AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kp
August 17, 2011 - September 09, 2011
> control head that worked with the three wire Navaid servo so I ditched the
> old analog Navaid control head for an EZ Pilot (cost almost as much for the
> control head as the entire Navaid system but definitely worth it). I have
> everything set up and working properly on the ground but still experience a
> slight problem with my Navaid servo. When I engage the servo in flight I
> get an initial one-time excursion to the left (left wing down ~20 degrees)
> before things settle out and start working properly.
>
> Before I started using my EZ Pilot Chuck, at Trio Avionics, suggested I send
> in my Navaid servo for a tune up. I did that and, for a very reasonable fee,
> Trio performed some magic that cleaned up the slop in the mechanicals of the
> servo. However, when they tested the servo they found a common problem in
> the electronics. In talking with Chuck he mentioned one of the components,
> a diode if I recall correctly, can sometimes cause the excursion that I
> experience. Unfortunately he couldn't fix it.
>
> Which brings me to a question I have for the list....does anyone know who
> made the Navaid servos and are there any drawings/specs/schematics available
> for it? Is there anyone or any company that still makes or repairs these
> servos? If so please let us know, the servos are pretty rugged but they
> don't last forever and I would like to get rid of the excursion in mine.
> Thanks
>
> Dean
> RV-6A N197DM
> Flying since 2008
>
>
> ------------Original Message -------------
>
> Subject: Will servo run to outer position if PWM signal is missing?
> From: "zwakie"<mz(at)cariama.nl>
>
> I am trying to troubleshoot an issue with my Navaid servo. Immediately upon
> engaging the servo, it will run the aileron to full left. I was wondering if
> this could be caused by the PWM signal missing, f.i. because of a broken
> wire. Can anybody enlighten this knows-nothing-about-electrics guy please?
>
> Marcel
> (Classic Tri-Gear PH-MZW - formerly G-BWON)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG142 coax offer |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob,
The order form for the coax seems to limit me to 3 pcss at a time.
I need 3 pcs , 3' long, w/ BNC-CM on one end and
3 pcs, 4' long, w/BNC-CM on one end and
1 pc, 7.5' long, BNC-CM x BNC-CM
Do I have to make 3 separate orders to effect this?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349745#349745
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery charger |
At 12:44 AM 8/17/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>I was looking for the info on the battery chargers and I must not
>have saved it. It seems you recommended one available from WalMart
>that was a good value
>Jim
>
I think you're remembering the Schumacher
model 1562.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG142 coax offer |
At 09:03 AM 8/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>The order form for the coax seems to limit me to 3 pcss at a time.
>
>I need 3 pcs , 3' long, w/ BNC-CM on one end and
>3 pcs, 4' long, w/BNC-CM on one end and
>1 pc, 7.5' long, BNC-CM x BNC-CM
>
>Do I have to make 3 separate orders to effect this?
No, put the balance in the comments box at the bottom
of the order form.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E6000 on plexi |
At 10:39 AM 8/17/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm using the brand name "E 6000" in the silver tooth paste tube
>with perchloroethylene (man, that's smaaaall print).
>
>My application is adhering stainless and brass "finger insets" into
>holes in old plexi sliding windows on a boat. Off topic, but I
>figured this was the largest group of E 6000 users I was going to find. :)
This link
http://www.ridoutplastics.com/plexiglas-chemical-resistance.html
speaks to chemical resistance of acrylics (plexiglas) to
various antagonists. At room temp, resistance is listed as
'fair' but not recommended at higher temps.
Since your application will evaporate away all the solvent
as the cement cures, you'd probably be okay. Might put a
fan on it to hasten drying. Once the glue is fully cured,
all the perch is gone.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery charger |
Thanks Bob=0A=0A-=0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT
U77=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:55 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Lis
Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AAt 12:44 AM 8/17/2011,
you wrote:=0A> Hi Bob=0A> I was looking for the info on the battery charge
rs and I must not have saved it.- It seems you recommended one available
from WalMart that was a good value=0A> Jim=0A> =0A=0A- I think you're re
membering the Schumacher=0A- model 1562.=0A=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . . =0A=0A
==================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Navaid Servo |
| From: | "zwakie" <mz(at)cariama.nl> |
Dean,
Thanks for your elaorate reaction to my query. I have installed the Trio controlhead
this week, so my setup is like yours now. The servo has been in place for
years, and all of a sudden it exhibited this fill aoleron deflection.
