson
>Glasair lll N79R
>Spanish Fork UT U77
>
> ======================
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
At 08:43 AM 5/6/2011, you wrote:
>Many years ago, I flew as a Electronic Warfare Officer crew member
>aboard the B-52E on the first exploration of the B-52 in a low-level
>mission role as well as many hours on "Chrome Dome" nuclear airborne
>alert - at the time, it was the most massive airframe to leave the
>ground - now seems like a light weight {:>).
Hmmmm . . . low level stuff . . . did your pilots
have the pleasure of flying that so-called terrain
avoidance radar?
I worked on a crew tasked with aligning the radar's
display processor (lots of vacuum tubes) on E and
F models being recycled through Wichita for
upgrades. It took 3 shifts to run the alignment
procedure during which it was not uncommon to take
3 or more modules up to the lab for "repairs or
adjustment".
Those might have been infant mortality issues. It
was a brand-new-out-of-the-box processor
from Raytheon. I often wondered what the failure
rate was for these things in the field. I hope that
nobody ever had to fly head-down with one of those
things in anger . . . it didn't take much drift
to use up those 200' margins for clearing the hilltops
and/or keeping your wing tips off the canyon walls!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
Bob, I really can not recall for certain the reliability/reliance on
those early terrain avoidance systems - best I recall they were
acceptable - but at that time don't know too many pilots that actually
trusted any "gadget" to keep them out of a hillside.
I do know we had the terrain avoidance systems - however, for peace time
exercising/training - the routine required for one of the pilots to
exercise "eyeball terrain clearance" through the wind screen at all
times.
As best I recall, if we had ever gotten the "GO CODE", the thermal
curtains would be pulled around the cockpit windshield - and flash
goggles would be worn by the pilots. However, I do recall there were
some situations where one pilot (the co-pilot naturally {:>)) was to
pull away the goggle from one eyeball, pull back a portion of the
curtains and keep one (presumably sacrificial) eye ball on the outside
world.
But, its clear that terrain avoidance has come a long ways since those
days as have all things electronic.
Ed
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
At 08:43 AM 5/6/2011, you wrote:
Many years ago, I flew as a Electronic Warfare Officer crew member
aboard the B-52E on the first exploration of the B-52 in a low-level
mission role as well as many hours on "Chrome Dome" nuclear airborne
alert - at the time, it was the most massive airframe to leave the
ground - now seems like a light weight {:>).
Hmmmm . . . low level stuff . . . did your pilots
have the pleasure of flying that so-called terrain
avoidance radar?
I worked on a crew tasked with aligning the radar's
display processor (lots of vacuum tubes) on E and
F models being recycled through Wichita for
upgrades. It took 3 shifts to run the alignment
procedure during which it was not uncommon to take
3 or more modules up to the lab for "repairs or
adjustment".
Those might have been infant mortality issues. It
was a brand-new-out-of-the-box processor
from Raytheon. I often wondered what the failure
rate was for these things in the field. I hope that
nobody ever had to fly head-down with one of those
things in anger . . . it didn't take much drift
to use up those 200' margins for clearing the hilltops
and/or keeping your wing tips off the canyon walls!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Gregory" <steve(at)stevegregory.us> |
| Subject: | There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
For all the precise engineering and science in manufacturing, it boiled down
to this. I was a navigator in the B-52H. So here's this 22 year kid,
taking readings from the pilot, plotting the data points and drawing a line
to determine the TA (terrain avoidance) correction feeling like he was
inside the paint shaker at the ACE Hardware store trying to keep his lunch
down halfway into a 16 hour mission. Precise? I'm just glad I didn't have
a window.
All kidding aside, we did have write-ups, but the overall feeling was that
if it kept us below Soviet radar, it was worth the effort.
Steve
RV-8
Livermore, CA
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
Bob, I really can not recall for certain the reliability/reliance on those
early terrain avoidance systems - best I recall they were acceptable - but
at that time don't know too many pilots that actually trusted any "gadget"
to keep them out of a hillside.
I do know we had the terrain avoidance systems - however, for peace time
exercising/training - the routine required for one of the pilots to exercise
"eyeball terrain clearance" through the wind screen at all times.
As best I recall, if we had ever gotten the "GO CODE", the thermal curtains
would be pulled around the cockpit windshield - and flash goggles would be
worn by the pilots. However, I do recall there were some situations where
one pilot (the co-pilot naturally {:>)) was to pull away the goggle from one
eyeball, pull back a portion of the curtains and keep one (presumably
sacrificial) eye ball on the outside world.
But, its clear that terrain avoidance has come a long ways since those days
as have all things electronic.
Ed
From: Robert <mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
At 08:43 AM 5/6/2011, you wrote:
Many years ago, I flew as a Electronic Warfare Officer crew member aboard
the B-52E on the first exploration of the B-52 in a low-level mission role
as well as many hours on "Chrome Dome" nuclear airborne alert - at the time,
it was the most massive airframe to leave the ground - now seems like a
light weight {:>).
Hmmmm . . . low level stuff . . . did your pilots
have the pleasure of flying that so-called terrain
avoidance radar?
I worked on a crew tasked with aligning the radar's
display processor (lots of vacuum tubes) on E and
F models being recycled through Wichita for
upgrades. It took 3 shifts to run the alignment
procedure during which it was not uncommon to take
3 or more modules up to the lab for "repairs or
adjustment".
Those might have been infant mortality issues. It
was a brand-new-out-of-the-box processor
from Raytheon. I often wondered what the failure
rate was for these things in the field. I hope that
nobody ever had to fly head-down with one of those
things in anger . . . it didn't take much drift
to use up those 200' margins for clearing the hilltops
and/or keeping your wing tips off the canyon walls!
Bob . . .
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/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
> However, I do recall there were some situations where one pilot
> (the co-pilot naturally {:>)) was to pull away the goggle from one
> eyeball, pull back a portion of the curtains and keep one
> (presumably sacrificial) eye ball on the outside world.
Yeah, 'trust but verify' . . . solid advice any time,
any place.
>But, its clear that terrain avoidance has come a long ways since
>those days as have all things electronic.
Boy, you got that right! The imaging, computing and
sensing technology in 2011 kids video games is more
sophisticated than the-best-we-knew-how-to-do on the
B-52 in 1960.
I love this business . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
>
>All kidding aside, we did have write-ups, but the overall feeling
>was that if it kept us below Soviet radar, it was worth the effort.
Knowing guy on the other side of the wall has sticks
as big as yours can have a profound effect on one's
fortitude and dedication. Thanks for reminding us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes |
were pretty amazing. . .
Roger that! I am convinced that this hobby has kept my 71 year old grey
matter from eroding away - trying to stay up with the latest changes in
just cell phones, Tablet computer, and other consumer products, much
less microchips, lasers, solar cells, etc, etc, etc, is impossible, but
certain is exciting to try.
Ed
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
However, I do recall there were some situations where one pilot (the
co-pilot naturally {:>)) was to pull away the goggle from one eyeball,
pull back a portion of the curtains and keep one (presumably
sacrificial) eye ball on the outside world.
Yeah, 'trust but verify' . . . solid advice any time,
any place.
But, its clear that terrain avoidance has come a long ways since
those days as have all things electronic.
Boy, you got that right! The imaging, computing and
sensing technology in 2011 kids video games is more
sophisticated than the-best-we-knew-how-to-do on the
B-52 in 1960.
I love this business . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes were |
pretty amazing. . .
A few years ago a plane took off from Gander International airport with full
tanks and two locomotives and track in the hold. The plane was an AN-225
(Google it) and as far as I know it is the record for a lift in aviation.
It is of some note the plane took off right over the town of Gander and
neither the town or the airport authority was told how heavy the load was.
The plane came from London, Ontario where it was not allowed to take off
with the weight of fuel required to fly to Russia. The stop in gander was
specifically for several tons of fuel.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: May 6, 2011 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound
airplanes were pretty amazing. . .
Many years ago, I flew as a Electronic Warfare Officer crew member aboard
the B-52E on the first exploration of the B-52 in a low-level mission role
as well as many hours on "Chrome Dome" nuclear airborne alert - at the time,
it was the most massive airframe to leave the ground - now seems like a
light weight {:>).
So heavy, that on high density altitude days (and there were many in Western
Oklahoma), water injection to the engines were essential to get a heavily
loaded B-52 airborne. An impressive sight in those days to see this 8
engine monster hurling down the runway with black "smoke" belching from the
engines, the engine roaring and heat mirage distorting the view from behind
from those engines. Hard to believe how long that airframe has been flying.
But, yes, 1000,000 lb aircraft is almost inconceivable, but does give
credence to that old saying "....that with sufficient power you can get a
brick to fly". But, I guess this video addresses the question "... Yes, but
can you get it stopped?" Impressive for sure.
Thanks for sharing
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: There was a time when 488,000 pound airplanes
were pretty amazing. . .
I think I used to hear numbers for gross weight on the B-52H
models as topping out near 500K pounds. Here's a rejected take
off test on the 747-8 loaded to nearly a million pounds. This
is what you call "really hot stuff" . . . no pun intended.
http://tinyurl.com/42lrcss
Bob . . .
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/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Belvin <tbelvin38(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |
LinkedIn
------------
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- Thomas
Thomas Belvin
Independent Machinery Professional
Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina Area
Confirm that you know Thomas Belvin
https://www.linkedin.com/e/-7hsi75-gnet8rrg-23/isd/2832270558/3wXw6T5Y/
--
(c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Bad fast-on connection? |
I fought a GNS430W TX issue a while ago that was eventually apparently resolved
by reseating the fast-on connector where the power line connects to the fuse
block. The radio had worked fine for 2.5 years, then suddenly was transmitting
carrier only. I ran out of ideas, so I eventually pulled the power connector
off the fuse block, squeezed the fast-on a bit with pliers, and wiggled it
back on, and the radio worked fine for five weeks. Today it was not transmitting
again. I removed, squeezed and reinstalled the same fast-on connector again,
and the problem appears to be solved, again.
I'm baffled by why this fast-on seems to be giving me grief. Both the fast-on
connectors and the fuse block were purchased from B&C Specialties, so I believe
they are good quality.
I'm not sure what I should do to hopefully permanently fix the issue. I'd appreciate
any comments on the following possible courses of action, plus I'd love
any other suggestions:
1. cut off the problem fast-on, splice the wire with a butt splice and install
a new fast-on (the wire is not long enough to do this unless I splice it).
2. use dielectric grease on the connection, such as the Dynatex product sold by
Stein Avionics:
http://www.steinair.com/chemicals.htm
http://www.accumetricinc.com/dynatex/PDF/49634.pdf
3. replace the Buss fuse block (purchased from B&C Specialites) with a new one.
4. bypass the fuse block with a ring terminal connected to the fuse block's input,
and an inline fuse. This gets rid of the fast-on connector in this circuit,
but replaces it with a ring terminal.
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |
| From: | Joe <joseparc(at)aol.com> |
Who is Thomas Belvin and why does he want me in his network? Enquiring mi
nds want to know.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Belvin <tbelvin38(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 12:11 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
LinkedIn
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- Thomas
Thomas Belvin
Independent Machinery Professional
Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina Area
Confirm that you know Thomas
=C2=A9 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
========================
===========
-= - 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
-========================
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
| From: | Matt Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Kevin,
I'm sure you'll get other smart replies, but here are my thoughts..
- Have you done something to verify that it's a deficiency in the fast-on-spade
interconnect? Short of an alloy problem, an overheat, or ongoing mechanical
stress, I have a tough time believing that's the problem.
- Could it be that when you pull the fast-on off the spade, you're resetting some
other connection in the functional chain? A bad crimp? Some other loose connection?
- Is there another hot connection available on the fuse block?
- Is that an always-hot connection (battery bus)?
- I assume the fuse block is in the cabin where it stays dry and at a reasonable
temperature...
- If you cut the connector off, save it for Bob.. He'll probably want to look
at it. ;)
Matt-
On May 9, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> I fought a GNS430W TX issue a while ago that was eventually apparently resolved
by reseating the fast-on connector where the power line connects to the fuse
block. The radio had worked fine for 2.5 years, then suddenly was transmitting
carrier only. I ran out of ideas, so I eventually pulled the power connector
off the fuse block, squeezed the fast-on a bit with pliers, and wiggled it
back on, and the radio worked fine for five weeks. Today it was not transmitting
again. I removed, squeezed and reinstalled the same fast-on connector again,
and the problem appears to be solved, again.
>
> I'm baffled by why this fast-on seems to be giving me grief. Both the fast-on
connectors and the fuse block were purchased from B&C Specialties, so I believe
they are good quality.
>
> I'm not sure what I should do to hopefully permanently fix the issue. I'd appreciate
any comments on the following possible courses of action, plus I'd love
any other suggestions:
>
> 1. cut off the problem fast-on, splice the wire with a butt splice and install
a new fast-on (the wire is not long enough to do this unless I splice it).
>
> 2. use dielectric grease on the connection, such as the Dynatex product sold
by Stein Avionics:
>
> http://www.steinair.com/chemicals.htm
> http://www.accumetricinc.com/dynatex/PDF/49634.pdf
>
> 3. replace the Buss fuse block (purchased from B&C Specialites) with a new one.
>
> 4. bypass the fuse block with a ring terminal connected to the fuse block's input,
and an inline fuse. This gets rid of the fast-on connector in this circuit,
but replaces it with a ring terminal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |
At 08:32 PM 5/9/2011, you wrote:
>Who is Thomas Belvin and why does he want me in his
>network? Enquiring minds want to know.
Be aware that the spam filter for matronics domains
is temporarily out of service. Expect to see some
strange things in your emails until Matt slays the
dragons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
JP,
Same here. Thomas, if you are out there, tell us who you are and your
interest.
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Tri-Gear, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
Prop
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 May 9, 2011, at 19:32, Joe wrote:
> Who is Thomas Belvin and why does he want me in his network?
Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> JP
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Belvin <tbelvin38(at)aol.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 12:11 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
>
>
>
>
> LinkedIn
> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>
> - Thomas
> Thomas Belvin
> Independent Machinery Professional
> Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina Area
> Confirm that you know Thomas
> =A9 2011, LinkedIn Corporation
>
>
>
> ========================
===========
>
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?AeroElectric-List
> ========================
===========
> /forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
> /www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
Hi Kevin,
My 2 cents is on the crimped connection of the fast on tab. I don't know what
size the wire is, but I'm guessing that it is very light gauge. With the very
light gauge wires (< 20AWG) I have better luck getting a good crimp by stripping
twice the length of wire needed & folding in half prior to installing the
terminal. Hope this helps.
Hal Benjamin
RV-4, Long Island, NY
On the last 999 items
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Horton
Date: Monday, May 9, 2011 7:46 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bad fast-on connection?
>
> I fought a GNS430W TX issue a while ago that was eventually
> apparently resolved by reseating the fast-on connector where the
> power line connects to the fuse block. The radio had worked
> fine for 2.5 years, then suddenly was transmitting carrier only.
> I ran out of ideas, so I eventually pulled the power connector
> off the fuse block, squeezed the fast-on a bit with pliers, and
> wiggled it back on, and the radio worked fine for five weeks.
> Today it was not transmitting again. I removed, squeezed and
> reinstalled the same fast-on connector again, and the problem
> appears to be solved, again.
>
> I'm baffled by why this fast-on seems to be giving me grief.
> Both the fast-on connectors and the fuse block were purchased
> from B&C Specialties, so I believe they are good quality.
>
> I'm not sure what I should do to hopefully permanently fix the
> issue. I'd appreciate any comments on the following possible
> courses of action, plus I'd love any other suggestions:
>
> 1. cut off the problem fast-on, splice the wire with a butt
> splice and install a new fast-on (the wire is not long enough to
> do this unless I splice it).
>
> 2. use dielectric grease on the connection, such as the Dynatex
> product sold by Stein Avionics:
>
> http://www.steinair.com/chemicals.htm
> http://www.accumetricinc.com/dynatex/PDF/49634.pdf
>
> 3. replace the Buss fuse block (purchased from B&C Specialites)
> with a new one.
>
> 4. bypass the fuse block with a ring terminal connected to the
> fuse block's input, and an inline fuse. This gets rid of the
> fast-on connector in this circuit, but replaces it with a ring
> terminal.
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
At 08:09 PM 5/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi Kevin,
>
>I'm sure you'll get other smart replies, but here are my thoughts..
>
>- Have you done something to verify that it's a deficiency in the
>fast-on-spade interconnect? Short of an alloy problem, an overheat,
>or ongoing mechanical stress, I have a tough time believing that's
>the problem.
>- Could it be that when you pull the fast-on off the spade, you're
>resetting some other connection in the functional chain? A bad
>crimp? Some other loose connection?
>- Is there another hot connection available on the fuse block?
>- Is that an always-hot connection (battery bus)?
>- I assume the fuse block is in the cabin where it stays dry and at
>a reasonable temperature...
>- If you cut the connector off, save it for Bob.. He'll probably
>want to look at it. ;)
Good suggestions Matt. I wish I knew where B&C buys
inventory these days. There IS a potential problem
with fast-ons crafted from softer alloys. The fact that
you EVER had to 'tighten' this terminal gives one pause
to wonder. Get a minimum 10-pak of these
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name-903-ND
and use to replace the fast-on already installed.
Also, see if you can exchange the 'problem' wire
with another terminal that powers a lower current
draw/less critical accessory.
If you need to make a wire longer, use a soldered
lap-splice under heatshrink to extend the wire.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
At 08:09 PM 5/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi Kevin,
>
>I'm sure you'll get other smart replies, but here are my thoughts..
>
>- Have you done something to verify that it's a deficiency in the
>fast-on-spade interconnect? Short of an alloy problem, an overheat,
>or ongoing mechanical stress, I have a tough time believing that's
>the problem.
>- Could it be that when you pull the fast-on off the spade, you're
>resetting some other connection in the functional chain? A bad
>crimp? Some other loose connection?
>- Is there another hot connection available on the fuse block?
>- Is that an always-hot connection (battery bus)?
>- I assume the fuse block is in the cabin where it stays dry and at
>a reasonable temperature...
>- If you cut the connector off, save it for Bob.. He'll probably
>want to look at it. ;)
Good suggestions Matt. I wish I knew where B&C buys
inventory these days. There IS a potential problem
with fast-ons crafted from softer alloys. The fact that
you EVER had to 'tighten' this terminal gives one pause
to wonder. Get a minimum 10-pak of these
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name-903-ND
and use to replace the fast-on already installed.
Also, see if you can exchange the 'problem' wire
with another terminal that powers a lower current
draw/less critical accessory.
If you need to make a wire longer, use a soldered
lap-splice under heatshrink to extend the wire.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
I just checked the B&C website catalog and they
state that their crimp on terminal offerings are
genuine AMP PIDG . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
On 2011-05-09, at 20:26 , Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 08:09 PM 5/9/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I'm sure you'll get other smart replies, but here are my thoughts..
>>
>> - Have you done something to verify that it's a deficiency in the fast-on-spade
interconnect? Short of an alloy problem, an overheat, or ongoing mechanical
stress, I have a tough time believing that's the problem.
>> - Could it be that when you pull the fast-on off the spade, you're resetting
some other connection in the functional chain? A bad crimp? Some other loose
connection?
>> - Is there another hot connection available on the fuse block?
>> - Is that an always-hot connection (battery bus)?
>> - I assume the fuse block is in the cabin where it stays dry and at a reasonable
temperature...
>> - If you cut the connector off, save it for Bob.. He'll probably want to look
at it. ;)
>
> Good suggestions Matt. I wish I knew where B&C buys
> inventory these days. There IS a potential problem
> with fast-ons crafted from softer alloys. The fact that
> you EVER had to 'tighten' this terminal gives one pause
> to wonder. Get a minimum 10-pak of these
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name-903-ND
>
> and use to replace the fast-on already installed.
>
> Also, see if you can exchange the 'problem' wire
> with another terminal that powers a lower current
> draw/less critical accessory.
>
> If you need to make a wire longer, use a soldered
> lap-splice under heatshrink to extend the wire.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
I am also having a very hard time believing that this connection is really the
source of my problem. But, everything else checked out good, and reseating this
connector fixed the problem twice.
The power wire disappears into a wire bundle a few inches after the fast-on, so
not much else could be disturbed when I reset the connector. The wire itself
is moved, the fast-on crimp might be disturbed, and something inside the fuse
block might be disturbed. That's about it I think. Maybe the crimp is the real
problem.
The fuse block is behind the instrument panel, accessible through a door on the
back side of the forward luggage compartment, and is not open to the elements
in any way. It is not an always-hot bus. It is the endurance bus in a classical
Z-12 system architecture.
I'll order some new fast-ons from Digikey and throw out the stock I bought from
B&C years ago. Then I'll splice the wire and use a new fast-on.
Thanks for the advice.
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
Hal,
It's a 10a fuse, and I'm pretty sure the wire is 18 AWG.
Kevin
On 2011-05-09, at 22:43 , halbenjamin(at)optonline.net wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> My 2 cents is on the crimped connection of the fast on tab. I don't know what
size the wire is, but I'm guessing that it is very light gauge. With the very
light gauge wires (< 20AWG) I have better luck getting a good crimp by stripping
twice the length of wire needed & folding in half prior to installing the
terminal. Hope this helps.
>
> Hal Benjamin
> RV-4, Long Island, NY
> On the last 999 items
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Horton
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011 7:46 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bad fast-on connection?
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>>
>> I fought a GNS430W TX issue a while ago that was eventually
>> apparently resolved by reseating the fast-on connector where the
>> power line connects to the fuse block. The radio had worked
>> fine for 2.5 years, then suddenly was transmitting carrier only.
>> I ran out of ideas, so I eventually pulled the power connector
>> off the fuse block, squeezed the fast-on a bit with pliers, and
>> wiggled it back on, and the radio worked fine for five weeks.
>> Today it was not transmitting again. I removed, squeezed and
>> reinstalled the same fast-on connector again, and the problem
>> appears to be solved, again.
>>
>> I'm baffled by why this fast-on seems to be giving me grief.
>> Both the fast-on connectors and the fuse block were purchased
>> from B&C Specialties, so I believe they are good quality.
>>
>> I'm not sure what I should do to hopefully permanently fix the
>> issue. I'd appreciate any comments on the following possible
>> courses of action, plus I'd love any other suggestions:
>>
>> 1. cut off the problem fast-on, splice the wire with a butt
>> splice and install a new fast-on (the wire is not long enough to
>> do this unless I splice it).
>>
>> 2. use dielectric grease on the connection, such as the Dynatex
>> product sold by Stein Avionics:
>>
>> http://www.steinair.com/chemicals.htm
>> http://www.accumetricinc.com/dynatex/PDF/49634.pdf
>>
>> 3. replace the Buss fuse block (purchased from B&C Specialites)
>> with a new one.
>>
>> 4. bypass the fuse block with a ring terminal connected to the
>> fuse block's input, and an inline fuse. This gets rid of the
>> fast-on connector in this circuit, but replaces it with a ring
>> terminal.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Horton
>> RV-8
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
>
>I am also having a very hard time believing that this connection is
>really the source of my problem. But, everything else checked out
>good, and reseating this connector fixed the problem twice.
Yes . . . correlation does not necessarily translate
to causation . . . but the evidence uncovered thus far
is compelling.
>The power wire disappears into a wire bundle a few inches after the
>fast-on, so not much else could be disturbed when I reset the
>connector. The wire itself is moved, the fast-on crimp might be
>disturbed, and something inside the fuse block might be
>disturbed. That's about it I think. Maybe the crimp is the real problem.
>
>The fuse block is behind the instrument panel, accessible through a
>door on the back side of the forward luggage compartment, and is not
>open to the elements in any way. It is not an always-hot bus. It
>is the endurance bus in a classical Z-12 system architecture.
>
>I'll order some new fast-ons from Digikey and throw out the stock I
>bought from B&C years ago.
Send them to me please . . .
> Then I'll splice the wire and use a new fast-on.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
We've had the butt-uglies rear their heads on
several fast-on installations over the years with
a very few instances where there was no clear causation
other than to chalk it up to loss of gas-tightness
somewhere.
I presume there's no evidence of discoloration that
can be attributed to overheating. This leaves us
with simple corrosion as a byproduct of loss of
force in the joint. Perhaps you'll discover new
information as you proceed.
Keep us apprised of your efforts and findings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Bad fast-on connection? |
Would a conductive paste applied to the spade before attaching the faston
help to keep the joint free of all things that facilitate corrosion? Would
such a paste handle the heat of the joint?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bad fast-on connection?
-->
>
>I am also having a very hard time believing that this connection is
>really the source of my problem. But, everything else checked out
>good, and reseating this connector fixed the problem twice.
Yes . . . correlation does not necessarily translate
to causation . . . but the evidence uncovered thus far
is compelling.
>The power wire disappears into a wire bundle a few inches after the
>fast-on, so not much else could be disturbed when I reset the
>connector. The wire itself is moved, the fast-on crimp might be
>disturbed, and something inside the fuse block might be disturbed.
>That's about it I think. Maybe the crimp is the real problem.
>
>The fuse block is behind the instrument panel, accessible through a
>door on the back side of the forward luggage compartment, and is not
>open to the elements in any way. It is not an always-hot bus. It is
>the endurance bus in a classical Z-12 system architecture.
>
>I'll order some new fast-ons from Digikey and throw out the stock I
>bought from B&C years ago.
Send them to me please . . .
> Then I'll splice the wire and use a new fast-on.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
We've had the butt-uglies rear their heads on
several fast-on installations over the years with
a very few instances where there was no clear causation
other than to chalk it up to loss of gas-tightness
somewhere.
I presume there's no evidence of discoloration that
can be attributed to overheating. This leaves us
with simple corrosion as a byproduct of loss of
force in the joint. Perhaps you'll discover new
information as you proceed.
Keep us apprised of your efforts and findings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: A note from Greg at B&C |
From: "Greg Jones" <greg(at)bandc.biz>
Subject: B&C Terminals
Bob,
I am confirming that all B&C FastOn terminals, Knife splices, Butt
slices, Insulated ring terminals, and Uninsulated ring terminals ARE
IN FACT Genuine Amp products.
Thanks!
Greg Jones
Greg Jones
Sales/Customer Service
B&C Specialty Products, Inc.
123 East 4th Street
POB B
Newton, Kansas 67114 USA
Phone (316) 283-8000
Fax (316) 283-7400
Email
greg(at)bandc.biz
Website
http://www.bandc.biz/>www.bandc.biz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | lithium batteries |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use
of the lithium batteries supplied here:
http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
thanks
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium batteries |
This has been discussed two months ago: see archives "Shorai".
I don't think I could add anything.
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
Hi all,
I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option from
Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon fiber and come
from sports imports:
_http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html_
(http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html)
They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of some
sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all with where I
need to put the switches so I was going to rewire them. I am assuming that
the relays don't draw a lot of current. My question is what size wire to
use. B&C has a nice four wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run,
that should be fine as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two ohm
resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across the resistor?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
Talking about Fast-ons, 1/4" female fast-ons seem easy to find, but I can't seem
to locate male ones.
Neil
On May 9, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> I just checked the B&C website catalog and they
> state that their crimp on terminal offerings are
> genuine AMP PIDG . . .
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Neil Clayton
harvey4(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
| From: | Christopher SeaStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
Hello Michael,
The last RV-8 I built had the sports imports seat heaters. Each set (seat
and back) require approx 100 watts. about 7 amps at 14v. You can re-wire
but I recommend using their relay although any DPDT relay with contacts
rated for at least 7 amps and a 14 volt continuous duty coil. You can
substitute and SPDT switch rated for 7 amps or more for the high/low.
Actually all you will use is Hi. The heaters work well but a warm flight
suit is still required if you spend any time in cold air (below -10 C).
Chris Stone
Newberg OR
RV-8 No 2
>
> I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option from
> Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon fiber and
> come from sports imports:
>
> http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html
>
> They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of some
> sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all with where I
> need to put the switches so I was going to rewire them. I am assuming that
> the relays don't draw a lot of current. My question is what size wire to
> use. B&C has a nice four wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run,
> that should be fine as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
>
> Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
> heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two ohm
> resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across the
> resistor?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Wiring
> San Ramon, CA
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
I had the same problem with a Fast-On connector attached to a B&C fuse block.
The Fast-On was an AMP PIDG model. I was having problems with one of my avionics
and was feeling around behind the panel and felt that the connection between
the Fast-On and the fuse block for that instrument was hot to the touch. I
wiggled it and the problem immediately went away. However, I cut off the Fast-On
and crimped on a new one. I had about 350 hours on the airplane at that
point. No problems since.
Dennis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339483#339483
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael McMahon" <mike(at)aeromotogroup.com> |
| Subject: | RE: lithium batteries |
I asked a similar question a few months back on the Lancair Mailing List and
was insulted for suggesting LiFePO4 batteries even be considered for
experimental aircraft use. At the time I was not aware of anyone selling
them specifically for aircraft, so that's an interesting new development.
Below, I share the tactful wisdom of Mr. Regan for the benefit of all.
Michael
"Michael writes: <>
Then perhaps you would be wise to take the council of someone who IS
experienced.
<>>
Wow. Reading the anecdotal results of anonymous hobbyists is not "research",
it is entertainment (for some). Reading about or doing actual experiments
with the appropriate equipment and collecting reliable and repeatable data
is research. My income depends on doing quality R&D so I appreciate the
danger of searching the internet for data that supports your position and
then taking that as evidence you are right. You can find supporting
information for ANY position on the internet.
<<< I also have read that deep discharging, such as Hamid had done,
is different than the minimal discharge we would expect from an engine
start. The small discharge contributes to less need to balance the cells.
Quite different from the total-loss system in an RC or solar-powered
environment.>>>
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The Wave Glider had a 10 -30 day (depending on payload power) "no sun"
duration so it was a mixed cycle, not deep discharge.
Engine start is not a minimal discharge event. A 300 amp load for 30 seconds
represents about a third of the available energy at those rates from a
typical 20 AH battery. (careful, I set a trap here)
Cell imbalance is a function of the number of charge / discharge cycles, the
depth of discharge / charge, the rate of discharge / charge, the
temperature, and cell initial "matching". If you start with matched and
balanced cells it will take longer to require balancing. Rate is one of the
more important factors because it also effects temperature due to I^2R
losses. Double the current and you get four times the heat.
<<>>>
I am all for experimentation, just not at 10,000 feet with peoples lives at
stake. I have been a contributor on this list since the beginning and I have
assisted the NTSB with several accident investigations where people died
because the pilot ignored fact in favor of their own "opinion". Flying is
serious business. Lithium batteries are sensitive to mishandling. Neither
tolerates ignorance or arrogance well.
Lithium batteries can and have been used in aerospace applications
successfully but it requires a careful, detailed and intelligent design to
mitigate the risks to an acceptable level. The risk levels that can be
tolerated for an EV motorcycle or car are significantly higher than for a
manned aircraft.
The word "Experimental" in Experimental Aircraft is not a directive to take
foolish risks. It does mean that you and you ALONE, as a pilot and builder,
are responsible for operating AND building an aircraft that is SAFE.
If I am not "intelligent" for pointing this out, so be it.
Regards
Brent Regan"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jan de
Jong
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium batteries
-->
This has been discussed two months ago: see archives "Shorai".
I don't think I could add anything.
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Bad fast-on connection? |
At 12:03 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>Would a conductive paste applied to the spade before attaching the faston
>help to keep the joint free of all things that facilitate corrosion? Would
>such a paste handle the heat of the joint?
It doesn't need to be conductive. See articles on the
characteristics of gas-tight terminations. Nor does
the "additive" need to be high temperature. The ideal
joint by definition has very low resistance . . . i.e.
very low loss, very low temperature rise.
If the joints in question were flat-surface to flat-surface,
some sort of moisture exclusion is sometimes helpful.
Any sort of durable grease fills the voids in the joint
and excludes moisture. In the case of fast-ons, the
'magic' happens at a very high pressure connection
between the tab and the terminal. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/faston3.pdf
Failures in these joints tend to be related to
loss of force that compromises make-up pressure.
Some moisture excluding grease wouldn't hurt
anything . . . but I'm not visualizing how it
would help. Loss of make up force is critical.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
At 06:21 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>I had the same problem with a Fast-On connector attached to a B&C
>fuse block. The Fast-On was an AMP PIDG model. I was having
>problems with one of my avionics and was feeling around behind the
>panel and felt that the connection between the Fast-On and the fuse
>block for that instrument was hot to the touch. I wiggled it and
>the problem immediately went away. However, I cut off the Fast-On
>and crimped on a new one. I had about 350 hours on the airplane at
>that point. No problems since.
This anecdote re-enforces the idea posited in my
earlier post. The 'magic' of a fast-on terminal all
happens at the two grooves plowed into the male tab
by the artfully designed and properly applied female
terminal.
One should be cognizant of the force vectors when
installing these terminals. Avoid applying force
perpendicular to the mating tab. If 'wiggles' are
useful, make them in the plane of the tab. Ideally,
the terminals should be pushed straight on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
Hey Chris,
I was going to use the relays and that part of the wiring. My issue is
with the switch wiring. It is too short. I could spice in some length but
thought I might as well solder at the switches and into their connector.
You are probably right about the high setting. It's all I use in my car. I
was just trying to figure the amperage going through the switch wiring.
Should be negligible, since it just runs a relay.
Thoughts?
Michael Wynn
In a message dated 5/10/2011 3:10:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv8iator(at)gmail.com writes:
Hello Michael,
The last RV-8 I built had the sports imports seat heaters. Each set (seat
and back) require approx 100 watts. about 7 amps at 14v. You can
re-wire but I recommend using their relay although any DPDT relay with contacts
rated for at least 7 amps and a 14 volt continuous duty coil. You can
substitute and SPDT switch rated for 7 amps or more for the high/low. Actually
all you will use is Hi. The heaters work well but a warm flight suit is
still required if you spend any time in cold air (below -10 C).
Chris Stone
Newberg OR
RV-8 No 2
I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option from
Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon fiber and come
from sports imports:
_http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html_
(http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html)
They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of some
sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all with where I
need to put the switches so I was going to rewire them. I am assuming that
the relays don't draw a lot of current. My question is what size wire to
use. B&C has a nice four wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run,
that should be fine as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two ohm
resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across the resistor?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
ist" 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 L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium batteries |
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about
>aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:
>
>http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
>
>they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
Yes, among other things. Quoting from the website:
If your reading this; you already know that the primitive lead acid
battery is going the way of the horse and buggy.
. . . yeah . . . sort of.
I can tell the List that there are a whole lot of folks
intently interested in exploring alternatives to the
legacy lead-acid battery technologies for a host
of applications, not the least of which are aircraft.
I've been indirectly and directly involved in battery
studies for general aviation for over 10 years . . .
and I can tell you nobody at any of my former places
of employment are looking to go lithium as the standard
battery product . . . yet.
A variety of new-wave technologies have come and gone.
Some proved useful in certain specialty applications
such as portable power for computers, cameras, phones,
etc. Most of these applications did not demand hi cranking
currents to start engines nor were they expected to
work at cold temperatures. Further, in small energy
demand applications, the extra electronics needed to
optimize battery performance was not a big cost of
ownership burden. Looking at the website we see the
following data table:
BATTERY SIZING - 12V & 24V
Based on your starter cranking current.
Rectangular Dimensions
Ah Wt./lb CCA w heat shrink cover $$ (12V )
2p, 4.6 1.7 200 4.5 x 2.2 x 3.3 200
3p, 7.0 2.3 300 4.5 x 3.5 x 3.3 300
4p, 9.2 3.0 400 4.5 x 4.8 x 3.3 400
5p, 11.5 3.5 500 4.5 x 6.0 x 3.3 500
6p, 13.8 4.0 600 4.5 x 7.2 x 3.3 600
7p, 16.1 4.5 700 4.5 x 8.4 x 3.3 700
I see no mention of battery selection criteria based
on a load analysis for the endurance mode of operation.
Keep in mind that there have been several "gee-whiz" battery
offerings in the past that would crank an engine. I think
some products featuring 2 a.h. jelly-roll NiCd technology
about the size of a c-cell.
The product even made it into the over the counter market in
the form of a "Start Stick" sold by Sears as I recall.
Cranking the engine is a concern only for the first
few seconds of the day's operations. How about the rest
of the time?
A minimum battery that would crank your Lycoming might
weigh in at 3 pounds and cap check at 9.2 a.h., but how
long would that battery run your e-bus? Okay, you've got
Z13/8 and the endurance loads are not an issue. How many
18 a.h. SLVA batteries can you buy for $400? Let's say
5 batteries. In a situation where the e-bus is supported
by a second alternator, then you might get 2-3 years
service life out of an SVLA. Let's say 2 years x 5 batteries
gives you 10 years. The cost of ownership for 5 batteries
is equal to that of 1 Lithium battery that has a warranty
of 5 years and is a somewhat unknown player in the market
when 10 years is the target service life.
Okay, it's 15 pounds lighter than the SLVA. That's 2.5
more gallons of fuel. Are you going to fit your airplane
with larger tanks? Probably not. Okay, no help on fuel.
Are you going to miss that 15 pound reduction in baggage
limits? Hmmm . . . at 10 gph you'll be back under gross
limits in 15 minutes after takeoff . . . doesn't seem
like much of a worry there either.
Suppose you don't have the second alternator and you
really want 12+ a.h. of endurance bus support for
alternator-out ops. Now we're talking about a $600-
$700 battery. That will buy a LOT of SLVA capability.
How about service life? At least with the SLVA, you're
starting with a clean slate every two years. You're
COMMITTED to living with the lithium product for a
whole lot longer than that.
The point is that until one has considered ALL the
data points that drive a battery selection decision,
getting sucked down the whirlpool of lighter, stronger,
sexier, etc. etc. may keep you from making good decisions
that tend to ditch proven technologies with no surprises
and very predictable cost of ownership numbers.
If you're selecting a battery for Voyager, it took about
5 pounds of fuel to carry 1 pound of airplane around the
world. So 15 pounds of battery would translate to 75 pounds
of fuel. Uncle Bert MIGHT have been interested in the
Lithium products back then. I suspect that once the RV
builder has considered issues of weight, endurance mode
support, cost of ownership over the LIFETIME of the
airplane, and cold weather ops . . . that stoggy ol'
SVLA still has a few things going for it.
Yes, these are experimental airplanes. The owners of
Emacs!
are out to show the world a 'better mousetrap' and I do
wish them well. But if I were flying an RV, I'd do it to
have fun while minimizing cost of ownership and meeting
specific design goals. Please make sure ALL of your goals
are identified, prioritized and considered in your battery
selection decisions.
It may well be that 10 years from now, everybody will
be scoffing at the occasional SLVA hanger-on. I hope
that the technology and market positions will have matured
sufficiently to make that a reality. But that's not today
folks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
At 04:54 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option
>from Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon
>fiber and come from sports imports:
>
><http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html>http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html
>
>They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of
>some sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all
>with where I need to put the switches so I was going to rewire
>them. I am assuming that the relays don't draw a lot of
>current. My question is what size wire to use. B&C has a nice four
>wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run, that should be fine
>as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
>
>Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
>heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two
>ohm resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across
>the resistor?
How big is the switch wiring? You should be able
to extend the wires with the same gage of wire
with no concerns for actual current draw.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: lithium batteries |
At 06:53 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>I asked a similar question a few months back on the Lancair Mailing List and
>was insulted for suggesting LiFePO4 batteries even be considered for
>experimental aircraft use. At the time I was not aware of anyone selling
>them specifically for aircraft, so that's an interesting new development.
>
>Below, I share the tactful wisdom of Mr. Regan for the benefit of all.
>
>Michael
Brent's misgivings about lithium aboard airplanes are
well founded. There IS a TSO document in place for
FAA approval of lithium batteries. It's based in part
on performance we've come to know and love from lead-acid
technologies. At the same time, it acknowledges
elevated risks for what I've suggested is akin to
teaching your Lycoming to burn nitroglycerine. The
energy content is spectacular but the firewalls needed
to keep that dragon caged are significant.
We didn't have battery fires until the wet Ni-Cad
came along. Those dragons proved meddlesome too but
were eventually brought to heel. Integration of
lithium into the every day lives of the consumer-citizen
will be an even greater challenge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
I know fast-on connectors are preferred here but I have heard that Cessna tested
and rejected the use of them due to some kind of problems. They might have been
problems such as you are having. Perhaps, someone here can shed light on the
reasons for Cessna's rejection. I didn't find it in the AeroElectric Connection
Book. My avionics advisor is questioning me using them because that isn't
the way it is done at his shop.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339503#339503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
At 05:25 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>Talking about Fast-ons, 1/4" female fast-ons seem easy to find, but
>I can't seem to locate male ones.
How would you like to use them? By convention,
accessories are fitted with tabs, wires are fitted
with females. Tabs for wires are rare.
Digikey shows a blue-PIDG .250" tab at:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=66024-6-ND
and a red-PIDG .250" tab at:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=66023-2-ND
but they're not cheap.
If you're wanting a single-wire, serviceable splice, consider the
knife-splice. MUCH preferred for splicing.
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=A1068-ND
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=A27474-ND
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
I've been making temporary end-to-end connections as I do wiring mods behind the
panel.
After testing and I'm sure the mod is good, I go back and hard crimp.
Question re knife splices....(I bought some the other day with the intention of
trying them).
Are they intended for end-to-end splices like I need, in other words knife-splice
to knife splice?
Thanks
Neil
On May 10, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 05:25 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Talking about Fast-ons, 1/4" female fast-ons seem easy to find, but I can't
seem to locate male ones.
>
> How would you like to use them? By convention,
> accessories are fitted with tabs, wires are fitted
> with females. Tabs for wires are rare.
>
> Digikey shows a blue-PIDG .250" tab at:
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=66024-6-ND
>
> and a red-PIDG .250" tab at:
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=66023-2-ND
>
> but they're not cheap.
>
> If you're wanting a single-wire, serviceable splice, consider the
> knife-splice. MUCH preferred for splicing.
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=A1068-ND
>
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=A27474-ND
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Neil Clayton
harvey4(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad fast-on connection? |
At 09:09 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>I know fast-on connectors are preferred here but I have heard that
>Cessna tested and rejected the use of them due to some kind of
>problems. They might have been problems such as you are having.
>Perhaps, someone here can shed light on the reasons for Cessna's
>rejection. I didn't find it in the AeroElectric Connection Book. My
>avionics advisor is questioning me using them because that isn't the
>way it is done at his shop.
I wouldn't say they are "preferred" . . . if one has
the budget and/or the desire to do anything else with
legacy hardware, the risks are low.
Actually, Cessna put them in first. It was during the
transition from round-hole toggle and push-pull switches
to the rectangular-hole rocker switches that the entire
single-engine line went to .250" fast-ons on the rear
of the switches.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Progressive-Xfr_Split-Rocker_Switches.pdf
There have been plenty field-failures associated with
this switch/terminal combination. I've investigated some.
Most involved loss of connection integrity in the riveted
joints for the switches and/or the low pressure connection
at the switch's center pivot. Only a few were attributable
to loss of fast-on-to-tab connectivity.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Cutaway.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Carling_Failures/
So in fact, there were tens of thousands of Cessna S.E.
aircraft per year produced for a goodly number of years
that featured this technology.
Equal or better than Honeywell-Microswitch and ring
terminals . . . or better yet, soldered posts? Depends
on what you call "better".
Failure rates will be higher with the less robust product
(and for different reasons) but we're designing and building
failure tolerant airplanes. Further, we expect failure rates
to be no worse than that experienced by the single engine fleet
at Cessna.
I'm aware of no ADs to swap out all the rockers in the
venerable ol' Pawnee Plant airplanes. But there IS an
AD against the equally venerable W31 switch/breaker in
Bonanzas and Barons that generates a bit of smoke from
time to time on a lot fewer airplanes.
So hanging my hat on demonstrable experience gleaned over
decades of field history suggests that the fast-on terminal
system is of good value and presents no extra-ordinary risks.
But if you prefer something else . . . no problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
At 09:41 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>I've been making temporary end-to-end connections as I do wiring
>mods behind the panel.
>After testing and I'm sure the mod is good, I go back and hard crimp.
>
>Question re knife splices....(I bought some the other day with the
>intention of trying them).
>Are they intended for end-to-end splices like I need, in other words
>knife-splice to knife splice?
Sure. We used buckets full of them at Cessna for terminating
pigtails on certain accessories fitted with flying leads. A
couple of knife splices covered with some plastic sleeve
held with a tie-wrap was standard production line procedure.