Today I did some more analysis on the issue, the firm conclusion being that the
servo has gone broke. I will either have to get a Navaid servo from somewhwere,
or get myself a Trio servo. Given the fact that Navaid servos are getting inti
its dinosaur-state, I will most likely opt for the more modern Trio servo
(which also has more safety features).
You can find a range of documents on the Navaid products at ftp://ftp.porcine.com/SmartCoupler/ - I believe there is a schematic there as well. hope this will help you resolving your issue.
--------
Marcel
(Europa Classic Tri-Gear PH-MZW)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349792#349792
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Navaid Servo |
| From: | "zwakie" <mz(at)cariama.nl> |
Ed,
Thanks again for trying to help me out. Please accept my apologies for not having
mentioned I am working on an existing installation of a servo that has performed
flawlessly in the past. I guess what I'm saying is that alle the manual
setups you are referring to have been done years ago.
FWIW: this week I took out the Navaid controlhead and replaced it with a Trio EZ
Pilot controlhead. One reason, not the one driving this replacement though,
was that for a little over a year the 'whole-Navaid-setup' started showing this
weird behavior out of the blue. As I said in esponse to Dean, I will noe most
likely decide to have a servo from Trio; that way I will be completely up-to-date
technology-wise...
Thanks,
Marcel
--------
Marcel
(Europa Classic Tri-Gear PH-MZW)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=349796#349796
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
Does anyone recognize this connector? It's on a Chelton transponder
antenna p/n 2413-89-00. The outside diameter is 0.540 in. There are two
locking pins, no threads.
Thanks.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Connector |
At 02:21 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone recognize this connector? It's on a Chelton transponder
>antenna p/n 2413-89-00. The outside diameter is 0.540 in. There are
>two locking pins, no threads.
Don't know if you had a picture to send but I did get a look
at the Chelton antenna on the 'net. I think that connector
is a C-series device (BIG version of the BNC).
This chassis connector is a UG-568/U
Emacs!
Mating cable males are pretty pricey . . .
Emacs!
Allied wants $125 for this UG-573A/U and it doesn't install
on an RG-400 coax. This military is really fond of this
connector in very high power pulse applications (radar and
ECM). I've never encountered one in the commercial wild.
What kind of connector is on the radio? You might want to
consider a different antenna with a more popular and MUCH
less expensive BNC or TNC connector.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Coax Connector picture |
Picture didn't come through... trying again.
Does anyone recognize this connector? It's on a Chelton transponder
antenna p/n 2413-89-00. The outside diameter is 0.540 in. There are two
locking pins, no threads.
Thanks.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Connector |
That's it. Sounds like I'm out of luck. Too bad because it's a neat
little low drag antenna that I got for $20. I guess that's why. There's
a BNC on the transponder. Too bad Oshkosh is 50 weeks ago because
there's probably one in the fly market for $1.
Thanks.
John
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 02:21 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does anyone recognize this connector? It's on a Chelton transponder
>> antenna p/n 2413-89-00. The outside diameter is 0.540 in. There are
>> two locking pins, no threads.
>
> Don't know if you had a picture to send but I did get a look
> at the Chelton antenna on the 'net. I think that connector
> is a C-series device (BIG version of the BNC).
>
> This chassis connector is a UG-568/U
>
> Emacs!
>
> Mating cable males are pretty pricey . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
> Allied wants $125 for this UG-573A/U and it doesn't install
> on an RG-400 coax. This military is really fond of this
> connector in very high power pulse applications (radar and
> ECM). I've never encountered one in the commercial wild.
>
> What kind of connector is on the radio? You might want to
> consider a different antenna with a more popular and MUCH
> less expensive BNC or TNC connector.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Connector |
At 03:21 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
>
>That's it. Sounds like I'm out of luck. Too bad because it's a neat
>little low drag antenna that I got for $20. I guess that's why.
>There's a BNC on the transponder. Too bad Oshkosh is 50 weeks ago
>because there's probably one in the fly market for $1.
Here's an option:
Emacs!
This is a C-M to N-F adapter. If you've got the room
to stack this up inside the airplane. I can supply
you RG-142 with a N-CM connector and BNC on the
other end.
You can order the adapter at:
http://www.mgs4u.com/C-adapters.htm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Connector |
I was just going to post that I found that adapter as well. I was going
to combine it with a N-male to BNC-female adapter, but if you can put a
male-N on the end of a BNC/RG-142 cable that would eliminate one
connector and make for a little bit neater installation. How much and
how do I order it?
Thanks.
John
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:21 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's it. Sounds like I'm out of luck. Too bad because it's a neat
>> little low drag antenna that I got for $20. I guess that's why.
>> There's a BNC on the transponder. Too bad Oshkosh is 50 weeks ago
>> because there's probably one in the fly market for $1.
>
>
> Here's an option:
>
> Emacs!
>
> This is a C-M to N-F adapter. If you've got the room
> to stack this up inside the airplane. I can supply
> you RG-142 with a N-CM connector and BNC on the
> other end.
>
> You can order the adapter at:
>
> http://www.mgs4u.com/C-adapters.htm
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Connector |
At 05:43 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
>
>I was just going to post that I found that adapter as well. I was
>going to combine it with a N-male to BNC-female adapter, but if you
>can put a male-N on the end of a BNC/RG-142 cable that would
>eliminate one connector and make for a little bit neater
>installation. How much and how do I order it?
Go to my website catalog at httP://aeroelectric.com
and fill in the order. Scroll down to the RG-142 cable
assemblies and enter "N-CM", length in feet and "BNC-CM"
in the boxes at the top of the form. Go down to the
bottom and hit 'submit'.
The cable will be $1.50/ft and no charge for the
connectors. Postage will be about $1.50
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RF adapter for an SWR meter |
Hello, all,
Could someone tell me what this adapter is called? And where I may
buy one? I need a second one in order to use with this SWR meter a
good friend leant me to check our antennas on our Sportsman.
Thanks,
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
At 06:13 PM 8/19/2011, you wrote:
>Hello, all,
>
>Could someone tell me what this adapter is called? And where I may
>buy one? I need a second one in order to use with this SWR meter a
>good friend leant me to check our antennas on our Sportsman.
Good evening my friend!
I'll send you one tomorrow . . . if you're
in no great hurry. Otherwise, you can pick
one up at Radio Shack.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103319
I've got a couple dozen so parting with one
would be no hardship.
Bob . . .
>Thanks,
>
>Dee
>
>DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
>406 N Mulberry St
>Richmond, VA 23220-3320
>(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
>SKYPE: hilltopkid
>dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Dee,
I don't know what it is called, but I do know you can get one from Radio
Shack ($5)
You might do a search on RS's website.
I almost bought one, but then I found out I had the wrong SWR meter, so
then I didn't
need one.
Mike Welch
On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:13 PM, DeWitt Whittington wrote:
> Hello, all,
>
> Could someone tell me what this adapter is called? And where I may buy
one? I need a second one in order to use with this SWR meter a good
friend leant me to check our antennas on our Sportsman.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dee
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> 406 N Mulberry St
> Richmond, VA 23220-3320
> (804) 358-4333 phone and fax
> SKYPE: hilltopkid
> dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks, that would be marvelous, Bob. My address is below.
Sure miss seeing and hearing you at Oshkosh.
Dee
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:13 PM 8/19/2011, you wrote:
>
> Hello, all,
>
> Could someone tell me what this adapter is called? And where I may buy
> one? I need a second one in order to use with this SWR meter a good friend
> leant me to check our antennas on our Sportsman.
>
>
> Good evening my friend!
>
> I'll send you one tomorrow . . . if you're
> in no great hurry. Otherwise, you can pick
> one up at Radio Shack.
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103319
>
> I've got a couple dozen so parting with one
> would be no hardship.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dee
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> 406 N Mulberry St
> Richmond, VA 23220-3320
> (804) 358-4333 phone and fax
> SKYPE: hilltopkid
> dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
>
> **
>
> **
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
At 08:49 PM 8/19/2011, you wrote:
>Thanks, that would be marvelous, Bob. My address is below.
I spoke too soon. Seems my drawer full of
adapters is still buried in some boxes that
haven't been unpacked for the move from
Wichita. I'm afraid I'll have to chase you
down to "the Shack" . . . sorry 'bout that.