You can leave them in place suitably insulated . . . or if
you're wanting a tidier looking bundle, you can get a very
slim wire-to-wire splice like this.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
But there's no compelling technical reason to cut out knife
splices and replace with PIDG butt splices.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
| From: | Christopher SeaStone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
Michael,
The pre-wired switch that is part of the heater package switches between
'hi' and 'low' and off. The relay switches the second heater element only.
When hi is selected it energizes the relay coil to switch current to both
the 'low' and 'hi' elements. The switch contacts only see the relatively
low current of the low setting and the lower current of the relay coil. You
can use a switch style CB to provide a means of disconnecting in the event
of a malfunction, or a fuse and SPST switch.
Chris
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:46 PM, wrote:
> Hey Chris,
>
> I was going to use the relays and that part of the wiring. My issue is
> with the switch wiring. It is too short. I could spice in some length but
> thought I might as well solder at the switches and into their connector.
> You are probably right about the high setting. It's all I use in my car. I
> was just trying to figure the amperage going through the switch wiring.
> Should be negligible, since it just runs a relay.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Michael Wynn
>
> In a message dated 5/10/2011 3:10:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> rv8iator(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> The last RV-8 I built had the sports imports seat heaters. Each set (seat
> and back) require approx 100 watts. about 7 amps at 14v. You can re-wire
> but I recommend using their relay although any DPDT relay with contacts
> rated for at least 7 amps and a 14 volt continuous duty coil. You can
> substitute and SPDT switch rated for 7 amps or more for the high/low.
> Actually all you will use is Hi. The heaters work well but a warm flight
> suit is still required if you spend any time in cold air (below -10 C).
>
> Chris Stone
> Newberg OR
> RV-8 No 2
>
>>
>> I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option from
>> Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon fiber and
>> come from sports imports:
>>
>> http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html
>>
>> They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of some
>> sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all with where I
>> need to put the switches so I was going to rewire them. I am assuming that
>> the relays don't draw a lot of current. My question is what size wire to
>> use. B&C has a nice four wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run,
>> that should be fine as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
>>
>> Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
>> heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two ohm
>> resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across the
>> resistor?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Wynn
>> RV 8 Wiring
>> San Ramon, CA
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> ===================================
> 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/contribution
> ===================================
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
Hi folks,
I didn't understand that part of the heater current is running through the
wires. I thought it was just controlling the relay. That being the case,
I will definitely want to match the existing wires. Looks like time for a
splice. The wires on the switch are somewhere around twenty gauge. The
wire is automotive type, so it is a little hard for me to figure out exactly
what size it is. If the max current draw is 5 amps, then twenty gauge
ought to be fine.
Thank you all for your insights. I will get to work.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 5/10/2011 8:06:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv8iator(at)gmail.com writes:
Michael,
The pre-wired switch that is part of the heater package switches between
'hi' and 'low' and off. The relay switches the second heater element only.
When hi is selected it energizes the relay coil to switch current to both
the 'low' and 'hi' elements. The switch contacts only see the relatively
low current of the low setting and the lower current of the relay coil.
You can use a switch style CB to provide a means of disconnecting in the
event of a malfunction, or a fuse and SPST switch.
Chris
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:46 PM, <_MLWynn(at)aol.com_ (mailto:MLWynn(at)aol.com)
> wrote:
Hey Chris,
I was going to use the relays and that part of the wiring. My issue is
with the switch wiring. It is too short. I could spice in some length but
thought I might as well solder at the switches and into their connector.
You are probably right about the high setting. It's all I use in my car. I
was just trying to figure the amperage going through the switch wiring.
Should be negligible, since it just runs a relay.
Thoughts?
Michael Wynn
In a message dated 5/10/2011 3:10:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_rv8iator(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:rv8iator(at)gmail.com) writes:
Hello Michael,
The last RV-8 I built had the sports imports seat heaters. Each set (seat
and back) require approx 100 watts. about 7 amps at 14v. You can re-wire
but I recommend using their relay although any DPDT relay with contacts
rated for at least 7 amps and a 14 volt continuous duty coil. You can
substitute and SPDT switch rated for 7 amps or more for the high/low. Actually
all you will use is Hi. The heaters work well but a warm flight suit is
still required if you spend any time in cold air (below -10 C).
Chris Stone
Newberg OR
RV-8 No 2
I am wiring up the seat heaters in my RV 8. I bought the option from
Classic Aero when they made the seats. The heaters are carbon fiber and come
from sports imports:
_http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html_
(http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/carbon-fiber-seat-heater-kit.html)
They are set up with a switch that operates a solid state relay of some
sort. The factory supplied switch wiring does not work at all with where I
need to put the switches so I was going to rewire them. I am assuming that
the relays don't draw a lot of current. My question is what size wire to
use. B&C has a nice four wire cable in 22 gauge. For a three foot run,
that should be fine as long as we are talking a couple of amps or less.
Has anyone measured the current draw for the switches in these seat
heaters? Is there a simple way for me to do that? Maybe take a two ohm
resistor, turn on the heater and measure the voltage drop across the resistor?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
ist"
target="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
tp://_forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
List href="_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
_ms.matronics.com/_ (http://ms.matronics.com/)
">_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
tp://_www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
ist" 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 L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>>I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about
>>aviation use of the lithium batteries supplied here:
>>
>>http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
>>
>>they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.
I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf
As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
Bob,
Thanks for the Li Batt summary.
One issue: I can't remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice if the
first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us memory-challenged
readers the full text.
Transpositions:
Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it as SVLA
(as opposed to SLVA).
Second page, 5 th para
Second page, 6 th para
After Wikipedia did not have a listing for this FLA (four-letter Acronym), I
Googled for a few seconds. Some of the results were rather humorous:
Software Vendors License Agreement (that's what I thought of immediately,
'cause I'm a computer geek)
Sri Lanka Veterinary Association (my favorite)
Salt Lake Valley Atheists (my new favorite - the irony is too funny -
Atheists in Utah/Mormons. No offense intended to Mormons)
Thanks for making us all smarter,
-Jeff
_____
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, May 11, 2011 11:32
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use
of the lithium batteries supplied here:
http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.
I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf
As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 04:22 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the Li Batt summary.
>
>One issue: I can't remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice
>if the first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us
>memory-challenged readers the full text.
Got my mouse cord tangled around my eye-teeth
and couldn't see what I was typing. That's supposed
to be (V)alve (R)egulated (L)ead-(A)cid or
VRLA. A.K.A. recombinant gas, starved electrolyte,
absorbed glas-mat, etc.
>
>Transpositions:
>Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it
>as SVLA (as opposed to SLVA).
>Second page, 5 th para
>Second page, 6 th para
Had it hosed several places. Found the spell checker
in my word processor was contaminated. All is right with
the world . . . and revision B posted a few minutes ago.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
My pleasure! It's good to know that I wasn't having a "senior moment"
(this
time;)
_____
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, May 11, 2011 14:55
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
At 04:22 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for the Li Batt summary.
One issue: I can=12t remember what SLVA stands for. It would be nice if
the
first time you used it, that you parenthetically give us
memory-challenged
readers the full text.
Got my mouse cord tangled around my eye-teeth
and couldn't see what I was typing. That's supposed
to be (V)alve (R)egulated (L)ead-(A)cid or
VRLA. A.K.A. recombinant gas, starved electrolyte,
absorbed glas-mat, etc.
Transpositions:
Second page, first complete paragraph on the right, you refer to it as
SVLA
(as opposed to SLVA).
Second page, 5 th para
Second page, 6 th para
Had it hosed several places. Found the spell checker
in my word processor was contaminated. All is right with
the world . . . and revision B posted a few minutes ago.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C fast-ons |
Try Altex Electronics - Dallas TX.
You may have to call them but this is where I get most of my crimp on
fasteners. They usually have a good price compared to most other sources.
http://www.altex.com
jerb
>>
>>Talking about Fast-ons, 1/4" female fast-ons seem easy to find, but
>>I can't seem to locate male ones.
>>Neil
>>snip....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I haven't seen the seat heaters, but a question came to me:
Is the back side of the seat heater insulated and reflective? If not, why not?
It would use half the power.
Eh?
--------
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=339664#339664
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | transponder connections, grounding and RF interference |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I've got a TDR-950 and now have the components ready for connecting it to my MGL
Enigma.
Connections
I have a couple questions about where the wires connect. Bob has the pinout table here, http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/TDR950-950L.pdf . Number 2 says 'ext suppr'. I read on VAF, http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=3414, this is for DME, which I don't have so would leave open.
Number 3 is for D4. The Enigma installation manual says, 'If your transponder does
not support signals D4 and D2, leave them unconnected.' The transponder doesn't
have D2, so do I connect D4 or not?
Number 13 is for a 14v dimmer. I'm running a 14V system. On the front of the transponder
there is an adjustable knob that says 'dim' and has a curved arrow around
the knob. Would 13 go to power? If so, seems I could jump this into number
14, which says 14 volts DC in.
Number 15 says 'remote I/D'. The same thread on VAF said to ground this. Is that
right?
Grounding
The pinout table says number 1 goes to ground and MGL says also to ground the xpdr
to the encoder connection of the EFIS. The EFIS is also grounded separately
from its main connector to the ground bus. Is this the way to do it? I'm concerned
about ground loops. I've attached a schematic of what I think they are
suggesting, showing just the ground wires.
RF interference
I've also got a ferrite bead cylinder or two from MGL. Would I loop all the wires
from the transponder through one of these, close to the back of the xpdr?
Thanks :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339677#339677
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/transponder_ground_schematic_726.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for a
backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit software or
database are available. anyone have recent experience with this unit? as it
is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are available.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
I updated my Garmin 195 about 6 months ago, but haven't looked since.
Contact Garmin. I think all you need to do is register the unit with
them and then you can update it.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2011, at 4:02 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use
for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
> bob noffs
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Steve, I have had a Garmin 195 for over a decade. I got mine updated to
around 2008 date/time when I went to 2010 Sun & Fun by a Garmin Vendor
offer the update there at Sun & Fun for $60. They told me then that
Garmin had decided to stop supporting the 195 and that 2008 was the last
update there would be. I have not attempted to verify the accuracy of
this statement. But, the last update did include the changes the FAA
make to a lot of airport designators - since I had purchased my 195. So
I felt it was a worthwhile update.
I had purchased a more modern (non-Garmin) GPS which was more reasonably
priced and was almost as feature rich (Had everything I needed), it used
a Tablet Computer (a bit heavy) which eventually fell off my windshield
suction cup mount, hit its face on the co-pilot stick and damaged the
unit. When I reached over to pick it up the bottom was already almost
too hot to hold. Fearing a runway battery short, I was about to slow
down, open the canopy and jettison it over the side. But after whacking
the case a couple of times, I apparently removed the shorting condition.
Unfortunately, even though the tablet computer was the only part
damaged ( I mean the code was software not firmware) , I could not get
any sort of "deal" on replacing the HW and getting the code reloaded.
So I have since removed that vendor from my GPS list.
So now looking for an Garmin that I can afford as well as see {:>)
I still fly with my 195 and will continue to keep it as back up. Even
if not updated, its still a useful instrument, just naturally not to be
relied for accuracy of Nav, airport or obstruction data.
FWIW
Ed
From: Steve Thomas
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
I updated my Garmin 195 about 6 months ago, but haven't looked since.
Contact Garmin. I think all you need to do is register the unit with
them and then you can update it.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2011, at 4:02 AM, bob noffs wrote:
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use
for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
bob noffs
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Bob,
google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
> available.
> bob noffs
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Extending capacitive fuel sensor lead? |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Gents,
I've bought three Kingston capacitive fuel sensors for my Jodel project.
They each provide a 0-5V calibrated output, which I'll be using to display
the three fuel levels on a home-made graphical 2-1/4" instrument (another
side project...)
The rear tank sensor has a combined probe and electronics, but the two wing
tank senders have a separate probe, linked to a little box of electronics
via a foot-or-so-long lead. The lead has a small connector, a "FAKRA" SMB
coax connector, Digikey part number ARF1250-ND. The lead is made of this
very thin wire, that looks as though it's spiral wrapped in paper. Sorry,
that's a bit of a sketchy description.
The wing tanks have recesses for the senders and a tube, from the recess,
for the lead to go along. The trouble is, the SMB connector is too big to
fit along this tube.
So, I'm wondering if I can cut the wire and, for example, put a couple of DB
pins in the conductors. Then I could feed them in, join the pins, and cover
with heatshrink. Or, perhaps I could just subtly extend the cables with
solder and heatshrink.
Any experiences on this sort of problem would be appreciated very much.
Many thanks in anticipation,
James
--
Jodel D150 in progress (90% done...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations...
charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special chargers
to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery. (remember when
laptop computers and cell phones were reported to catch fire) I think but
an not entirely sure this has been overcome.
The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held at a
minimum. Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: May 11, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use
of the lithium batteries supplied here:
http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.
I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf
As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: transponder connections, grounding and RF interference |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Below are some suggestions from other sources:
Pin #2 for 'ext suppr' is to be left open, since I'll have no DME.
Pin #3 for D4 could be connected to D4 or left open, since it would only be required
over 30,000 ft.
Pin #14 for 14V dimmer: the 'dim' with curved arrow next to the 'reply ident' knob
may be for the knob only, so an external dimmer might be needed. I hadn't
planned on installing one and don't plan on night flying, so I may just wire a
pigtail and leave it open.
Pin #15 for 'remote I/D' should be left open and not used as a ground connection.
The grounding schematic I posted earlier is correct, except that now that I will
not be using pin #15 as a ground, I'll jumper the grounds from the ground bus
and encoder to the single ground pin of the transponder, pin #1.
The 950 says it puts out 250W. I don't have the manual, but a current Becker model
that puts out this power uses a 3A slow blow fuse. I've seen other transponders
suggesting between 3 and 5A fuses. AC43 says a 5A fuse would protect a 20
or 22 awg wire, so unless someone has a better suggestion, I'll use these sizes.
MGL says they don't use any ferrite beads and have no RF interference problems.
Have I answered all my questions correctly?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339761#339761
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
(http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but more
importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you will find
they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin 195 as implied.
They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if you check the
compatible units they list.
Ed
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>
>
> Bob,
>
> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>
> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>
> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>> available.
>> bob noffs
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
The 195 was my first GPS to get me where I wanted to go. In fact, I
believe that it is still in my Garmin drawer..
I think the last 195 'system' OS update is still available from a Garmin
website. However, I don't think that Garmin has any Database updates
(not 100% sure of that...).
Years ago, there was an Air Force guy that was selling 195 database
updates on eBay. You might see if he still does that. This guy figured
out how Garmin 'pass worded the database.
Turned out it was a very simple key. Now, as we all know, of late
Garmin has a very elaborate method of protecting database updates from
being cloned.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
To: aeroelectric list
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 4:02 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use
for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
On this Garmin link they show the 195 as discountinued
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=169&pID=6412
GPSMAP 195
Part Number: 010-00083-00
Support
No software is currently available for this product. Please check back for
updates.
Ed
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 11:40 AM
Subject: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
> I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
>
> (http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
>
> The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but
> more importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you will
> find they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin 195 as
> implied. They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if you check
> the compatible units they list.
>
> Ed
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>>
>> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>>
>> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>>> available.
>>> bob noffs
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Ed,
The first of the Garmin X96 series, 196, is still a great GPS. It is
not color, but, great levels of grey scale. Because of it's newer color
cousins, the 196 is extremely cheap on the used market. For those that
can't pay much for a GPS, that unit gets my vote. Even though I use the
later models, when I travel with friends, I take my trusty 196 for the
ride.....
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Steve, I have had a Garmin 195 for over a decade. I got mine updated
to around 2008 date/time when I went to 2010 Sun & Fun by a Garmin
Vendor offer the update there at Sun & Fun for $60. They told me then
that Garmin had decided to stop supporting the 195 and that 2008 was the
last update there would be. I have not attempted to verify the accuracy
of this statement. But, the last update did include the changes the
FAA make to a lot of airport designators - since I had purchased my 195.
So I felt it was a worthwhile update.
I had purchased a more modern (non-Garmin) GPS which was more
reasonably priced and was almost as feature rich (Had everything I
needed), it used a Tablet Computer (a bit heavy) which eventually fell
off my windshield suction cup mount, hit its face on the co-pilot stick
and damaged the unit. When I reached over to pick it up the bottom was
already almost too hot to hold. Fearing a runway battery short, I was
about to slow down, open the canopy and jettison it over the side. But
after whacking the case a couple of times, I apparently removed the
shorting condition. Unfortunately, even though the tablet computer was
the only part damaged ( I mean the code was software not firmware) , I
could not get any sort of "deal" on replacing the HW and getting the
code reloaded. So I have since removed that vendor from my GPS list.
So now looking for an Garmin that I can afford as well as see {:>)
I still fly with my 195 and will continue to keep it as back up. Even
if not updated, its still a useful instrument, just naturally not to be
relied for accuracy of Nav, airport or obstruction data.
FWIW
Ed
From: Steve Thomas
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:30 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
I updated my Garmin 195 about 6 months ago, but haven't looked since.
Contact Garmin. I think all you need to do is register the unit with
them and then you can update it.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2011, at 4:02 AM, bob noffs wrote:
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use
for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
bob noffs
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"'>http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Good suggestion, David
However, due to the fact I only have one working eyeball and it's around
71 years of age, I am really looking for one (GPS) with a somewhat
larger screen and color would be nice as well. I sort of got hooked on
color with the one that fell off my windscreen and committed suicide.
But, the main reason is just to have one the can be updated - although I
think I'll look for one that uses the Government provided digital maps
just to keep my annual cost down at bit.
Thanks again for the suggestion
Ed
From: David Lloyd
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Ed,
The first of the Garmin X96 series, 196, is still a great GPS. It is
not color, but, great levels of grey scale. Because of it's newer color
cousins, the 196 is extremely cheap on the used market. For those that
can't pay much for a GPS, that unit gets my vote. Even though I use the
later models, when I travel with friends, I take my trusty 196 for the
ride.....
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Steve, I have had a Garmin 195 for over a decade. I got mine updated
to around 2008 date/time when I went to 2010 Sun & Fun by a Garmin
Vendor offer the update there at Sun & Fun for $60. They told me then
that Garmin had decided to stop supporting the 195 and that 2008 was the
last update there would be. I have not attempted to verify the accuracy
of this statement. But, the last update did include the changes the
FAA make to a lot of airport designators - since I had purchased my 195.
So I felt it was a worthwhile update.
I had purchased a more modern (non-Garmin) GPS which was more
reasonably priced and was almost as feature rich (Had everything I
needed), it used a Tablet Computer (a bit heavy) which eventually fell
off my windshield suction cup mount, hit its face on the co-pilot stick
and damaged the unit. When I reached over to pick it up the bottom was
already almost too hot to hold. Fearing a runway battery short, I was
about to slow down, open the canopy and jettison it over the side. But
after whacking the case a couple of times, I apparently removed the
shorting condition. Unfortunately, even though the tablet computer was
the only part damaged ( I mean the code was software not firmware) , I
could not get any sort of "deal" on replacing the HW and getting the
code reloaded. So I have since removed that vendor from my GPS list.
So now looking for an Garmin that I can afford as well as see {:>)
I still fly with my 195 and will continue to keep it as back up. Even
if not updated, its still a useful instrument, just naturally not to be
relied for accuracy of Nav, airport or obstruction data.
FWIW
Ed
From: Steve Thomas
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:30 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
I updated my Garmin 195 about 6 months ago, but haven't looked since.
Contact Garmin. I think all you need to do is register the unit with
them and then you can update it.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2011, at 4:02 AM, bob noffs wrote:
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use
for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
bob noffs
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"'>http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 09:56 AM 5/13/2011, you wrote:
Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other
considerations... charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special
chargers to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery.
(remember when laptop computers and cell phones were reported to
catch fire) I think but an not entirely sure this has been overcome.
There are several Li-ion technologies . . . each with its
own attendant weaknesses and strengths. And yes, keeping
an array of series-parallel cells equally serviced in large
capacity batteries is a technology challenge. The cells
are very energetic and the demands for integrating them into
long lived, low maintenance, low risk arrays are challenges
to be met.
There ARE several lithium technologies flying in air transport
category aircraft and military aircraft. ALL of these aircraft
enjoy a great deal more attention from trained, professional
ground crews on budgets that would discourage the OBAM aircraft
owner/pilot.
The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held
at a minimum.
But "best" is non quantified. And weight is a moving
target. One might suggest that the airplane will perform
"better" if you never fly with more than 1/4 tanks. Obviously,
this cripples the overall mission performance in trade
for "better" performance en route.
Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.
Absolutely. Further, it goes beyond acquisition costs
to include cost of ownership over an extended period of
time equal to the battery's expected service life.
This was emphasized in the short essay I published. These
are an emerging technology . . . with the historically
predictable acquisition costs. My first 4-function calculator
cost me $75 used in 1980, Needed 9v batteries it ate like
popcorn. The same functionality today costs $1 at big lots and
runs for years on a button cell.
We're in the "1980's emerging technology" mode with lithium
ion batteries as main batteries for aircraft. The high
volume usage by automotive markets will have the same effect
on aircraft lithium cranking batteries as consumer grade
GPS products had on aviation specific GPS navigation. If
our fellow citizens have it bolted to THEIR cars and RV's,
then it's going to get better for OUR airplanes in the
future.
But you're right. There are dragons to slay, new dogs to
train, old dogs to retire, and market confidences to be
gained. We are presently witnessing the opening minutes
of the first quarter.
Putting the numbers to a complete set of design goals
is what the guys in the heavy-iron bird business do
to justify their salaries and test budgets. That's why
it cost $30 million to bring the Star Ship to market . . .
If we'd spent another $10 million in doing the numbers
and testing, we might have saved a boatload of money
by discovering that the product was doomed before we
put it into production.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extending capacitive fuel sensor lead? |
At 09:48 AM 5/13/2011, you wrote:
>Gents,
>
>I've bought three Kingston capacitive fuel
>sensors for my Jodel project. They each
>provide a 0-5V calibrated output, which I'll be
>using to display the three fuel levels on a
>home-made graphical 2-1/4" instrument (another side project...)
>
>The rear tank sensor has a combined probe and
>electronics, but the two wing tank senders have
>a separate probe, linked to a little box of
>electronics via a foot-or-so-long lead. The
>lead has a small connector, a "FAKRA" SMB coax
>connector, Digikey part number ARF1250-ND. The
>lead is made of this very thin wire, that looks
>as though it's spiral wrapped in paper. Sorry,
>that's a bit of a sketchy description.