>Sure miss seeing and hearing you at Oshkosh.
Me too . . . but without a supporting business
reason for being there, I just can't afford it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for looking.
Dee
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> At 08:49 PM 8/19/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Thanks, that would be marvelous, Bob. My address is below.
>>
>
> I spoke too soon. Seems my drawer full of
> adapters is still buried in some boxes that
> haven't been unpacked for the move from
> Wichita. I'm afraid I'll have to chase you
> down to "the Shack" . . . sorry 'bout that.
>
>
> Sure miss seeing and hearing you at Oshkosh.
>>
>
> Me too . . . but without a supporting business
> reason for being there, I just can't afford it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Try This:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-UHF-PL259-male-plug-BNC-female-connector-adapter-/150538962579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item230cd24693
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350051#350051
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
Jerry,
Thanks for the link. I'll just go to Radio Shack since the Ebay link
is a company in Hong Kong and I'd have to wait until mid September or
later to receive the adapters.
Dee
At 08:25 AM 8/20/2011, you wrote:
>
>Try This:
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-UHF-PL259-male-plug-BNC-female-connector-adapter-/150538962579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item230cd24693
>
>--------
>Jerry King
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350051#350051
>
>
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
In case you don't find it in Radio Shack, here is a Digi-Key part number:
CPAD500-ND
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350062#350062
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vaughn Teegarden" <europaul260i(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter |
Somebody please get this email to stop looping!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: DeWitt Whittington
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF adapter for an SWR meter
Jerry,
Thanks for the link. I'll just go to Radio Shack since the Ebay link
is a company in Hong Kong and I'd have to wait until mid September or
later to receive the adapters.
Dee
At 08:25 AM 8/20/2011, you wrote:
Try This:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-UHF-PL259-male-plug-BNC-female-connector-adapte
r-/150538962579?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item230cd24693
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350051#350051
AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
> Dan, If your metric contactor studs are 6mm X 1.0, the 21042-4 will go right
on.
Thanks, Rick!
I do have some metric studs, come to think of it. Think it's the battery contactor,
not sure about the starter. Battery itself, too, I think.
Another thought is how much torque to put on these. I suppose I otta look that
info up from the contatctor specs. If the studs are embedded in plastic, seems
the 50-70 in-lbs could damage it.
And sorry about the late response. Since your post wasn't a reply to mine, I didn't
get an email.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350199#350199
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
>
>
>Another thought is how much torque to put on these. I suppose I otta
>look that info up from the contatctor specs. If the studs are
>embedded in plastic, seems the 50-70 in-lbs could damage it.
These are generally hard copper or brass studs.
I don't think you're going to find anyone offering
recommended torque values. Us internal tooth lockwashwers
under the nuts and snug 'em up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
> Date: Mon=2C 22 Aug 2011 10:32:23 -0500
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> From: nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs?
>
kolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Another thought is how much torque to put on these. I suppose I otta
> >look that info up from the contatctor specs. If the studs are
> >embedded in plastic=2C seems the 50-70 in-lbs could damage it.
>
> These are generally hard copper or brass studs.
> I don't think you're going to find anyone offering
> recommended torque values. Us internal tooth lockwashwers
> under the nuts and snug 'em up.
>
> Bob . . .
I don't know about other manufacturers but these : http://www.trombetta.com
/dc-contactor-products.cfm?id=51 have the torque values on the label. You
can open the drawing and zoom in on the label.
Deems
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Power Supply Connections |
I just bought this power supply for my hangar:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssP
ageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123
I will plug it into my airplane's electrical system whenever I'm in the
hangar and running the instrument panel, such as when updating the
navigation database or running the "glass cockpit" in simulator mode for
practice. I'll also use it occasionally to top off the battery. I'll
plug it into a 120VAC wall outlet and it will supply 12VDC (adjustable
from 10.8 to 13.2 VDC).
If you zoom in on the photo at the left on the above link, or scroll
down on that page, you'll see that it has seven screw terminals for wire
connections, labeled as follows:
"L" Is this the AC line in?
"N" The other AC line in?
The ground symbol; the ground if I use a three wire AC cord?
"-V" Probably DC volts out, minus?
"-V" A duplicate of the previous one?
"+V" Probably DC volts out, positive?