>
>The wing tanks have recesses for the senders and
>a tube, from the recess, for the lead to go
>along. The trouble is, the SMB connector is
>too big to fit along this tube.
>
>So, I'm wondering if I can cut the wire and, for
>example, put a couple of DB pins in the
>conductors. Then I could feed them in, join
>the pins, and cover with heatshrink. Or, perhaps
>I could just subtly extend the cables with solder and heatshrink.
>
>Any experiences on this sort of problem would be appreciated very much.
>
>Many thanks in anticipation,
Talk to the folks who made the product. There's a dozen
ways to configure capacitive fuel sensor/gage systems
each with it's own system integration limits.
As a GENERAL rule, don't mess with coax lengths unless
the installation instructions specifically offer techniques
for doing it. Ordinary wire, including shielded wires, can
generally be extended to any necessary length. But call the
folks that built the thing. They know more about it than
anybody else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glasair contactors |
>Bob,
>
>The contactors that Glasair sent in my 24V option package are
>Cole-Hersee 24063 85A continuous 24V units. The 12V guys received
>similar 85A units.
Okay. C-H builds some robust stuff.
Let's keep in mind that relays and contactors are
rated in the tens of thousands of operations. Using
a C-duty contactor as a starter control may set
up a situation where design goals are not going
to be realized in the field . . . but a contactor
failing after 5 years of service is no big deal
to the owner.
I would judge that the vast majority of OBAM aircraft
flying have never had to replace a starter contactor . . .
whether "rated" for that service . . . or not.
We recommend the intermittent-duty, starter-rated
devices because they're no more expensive than their
C-duty cousins and are DESIGNED for that task. In
no way does that suggest that using a C-duty contactor
will produce unsatisfactory service life as perceived
by the owner/operator. However if that same owner/operator
were using the contactor in a crop duster than was
expected to produce a dozen starts every working day . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Extending capacitive fuel sensor lead? |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Yes, I guess so...
By the way, I've just realised that I wrote Kingston... but meant Princeton
!
James
On 13 May 2011 18:43, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:48 AM 5/13/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Gents,=C3=82
>>
>> I've bought three Kingston capacitive fuel sensors for my Jodel project.
=C3=82
>> They each provide a 0-5V calibrated output, which I'll be using to displ
ay
>> the three fuel levels on a home-made graphical 2-1/4" instrument (anothe
r
>> side project...)
>>
>> The rear tank sensor has a combined probe and electronics, but the two
>> wing tank senders have a separate probe, linked to a little box of
>> electronics via a foot-or-so-long=C3=82 lead. =C3=82 The lead has a smal
l connector, a
>> "FAKRA" SMB coax connector, Digikey part number ARF1250-ND. =C3=82 The l
ead is
>> made of this very thin wire, that looks as though it's spiral wrapped in
>> paper. =C3=82 Sorry, that's a bit of a sketchy description.
>>
>> The wing tanks have recesses for the senders and a tube, from the recess
,
>> for the lead to go along. =C3=82 The trouble is, the SMB connector is to
o big to
>> fit along this tube. =C3=82
>>
>> So, I'm wondering if I can cut the wire and, for example, put a couple o
f
>> DB pins in the conductors. =C3=82 Then I could feed them in, join the pi
ns, and
>> cover with heatshrink. Or, perhaps I could just subtly extend the cables
>> with solder and heatshrink.
>>
>> Any experiences on this sort of problem would be appreciated very much.
=C3=82
>>
>> Many thanks in anticipation,
>>
>
> Talk to the folks who made the product. There's a dozen
> ways to configure capacitive fuel sensor/gage systems
> each with it's own system integration limits.
>
> As a GENERAL rule, don't mess with coax lengths unless
> the installation instructions specifically offer techniques
> for doing it. Ordinary wire, including shielded wires, can
> generally be extended to any necessary length. But call the
> folks that built the thing. They know more about it than
> anybody else.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Ed,
...Ahhh, you do have some unique viewing differences.
About suction cup mounts. I use one on my left window corner for my
backup Garmin. What I do is have a "lanyard" affixed to the mount and
to my upper air vent. When the mount suction fails it only falls an
inch or so when the lanyard catches it. I have learned the hard way
too.
dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Good suggestion, David
However, due to the fact I only have one working eyeball and it's
around 71 years of age, I am really looking for one (GPS) with a
somewhat larger screen and color would be nice as well. I sort of got
hooked on color with the one that fell off my windscreen and committed
suicide. But, the main reason is just to have one the can be updated -
although I think I'll look for one that uses the Government provided
digital maps just to keep my annual cost down at bit.
Thanks again for the suggestion
Ed
From: David Lloyd
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:44 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Ed,
The first of the Garmin X96 series, 196, is still a great GPS. It is
not color, but, great levels of grey scale. Because of it's newer color
cousins, the 196 is extremely cheap on the used market. For those that
can't pay much for a GPS, that unit gets my vote. Even though I use the
later models, when I travel with friends, I take my trusty 196 for the
ride.....
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
Steve, I have had a Garmin 195 for over a decade. I got mine
updated to around 2008 date/time when I went to 2010 Sun & Fun by a
Garmin Vendor offer the update there at Sun & Fun for $60. They told me
then that Garmin had decided to stop supporting the 195 and that 2008
was the last update there would be. I have not attempted to verify the
accuracy of this statement. But, the last update did include the
changes the FAA make to a lot of airport designators - since I had
purchased my 195. So I felt it was a worthwhile update.
I had purchased a more modern (non-Garmin) GPS which was more
reasonably priced and was almost as feature rich (Had everything I
needed), it used a Tablet Computer (a bit heavy) which eventually fell
off my windshield suction cup mount, hit its face on the co-pilot stick
and damaged the unit. When I reached over to pick it up the bottom was
already almost too hot to hold. Fearing a runway battery short, I was
about to slow down, open the canopy and jettison it over the side. But
after whacking the case a couple of times, I apparently removed the
shorting condition. Unfortunately, even though the tablet computer was
the only part damaged ( I mean the code was software not firmware) , I
could not get any sort of "deal" on replacing the HW and getting the
code reloaded. So I have since removed that vendor from my GPS list.
So now looking for an Garmin that I can afford as well as see {:>)
I still fly with my 195 and will continue to keep it as back up.
Even if not updated, its still a useful instrument, just naturally not
to be relied for accuracy of Nav, airport or obstruction data.
FWIW
Ed
From: Steve Thomas
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:30 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
I updated my Garmin 195 about 6 months ago, but haven't looked
since. Contact Garmin. I think all you need to do is register the unit
with them and then you can update it.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2011, at 4:02 AM, bob noffs wrote:
a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to
use for a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
available.
bob noffs
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"'>http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
G'day,
www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is very
well regarded as an expert in these technologies.
Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the same way
as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead Acid. Lithium technologies
have upper and lower voltage limits, otherwise the battery is ruined. In
other words, if you load a Lithium battery and let it run down below the
minimum voltage limit (about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the
first time you use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to
electronic devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of energy
left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the battery is flat
(such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire if short circuited.
Stu
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:57 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations...
charging being one and cost the other.
My understanding is the lithium polymer batteries require special chargers
to prevent overheating the polymer core of the battery. (remember when
laptop computers and cell phones were reported to catch fire) I think but
an not entirely sure this has been overcome.
The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held at a
minimum. Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: May 11, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
At 08:27 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
At 01:13 PM 5/10/2011, you wrote:
I would like to hear your Bob's or other folks comments about aviation use
of the lithium batteries supplied here:
http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/index.html
they seem to offer signficant weight reduction
I took the time to clean up my posting from earlier
this morning on the topic of lithium batteries
for OBAM aircraft.
I've converted it to an article which can be
accessed at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/To_lithium_or_not_to_lithium.pdf
As usual, constructive critical review is
welcome.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Hello Ed,
Indeed but strange that that page still exists on the Garmin Web.
Going step by step on the page I edn up here:
which tells no Software available.
Trying the the link to map updates fails as well....
For my good old 196 I still get updates.........
Werner
On 13.05.2011 17:40, Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>
> I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
>
> (http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
>
> The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but
> more importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you
> will find they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin
> 195 as implied. They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if
> you check the compatible units they list.
>
> Ed
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>>
>> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>>
>> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>>> available.
>>> bob noffs
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Yes, Werner, I found the same webpage, indeed indicating that there is NO
software available and I presume that also means the data uploads. I may be
wrong about the exact date, but when I had my old 195 upgraded at Sun & Fun,
the vendor told me the last data update was somewhere around 2006- 2008 and
that there would be no more for it (at least out of Garmin)
Ed
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> Indeed but strange that that page still exists on the Garmin Web.
>
> Going step by step on the page I edn up here:
>
>
>
> which tells no Software available.
>
> Trying the the link to map updates fails as well....
>
> For my good old 196 I still get updates.........
>
> Werner
>
> On 13.05.2011 17:40, Ed Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
>>
>> (http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
>>
>> The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but
>> more importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you
>> will find they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin
>> 195 as implied. They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if
>> you check the compatible units they list.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>>>
>>> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>>>
>>> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>>>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>>>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>>>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>>>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>>>> available.
>>>> bob noffs
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium batteries redux |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations... ...
Planes work best when the weight is held at a minimum. Each owner has to justify
the cost of a high tech lithium battery for himself.
> Noel
Noel et al: See the brilliant note on this in Bob's archives:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
You can do your own calculation on this but I'd guess that the Lithium Battery
is well worth using, and time will make this decision even easier.
--------
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=339843#339843
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 12:22 AM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
G'day,
www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is
very well regarded as an expert in these technologies.
Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the
same way as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead
Acid. Lithium technologies have upper and lower voltage limits,
otherwise the battery is ruined. In other words, if you load a
Lithium battery and let it run down below the minimum voltage limit
(about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the first time you
use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to electronic
devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of
energy left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the
battery is flat (such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire
if short circuited.
To be sure, the lithium batteries are not drop-in
replacements for your grandpa's tractor battery.
In spite of their relatively attractive energy/
weight/volume ratios, they are also fragile by
legacy standards.
There's been more than one tense discussion between
individuals-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
and wannabe suppliers of lithium products to aviation.
When you put any battery in an airplane, the legacy
consensus is that the pilot should be allowed to
drag every watt-second of energy out in case of
an 'emergency'. The lithium wannabes were intent upon
shutting the battery off before the terminal voltage
dropped below a level that was damaging to the battery.
Never mind that either scenario happens with perhaps 5% of
the battery capacity remaining. Those who dictate
management of emergencies would rather that your
radios fade gracefully during the last few minutes of
your emergency as opposed to going dark " just to protect
a battery". Never mind that either scenario was but
a handful of minutes before total darkness.
Both factions were honorably driven by noble ideas
. . . and both were missing the whole point of
designing failure tolerant systems supported by
thoughtful preventative maintenance programs. The
idea that we can design systems that never put a
pilot into that situation seldom occurs. Except,
of course, for cases of maintenance neglect or
bad operational decisions.
Successful and comfortable integration of lithium
batteries into the plain-vanilla GA aircraft will
require some re-adjustment of attitudes and
demand more attention from the owner/operator to
compensate for the lithium battery's unique
limits.
. . . and yes, the writings of Isidor Buchmann are
a wealth of solid information and understanding of
battery function and performance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Bob,
I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance of the B-lead
nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal (4AWG, .25" Stud).
The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90 degrees from the B-lead nut.
I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able to feed it
through my front right engine baffle and then towards the starter contactor sitting
on the firewall.
Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90 degrees? Or is
there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that would allow the wire to come
off the B-Lead post pointing AFT instead of perpendicular to the post?
Thanks,
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339847#339847
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
At 12:20 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance
>of the B-lead nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal
>(4AWG, .25" Stud). The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90
>degrees from the B-lead nut.
>
>I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able
>to feed it through my front right engine baffle and then towards the
>starter contactor sitting on the firewall.
>
>Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90
>degrees? Or is there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that
>would allow the wire to come off the B-Lead post pointing AFT
>instead of perpendicular to the post?
Sure. But one bend only. After all, the barrel
of a ring terminal is "bent" to form the barrel.
There are terminals with factory-bent flags that
accommodate the functionality you're needing. Those
products might be heat-treated after the bending
operation for stress relief . . . but not necessarily
so.
All metals have a relatively predictable behavior
with respect to stresses in the material and the
number of times that stress can be applied before
failure occurs.
I'm told that this characteristic gave rise to
an early-on requirement for running an engine
for 75 hours on a test stand as part of the
certification process. Not that 75 hours of 'service
life' was good enough. It was based on the premise
that if a ferrous (iron based) parts did not fail
in 10 million cycles at rated stresses, it wasn't
going to fail during service life due to overstress.
That didn't mean the engine wouldn't wear out in
200 hours . . . it just meant that it wasn't going
suffer breakage at those stress levels.
Non-ferrous parts (copper, alum, etc) behave a bit
differently. They DO have a stress-to-cycles service
life. Furthermore, it's a non-linear curve. For example:
You might bend your copper terminal over a 90 degree
flex say 10 times before it cracks. Change that
to 45 degrees and the number goes up markedly . . .
say 50 times. Change that to a vibratory oscillation
that deflects it just a fraction of a degree, and the
number might be in the millions of cycles . . . BUT IT
WILL break eventually, even at that small level of
deflection.
This is why wings have been known to fall off and cabin
tops have blown out of venerable airplanes. The
phenomenon can usually be traced to an error of analysis
for the stress-to-events ratio of the part that failed.
So you're safe in forming the flag on your terminals
as needed to accommodate the installation but strive
minimize the number of events for this very severe
stress on the material. Know that by doing this one
bend, you have reduced the service life by some
large but probably insignificant number (1 billion
down to 800 million????) for the as-installed
condition.
This is why it's a good idea to limit the stress
applied to such terminals by supporting the wire
as close as practical to the terminal or perhaps
fabricating the wire from some very flexible material
(like welding cable) to minimize that wire's ability
to apply a lever-moment (length x mass) to the
terminal.
Taking the b-lead wire immediately away from the
alternator to attach at some point on the airframe
does not offer much means for near-terminal support
of that wire. In fact, the terminal end will be
shaking with the amplitude of engine vibration
while the airframe end is much more stationary.
Can you leave the terminal flat, support the wire
close to the terminal and then route off to the
airframe?
The same admonition applies to bolting fat-wires to
the lead posts on many of the RG batteries we're
so fond of. Lead posts have a similarly non-linear
s/n to failure curve. In years past, we've heard
from builders who suffered a battery post failure
due to vibrations stresses of a 2AWG jumper wire
bolted to the battery.
This is why we've recommended 4AWG welding cable
jumpers from the (+) post to contactor and (-) post
to ground for such batteries . . . irrespective
of the size of fat wires elsewhere in the system.
You might want to consider a welding cable jumper
from your alternator's b-lead to where ever that
segment ties off to the rest of the system.
These are gross examples of what that copper sleeve
inside the insulator of a PIDG terminal is all about.
When you mashed the terminal on the wire, you placed
the wire under severe stress to achieve the gas-tight
connection. Support immediately adjacent to that
stress riser is key to long service life.
The terminal itself benefits from the same consideration
for reducing cyclic stresses to the material.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
On 5/14/2011 11:36, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 12:20 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>> I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance of
>> the B-lead nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal
>> (4AWG, .25" Stud). The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90
>> degrees from the B-lead nut.
>>
>> I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able
>> to feed it through my front right engine baffle and then towards the
>> starter contactor sitting on the firewall.
>>
>> Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90
>> degrees? Or is there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that
>> would allow the wire to come off the B-Lead post pointing AFT instead
>> of perpendicular to the post?
>
> Sure. But one bend only. After all, the barrel of a ring terminal is
> "bent" to form the barrel.
> There are terminals with factory-bent flags that ccommodate the
> functionality you're needing. Those
> products might be heat-treated after the bending operation for
> stress relief . . . but not necessarily so.
I would suggest an effort to maximize the bend radius would also prove
wise to distribute stress, as opposed to a minimal radius 'sharp' 90
degree bend that would concentrate it; as one might obtain by clamping
the ring in a vise and whacking the crimp barrel over with a hammer
would likely produce.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
>I would suggest an effort to maximize the bend radius would also
>prove wise to distribute stress, as opposed to a minimal radius
>'sharp' 90 degree bend that would concentrate it; as one might
>obtain by clamping the ring in a vise and whacking the crimp barrel
>over with a hammer would likely produce.
Excellent point. If one has an 1/8" piece
of aluminum or mild steel from which to fabricate
a bend radius tool . . .
Emacs!
Bob. . .
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
I'll try to maximize the bend radius and support the wire as well.
Thank-you both for the replies. Just what I needed to keep making progress.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339857#339857
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
G'day Bob,
Yes. I was aslo thinking of those with utility lights or other loads coming
directly off the battery bus. If a load is left on for any reason, even a
new lithium battery could be rendered useless overnight (as it won't safely
accept a charge below the minimum operating voltage).
Kind regards, Stu
-----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: Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
-->
At 12:22 AM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
G'day,
www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is very
well regarded as an expert in these technologies.
Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the same way
as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead Acid. Lithium technologies
have upper and lower voltage limits, otherwise the battery is ruined. In
other words, if you load a Lithium battery and let it run down below the
minimum voltage limit (about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the
first time you use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to
electronic devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of energy
left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the battery is flat
(such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire if short circuited.
To be sure, the lithium batteries are not drop-in
replacements for your grandpa's tractor battery.
In spite of their relatively attractive energy/
weight/volume ratios, they are also fragile by
legacy standards.
There's been more than one tense discussion between
individuals-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
and wannabe suppliers of lithium products to aviation.
When you put any battery in an airplane, the legacy
consensus is that the pilot should be allowed to
drag every watt-second of energy out in case of
an 'emergency'. The lithium wannabes were intent upon
shutting the battery off before the terminal voltage
dropped below a level that was damaging to the battery.
Never mind that either scenario happens with perhaps 5% of
the battery capacity remaining. Those who dictate
management of emergencies would rather that your
radios fade gracefully during the last few minutes of
your emergency as opposed to going dark " just to protect
a battery". Never mind that either scenario was but
a handful of minutes before total darkness.
Both factions were honorably driven by noble ideas
. . . and both were missing the whole point of
designing failure tolerant systems supported by
thoughtful preventative maintenance programs. The
idea that we can design systems that never put a
pilot into that situation seldom occurs. Except,
of course, for cases of maintenance neglect or
bad operational decisions.
Successful and comfortable integration of lithium
batteries into the plain-vanilla GA aircraft will
require some re-adjustment of attitudes and
demand more attention from the owner/operator to
compensate for the lithium battery's unique
limits.
. . . and yes, the writings of Isidor Buchmann are
a wealth of solid information and understanding of
battery function and performance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
G'day Bob,
Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
machined firewall passthrough?
Kind regards, Stu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Not really....some I've seen have temp ratings of 165-265F. Its more of an electrical
insulator....but I'm no expert.
Tim
On May 14, 2011, at 10:38 PM, "Stuart Hutchison"
wrote:
>
>
> G'day Bob,
>
> Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
> machined firewall passthrough?
>
> Kind regards, Stu
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
You can get fire-retardant phenolic, which means some is and some
isn't. Make sure you use the right one.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Stuart Hutchison
wrote:
>
>
> G'day Bob,
>
> Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
> machined firewall passthrough?
>
> Kind regards, Stu
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
The cost is another factor. Planes work best when the weight is held
at a minimum.
But "best" is non quantified. And weight is a moving
target. One might suggest that the airplane will perform
"better" if you never fly with more than 1/4 tanks. Obviously,
this cripples the overall mission performance in trade
for "better" performance en route.
* Noel: Being that I am the guy who normally flies at MTOW the lighter the
parts I carry aloft allow me to carry more fuel or cargo (read fishing gear)
Each owner has to justify the cost of a high tech lithium battery
for himself.
Absolutely. Further, it goes beyond acquisition costs
to include cost of ownership over an extended period of
time equal to the battery's expected service life.
This was emphasized in the short essay I published. These
are an emerging technology . . . with the historically
predictable acquisition costs. My first 4-function calculator
cost me $75 used in 1980, Needed 9v batteries it ate like
popcorn. The same functionality today costs $1 at big lots and
runs for years on a button cell.
* Noel: Only the future will tell about the cost of lithium polymer cells.
If they become common enough the price will drop the question is of course
how much. The whole question of cost has to be compared to the value of a
dollar on any particular day. For instance the calculator you bought in
1980 and cost $75 would only be around $15.00 at today's value of the
dollar. BTW in 1980 I found a graphing calculator program for my little RS
computer... Worked great but occasionally it would give results to 16
decimal points even when set to only give two decimal point results.
We're in the "1980's emerging technology" mode with lithium
ion batteries as main batteries for aircraft. The high
volume usage by automotive markets will have the same effect
on aircraft lithium cranking batteries as consumer grade
GPS products had on aviation specific GPS navigation. If
our fellow citizens have it bolted to THEIR cars and RV's,
then it's going to get better for OUR airplanes in the
future.
But you're right. There are dragons to slay, new dogs to
train, old dogs to retire, and market confidences to be
gained. We are presently witnessing the opening minutes
of the first quarter.
Putting the numbers to a complete set of design goals
is what the guys in the heavy-iron bird business do
to justify their salaries and test budgets. That's why
it cost $30 million to bring the Star Ship to market . . .
If we'd spent another $10 million in doing the numbers
and testing, we might have saved a boatload of money
by discovering that the product was doomed before we
put it into production.
Bob I'm interested on the reason the Star Ship disappeared. I felt it had
great potential for markets where there were short paved runways. In fact I
was a little surprised when it wasn't taken up globally.
Noel
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and stealing
the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea.but locks out the controls instead
with a padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
- http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 11:31 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>G'day Bob,
>
>Yes. I was aslo thinking of those with utility lights or other loads coming
>directly off the battery bus. If a load is left on for any reason, even a
>new lithium battery could be rendered useless overnight (as it won't safely
>accept a charge below the minimum operating voltage).
Those are the kinds of questions to be asked
and answered. If it is a no-no to deeply discharge
the lithium battery, one might offset the
characteristic by providing automatic disconnect
when the battery voltage (or watt-seconds of
drain) past certain limits. Of course, this
adds to system complexity with electro-whizzies
to manage battery idiosyncrasies. This means
another produce to design, develop, test,
produce, install, maintain, and finance the fuel
to carry it around.