"+V" A duplicate of the previous one?
It came with absolutely no documentation or instructions and I'm not
100% certain how to hook it up. I emailed the vendor, who is in China,
who has not responded.
I measured a few mega ohms between the L and N terminals. There are a
few tenths of an ohm between the two -V terminals. Same between each of
the two +V terminals.
Are my guesses above reasonable? I only have $15 into this, including
shipping, so it won't be the end of the world if I destroy it hooking it
up wrong, but I'd just as soon not.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply Connections |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Dennis,
Nice looking, practical power supply. While we wait on our seasoned
electrical gurus to check in, here's what I'll bet
you'll see.
The L-N-G screws expect you to use a three wire cord, NOT a two wire.
Line, neutral, ground. Easy enough.
First, I'd get that cord hooked up and plug it in to 110V AC. Then,
take your multimeter, I'll bet you have two sources of
pos & neg 12V DC sets of screws. Find out which ones does what.
Attach your "positive" multimeter lead to one "+ screw", then see if
BOTH negative screws give you 12V, which would
tell you they have a common ground. (it probably does)
Your answer as to how it functions will be whether or not those two "+"
terminals are distinctly separate
12V DC power leads.
Mike Welch
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> I just bought this power supply for my hangar:
>
>
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssPa
geName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123
>
> I will plug it into my airplane's electrical system whenever I'm in
the hangar and running the instrument panel, such as when updating the
navigation database or running the "glass cockpit" in simulator mode for
practice. I'll also use it occasionally to top off the battery. I'll
plug it into a 120VAC wall outlet and it will supply 12VDC (adjustable
from 10.8 to 13.2 VDC).
>
> If you zoom in on the photo at the left on the above link, or scroll
down on that page, you'll see that it has seven screw terminals for wire
connections, labeled as follows:
>
> "L" Is this the AC line in?
> "N" The other AC line in?
> The ground symbol; the ground if I use a three wire AC cord?
> "-V" Probably DC volts out, minus?
> "-V" A duplicate of the previous one?
> "+V" Probably DC volts out, positive?
> "+V" A duplicate of the previous one?
>
> It came with absolutely no documentation or instructions and I'm not
100% certain how to hook it up. I emailed the vendor, who is in China,
who has not responded.
>
> I measured a few mega ohms between the L and N terminals. There are a
few tenths of an ohm between the two -V terminals. Same between each of
the two +V terminals.
>
> Are my guesses above reasonable? I only have $15 into this, including
shipping, so it won't be the end of the world if I destroy it hooking it
up wrong, but I'd just as soon not.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Power Supply Connections |
I have the exact same thing and will wire it up the way you have described.
Except remember that the "N" stands for Neutral and is usually grounded at
the breaker box and usually the white wire. The black would go from the
breaker to the "L(ine)" connection. Ground is usually Green. So while "N"
is "the other AC Line in" they are not the same and you will get fireworks
if you hook them up backwards.
You may already know this so pardon the explanation if not necessary.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 working on cowling
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power Supply Connections
I just bought this power supply for my hangar:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssPageN
ame=ADME:L:OU:US:1123> &item=250852141183&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123
I will plug it into my airplane's electrical system whenever I'm in the
hangar and running the instrument panel, such as when updating the
navigation database or running the "glass cockpit" in simulator mode for
practice. I'll also use it occasionally to top off the battery. I'll plug
it into a 120VAC wall outlet and it will supply 12VDC (adjustable from 10.8
to 13.2 VDC).
If you zoom in on the photo at the left on the above link, or scroll down on
that page, you'll see that it has seven screw terminals for wire
connections, labeled as follows:
"L" Is this the AC line in?
"N" The other AC line in?
The ground symbol; the ground if I use a three wire AC cord?
"-V" Probably DC volts out, minus?
"-V" A duplicate of the previous one?
"+V" Probably DC volts out, positive?
"+V" A duplicate of the previous one?
It came with absolutely no documentation or instructions and I'm not 100%
certain how to hook it up. I emailed the vendor, who is in China, who has
not responded.
I measured a few mega ohms between the L and N terminals. There are a few
tenths of an ohm between the two -V terminals. Same between each of the two
+V terminals.