This is why it is so important to know ALL there
is to know about a new product and to gage
new facts with legacy design goals to deduce
a potential for unhappy surprises.
At Beech in the 1970-1980 time frame, we had
a gentleman who ran "Jack Thurman's House of
Horrors". The general consensus was that if
Jack couldn't tear it up, it was okay to bolt
to an airplane.
Jack had all manner of vibration, bake, freeze,
wet, oil, and electrical system mock-ups with
which to torment the offerings of the hopeful new
supplier. I knew Jack pretty well as one of those
"hopefuls" and learned to do my homework before
I let him get his hands on it. He contributed
greatly to my education as a thoughtful designer.
Bottom line is that the four-color brochures and
30-second promotional videos offer only the surface
of what's needed for making the confident decision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Howard,
As well as trying to stop people from taking the plane, how about a system
that will track it and tell you where it is. I've read about low-cost
systems to do that -- a little GPS and GSM device that will text you with
co-ordinates once a car alarm has been triggered.
My concern with fitting any sort of immobiliser is that it's another system
that is designed to stop the aeroplane from flying, and there might be a
failure mode that would cause you to have a bad day!
There are loads of good mechanical systems though -- the prop locks and
whatnot -- and you could doubtless gain something from looking at the
motorcycle security products. There are all sorts of very solid bike chain
s
and locks that might help you secure an entire airframe.
Protecting the avionics individually might be more of a problem, but still,
there are many types of security screws that will make life difficult for a
n
equipment thief. Or perhaps a Kensington lock, used on many a laptop.
Coupled with a GSM-notifying alarm system, these might create enough of a
delay for you to get down to the hangar before the miscreants depart with
your chattels.
James
On 15 May 2011 17:08, plevyakh wrote:
>
> Folks,
> I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my
> airplane.
>
> My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in an
d
> stealing the avionics.
>
> What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
>
> What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
>
> Some ideas:
> 1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
> - http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
> - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
>
> 2) Door Lock
> - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
>
> 3) Throttle Lock
> - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
> or
> - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
>
> 4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
> - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
> - http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
>
> 5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea=C3=A2=82=AC=C2.but l
ocks out the
> controls instead with a padlock and steel bar.
>
> 6) Aircraft Alarm System
> - http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
>
> TIA for your thoughts.
> Howard
>
> --------
> Howard Plevyak
> GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
> hplevyak(at)mac.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
I have always thought the "Throttle" lock was robust and not easily
defeated. I have seen versions to where you could not get bolt cutters
around the lock hasp. Trying to get it off would break the throttle
control and then where is the thief.?
Also, the large manual marine battery cutoff switches are reliable, and
if you have a secret location to install it and manually switch if OFF
every flight. That would take a thief too long to figure out why no
power to start the engine. However, if he is a real jerk he might
decide to try to hand prop it and fly with no panel.....
D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: James Kilford
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Howard,
As well as trying to stop people from taking the plane, how about a
system that will track it and tell you where it is. I've read about
low-cost systems to do that -- a little GPS and GSM device that will
text you with co-ordinates once a car alarm has been triggered.
My concern with fitting any sort of immobiliser is that it's another
system that is designed to stop the aeroplane from flying, and there
might be a failure mode that would cause you to have a bad day!
There are loads of good mechanical systems though -- the prop locks
and whatnot -- and you could doubtless gain something from looking at
the motorcycle security products. There are all sorts of very solid
bike chains and locks that might help you secure an entire airframe.
Protecting the avionics individually might be more of a problem, but
still, there are many types of security screws that will make life
difficult for an equipment thief. Or perhaps a Kensington lock, used on
many a laptop. Coupled with a GSM-notifying alarm system, these might
create enough of a delay for you to get down to the hangar before the
miscreants depart with your chattels.
James
On 15 May 2011 17:08, plevyakh wrote:
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my
airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking
in and stealing the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock
idea=C3=A2=82=AC=C2.but locks out the controls instead with a
padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
-
http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
==========
-
ric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
> What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
> TIA for your thoughts.
> Howard
Howard=2C
Here is what I would do=2C if I was worried about losing an airplane
or airplane parts=3B (cost...about $.50=2C if that!)
ATTENTION!!!
If you can read this message=2C you have already activated
a motion detector & video recorder=2C and
YOU ARE BEING TAPED!!
IF YOU ARE STILL IN THIS VICINITY WITHIN 3 MINUTES=2C
THE POLICE WILL BE NOTIFIED VIA A MODEM.
YOU HAVE 2 1/2 MINUTES LEFT BEFORE THE POLICE ARE
CALLED. GOOD BYE!!
You also have a small electronic box sitting inside the plane=2C
with a flashing RED LED. The box is only visible if you are standing
near the plane=2C even though it blinks 24/7....they think they
just set it off and are being recorded!! Nobody=2C and I mean NOBODY
is going to do a thing wrong when they think they are on camera!!
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 10:00 AM 5/15/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>* Noel: Being that I am the guy who normally flies at MTOW the lighter the
>parts I carry aloft allow me to carry more fuel or cargo (read fishing gear).
How often do you find yourself trading off between fuel
and cargo for the purpose of making a 15 pound adjustment?
I ask this in the context of using weight savings to drive
a decision to go lithium. Suppose your airplane was specifically
crafted for light weight in every detail. Dick Rutan had
bad dreams about bending the very-light rudder peddles
in Voyager . . . an airplane that had no paint on the bottoms
surface of the wings. Going lithium as one component of
many in the weight savings equation might make a whole lot
of sense. But I presume your airplane is pretty much the
same as every other example . . . so if you DO shave 15 pounds
out of a battery . . . how likely is it that you get an
attractive return on investment for that single savings?
>Bob I'm interested on the reason the Star Ship disappeared. I felt it had
>great potential for markets where there were short paved runways. In fact I
>was a little surprised when it wasn't taken up globally.
A whole host of reasons. It was rushed into production
without fully exploring all the ramifications of getting
the thing certified. We didn't know much about building
a composite airplane. The FAA knew less about certifying
one. We use a lot of "aluminum" techniques to build
a composite airplane. By the time certain certification
deficiencies were identified and 'beefed up', the airplane
came out 2000 pounds heavier than wished/planned for.
The thing was noisy inside. Some of our guys in the Targets
Division received a charter to play with some active noise
reduction techniques in the Starship cabin . . . no joy.
Things that got us all excited about uncle Burt's POC
aircraft did not come to pass in the production model.
Here's a pretty good short story on the rise and
fall of the Starship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship
One of the best narratives on the Starship was
written by Peter Garrison which you can find here:
http://www.starshipdiaries.com/files/Flying%20Review.pdf
The airplane DID pioneer some firsts. Collins did
the first all glass cockpit tailored to a GA aircraft.
Over 150 distributed microprocessors. MUCH easier to
manage software to specific tasks. Then the FAA came
along and levied DO178 on software and the bureaucracies
of distributed processing became overwhelming. So now
we certify ONE chunk of do-everything software in
super-processors . . . UGH!
I got a call one day to see if I could assist a tech
in deducing a problem with a Starship de-ice controller.
Upon first sight of the thing spread out on the workbench
my first impulse was to turn around and walk back out.
The logic boards alone were on two nearly foot-square,
multi-layer ECB's with over 100 discrete logic chips
on each board. The drawing for the schematic was a roll
size thing about 8' long. I was told that the designer
received some kind of award for his efforts . . . and
left the company a short time later. Clearly not a
student of the elegant solution.
It's been an interesting line of speculative conversation
amongst my peers at Beech as to how things might have
been done differently under the design and marketing
philosophies of the Beech/Wallace/Lear schools.
While Starship was in development, I was working the
"Baby Starship" program (GP-180) at Learjet. THAT airplane
turned out to be the poor exec's hot rod. Mostly
aluminum built on very simple tooling, that airplane
was also a large catalog of firsts. Being a mostly
aluminum airplane, the performance goals were largely
met if not exceeded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti
Wichita has been a very interesting place to work
and to observe the evolution of general aviation.
It's a rich history of successes and failures . . .
and a harsh school of hard knocks for evolving
marketable recipes for success. I could not have
picked a better place to work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Another reason to use P-mags. No electrical power, no engine start.
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
I have always thought the "Throttle" lock was robust and not easily
defeated. I have seen versions to where you could not get bolt cutters
around the lock hasp. Trying to get it off would break the throttle
control and then where is the thief.?
Also, the large manual marine battery cutoff switches are reliable, and
if you have a secret location to install it and manually switch if OFF
every flight. That would take a thief too long to figure out why no
power to start the engine. However, if he is a real jerk he might
decide to try to hand prop it and fly with no panel.....
D
_____
----- Original Message -----
From: James Kilford <mailto:james(at)etravel.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Howard,
As well as trying to stop people from taking the plane, how about a
system that will track it and tell you where it is. I've read about
low-cost systems to do that -- a little GPS and GSM device that will
text you with co-ordinates once a car alarm has been triggered.
My concern with fitting any sort of immobiliser is that it's another
system that is designed to stop the aeroplane from flying, and there
might be a failure mode that would cause you to have a bad day!
There are loads of good mechanical systems though -- the prop locks and
whatnot -- and you could doubtless gain something from looking at the
motorcycle security products. There are all sorts of very solid bike
chains and locks that might help you secure an entire airframe.
Protecting the avionics individually might be more of a problem, but
still, there are many types of security screws that will make life
difficult for an equipment thief. Or perhaps a Kensington lock, used on
many a laptop. Coupled with a GSM-notifying alarm system, these might
create enough of a delay for you to get down to the hangar before the
miscreants depart with your chattels.
James
On 15 May 2011 17:08, plevyakh wrote:
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my
airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in
and stealing the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea=C3=A2=82=AC=C2.but
locks out the controls instead with a padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
- http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
-
ric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
VAF has a forum on APRS Tracking:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=104
This is a real-time tracking system based on HAM radio facilities. To
see it in action:
> http://aprs.fi/moving/
Hint: Sort by 'speed' to bring airplanes to the top of the list.
john
On 5/15/2011 10:10 AM, James Kilford wrote:
> Howard,
>
> As well as trying to stop people from taking the plane, how about a
> system that will track it and tell you where it is. I've read about
> low-cost systems to do that -- a little GPS and GSM device that will
> text you with co-ordinates once a car alarm has been triggered.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Some good ideas so far. Mike...I really like the simple one of the note and the
LED light!
It would be interesting to see if this Gorilla lock could be adapted to lock out
the control stick or rudder pedals?
http://www.gorilla-auto.com/the.gorilla.grip.3
I came across this site for GPS tracking devices that don't look too expensive.
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/gps-tracking-a.html
I will be putting in an APRS tracking device. But it has to be turned on. I'll
have to dig into the details on the APRS more and try to see if it could be
used as a theft tracking system as well.
You raise a great point about if the thief wants to get in....they will. So how
to make them THINK....this airplane is too risky to break into? Or scare
them off once they've broken in?
Here's one idea to use a high DB alarm that's triggered when the door is opened.
http://www.defenseproducts101.com/alarms4.html
Anyone use a type of high DB alarm triggered by an opened door? I'd like to rig
it up with a keyless ON/OFF switch.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339923#339923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
My grandfather used to say that a lock is only to tell an honest man there's nobody
home. Keeping that in mind if possible remove your plugs (install blanks)
to immobilize the plane and don't leave any valuables aboard.
One of the reasons I wouldn't leave my plane on the local pond is one day while
preparing for a flight a good hearted elderly man took out his pocket knife to
check if the plane was actually made of cloth. Luckily I stopped him before
he cut a piece out to examine it.
The best way to secure your plane in my mind is to put it in a hangar and leave
the doors open. It's a lot easier to secure a steel building than a cloth plane.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of plevyakh
Sent: May 15, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and stealing
the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea.but locks out the controls instead
with a padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
- http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries redux |
-----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: May 15, 2011 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
At 10:00 AM 5/15/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>* Noel: Being that I am the guy who normally flies at MTOW the lighter the
>parts I carry aloft allow me to carry more fuel or cargo (read fishing
gear).
How often do you find yourself trading off between fuel
and cargo for the purpose of making a 15 pound adjustment?
I ask this in the context of using weight savings to drive
a decision to go lithium. Suppose your airplane was specifically
crafted for light weight in every detail. Dick Rutan had
bad dreams about bending the very-light rudder peddles
in Voyager . . . an airplane that had no paint on the bottoms
surface of the wings. Going lithium as one component of
many in the weight savings equation might make a whole lot
of sense. But I presume your airplane is pretty much the
same as every other example . . . so if you DO shave 15 pounds
out of a battery . . . how likely is it that you get an
attractive return on investment for that single savings?
Every flight I make I will trade off some weight for fuel on take off. The
ponds I go to are well beyond the range where gas stations can be found (
Rotax 912 = reg MOGAS) so if I want to get home I better have lots of fuel
on hand. BTW I have yet to land with less than an hour of gas remaining.
As for spending many hundreds of dollars for a high tech battery to save a
few pounds, let's just say we are not at that stage yet.
>Bob I'm interested on the reason the Star Ship disappeared. I felt it had
>great potential for markets where there were short paved runways. In fact
I
>was a little surprised when it wasn't taken up globally.
A whole host of reasons. It was rushed into production
without fully exploring all the ramifications of getting
the thing certified. We didn't know much about building
a composite airplane. The FAA knew less about certifying
one. We use a lot of "aluminum" techniques to build
a composite airplane. By the time certain certification
deficiencies were identified and 'beefed up', the airplane
came out 2000 pounds heavier than wished/planned for.
The thing was noisy inside. Some of our guys in the Targets
Division received a charter to play with some active noise
reduction techniques in the Starship cabin . . . no joy.
Things that got us all excited about uncle Burt's POC
aircraft did not come to pass in the production model.
Here's a pretty good short story on the rise and
fall of the Starship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship
One of the best narratives on the Starship was
written by Peter Garrison which you can find here:
http://www.starshipdiaries.com/files/Flying%20Review.pdf
The airplane DID pioneer some firsts. Collins did
the first all glass cockpit tailored to a GA aircraft.
Over 150 distributed microprocessors. MUCH easier to
manage software to specific tasks. Then the FAA came
along and levied DO178 on software and the bureaucracies
of distributed processing became overwhelming. So now
we certify ONE chunk of do-everything software in
super-processors . . . UGH!
I got a call one day to see if I could assist a tech
in deducing a problem with a Starship de-ice controller.
Upon first sight of the thing spread out on the workbench
my first impulse was to turn around and walk back out.
The logic boards alone were on two nearly foot-square,
multi-layer ECB's with over 100 discrete logic chips
on each board. The drawing for the schematic was a roll
size thing about 8' long. I was told that the designer
received some kind of award for his efforts . . . and
left the company a short time later. Clearly not a
student of the elegant solution.
It's been an interesting line of speculative conversation
amongst my peers at Beech as to how things might have
been done differently under the design and marketing
philosophies of the Beech/Wallace/Lear schools.
While Starship was in development, I was working the
"Baby Starship" program (GP-180) at Learjet. THAT airplane
turned out to be the poor exec's hot rod. Mostly
aluminum built on very simple tooling, that airplane
was also a large catalog of firsts. Being a mostly
aluminum airplane, the performance goals were largely
met if not exceeded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti
Wichita has been a very interesting place to work
and to observe the evolution of general aviation.
It's a rich history of successes and failures . . .
and a harsh school of hard knocks for evolving
marketable recipes for success. I could not have
picked a better place to work.
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob I'll check the sites. Sounds like a replay of the old coffin
nose Cord or even the Edsel. Light years ahead of its time and not entirely
thought out.
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Planes are not made of material that will prevent a thief from breaking in and
stealing avionics, etc. Alarms will not get anyone's attention. When is the
last time you came running over to some idiots car that was alarming!
The security that we have come to hate around airports should help some here.
To prevent the plane from being stolen, my solution is complexity.
To start my plane you must:
Turn on the master, turn on the engine battery, (one alone will not cut it, requires
both), turn on power to injectors, turn on power to igniters, turn on power
to engine computer, turn on power to fuel pump, set mixture to full rich,
give 2-3 squirts of primer, hit start button.
I ain't sayin' that crooks are too stupid to start my plane, but...as long as it
took me to figure it out....some intelligence needs to be rewarded!
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of plevyakh
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and stealing
the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea.but locks out the controls instead
with a padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
- http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
>
> > Some good ideas so far. Mike...I really like the simple one of the note
>and the LED light!
How about this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
Hardened lock and chain covered in soft leather
or felt sleeve. REALLY hard and time consuming to
get off. Thieves are basically cowards and lazy. They
would move on to somebody else's airplane if they
had to deal with this 'inconvenience'.
We had clients on 1K1 opt for this system. Most
left their doors unlocked. It cost more to repair
doors than to replace radios on most of our
tenant aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Unsteelable Airplane (was Key Ignition Switch) |
Bill
I agree that you have a really difficult airplane to be stolen, but you also
have many points-of-failure .
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
> Sent: domingo, 15 de Maio de 2011 23:06
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
>
>
>
> Planes are not made of material that will prevent a thief from breaking in
and
> stealing avionics, etc. Alarms will not get anyone's attention. When is
the last time
> you came running over to some idiots car that was alarming!
>
> The security that we have come to hate around airports should help some
here.
>
> To prevent the plane from being stolen, my solution is complexity.
> To start my plane you must:
> Turn on the master, turn on the engine battery, (one alone will not cut
it, requires
> both), turn on power to injectors, turn on power to igniters, turn on
power to engine
> computer, turn on power to fuel pump, set mixture to full rich, give 2-3
squirts of
> primer, hit start button.
>
> I ain't sayin' that crooks are too stupid to start my plane, but...as long
as it took me
> to figure it out....some intelligence needs to be rewarded!
>
> Bill B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Yeaah but he can spray paint and get away with it
In a message dated 5/15/2011 4:56:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry"
If you set up a booby trap and someone gets injured, the perp will own
everything you have! This has happened on more than one occasion.
Do not set up a booby trap!
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rayj
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Greetings,
I recall seeing home alarm systems that actually sprayed some sort of
tear gas automatically. Seems like it would work in a cockpit too.
do not archive
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 05/15/2011 02:18 PM, plevyakh wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "plevyakh"
>
> Some good ideas so far. Mike...I really like the simple one of the note
and the LED light!
>
> It would be interesting to see if this Gorilla lock could be adapted to
lock out the control stick or rudder pedals?
>
> http://www.gorilla-auto.com/the.gorilla.grip.3
>
> I came across this site for GPS tracking devices that don't look too
expensive.
>
> http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/gps-tracking-a.html
>
> I will be putting in an APRS tracking device. But it has to be turned
on. I'll have to dig into the details on the APRS more and try to see if
it
could be used as a theft tracking system as well.
>
> You raise a great point about if the thief wants to get in....they will.
So how to make them THINK....this airplane is too risky to break into? Or
scare them off once they've broken in?
>
> Here's one idea to use a high DB alarm that's triggered when the door is
opened.
>
> http://www.defenseproducts101.com/alarms4.html
>
> Anyone use a type of high DB alarm triggered by an opened door? I'd like
to rig it up with a keyless ON/OFF switch.
>
> Howard
>
> --------
> Howard Plevyak
> GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
> hplevyak(at)mac.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339923#339923
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
A couple of years ago I was involved with the ground movement of a B737... We
never did find the master... After several weeks we looked it up in the manual
to try the APU. After sitting for over five years it started right up ... textbook
style.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: May 15, 2011 7:36 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Planes are not made of material that will prevent a thief from breaking in and
stealing avionics, etc. Alarms will not get anyone's attention. When is the
last time you came running over to some idiots car that was alarming!
The security that we have come to hate around airports should help some here.
To prevent the plane from being stolen, my solution is complexity.
To start my plane you must:
Turn on the master, turn on the engine battery, (one alone will not cut it, requires
both), turn on power to injectors, turn on power to igniters, turn on power
to engine computer, turn on power to fuel pump, set mixture to full rich,
give 2-3 squirts of primer, hit start button.
I ain't sayin' that crooks are too stupid to start my plane, but...as long as it
took me to figure it out....some intelligence needs to be rewarded!
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of plevyakh
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and stealing
the avionics.
What systems are folks using to secure the plane and it's innards?
What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
Some ideas:
1) Propeller Lock / Chain:
- http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/product/12054
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/propLockChain.php
2) Door Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/aerolocksets.php
3) Throttle Lock
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/throttlelock.php
or
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/skylock.php
4) Battery Lock or Kill Switch
- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/batterylock.php
- http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1010/10002/-1
5) Stick Lock - similar to throttle lock idea.but locks out the controls instead
with a padlock and steel bar.
6) Aircraft Alarm System
- http://car-alarm-review.toptenreviews.com/viper-car-alarm-review.html
TIA for your thoughts.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339905#339905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Unsteelable Airplane (was Key Ignition Switch) |
Carlos,
That is true. However, there is two of everything.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Unsteelable Airplane (was Key Ignition
Switch)
Bill
I agree that you have a really difficult airplane to be stolen, but you also
have many points-of-failure .
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
> Sent: domingo, 15 de Maio de 2011 23:06
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
>
>
>
> Planes are not made of material that will prevent a thief from breaking in
and
> stealing avionics, etc. Alarms will not get anyone's attention. When is
the last time
> you came running over to some idiots car that was alarming!
>
> The security that we have come to hate around airports should help some
here.
>
> To prevent the plane from being stolen, my solution is complexity.
> To start my plane you must:
> Turn on the master, turn on the engine battery, (one alone will not cut
it, requires
> both), turn on power to injectors, turn on power to igniters, turn on
power to engine
> computer, turn on power to fuel pump, set mixture to full rich, give 2-3
squirts of
> primer, hit start button.
>
> I ain't sayin' that crooks are too stupid to start my plane, but...as long
as it took me
> to figure it out....some intelligence needs to be rewarded!
>
> Bill B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
G'day Guys,
Physical security locks are mandatory in Australia. I plan to have a canopy
lock, but for added security, I'm installing one of Bob Newman's Smart Start
modules (www.tcwtech.com). It uses a momentary switch to arm the start
circuit for 1 minute - of course you can locate the momentary switch
anywhwere you like so that it's counter-intuitive to find. I would
recommend the optional air switch to arm the start at flying speeds, and
there's also an option to connect the circuit to an interconnect switch
elsewhere, so that start is disabled until other pre-conditions are met (for
example closing the canopy).