Are my guesses above reasonable? I only have $15 into this, including
shipping, so it won't be the end of the world if I destroy it hooking it up
wrong, but I'd just as soon not.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
As a licensed A&P mechanic, I shudder to think of what the repercussions would
be if I were to advocate the mixing of AN standard and metric hardware and something
went wrong. Please listen carefully to Bob and use an internal star lockwasher
under the metric nut. It is a RARE day indeed when Bob will steer you
wrong.
The more educated and experienced of us must teach our students the correct way
not what we can get away with. They will learn that all too easily on their
own. Hopefully, no one will be killed in the process.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350305#350305
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply Connections |
At 03:43 PM 8/22/2011, you wrote:
>I just bought this power supply for my hangar:
>
><http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123>http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123
>
>I will plug it into my airplane's electrical system whenever I'm in
>the hangar and running the instrument panel, such as when updating
>the navigation database or running the "glass cockpit" in simulator
>mode for practice. I'll also use it occasionally to top off the
>battery. I'll plug it into a 120VAC wall outlet and it will supply 12VDC (as
>adjustable from 10.8 to 13.2 VDC).
The availability of capable switch-mode power supplies
on eBay has really expanded over the past few years. The
$value$ has climbed steadily too. For a short period of time
about 7 years ago, the 'Connection offered a 25A, 13.8v
power supply for $125 . . . a good value at the time but
now one can acquire more output for less dollars. A good
example can be seen here:
http://tinyurl.com/3kx6rvc
These are not necessarily plug-in-play devices for powering
up your airplane on the ground . . . but they're close.
Some products caution against using them to 'charge a battery'.
It's not because the supply might be damaged by such a task,
it has to do with the BACKFLOW of current into a power supply
that is deprived of AC mains power while still connected to the
battery. I have a couple of exemplar supplies on my bench going
into a project for a customer. These are 28v, 15A supplies and
I'm using them to charge small batteries. Reverse current into
a powered down supply is about 50 milliamps. This backflow would
ultimately discharge a battery. Also, without a schematic to study,
I'm not 100% sure that this backflow would not damage the power
supply. I'm wiring Schottky diodes in series with the supplies
to prevent this condition.
Keep in mind to that a "12-volt" power supply will run your
ship's accessories, it takes at least 14.0 volts to top
off a battery. Adding 0.5 volts of drop in the isolation diode
and you'll find that your supply needs to be rated for 14.5
volts of output. One might consider a relay in series with the
supply's output that is powered from the same 120vac source
that energizes the power supply. If power is removed . . . or
fails while you're not around to deal with it . . . the relay
will drop out and effect an automatic disconnect.
A relay would be a good companion to the power supply linked
above . . . a diode would work well with a power supply rated
at 15 volts. In fact, the power supply cited above can be
adjusted to offset the small voltage across a heat-sink mounted
diode.
At 36 Amps, $67 and free shipping, this device is an exceptional
value.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I was able to find the info for Odyssey battery, M6 40 in-lbs, and the EV200 battery
contactor, M8 x 1.25 80-100 in-lbs. I'll use internal star washers and
torque to these values.
I couldn't find any info on the Jabiru starter contactor. The posts are the color
of a shiny penny and about 5/16" diameter. Threads look coarse, but didn't
fit a 5/16-18 bolt. The stackup order on each post from the bottom up is internal
star washer, nut, another internal star washer and another nut. The bottom
nuts were already torqued pretty tight.
I've done one starter contactor terminal, placing the ring over lower nut and tightening
the top nut with star washer. Used a wrench to hold the lower nut while
I tightened the upper one. Not sure how much torque there was on it, but the
first go wasn't tight enough. During tightening, the cable lug rotated, so
I pushed the cable back into place, which caused the top nut to loosen. After
tightening a bit more, the top and bottom nuts rotate on the post as a unit when
I push on the cable, but it takes a lot more force than before. I'm essentially
using the cable as a lever, like a wrench, since the nuts and lug rotate
as a unit. I'd be happy to call this good.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350317#350317
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Hi all-
I am installing my GRT Sport EFIS which I purchased without the internal GPS option.
The Sport has the capability of accepting GPS data via a serial (single
wire) input. I'm a working guy, paying as I go and so I'm trying to find a cost
effective way to accomplish this.
What I had proposed was to use one of the el cheapo USB GPS recievers (NMEA, hockey
puck style for $40 to $60) to provide GPS data to the EFIS. An example would
be the Globalsat BU-353. I found a USB jack with 10" leads attached that I
would wire for 5 volts (to power the receiver) and run the DATA OUT wire from
the receiver to the EFIS. I would just leave the DATA IN wire disconnected. I
thought this was a promising idea.
I have been corresponding with GRT for 2 days now and they say my plan won't work
because USB uses 2 data wires and the Sport needs it's data over a single wire.
They suggested one of the Garmin handheld aviation GPS's. But when I look
at the manual for the 396 (just for an example) it shows that there are 2 data
wires (one IN and one OUT) just like the USB device! The Garmin manual shows
that the DATA OUT wire is all that is routed to an "autopilot / NMEA device".
Both GPS's are NMEA compliant.
So, it seems like my solution isn't completely out in left field (maybe?). But
there's a whole lot that I don't know about this so I'm hoping someone who's more
electrically astute than I am can help me get clear on this. I'm lost now.
If this type of GPS receiver is not appropriate then any suggestions for one
that will work would be very much appreciated.
Thank you all so much for everything I have learned over the past 8 years of being
a fly on the wall of this group!
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350324#350324
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
On 8/23/2011 9:02 AM, rvtach wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rvtach"
>
> Hi all-
>
> I am installing my GRT Sport EFIS which I purchased without the internal GPS
option. The Sport has the capability of accepting GPS data via a serial (single
wire) input. I'm a working guy, paying as I go and so I'm trying to find a cost
effective way to accomplish this.
>
> What I had proposed was to use one of the el cheapo USB GPS recievers (NMEA,
hockey puck style for $40 to $60) to provide GPS data to the EFIS. An example
would be the Globalsat BU-353. I found a USB jack with 10" leads attached that
I would wire for 5 volts (to power the receiver) and run the DATA OUT wire from
the receiver to the EFIS. I would just leave the DATA IN wire disconnected.
I thought this was a promising idea.
>
> I have been corresponding with GRT for 2 days now and they say my plan won't
work because USB uses 2 data wires and the Sport needs it's data over a single
wire. They suggested one of the Garmin handheld aviation GPS's. But when I look
at the manual for the 396 (just for an example) it shows that there are 2 data
wires (one IN and one OUT) just like the USB device! The Garmin manual shows
that the DATA OUT wire is all that is routed to an "autopilot / NMEA device".
Both GPS's are NMEA compliant.
>
> So, it seems like my solution isn't completely out in left field (maybe?). But
there's a whole lot that I don't know about this so I'm hoping someone who's
more electrically astute than I am can help me get clear on this. I'm lost now.
If this type of GPS receiver is not appropriate then any suggestions for one
that will work would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thank you all so much for everything I have learned over the past 8 years of
being a fly on the wall of this group!
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
My suggestion is you get yourself an Byonics RTG from
http://www.byonics.com/mt-rtg.
You can then pull or "TEE" the serial data off for your second GPS
source and have a cool APRS install in the process. There is a ton of
info on this at VAF or just google it . You will need a TECH (HAM)
license to use it but you can almost buy the license anymore is so
simple. Test questions are on the web and its a simple matter to get the
license.
Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Jabiru Voltage Regulator Wires Mislabeled? |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello:
I noticed my voltage regulator for my Jabiru 3300 has the red and yellow wires
in different places than what the Jab schematic says. The schematic, taken from
the Jabiru manual, says the top 3 wires in the plug are pale blue, black, and
pale blue, in positions 1, 2 and 3 respectively. That agrees with my plug. But
Jabiru says the bottom 3 wires are green (4), yellow (5), and red (6) whereas
my voltage regulator has red in the #4 position, and green in the #6 position.
I'm assuming I should go by the colors of the wires, figuring they either mislabeled
the schematic, or inserted the wrong wires in the plug. I have long since
removed this plug and replaced it with fast on terminals. Pic of this with the
schematic is attached.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350332#350332
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jabiru_voltage_regulator_schematic_vs_my_regulator_927.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Stop nuts one terminal studs? |
Good Afternoon Dan,
I am confident you will do this, but may I mention that it is excellent
practice to place an Adel clamp in a strategic location which will make the
wire not work as a wrench?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/23/2011 10:51:08 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
messydeer(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "messydeer"
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I was able to find the info for Odyssey battery, M6 40 in-lbs, and the
EV200 battery contactor, M8 x 1.25 80-100 in-lbs. I'll use internal star
washers and torque to these values.