Cheers, Stu
F1 Rocket VH-FLY <http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY>
http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY
www.teamrocketaircraft.com
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Welch
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 4:02 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
> What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
> TIA for your thoughts.
> Howard
Howard,
Here is what I would do, if I was worried about losing an airplane
or airplane parts; (cost...about $.50, if that!)
ATTENTION!!!
If you can read this message, you have already activated
a motion detector & video recorder, and
YOU ARE BEING TAPED!!
IF YOU ARE STILL IN THIS VICINITY WITHIN 3 MINUTES,
THE POLICE WILL BE NOTIFIED VIA A MODEM.
YOU HAVE 2 1/2 MINUTES LEFT BEFORE THE POLICE ARE
CALLED. GOOD BYE!!
You also have a small electronic box sitting inside the plane,
with a flashing RED LED. The box is only visible if you are standing
near the plane, even though it blinks 24/7....they think they
just set it off and are being recorded!! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY
is going to do a thing wrong when they think they are on camera!!
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com> |
I saw this in my morning AF Association update: "Empirical Backs Up the
Analytical: Data from testing actual hardware appear to confirm initial
concerns <http://r.listpilot.net/c/afa/68u70rc/2nu56> that a new 4G
wireless broadband network in the United States would interfere with the
Global Positioning Satellite signal, said Gen. William Shelton, head of Air
Force Space Command. "Although the data [are] still being analyzed, I would
tell you that the empirical data [appear] to be consistent with the
analytical data," Shelton told the Senate Armed Services Committee's
strategic forces panel last week. Accordingly, he continued, "we have
concerns" for civil, commercial, and military applications involving GPS.
LightSquared, a telecommunications company headquartered in Reston, Va.,
seeks Federal Communication Commission approval to establish the broadband
network, which would feature thousands of cell phone towers and space-based
augmentation. Those towers could disrupt the GPS signal, and testing of
LightSquared equipment at Kirtland AFB, N.M., with various GPS receivers
seems to confirm that, said Shelton during the May 11 hearing."
Jerry Folkerts
SR2500 #093
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | "George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Howard -
If a thief wants your airplane or something in it, he's going to take it. Short
of armed and catching him in the act, there's precious little you can do to
stop it. If you make it difficult, he'll just break stuff to get to what he wants.
Some will do additional damage out of pure meanness.
If somebody wants my stuff bad enough to steal it, I'd just as soon they didn't
tear up the airplane in the process. Good insurance at honest values is the
answer to this one.
A canopy cover will discourage the ramp-walking snooper. Some airports require
a prop lock, and it will show the insurance company and HAS/TSA/DEA that you
tried to keep the airplane on the ground.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of plevyakh
Folks,
I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my airplane.
My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and stealing
the avionics.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modifying Seat Heater Wiring |
| From: | rv8iator(at)gmail.com |
Eric...
The heater is laminated between the upholstery covering (leather, vinyl
etc.) and the foam cushion thus is insulated by the foam. Reflective
material could be used between the cushion and heater pad to reflect some
additional IR. The problem may be finding a reflective material that won't
crush, wrinkle, split and flake the reflective surface over repeated use.
In the past I have used aluminized mylar for IR protection but it's
delicate.
Ideas?
chris stone
RV-8
> I haven't seen the seat heaters, but a question came to me:
> Is the back side of the seat heater insulated and reflective? If not, why
> not? It would use half the power.
> Eh?
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Folks,
Thanks for all the great inputs. I'm going to keep it simple for now as you suggest
and include the following:
1) Propeller chain lock
2) Throttle lock
3) Canopy cover and or cloth drape over the panel to keep the avionics hidden.
I did find a nice lightweight high DB alarm that would trip when the door is opened.
It's a beam sensor device. This might be added as a winter project down
the road.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340005#340005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
I'm working on my instrument panel and looking at my switch layout and was wondering
what others have done to hide the .125" anti-rotation keyway washer holes
on a standard S700 Carling switch?
I would like to avoid having to make up a separate face plate over top of my aluminum
switch plate.
Does one NOT drill the keyway hole all the way thru the panel insert?
Does one eliminate the keyway hole and just use loctite on the threads?
Can I just fill the keyway hole with something and apply the paint and then switch
label overtop?
How do the professional panel shops deal with this?
TIA,
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340007#340007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Aircraft security, was Key Ignition Switch |
Hi All-
A couple thoughts on security: I can't speak to this definitively, but I
doubt there is a huge market for stolen homebuilts. They stand out on the
'secondary' market much more than a spam can, and generally don't carry the
load a drug runner might prefer. Consequently, I suspect aircraft such as
a Glastar, or my RV, aren't likely to ever be a theft target.
For peace of mind sake, though, something like a prop lock and chain is
probably quite effective. Although they aren't all that difficult to
overcome by those who know how to do it, it does make it harder and more
dangerous to mess with that plane than the one sitting right next to it.
The potential problem with anti-theft devices in the cabin is the damage a
crook might do in the process of breaking in, only to discover he can't
take the plane.
As I understand it, by far and away the biggest theft hazard comes from bad
guys using keys to gain entry to plane 'A', swiping the radios, installing
them in plane 'B', and then selling plane 'B's radios. To me, this only
increases the attractiveness of face mounted radios. They're not very
common and therefore have a limited resale market, and they're a whole lot
more difficult / impractical to swipe.
The argument could be made to leave the plane (or your car) unlocked to
prevent unauthorized entry damage, and just not leave any loose valuables
behind.
In my case, I also have a non-intuitive switch configuration required for
start. It's not complex, it doesn't add any potential points of failure
once the engine is running, but I've yet to have any pilot friends figure
it out. It does not include a key switch. Among other things, as I recall
it, there are only a dozen or so keys in all of GA. Someone who
perpetrates these evils in all likelihood already has a key to the switch
you have yet to buy...
FWIW-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wschertz(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? |
One way is to take a piece of .032 aluminum strip that spans several switch
es, drill the hole for the strip, and the keyway hole, and install it BEHIN
D the panel with the lock tab facing the switch panel. Invisible and fairly
easy.
Bill Schertz
----- Original Message -----
From: "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:19:53 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
I'm working on my instrument panel and looking at my switch layout and was
wondering what others have done to hide the .125" anti-rotation keyway wash
er holes on a standard S700 Carling switch?
I would like to avoid having to make up a separate face plate over top of m
y aluminum switch plate.
Does one NOT drill the keyway hole all the way thru the panel insert?
Does one eliminate the keyway hole and just use loctite on the threads?
Can I just fill the keyway hole with something and apply the paint and then
switch label overtop?
How do the professional panel shops deal with this?
TIA,
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340007#340007
===========
-
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
>From my brief view of the "thievery" issue, I think stolen airplanes are the
minor issue.
Thefts from the "panel" are the primary target of the traveling hit and run
crowd. The last hit at our airport was strictly for new, popular model
avionics....that would eventually show up on eBay, Craig's List, etc. We
are also located close to a freeway...not good as the thieves want a quick
exit after hitting an airport.
D
----- Original Message -----
From: "George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:46 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
>
>
> Howard -
>
> If a thief wants your airplane or something in it, he's going to take it.
> Short of armed and catching him in the act, there's precious little you
> can do to stop it. If you make it difficult, he'll just break stuff to
> get to what he wants. Some will do additional damage out of pure
> meanness.
>
> If somebody wants my stuff bad enough to steal it, I'd just as soon they
> didn't tear up the airplane in the process. Good insurance at honest
> values is the answer to this one.
>
> A canopy cover will discourage the ramp-walking snooper. Some airports
> require a prop lock, and it will show the insurance company and
> HAS/TSA/DEA that you tried to keep the airplane on the ground.
>
> Neal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of plevyakh
>
> Folks,
> I'd like to get some ideas from the forum on how best to secure my
> airplane.
> My concern is both with stealing of the entire plane....to breaking in and
> stealing the avionics.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? |
I=99ve made a couple of panels now and use 2mm thick aluminium
plate for the panel and drill from behind only 1mm deep, which provides
plenty of grip for the tab.
Jay
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
wschertz(at)comcast.net
Sent: 16 May 2011 05:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
One way is to take a piece of .032 aluminum strip that spans several
switches, drill the hole for the strip, and the keyway hole, and install
it BEHIND the panel with the lock tab facing the switch panel. Invisible
and fairly easy.
Bill Schertz
----- Original Message -----
From: "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:19:53 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes?
I'm working on my instrument panel and looking at my switch layout and
was wondering what others have done to hide the .125" anti-rotation
keyway washer holes on a standard S700 Carling switch?
I would like to avoid having to make up a separate face plate over top
of my aluminum switch plate.
Does one NOT drill the keyway hole all the way thru the panel insert?
Does one eliminate the keyway hole and just use loctite on the threads?
Can I just fill the keyway hole with something and apply the paint and
then switch label overtop?
How do the professional panel shops deal with this?
TIA,
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340007#340007
= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
_= - List Contribution Web Site ;
&nb=====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unsteelable Airplane (was Key Ignition Switch) |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Okay...here's a guy with a foolproof Tesla Force Field:
http://tesladownunder.com/Tesladownunder's%20Car%20Theft%20Pevention%201000.jpg
The function of a blinking led on the panel is nicely satisfied by LV Warning Annunciators.
I sell one, many people do.
My plan is to have NO visible door locks. The remotes auto-parts guys sell are
very reliable. I haven't EVER used my Jeep door key. For internal security, I
have a handle to pull, in emergencies that: Turns off the fuel, triggers the ELT,
disconnects the battery, and perhaps several aother features. When the handle
is removed, stealing the airplane would be very hard.
I also want to have control handles (full of interlocks and electronics) that can
be removed for security by Amphenol-Cannon connectors.
We live in a world where a video of the thief is easy to capture, personal possessions
can be tracked, and being a thief is a dicey way to make a living. See:
http://dendritelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Hijacker-Injector-3841328.pdf
--------
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=340029#340029
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Beech Starship |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> I don't think anyone will argue the physics of rear driven aircraft. There are
some practical compromises like balance which you overcome with the praying
nose wheel. That's not to say forward driven airplanes don't suffer compromises.
They certainly do. This is largely about marketing to the masses and what the
public is willing to accept.
...A propeller in undisturbed air, and an engine where cooling is easy is a recipe
for good design. NO record-speed-holder airplane is rear driven. A propeller
blade which has to cut through the aircrafts' wake makes for a noisy and inefficient
prop.
The prop in the rear is style.
--------
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=340031#340031
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I don't have an ignition switch in my 6A. I ran the line from the master
switch to a banana jack and continued it on from another banana jack next to
it. A 2 pronged banana plug (see photo attached) plugs into both of them. A
wire across the screw terminals of the plug shorts the 2 prongs together.
So, that shorting plug is my "ignition key". I have regular toggle switches
for the master switch (a 3 position switch - off, battery, battery + alt)
and two other separate toggles switches for the magneto and the electronic
ignition. Simple and light.
The 2 pronged banana plug can be bought at any radio shack or electronic
parts store. With the plug removed the master switch is disabled. There
are these 2 innocuous banana jacks in the panel which are unlabeled. I'm
guessing most people looking at the panel wouldn't pay them any attention or
guess what they do. My electrical system is otherwise Bob K's venerable
Z-11.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? |
At 11:19 AM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
>
>I'm working on my instrument panel and looking at my switch layout
>and was wondering what others have done to hide the .125"
>anti-rotation keyway washer holes on a standard S700 Carling switch?
>
>I would like to avoid having to make up a separate face plate over
>top of my aluminum switch plate.
Okay, then instead of making an overlay to take your
switch placards and hide holes in the panel, make as
switch underlay sheet to go BEHIND the panel and
provide holes for the anti-rotation washers which are
also on the back of the panel.
>Does one NOT drill the keyway hole all the way thru
If your panel is thick enough, you can drill 'divots'
on the back side deep enough so that the hole has
just reached the full diameter of the bit. Then take
a second bit of the same size that you've converted to
a 'spot facer' by grinding it flat. Use this to
flatten the bottom of your tab hole. You may have to
shorten the tab on the washer a bit. This plan is
much more labor intensive. The underlayment sheet
seems a faster and cleaner options.
>Does one eliminate the keyway hole and just use loctite on the threads?
Please don't.
>Can I just fill the keyway hole with something and apply the paint
>and then switch label overtop?
Something like JB Weld could be used as a robust
"body putty" . ..
>How do the professional panel shops deal with this?
I've always used and overlay placard . . . usually
an engraved plastic produced by a sign and badge
shop. Use it to cover thru-holes for anti-rotation
washers installed on the back side of the panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wschertz(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Beech Starship |
I believe "Pushy Galore" set all kinds of climb records
Bill Scherz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
.
...A propeller in undisturbed air, and an engine where cooling is easy is a recipe
for good design. NO record-speed-holder airplane is rear driven. A propeller
blade which has to cut through the aircrafts' wake makes for a noisy and inefficient
prop.
The prop in the rear is style.
--------
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Tom
So, the ideal thief for your airplane would be a guy who works for Radio
Shack .... :-) just couldn't resist
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas
sargent
Sent: segunda-feira, 16 de Maio de 2011 19:37
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
I don't have an ignition switch in my 6A. I ran the line from the master
switch to a banana jack and continued it on from another banana jack next to
it. A 2 pronged banana plug (see photo attached) plugs into both of them. A
wire across the screw terminals of the plug shorts the 2 prongs together.
So, that shorting plug is my "ignition key". I have regular toggle switches
for the master switch (a 3 position switch - off, battery, battery + alt)
and two other separate toggles switches for the magneto and the electronic
ignition. Simple and light.
The 2 pronged banana plug can be bought at any radio shack or electronic
parts store. With the plug removed the master switch is disabled. There
are these 2 innocuous banana jacks in the panel which are unlabeled. I'm
guessing most people looking at the panel wouldn't pay them any attention or
guess what they do. My electrical system is otherwise Bob K's venerable
Z-11.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech Starship |
At 03:15 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
>I believe "Pushy Galore" set all kinds of climb records
and so did the P-180. To be sure, there are compromises
in every final design decision. Getting one attractive
feature is often at the expense of other features. But
if the student is attentive to life's lessons, the next adventure
will be more exciting than the past.
A turbine powered Bonanza was seriously considered at
one time. Project PD336. One was built and flown, I
think a second one started. The last time I saw
S/N 1 it was looking rather naked on a pallet of foam
outside Burt's hangar in Mojave.
Emacs!
I think he arranged some kind of trade for the carcass . . . I believe
he wanted the engine, prop and instruments.
The airplane was a real performer . . . with lousy range. But we
learned some things and it didn't go into production. This was the
program that validated the crowbar ov protection idea from the
certified aircraft perspective. It would be years before the first
ones flew in B&C's LR series regulators . . .
We learned a lot from the Starship too. After taking the write-off
on the Starship, I'm told we made it all back as a supplier of
custom composite parts. Nobody ever said useful education is
inexpensive. Sometimes even the worst mistakes can be parlayed
into useful follow-on ventures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Key Ignition Switch |
Scrap the sign and just put the LED in with a label that says "Modem Active"
The alternative is to actually install a camera, GPS and modem that's active
24/7... that way you can keep tabs on your plane any time you want. A GPS
enabled phone left in the cargo compartment or mounted behind the battery
may be all you need.
Noel
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Welch
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 4:02 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Key Ignition Switch
> What do you think would be the cheapest YET most effective?
> TIA for your thoughts.
> Howard
Howard,
Here is what I would do, if I was worried about losing an airplane
or airplane parts; (cost...about $.50, if that!)
ATTENTION!!!
If you can read this message, you have already activated
a motion detector & video recorder, and
YOU ARE BEING TAPED!!
IF YOU ARE STILL IN THIS VICINITY WITHIN 3 MINUTES,
THE POLICE WILL BE NOTIFIED VIA A MODEM.
YOU HAVE 2 1/2 MINUTES LEFT BEFORE THE POLICE ARE
CALLED. GOOD BYE!!
You also have a small electronic box sitting inside the plane,
with a flashing RED LED. The box is only visible if you are standing
near the plane, even though it blinks 24/7....they think they
just set it off and are being recorded!! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY
is going to do a thing wrong when they think they are on camera!!
Mike Welch
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/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech Starship |
I've flown in aircraft like the Lake LA-4 which has a tower mounted pusher
prop and a modified Volmer Jensen VJ-22 Sportsman with a 125 Hp Lycoming
tractor... also tower mounted. Guess which one was louder. That said I
agree the tractor config is more efficient.
The advantage of the props on the star ship is it allow much more torque to
accelerate off short runways compared to straight turbines. It's too bad
they didn't have the finances to work out the bugs.
This is not the first time this has happened. The Tucker automobile was
another car among cars with more innovations than Lipton has teabags but you
will probably never even see one.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: May 16, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Beech Starship
> I don't think anyone will argue the physics of rear driven aircraft. There
are some practical compromises like balance which you overcome with the
praying nose wheel. That's not to say forward driven airplanes don't suffer
compromises. They certainly do. This is largely about marketing to the
masses and what the public is willing to accept.
...A propeller in undisturbed air, and an engine where cooling is easy is a
recipe for good design. NO record-speed-holder airplane is rear driven. A
propeller blade which has to cut through the aircrafts' wake makes for a
noisy and inefficient prop.
The prop in the rear is style.
--------
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=340031#340031
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Beech Starship |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Way outside the topic, but I can't resist the temptation to tell this story.
In the mid seventies I was working in the tooling machine shop at Cessna's
Pawnee Plant and fell in with a bunch of street rodders. I got my heart set
on a track roadster with a 26 or 27 T body and one day I spotted a body
sitting in a warehouse just south of the Sante Fe tracks in Wellington, a
little town about 25 miles south of Wichita. I pulled over and started
poking around, looking for someone to ask about it when a fellow called to
me from across the street. I told him what I wanted and we started talking
about this and that and he invited me into his shop. As we passed from the
customer waiting area of the body shop into the back, he asked me if I'd
ever heard of a car called the Tucker. I said, yes, when I was a kid my
grandparents used to take me to San Francisco and we always stopped at this
little odd ball museum and curiosity shop called Sutros on the way to the
beach and they had one. Well then he said, you'll appreciate this and opened
the door. There were seven Tuckers sitting there along with three Cords.
When I pulled my jaw back into position I found out the story. Seems these
two brothers had established a niche for themselves restoring Cords and that
led them into restoring Tuckers (the Tucker used the Cord's transmission). I
only wish I had had a camera.
Rick Girard
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
>
> I've flown in aircraft like the Lake LA-4 which has a tower mounted pusher
> prop and a modified Volmer Jensen VJ-22 Sportsman with a 125 Hp Lycoming
> tractor... also tower mounted. Guess which one was louder. That said I
> agree the tractor config is more efficient.
>
> The advantage of the props on the star ship is it allow much more torque to
> accelerate off short runways compared to straight turbines. It's too bad
> they didn't have the finances to work out the bugs.
>
> This is not the first time this has happened. The Tucker automobile was
> another car among cars with more innovations than Lipton has teabags but
> you
> will probably never even see one.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
> Jones
> Sent: May 16, 2011 3:48 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Beech Starship
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think anyone will argue the physics of rear driven aircraft.
> There
> are some practical compromises like balance which you overcome with the
> praying nose wheel. That's not to say forward driven airplanes don't suffer
> compromises. They certainly do. This is largely about marketing to the
> masses and what the public is willing to accept.
>
>
> ...A propeller in undisturbed air, and an engine where cooling is easy is a
> recipe for good design. NO record-speed-holder airplane is rear driven. A
> propeller blade which has to cut through the aircrafts' wake makes for a
> noisy and inefficient prop.
>
> The prop in the rear is style.
>
> --------
> 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=340031#340031
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Beech Starship |
I'm thinking that Bugatti up at OSH would have been pretty quick as well,
had the war not intervened. However, forward mounted props yield better
ground clearance in nose high attitudes, aren't hit by detritus kicked up
by tires, and provide instant lift at low speed via prop wash across the
wing(s). All are serious advantages to the light plane operator.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 4way hat switch interrupts? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
Hello gentlemen,
I would like to install two 4way trim hat switches with some sort of
interrupt device (relay?) where operation of switch A would block operation
of switch B. As well, operation of switch B would block operation of switc
h
A.
The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim devices and the switches are
mounted on flight grips.
Any details here are appreciated =8B wiring diagrams and any part numbers
would be great.
Thank you very much for your time,
Andy Hawes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
You may want to just look at Safety-Trim as a system.
It would be a real easy rip-out and replace and gives
more benefits....one of them being real simple
wiring and stick A/B functionality.
http://www.tcwtech.com/
I developed issues with the relays, and ended
up switching to the system, and it's one of the
nicer upgrades I've done.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20071027/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
On 5/17/2011 8:41 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
> Hello gentlemen,
>
> I would like to install two 4way trim hat switches with some sort of
> interrupt device (relay?) where operation of switch A would block
> operation of switch B. As well, operation of switch B would block
> operation of switch A.
>
> The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim devices and the switches
> are mounted on flight grips.
>
> Any details here are appreciated wiring diagrams and any part numbers
> would be great.
>
> Thank you very much for your time,
>
> Andy Hawes
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Tim -- I'll look into it.
Do you use 2 trim switches controlling the same servo? After a very quick
look at their site, I'm still wondering if they handle two separate trim
controllers (4way hat in my case) controlling the same trim servo?
I'll look further later tonight and thanks very much for the tip --
Andy
On 5/17/11 9:11 AM, "Tim Olson" wrote:
>
> You may want to just look at Safety-Trim as a system.
> It would be a real easy rip-out and replace and gives
> more benefits....one of them being real simple
> wiring and stick A/B functionality.
> http://www.tcwtech.com/
>
> I developed issues with the relays, and ended
> up switching to the system, and it's one of the
> nicer upgrades I've done.
> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20071027/index.html
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
>
> On 5/17/2011 8:41 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
>> Hello gentlemen,
>>
>> I would like to install two 4way trim hat switches with some sort of
>> interrupt device (relay?) where operation of switch A would block
>> operation of switch B. As well, operation of switch B would block
>> operation of switch A.
>>
>> The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim devices and the switches
>> are mounted on flight grips.
>>
>> Any details here are appreciated wiring diagrams and any part numbers
>> would be great.
>>
>> Thank you very much for your time,
>>
>> Andy Hawes
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
At 09:41 AM 5/17/2011, you wrote:
>Hello gentlemen,
>
>I would like to install two 4way trim hat
>switches with some sort of interrupt device
>(relay?) where operation of switch A would block
>operation of switch B. As well, operation of
>switch B would block operation of switch A.
>The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim
>devices and the switches are mounted on flight grips.
>Any details here are appreciated =AD wiring
>diagrams and any part numbers would be great.
The drawing at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Trim5.pdf
shows 2 trim switches wired in parallel. These
switches could be coolie hats, push-buttons, etc.
When no switch is depressed, both relays are relaxed,
power is removed from the motor. Any one switch being
depressed energizes one relay and power the motor
runs. If a second switch is pressed that conflicts with
the first switch, both relays are energized and power
is removed from the motor until the conflict is
resolved.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | re: CVT Alternator Drive |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Fallbrook Technologies has a neat Continuously Variable Transmission for alternators,
engine accessories, etc. Worth a glance:
http://fallbrooktech.com/03_CVAD_Crank.asp
--------
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=340127#340127
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
outstanding. perfect. Thanks very much for this Bob. And thanks for the
quick reply --
Andy
On 5/17/11 9:32 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
> The drawing at
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Trim5.pdf
>
> shows 2 trim switches wired in parallel. These
> switches could be coolie hats, push-buttons, etc.
> When no switch is depressed, both relays are relaxed,
> power is removed from the motor. Any one switch being
> depressed energizes one relay and power the motor
> runs. If a second switch is pressed that conflicts with
> the first switch, both relays are energized and power
> is removed from the motor until the conflict is
> resolved.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
Yes, I have a hat switch on each stick, and the controller
makes it real easy to wire the switches in...far simpler
than the relays. Then the 2 switches don't fight with
eachother either. So it should give you the
capability you're looking for. On the RV-10 at least,
the speed control is a "must have".
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
On 5/17/2011 9:31 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Andy Hawes
>
> Thanks Tim -- I'll look into it.
>
> Do you use 2 trim switches controlling the same servo? After a very quick
> look at their site, I'm still wondering if they handle two separate trim
> controllers (4way hat in my case) controlling the same trim servo?
>
> I'll look further later tonight and thanks very much for the tip --
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 5/17/11 9:11 AM, "Tim Olson" wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson
>>
>> You may want to just look at Safety-Trim as a system.
>> It would be a real easy rip-out and replace and gives
>> more benefits....one of them being real simple
>> wiring and stick A/B functionality.
>> http://www.tcwtech.com/
>>
>> I developed issues with the relays, and ended
>> up switching to the system, and it's one of the
>> nicer upgrades I've done.
>> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20071027/index.html
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/2011 8:41 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
>>> Hello gentlemen,
>>>
>>> I would like to install two 4way trim hat switches with some sort of
>>> interrupt device (relay?) where operation of switch A would block
>>> operation of switch B. As well, operation of switch B would block
>>> operation of switch A.
>>>
>>> The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim devices and the switches
>>> are mounted on flight grips.
>>>
>>> Any details here are appreciated wiring diagrams and any part numbers
>>> would be great.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your time,
>>>
>>> Andy Hawes
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
sounds like a great product and thanks again for the notes Tim.
The flap controller looks very tempting as well for my Radial Rocket build.
If that "talks" to the MVP-50 flap indicators, I'm in business.
On 5/17/11 9:52 AM, "Tim Olson" wrote:
>
> Yes, I have a hat switch on each stick, and the controller
> makes it real easy to wire the switches in...far simpler
> than the relays. Then the 2 switches don't fight with
> eachother either. So it should give you the
> capability you're looking for. On the RV-10 at least,
> the speed control is a "must have".
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
> On 5/17/2011 9:31 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Andy Hawes
>>
>> Thanks Tim -- I'll look into it.
>>
>> Do you use 2 trim switches controlling the same servo? After a very quick
>> look at their site, I'm still wondering if they handle two separate trim
>> controllers (4way hat in my case) controlling the same trim servo?
>>
>> I'll look further later tonight and thanks very much for the tip --
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/11 9:11 AM, "Tim Olson" wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson
>>>
>>> You may want to just look at Safety-Trim as a system.
>>> It would be a real easy rip-out and replace and gives
>>> more benefits....one of them being real simple
>>> wiring and stick A/B functionality.
>>> http://www.tcwtech.com/
>>>
>>> I developed issues with the relays, and ended
>>> up switching to the system, and it's one of the
>>> nicer upgrades I've done.
>>> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20071027/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2011 8:41 AM, Andy Hawes wrote:
>>>> Hello gentlemen,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to install two 4way trim hat switches with some sort of
>>>> interrupt device (relay?) where operation of switch A would block
>>>> operation of switch B. As well, operation of switch B would block
>>>> operation of switch A.
>>>>
>>>> The Ray Allen trim servos are used as the trim devices and the switches
>>>> are mounted on flight grips.
>>>>
>>>> Any details here are appreciated wiring diagrams and any part numbers
>>>> would be great.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your time,
>>>>
>>>> Andy Hawes
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 4way hat switch interrupts? |
Andy,
The information you seek is on the Ray Allen web site
(RayAllenCompany.com). From the home page click on the link "Download
them here" below the "Need Instructions?" at the lower center. Then
scroll down to the "Do it yourself Relay Deck Instructions". This shows
how to wire up two single pole - double throw relays to drive a servo.
If you also look at the G205/207 Grip Wiring Instructions page 7 you see
they just wire the pilot's and co-pilot's switches in parallel. This
means activating one switch doesn't really disable the other. Instead,
activating the second switch in the opposite direction disables the
servo. Ray Allen did have some problems with marginal service from the
relays in the REL-1 deck. They currently sell a REL-2 deck with much
more robust relays.
Safety Trim (tcwtech.com) also wires the pilot's and co-pilot's switches
in parallel. To actually block the other switch would require 4 relays
per axis instead of two. TCW's trim controller has many additional
useful features such as runaway blocking, reverse override and speed
control. If you are not in a hurry, I'm developing a homebuilt trim
controller with the same features for a cost much lower than TCW's $300.
Hope to get it published in Kitplanes like my fuel transfer controller.
When I get the prototype built and tested I can send you a schematic
which should be Real Soon Now.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: CVT Alternator Drive |
At 10:46 AM 5/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Fallbrook Technologies has a neat Continuously Variable Transmission
>for alternators, engine accessories, etc. Worth a glance:
>http://fallbrooktech.com/03_CVAD_Crank.asp
Used to have devices like this on virtually every
airplane with a 400 Hz AC power system. Vickers used
to make a constant speed drive used on the '52.
We moved away from this added weight, volume and
complexity by designing aircraft AC systems to perform
without having to maintain a constant system frequency.
They're now "wild frequency" system with nominal
operating range of 400-800 Hz. Taking the extra
mechanism out of the loop allowed the space and
weight to be used to generate more engergy in the
same volume that used to be occupied by the
alternator/drive system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder board. Using the
supplied edge card connector housing, I couldn't get the contacts to lock into
place. Instead, they'd move around inside the housing. I figure I could cut
these contacts off the ends and solder the 24 awg wires directly to the board.
I was able to solder a D-Sub15 onto the end that connects to the encoder (EFIS),
so I plan to make a male-female connection of the d-subs in case I need to service
the unit.
I've never soldered to a board, but imagine it's easier than the cramped solder
cups I've already done. Main questions are heat and cleaning. I've got a 30W
iron. How long can I leave a tinned tip on the board before being concerned with
overheating?
I also read a little about cleaning the board after soldering, cuz of the flux.
I'm using Kester 44 resin core. Should I wipe the board with rubbing alcohol
after I'm done?
Suggestions appreciated.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340198#340198
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave and Nancy Fortenbery" <jdfnnef(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
Dan,
Everybody will have an opinion, so here is mine! I think you should be able
to tin the edge connector in about 2-3 seconds. Let the board cool. Then
attached tinned wire in another couple of seconds. The trick is to use LOTS
of flux. I use a Kester Flux Pen (pH neutral and water soluble). It avail.
from Newark.com (PN 00Z1356) for about $5. Great stuff. The flux makes the
joint heat much quicker and creates a smooth shiney joint. A spool of 2mm
desoldering braid is also handy when you have screwed up and created a
"bridge".(Newark.com PN 95F6235) Be sure and "soak" braid with flux before
desoldering. I use denatured alcohol and an old tooth brush to clean board
after using rosin core solder.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
messydeer
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 7:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning?
Hi!
I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder board. Using
the supplied edge card connector housing, I couldn't get the contacts to
lock into place. Instead, they'd move around inside the housing. I figure I
could cut these contacts off the ends and solder the 24 awg wires directly
to the board.
I was able to solder a D-Sub15 onto the end that connects to the encoder
(EFIS), so I plan to make a male-female connection of the d-subs in case I
need to service the unit.
I've never soldered to a board, but imagine it's easier than the cramped
solder cups I've already done. Main questions are heat and cleaning. I've
got a 30W iron. How long can I leave a tinned tip on the board before being
concerned with overheating?
I also read a little about cleaning the board after soldering, cuz of the
flux. I'm using Kester 44 resin core. Should I wipe the board with rubbing
alcohol after I'm done?
Suggestions appreciated.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340198#340198
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
Are the edge connector fingers gold plated? If so, it's doubtful you'll
even need flux. A clean pencil eraser is effective for removing surface
corrosion. I would 2nd Dave's advice; tin both, then place the tinned
wire on the finger & heat the joint until the solder 'flows', add a
small touch of solder & you should get a fillet of solder between the two.
You might try visiting a local electronics repair shop & ask for a scrap
circuit board. You can practice on that, to get a feel for how much heat
to use, & how long to apply it. BTW, while you don't want to use a big
'gun' type iron, using a really small iron can be a bigger risk for
damaging the board, because it might heat the joint too slowly, allowing
the board, insulation, etc to overheat before the joint itself reaches a
high enough temp to make a good joint. If you've never done any
soldering, remember to heat the joint, and let the joint melt the
solder. If you apply the solder directly to the iron, the joint may not
be hot enough to make a proper joint.
If you're really worried about doing it correctly, find your local HAM
radio club & offer a meal or 'beverage' in exchange for someone's
soldering services. If you can't find a HAM club, ask at the airport; a
lot of pilots are also HAM's (though I'm not).
Charlie
electronics tech in a former life
On 5/17/2011 7:58 PM, Dave and Nancy Fortenbery wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave and Nancy Fortenbery"
>
> Dan,
> Everybody will have an opinion, so here is mine! I think you should be able
> to tin the edge connector in about 2-3 seconds. Let the board cool. Then
> attached tinned wire in another couple of seconds. The trick is to use LOTS
> of flux. I use a Kester Flux Pen (pH neutral and water soluble). It avail.
> from Newark.com (PN 00Z1356) for about $5. Great stuff. The flux makes the
> joint heat much quicker and creates a smooth shiney joint. A spool of 2mm
> desoldering braid is also handy when you have screwed up and created a
> "bridge".(Newark.com PN 95F6235) Be sure and "soak" braid with flux before
> desoldering. I use denatured alcohol and an old tooth brush to clean board
> after using rosin core solder.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> messydeer
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 7:49 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning?
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "messydeer"
>
> Hi!
>
> I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder board. Using
> the supplied edge card connector housing, I couldn't get the contacts to
> lock into place. Instead, they'd move around inside the housing. I figure I
> could cut these contacts off the ends and solder the 24 awg wires directly
> to the board.
>
> I was able to solder a D-Sub15 onto the end that connects to the encoder
> (EFIS), so I plan to make a male-female connection of the d-subs in case I
> need to service the unit.
>
> I've never soldered to a board, but imagine it's easier than the cramped
> solder cups I've already done. Main questions are heat and cleaning. I've
> got a 30W iron. How long can I leave a tinned tip on the board before being
> concerned with overheating?
>
> I also read a little about cleaning the board after soldering, cuz of the
> flux. I'm using Kester 44 resin core. Should I wipe the board with rubbing
> alcohol after I'm done?
>
> Suggestions appreciated.
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340198#340198
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, guys :-)
The only soldering I've ever done is for the airplane wiring. I crimped as many
as I could and soldered the rest. I feel fairly comfortable soldering after having
done a few dozen wires, though.
Your suggestion about a scrap circuit board reminds me that I've got a dead PC
sitting in my room. Not sure if there are any edge connectors, but it'd stl il
be good practice. Transponder contacts are not gold, btw. And the iron I've got
is 3/16" or 1/4" that tapers to a cone, which sounds like it'd work well.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340222#340222
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
If your PC is of the right vintage, you might be able to find some
nice test subjects on the removable accessories, like the modem and
sound card. The ISA and PCI connectors both had nice edge contacts,
with the ISA being slightly more widely spaced.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:42 PM, messydeer wrote:
>
> Thanks, guys :-)
>
> The only soldering I've ever done is for the airplane wiring. I crimped as many
as I could and soldered the rest. I feel fairly comfortable soldering after
having done a few dozen wires, though.
>
> Your suggestion about a scrap circuit board reminds me that I've got a dead PC
sitting in my room. Not sure if there are any edge connectors, but it'd stl
il be good practice. Transponder contacts are not gold, btw. And the iron I've
got is 3/16" or 1/4" that tapers to a cone, which sounds like it'd work well.
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340222#340222
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi
Can someone who has gone before tell me how it works or doesn't work.
I am wiring up the mikes and headsets for 2 people as per the I com sheet but the
headsets and Mic inputs are wired in parallel and so the individual functions
and levels of each mike and headset there fore cannot be controlled.
Is this correct? or can you wire them up separately and have individual gain and
volume controls via the inbuilt PA. Page 20 of the manual does not really go
that deep into it..
So how have others gone before when setting up a 2 seater system?
Chris
Zodiac XLB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340236#340236
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
At 07:49 PM 5/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder
>board. Using the supplied edge card connector housing, I couldn't
>get the contacts to lock into place. Instead, they'd move around
>inside the housing. I figure I could cut these contacts off the ends
>and solder the 24 awg wires directly to the board.
Before you solder wires to the board, how many
pins (ecb tabs) are on this connector. I presume
also that they are .156" spacing on centers of
the tabs (that was a common standard way back when).
There might be a better way.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
At 07:49 PM 5/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder
>board. Using the supplied edge card connector housing, I couldn't
>get the contacts to lock into place. Instead, they'd move around
>inside the housing. I figure I could cut these contacts off the ends
>and solder the 24 awg wires directly to the board.
Before you solder wires to the board, how many
pins (ecb tabs) are on this connector. I presume
also that they are .156" spacing on centers of
the tabs (that was a common standard way back when).
There might be a better way. I'm assuming you've got
12 upper and lower ECB tabs on a 1/16" thick board.
Emacs!
Here's an AutoCAD plot that shows the alignment
(or lack thereof) for .156" ecb tabs and a 37-pin
d-sub connector.
You might be able to use a 37-pint, solder-cup connector
slid over the edge of the board. Note that every
ECB tab has at least ONE d-sub pin in a position
to be soldered to the tabs. There are a few d-sub
pins that fall between the ecb tabs and should
probably be totally removed from the d-sub connector
so as to reduce potential for shorting between ecb
tabs.
You might just luck out and have a relatively easy
transition from the ECB tabs to the very user friendly
d-sub technology.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to hide anti-rotation keyway holes? |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Folks,
Thanks for the tips on this. I'll go with the overlay / strip behind the panel.
Very helpful. What a great forum we have here!
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340263#340263
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DoubleCAD and Alibre Design |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com> |
TurboCad 15 is now on sale here http://store.purplus.net/tu15de2d.html for $9.95.
--------
John Dalman
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340288#340288
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> The ISA and PCI connectors both had nice edge contacts
Yes, I think mine prolly does have some of those.
I tried freeing up the case from the board to give me a little more room, but stopped
after about 20 screws when I felt that something might come loose that
I couldn't easily reattach. There's ~1/4" gap below the card edge and metal back
of the case. My soldering iron can reach it at a 45 degree angle, so I think
that'll work.
> Before you solder wires to the board, how many
> pins (ecb tabs) are on this connector. I presume
> also that they are .156" spacing on centers of
> the tabs (that was a common standard way back when).
>
> There might be a better way. I'm assuming you've got
> 12 upper and lower ECB tabs on a 1/16" thick board.
>
Thanks, Bob, except I've got 15 tabs on the bottom 3 or 4 on the top. At this point,
since I've got all the pieces to do the direct soldering and D-Sub 15 connections,
I'm leaning in that direction. Soldering the male pins to the board
wouldn't be very easy either, since the metal shell would protect the pins from
the solder tip. But if there was room to maneuver, it would make for a slick
connection, all right.
And here's something I've noticed. Many of your replies (like the one partially
quoted above) end up getting a new topic instead of in the original thread. So
I don't get an instant email notification and only learn about them when I go
to the message board directly. The thread ends up getting split in two. All
this is pretty trivial. I'm just curious.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340290#340290
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/transponder_edge_card_in_case_817.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rjquillin(at)gmail.com |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
At 15:49 5/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I think I'd like to solder wires to the back of my transponder board.
>I've never soldered to a board, but imagine it's easier than the
>cramped solder cups I've already done. Main questions are heat and
>cleaning. I've got a 30W iron. How long can I leave a tinned tip on
>the board before being concerned with overheating?
>
>I also read a little about cleaning the board after soldering, cuz
>of the flux. I'm using Kester 44 resin core. Should I wipe the board
>with rubbing alcohol after I'm done?
>
>Suggestions appreciated.
There is an excellent guide to soldered electrical connections from
NASA I sent to Bob a couple yeas back and he archived. Not sure of
the exact name it's stored as, but look for something like NASA
STD-8739.3. I find it difficult to imagine a hand soldering question
not addressed in that document, unless it pertains to SMD components.
Ethanol or Isopropyl are both accepted cleaners for common RMA fluxes.
>Are the edge connector fingers gold plated? If so, it's doubtful
>you'll even need flux.
When soldering to gold, NASA requires multiple 'tinning' operations
to remove the gold to prevent embrittlement of the joint.
Another commonly overlooked issue is moisture in the board, that,
when heated, turns to steam and causes delamination and bubbles; a
few hours in a warm to medium oven dries out the board.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
> > There might be a better way. I'm assuming you've got
> > 12 upper and lower ECB tabs on a 1/16" thick board.
> >
>
>
>Thanks, Bob, except I've got 15 tabs on the bottom 3 or 4 on the
>top. At this point, since I've got all the pieces to do the direct
>soldering and D-Sub 15 connections, I'm leaning in that direction.
>Soldering the male pins to the board wouldn't be very easy either,
>since the metal shell would protect the pins from the solder tip.
>But if there was room to maneuver, it would make for a slick
>connection, all right.
You got it backwards. What I proposed was converting
your card-edge male to a d-sub by soldering the wire-cups
of the connector to the tabs. Here is an example of a product
that uses solder-cup d-subs to bring the connections
off an ECB.
Emacs!
Emacs!
Like so.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
>There is an excellent guide to soldered electrical connections from
>NASA I sent to Bob a couple yeas back and he archived. Not sure of
>the exact name it's stored as, but look for something like NASA STD-8739.3.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/NASA/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Audio panel to camcorder mic input |
Looking to connect a Sony camcorder to my PS engineering model 6000 audio
panel. An electrical engineering collegue suggested a simple resistor
network that consists of a 10kilohm in series with the signal line coming
out of the audio panel followed by a 200 ohm resistor connected across the
signal line to signal ground which is then connected to the microphone input
of the camcorder. I presented this to the support engineer at PS
engineering and he had no comment but instead suggested I talk to the folks
at edmo.com for a cable to make this connection. After talking to edmo
today and looking at their website it became apparent that they have no
commercially available interconnect that can perform this function.
Edmo does have impedance matching cables to connect between civil aviation
audio panels and military headsets but I don't think these will work for my
application. Any EEs out there who work in analog audio? Any suggestions on
making something that keeps the audio panel outputs from saturating the mic
input? The camcorder input is stereo and so is the audio panel so hopefully
whatever design comes out of this exercise can be used in a stereo
application as well.
Specs on the camcorder mic input are as follows: Minijack, 0.388mV low
impedance with 2.5-3.0 volts DC, output impedance 6.8 kilohms, 3.5 mm stereo
type.
Specs on camcorder also show an audio/video (?line?) input as follows: AV
Minijack, 1Vp-p, 75ohms, unbalanced 327mV, (at output impedance more than
47kilohms), output impedance with less than 2.2 kilohms/stereo minijack (3.5
mm), input impedance more than 47 kilohms.
Specs on the audio panel outputs are as follows: Headphone impedance- 150 to
1000ohms, Headphone output - 45 mW each headset no clipping. Audio
distortion less than 1% at 45 mW into 150 ohms, less than 10% THD at 70mW
into 150 ohms.
Any suggestions? Anyone know of something I can purchase off-the-shelf that
will do this with no assembly required? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Flying-3 years now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel to camcorder mic input |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
My calculation is:
To dissipate 45mW into 150 Ohms:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45mW+%2F+sqrt%2845mW%2F150Ohms%29
I get about 2.6V 'rms'.
apply an approximate conversion factor to get rms into peak to peak:
2.6V * (2/sqrt(2))
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45mW+%2F+sqrt%2845mW%2F150Ohms%29+*+%282%2Fsqrt2%29
And I get 3.7V p-p
To get that to 1v p-p, you need to divide it by four... or five to leave some headroom.
So, unless somebody calls me on an error, I say 10k in series, 3.3k to ground,
almost like your friend says.
This would be going into the Line-in jack, and you'd need a separate divider for
left and right. Alternatively, you could just bring one channel off the intercom,
do the two resistors, and split the outputs to left and right.
I'd say stay away from the mic jack if you can. It just adds problems.
You'll probably still need to experiment with the volume knob on the intercom to
get what you're after.
--Daniel
On May 18, 2011, at 10:52 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>
> Looking to connect a Sony camcorder to my PS engineering model 6000 audio
> panel. An electrical engineering collegue suggested a simple resistor
> network that consists of a 10kilohm in series with the signal line coming
> out of the audio panel followed by a 200 ohm resistor connected across the
> signal line to signal ground which is then connected to the microphone input
> of the camcorder. I presented this to the support engineer at PS
> engineering and he had no comment but instead suggested I talk to the folks
> at edmo.com for a cable to make this connection. After talking to edmo
> today and looking at their website it became apparent that they have no
> commercially available interconnect that can perform this function.
>
> Edmo does have impedance matching cables to connect between civil aviation
> audio panels and military headsets but I don't think these will work for my
> application. Any EEs out there who work in analog audio? Any suggestions on
> making something that keeps the audio panel outputs from saturating the mic
> input? The camcorder input is stereo and so is the audio panel so hopefully
> whatever design comes out of this exercise can be used in a stereo
> application as well.
>
>
> Specs on the camcorder mic input are as follows: Minijack, 0.388mV low
> impedance with 2.5-3.0 volts DC, output impedance 6.8 kilohms, 3.5 mm stereo
> type.
>
> Specs on camcorder also show an audio/video (?line?) input as follows: AV
> Minijack, 1Vp-p, 75ohms, unbalanced 327mV, (at output impedance more than
> 47kilohms), output impedance with less than 2.2 kilohms/stereo minijack (3.5
> mm), input impedance more than 47 kilohms.
>
>
> Specs on the audio panel outputs are as follows: Headphone impedance- 150 to
> 1000ohms, Headphone output - 45 mW each headset no clipping. Audio
> distortion less than 1% at 45 mW into 150 ohms, less than 10% THD at 70mW
> into 150 ohms.
>
> Any suggestions? Anyone know of something I can purchase off-the-shelf that
> will do this with no assembly required? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Flying-3 years now!
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel to camcorder mic input |
Here is the simple way I used when making video from my airplane. This
method is good for temporary connections. Just take an extra headset and
put a microphone in the earpieces, put them together and tape the whole
assembly together. No impedance problems to worry about.
Tim Shankland
Daniel Hooper wrote:
>
>My calculation is:
>
>To dissipate 45mW into 150 Ohms:
>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45mW+%2F+sqrt%2845mW%2F150Ohms%29
>I get about 2.6V 'rms'.
>
>apply an approximate conversion factor to get rms into peak to peak:
>2.6V * (2/sqrt(2))
>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45mW+%2F+sqrt%2845mW%2F150Ohms%29+*+%282%2Fsqrt2%29
>And I get 3.7V p-p
>
>To get that to 1v p-p, you need to divide it by four... or five to leave some
headroom.
>So, unless somebody calls me on an error, I say 10k in series, 3.3k to ground,
almost like your friend says.
>
>This would be going into the Line-in jack, and you'd need a separate divider for
left and right. Alternatively, you could just bring one channel off the intercom,
do the two resistors, and split the outputs to left and right.
>I'd say stay away from the mic jack if you can. It just adds problems.
>
>You'll probably still need to experiment with the volume knob on the intercom
to get what you're after.
>
>--Daniel
>
>
>On May 18, 2011, at 10:52 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Looking to connect a Sony camcorder to my PS engineering model 6000 audio
>>panel. An electrical engineering collegue suggested a simple resistor
>>network that consists of a 10kilohm in series with the signal line coming
>>out of the audio panel followed by a 200 ohm resistor connected across the
>>signal line to signal ground which is then connected to the microphone input
>>of the camcorder. I presented this to the support engineer at PS
>>engineering and he had no comment but instead suggested I talk to the folks
>>at edmo.com for a cable to make this connection. After talking to edmo
>>today and looking at their website it became apparent that they have no
>>commercially available interconnect that can perform this function.
>>
>>Edmo does have impedance matching cables to connect between civil aviation
>>audio panels and military headsets but I don't think these will work for my
>>application. Any EEs out there who work in analog audio? Any suggestions on
>>making something that keeps the audio panel outputs from saturating the mic
>>input? The camcorder input is stereo and so is the audio panel so hopefully
>>whatever design comes out of this exercise can be used in a stereo
>>application as well.
>>
>>
>>Specs on the camcorder mic input are as follows: Minijack, 0.388mV low
>>impedance with 2.5-3.0 volts DC, output impedance 6.8 kilohms, 3.5 mm stereo
>>type.
>>
>>Specs on camcorder also show an audio/video (?line?) input as follows: AV
>>Minijack, 1Vp-p, 75ohms, unbalanced 327mV, (at output impedance more than
>>47kilohms), output impedance with less than 2.2 kilohms/stereo minijack (3.5
>>mm), input impedance more than 47 kilohms.
>>
>>
>>Specs on the audio panel outputs are as follows: Headphone impedance- 150 to
>>1000ohms, Headphone output - 45 mW each headset no clipping. Audio
>>distortion less than 1% at 45 mW into 150 ohms, less than 10% THD at 70mW
>>into 150 ohms.
>>
>>Any suggestions? Anyone know of something I can purchase off-the-shelf that
>>will do this with no assembly required? Thanks.
>>
>>Dean Psiropoulos
>>RV-6A N197DM
>>Flying-3 years now!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom 210 wiring |
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
Chris,
Wire it per the diagram. The settings you want are in the software. You have to
set the levels you seek in the menu. Read the operating instructions. While not
extremely clear, it is in there.
Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 203 hrs
Luana, IA.
On May 18, 2011, at 12:06 AM, chris Sinfield wrote:
>
> Hi
> Can someone who has gone before tell me how it works or doesn't work.
> I am wiring up the mikes and headsets for 2 people as per the I com sheet but
the headsets and Mic inputs are wired in parallel and so the individual functions
and levels of each mike and headset there fore cannot be controlled.
>
> Is this correct? or can you wire them up separately and have individual gain
and volume controls via the inbuilt PA. Page 20 of the manual does not really
go that deep into it..
>
> So how have others gone before when setting up a 2 seater system?
> Chris
> Zodiac XLB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340236#340236
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> You got it backwards
Doh!
> There is an excellent guide to soldered electrical connections from
> NASA
Thanks! Here's a link I found:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/NS87393.pdf
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340392#340392
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel to camcorder mic input |
On 5/18/2011 20:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> Looking to connect a Sony camcorder to my PS engineering model 6000 audio
> panel.
Is the camcorder going to be connected to ships power?
Consider seriously using a small transformer to match/couple between the
two devices.
Roll your own or perhaps something like this...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750963-REG/Sescom_LN2MIC_ZMH4_MON_3_5mm_Line_to_Mic.html
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio panel to camcorder mic input |
I had this problem recently when I tried to do the
same thing. I built the simple resistor network
with one on the signal and then the one to ground
and such, as was the common solution. I tested it
at home and while it did work, it induced noise
into the system with a portable intercom. Not sure
exactly why.
But, as a fluke, I tested just attenuating it with
a resistor only on the signal wires Left and Right.
I used a 1.5Meg and also tried 2Meg resistors, just
in series with the signal wires, nothing on the
ground. That actually worked out perfectly well.
It works pretty good with my PMA8000BT, which
I can't imagine would be different than the
PMA6000. So you may want to give that a try...if
that works well enough, you'd be done real quick.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
On 5/19/2011 11:33 AM, Ron Quillin wrote:
>
> On 5/18/2011 20:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>> Looking to connect a Sony camcorder to my PS engineering model 6000 audio
>> panel.
> Is the camcorder going to be connected to ships power?
> Consider seriously using a small transformer to match/couple between the
> two devices.
>
> Roll your own or perhaps something like this...
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750963-REG/Sescom_LN2MIC_ZMH4_MON_3_5mm_Line_to_Mic.html
>
>
> Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Board Soldering: Overheating and Cleaning? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Yesterday I soldered the wires to the transponder board leaving them about 6" long,
which I soldered to a female dsub 15. Also made up the mating male dsub.
At first I tinned the board and wire ends then came back with the iron with a
minimal bead of solder on the tip. It took only a couple seconds to solder them.
I found it was difficult coming back to put more solder after this initial
soldering to make a nice little mound over the wire. I found it worked better
for me to put that extra solder on first, during the board tinning, so I wouldn't
have to come back a second time. I scrubbed the contacts afterwards with a
toothbrush and rubbing alcohol. It's not super pretty, but I'm happy with how
it went.
Grounding
I also needed to run grounds from the transponder to the encoder on the EFIS and
to the common ground buss. My solder cups aren't big enough to put more than
one wire in. Instead of splicing the wires together, I recalled that Bob had
jumped a bunch of dsub solder cups together by placing a section of wire between
them and soldering it all together. I did that for 3 of the cups and connected
ground wires from the transponder and encoder to this. I wanted a 20 awg ground
from the encoder, but only had one spare 24 awg wire left over in the cable.
I used a 22 awg along with this 24 awg wire for this. Diagram below.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340455#340455
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/transponder_efis_ground_schematic_387.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for a smaller 5amp switch breaker |
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Folks,
I'm using Bob's Low Cost Ground Power Jack for your airplane architecture. It
calls out a Tyco W31X2M1G5 5 amp switch breaker for the Ground Power circuit.
I was hoping to include this switch breaker in my row of switches....but I have
a depth clearance issue. The switch breaker is quite a bit more DEEP (2 1/8")
than a standard S700 Carling series switch (1 3/16"), so it's hitting a fuselage
cross cage tube before I can get my panel in place.
Is anyone aware of another 5amp switch breaker with similar profile to the S700
series switch that I could swap in place of the Tyco?
I could move the switch breaker to another location up on the far right side of
the panel where my two alternator breakers are....but I'd like to keep the switches
together if I can.
Thanks for any ideas.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak(at)mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340471#340471
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a smaller 5amp switch breaker |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Howard,
Use the Carling switch of your choice and remote mount one of these:
http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d60.html
They're also available in modified reset where you have to cycle the switch.
Hope this helps.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340519#340519
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fergus Kyle <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Key Ignition Switch |
The guy beside me figures he has it all OK.
(1) he has a secret spot back behind the cockpit about =BE of the way up
the fuselage (where no magnetic field matters) where he slides his hand
up)
on mounting the wing. On his hand is secreted a magnetic ring. Inside
sits a
magnetic slide release which permits the door handle to open.
(2) He uses a racing car emergency cut-off switch (to close the battery
circuit) which sits on the firewall.
He cut a 1/2inch hole up in the corner of the instru panel
which permits entry of a wooden rod that emulates the switch key.He
figures
nobody will have the nouse to work out the system, and all he needs is
an 8=94
wooden rod and a magnetic ring,
I dunno
Ferg.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a smaller 5amp switch breaker |
At 09:25 AM 5/21/2011, you wrote:
>
>Howard,
>Use the Carling switch of your choice and remote mount one of these:
>
>http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/en-us/d60.html
>
>They're also available in modified reset where you have to cycle the switch.
>Hope this helps.
The crowbar ov protection technique is somewhat predicated
on FAST breakers . . . like the miniature Klixon/Mechanical Products
devices popular in aircraft. The likelihood of this device
ever being called upon to do its job is small. Consider a plain-
vanilla switch combined with a 5A fuse in a fuse holder. Since
this device will only have to work while on the ground, having
a box of spare fuses taped to the inside of the fuselage for
spares does not present a big operational/maintenance issue.
Alternatively, a miniature breaker on a bracket, readily accessible
on the ground combined the plain-vanilla switch is another
option that does not ignore original design goals for
the crowbar style protection system.
The automotive breakers cited earlier are REALLY slow . . .
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I tried the tool a couple
of times on three different sizes and didn't like the results, more smash
than swage. By what I could find on the web, the dies barely accommodated
the wire size much less a termination. The 00 size worked okay on an Amp 4
gauge terminal, but I didn't think it was going to be that useful. The
hydraulic cylinder was handy and worked well and I thought briefly about
remachining the dies. In the end it just went back to Harbor Freight.
Rick
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:07 PM 5/4/2011, you wrote:
>
>> 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 2, 0, 00
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
> Yeah, went to the website and looked it up.
> That's a pretty good range. Too bad they
> didn't make those hex shaped holes tailored
> more closely to the real-world of terminals.
>
> But then, we have no knowledge of what the
> designers were handed for design goals . . .
> nor the market demands that drove the decision
> to fabricate the tool.
>
> I'll be interested in seeing what your test
> crimps look like.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marty Helller <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | VHF triplexer to diplexer use |
Greetings=2C Looked in the Aeroelectric achieves and didn't see the follow
issue. I originally installed a triplexer believing I'd have dual VORs an
d a GS. Panel plans changed and I am not using second VOR antenna lead.
What to do?
a. Spend another $140 to buy the Diplexer?
b. Just leave it port unused?
c. Use the second VOR lead for a hand held? (wrong orientation?)
d. Or is there something (balum)? that I should plug into the 2nd VOR ant
enna feed to improve the VOR #1 reception?
Thanks for the help....
Marty
Alexandria=2C VA
RV-7 90% done=2C 50% to go
> Date: Tue=2C 24 May 2011 23:56:00 -0700
> From: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> To: aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/24/11
>
> *
>
> ========================
> 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 edi
tor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&
Chapter 11-05-24&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&C
hapter 11-05-24&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Tue 05/24/11: 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 07:09 PM - Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper (Richard Girard)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 ______________________________
_______
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper
> From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
>
> Bob=2C Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I tried the tool a co
uple
> of times on three different sizes and didn't like the results=2C more sma
sh
> than swage. By what I could find on the web=2C the dies barely accommodat
ed
> the wire size much less a termination. The 00 size worked okay on an Amp
4
> gauge terminal=2C but I didn't think it was going to be that useful. The
> hydraulic cylinder was handy and worked well and I thought briefly about
> remachining the dies. In the end it just went back to Harbor Freight.
>
> Rick
>
> On Thu=2C May 5=2C 2011 at 9:06 AM=2C Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> >
> > At 09:07 PM 5/4/2011=2C you wrote:
> >
> >> 12=2C 10=2C 8=2C 7=2C 6=2C 4=2C 2=2C 0=2C 00
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >
> > Yeah=2C went to the website and looked it up.
> > That's a pretty good range. Too bad they
> > didn't make those hex shaped holes tailored
> > more closely to the real-world of terminals.
> >
> > But then=2C we have no knowledge of what the
> > designers were handed for design goals . . .
> > nor the market demands that drove the decision
> > to fabricate the tool.
> >
> > I'll be interested in seeing what your test
> > crimps look like.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Mk IIIC
> Thanks=2C Homer GBYM
>
> It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhapp
y.
> - Groucho Marx
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
At 10:03 PM 5/24/2011, you wrote:
>Bob, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I tried the tool a
>couple of times on three different sizes and didn't like the
>results, more smash than swage. By what I could find on the web, the
>dies barely accommodated the wire size much less a termination. The
>00 size worked okay on an Amp 4 gauge terminal, but I didn't think
>it was going to be that useful. The hydraulic cylinder was handy and
>worked well and I thought briefly about remachining the dies. In the
>end it just went back to Harbor Freight.
Great feedback sir. Thanks! Saves me from having
to go get one myself.
Your findings echo many of the review statements
I've read on the 'net.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF triplexer to diplexer use |
At 07:16 AM 5/25/2011, you wrote:
>Greetings, Looked in the Aeroelectric achieves and didn't see the
>follow issue. I originally installed a triplexer believing I'd have
>dual VORs and a GS. Panel plans changed and I am not using second
>VOR antenna lead.
>What to do?
>a. Spend another $140 to buy the Diplexer?
>b. Just leave it port unused?
That's my recommendation.
>c. Use the second VOR lead for a hand held? (wrong orientation?)
No.
>d. Or is there something (balum)? that I should plug into the 2nd
>VOR antenna feed to improve the VOR #1 reception?
>
No.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
I read the comments from others and saw a tip that said the HF crimper works for
wire rope. So, I used it on my rudder control cables. Although the crimps are
not as pretty as those from a genuine Nicopress crimper, it is a lot cheaper
than a Nicopress crimper and a lot easier to use than a manual crimper.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340920#340920
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Unless you did tests to establish that the resulting swaged ovals will take
the full breaking strength of the cable take them off and throw them away.
Your life will depend upon those cables. Is your life only worth the few
pennies you saved? You can get a nico press tool for less than the cost of
the HFT hydraulic tool. Your local EAA chapter surely has someone who will
make proper cables for you, too. This isn't about pretty crimps, this is
about providing adequate structural strength of a life critical component.
If you're near central Kansas, I have a CGMP tool and a CG, too. I'll do the
crimps for you. If you aren't near, send me the cables to me and I'll
duplicate them with correct crimps for the price of materials.
Contact me direct if I can be of service.
Richard Girard
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, eschlanser wrote:
> eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
>
> I read the comments from others and saw a tip that said the HF crimper
> works for wire rope. So, I used it on my rudder control cables. Although the
> crimps are not as pretty as those from a genuine Nicopress crimper, it is a
> lot cheaper than a Nicopress crimper and a lot easier to use than a manual
> crimper.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=340920#340920
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | More Strobe Noise |
| From: | "chinesespaceman" <gavintt(at)hotmail.co.uk> |
Guys, I've been trying for months to get rid of strobe noise, having searched on
this site for guidance. If I describe symptoms and cures tried maybe someone
can offer a thought?
System is a 2 head Skyflash, with strobes mounted top and bottom of fuselage. Top
strobe head is only 18 inches in front of the radio antenna.
I get a crack 2 cracks through the headset each time either of the heads fires.
Wiring to the strobe heads is now shielded with the shields from each wire joined
and run back to a clean earth.
The noise is not coming through the intercom, only the radio and not on all channels
- just the ones I commonly use.......
If I hold a handheld close to the aircraft I can just about hear the strobes firing.
Was unable to check the handheld when using my aircraft antenna as different
connections.
If I unplug my antenna connection from the rear of the radio I get silence, so
deducted that I had RFI that was coming into the radio from either the coax or
the core. I ran a temporary wire from my antenna groundplane to a clean earth.
Doing this, I got the first 3 cracks, then the noise reduced to a hardly detectable
level. Job done, I thought. SO I made this wiring permanent and tested
again, same result; job done I thought, so closed everything up.
Flight tested and found it back to it's normal levels - to the point where I won't
turn the strobes on unless visibility really requires it.
Is there a filter available to go in line with my coax and the radio?
Should I change the coax to a known high grade and re-route?
Any suggestions welcomed as this is driving me mad.
P.S. I have fitted a forest of earth to this wooden aircraft and run every ground
down to this, then it connects through the firewall with a brass bolt to a
good earth point on the engine. Aircraft is negative earth.
Thanks in advance
Gavin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=341133#341133
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna Placement ?s |
| From: | "jvolkober" <jvolkober(at)comcast.net> |
I'm building and RV9A. According to my antenna manufacturer, RAMI, Inc, instructions
the antenna should be 24 inches from any other antenna and reflective surfaces,
e.g. landing gear. My plan has been to mount a Com antenna under the
pilot and passenger seats with the transponder antenna about 24 inches further
aft. However this would put each of Com antennas within 24 inches of the landing
gear and the step. The only way to avoid this would be to mount them on
or about the center line on the belly along with the transponder antenna.
Question, how much of a problem will I have if the antenna are within one foot
to 18inches of the gear or the step. Secondarily, how much distance should I
have between the Com antenna and the transponder antenna, which will also be mounted
on the belly about 24 inches behind the baggage bulk head (with the Dynon
transponder in close proximity.)
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=341172#341172
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Harbor Freight Hydraulic Crimper |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Richard,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful opinion and generous offer to redo my work.
I can see you are worried and can relieve your concerns. First, the crimps
pass the go-no go gage. Second, the picture should show you the work is solid.
Thanks again for your concern.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=341186#341186
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rudder_cable2_112.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Placement ?s |
At 12:03 AM 5/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>I'm building and RV9A. According to my antenna manufacturer, RAMI,
>Inc, instructions the antenna should be 24 inches from any other
>antenna and reflective surfaces, e.g. landing gear. My plan has
>been to mount a Com antenna under the pilot and passenger seats with
>the transponder antenna about 24 inches further aft. However this
>would put each of Com antennas within 24 inches of the landing gear
>and the step. The only way to avoid this would be to mount them on
>or about the center line on the belly along with the transponder antenna.
>
>Question, how much of a problem will I have if the antenna are
>within one foot to 18inches of the gear or the step. Secondarily,
>how much distance should I have between the Com antenna and the
>transponder antenna, which will also be mounted on the belly about
>24 inches behind the baggage bulk head (with the Dynon transponder
>in close proximity.)
Probably no effects that you will notice. There's
very little interaction between VHF comm systems
an UHF transponder. Do what you can for separations
but don't loose any sleep over the selected configuration.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More Strobe Noise |
>If I unplug my antenna connection from the rear of the radio I get
>silence, so deducted that I had RFI that was coming into the radio
>from either the coax or the core. I ran a temporary wire from my
>antenna groundplane to a clean earth. Doing this, I got the first 3
>cracks, then the noise reduced to a hardly detectable level. Job
>done, I thought. SO I made this wiring permanent and tested again,
>same result; job done I thought, so closed everything up.
>Flight tested and found it back to it's normal levels - to the point
>where I won't turn the strobes on unless visibility really requires it.
Yup. Been there, done that.
When Cessna started looking at white, tip and tail strobes
for the single engine line, we discovered that the flash
tubes themselves are strong radiators of electromagnetic
chaos every time they fire.
I was only peripherally aware of the studies going on
in another area of engineering so I don't know what the
final outcome was. I do recall seeing some strobe tube
heads surrounded by a a fine screen of material grounded
to the head-shell . . . no doubt an experiment to see
if sufficient attenuation of the noise can be achieved.
Eventually, the tip and tail tubes did make it to our
products as a option to replace the legacy rotating beacon.
I don't know what change to design made them acceptable.
This was before DO-160 was being generally applied to all
electro-whizzies on the airplane. All radios were getting
the once-over but it was pretty much up to the installers
at the factory to be system integrators for fans, motors,
and . . . strobes.
>Is there a filter available to go in line with my coax and the radio?
>Should I change the coax to a known high grade and re-route?
No, no and no. I suspect that if you conduct yet
another experiment and signal-up your radio from a
an antenna on a long coax and located further from
the airplane, you'll find that the noise goes away.
There's a square-law in general effect here that
says every doubling the distance between victim and antagonist
reduces effects to 1/4.
This is an instance where the 'shielding/filtering' effort
needs to take place at the source. Grounded fine wire mesh
dome or cylinder over the tubes? I wish I could be more
encouraging. Perhaps someone associated more closely
with the early Wheelan/Garmin crowd will recall what
ultimately made these products airplane friendly.
I was outside that loop looking in.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Power Stabelizer |
I was curious if anyone has had any experience with these units? Their purpose
is to allow the glass panels to be turned on prior to and during engine start
dampening a power spike or surge. If I remember right in Bob's book, he indicates
this usually should not be a concern. What is the concensus? Thanks,
May 01, 2011 - May 31, 2011
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kj