I couldn't find any info on the Jabiru starter contactor. The posts are
the color of a shiny penny and about 5/16" diameter. Threads look coarse, but
didn't fit a 5/16-18 bolt. The stackup order on each post from the bottom
up is internal star washer, nut, another internal star washer and another
nut. The bottom nuts were already torqued pretty tight.
I've done one starter contactor terminal, placing the ring over lower nut
and tightening the top nut with star washer. Used a wrench to hold the
lower nut while I tightened the upper one. Not sure how much torque there was
on it, but the first go wasn't tight enough. During tightening, the cable lug
rotated, so I pushed the cable back into place, which caused the top nut
to loosen. After tightening a bit more, the top and bottom nuts rotate on
the post as a unit when I push on the cable, but it takes a lot more force
than before. I'm essentially using the cable as a lever, like a wrench,
since the nuts and lug rotate as a unit. I'd be happy to call this good.
--------
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
Hi Jim,
As you've pointed out, the Globalsat BU-353 uses USB. In this sense, the USB
connection is providing both power (+5V and GND) and data (differential voltage
signals). That's great for a PC w/ a USB port. However, and I could be very
wrong, the GRT Sport unit uses RS-232 serial ports for data - a completely
different critter than USB.
To go from USB to/from RS-232, you need some kind of converter - they typically
run about 3-25 USD (looking at Amazon.com). That solves the data portion. You
still have power to contend with, however. The RS-232 converters I mentioned
don't break out any power leads that I'm aware of.
Staying with GlobalSat, they do have an RS-232 based unit (BR-355 GPS) with a
PS/2 connector. Combine this with their BR305-RS232 and you now have RS-232 and
power. Problem is, however, that power is still 5VDC.
To Tim's suggestion - look at byonics.com and their GPS receivers -
http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/gps.php - in particular their 'GPS2' (69 USD)
and 'GPAP' (25 USD) products. If you're interested, this also opens the path to
expand into APRS if at some time in the future you feel compelled.
Good luck,
/\/elson
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, rvtach wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am installing my GRT Sport EFIS which I purchased without the internal GPS
> option. The Sport has the capability of accepting GPS data via a serial
> (single wire) input. I'm a working guy, paying as I go and so I'm trying to
> find a cost effective way to accomplish this.
>
> What I had proposed was to use one of the el cheapo USB GPS recievers (NMEA,
> hockey puck style for $40 to $60) to provide GPS data to the EFIS. An example
> would be the Globalsat BU-353. I found a USB jack with 10" leads attached that
> I would wire for 5 volts (to power the receiver) and run the DATA OUT wire
> from the receiver to the EFIS. I would just leave the DATA IN wire
> disconnected. I thought this was a promising idea.
>
> I have been corresponding with GRT for 2 days now and they say my plan won't
> work because USB uses 2 data wires and the Sport needs it's data over a single
> wire. They suggested one of the Garmin handheld aviation GPS's. But when I
> look at the manual for the 396 (just for an example) it shows that there are
2
> data wires (one IN and one OUT) just like the USB device! The Garmin manual
> shows that the DATA OUT wire is all that is routed to an "autopilot / NMEA
> device". Both GPS's are NMEA compliant.
>
> So, it seems like my solution isn't completely out in left field (maybe?). But
> there's a whole lot that I don't know about this so I'm hoping someone who's
> more electrically astute than I am can help me get clear on this. I'm lost
> now. If this type of GPS receiver is not appropriate then any suggestions for
> one that will work would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thank you all so much for everything I have learned over the past 8 years of
> being a fly on the wall of this group!
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350324#350324
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Tim and Nelson-
Thanks for the info.
As to the 5 volts I may be able to pull that from the GRT Engine Information System which outputs 4.8 volts for excitation voltage or I can install a 12V to 5V converter from www.current-logic.com for $10.
I looked at the GlobalSat BR355 unit and will probably go with that but I would
still like to learn how this works. My confusion is from the labels USB, RS-232,
Serial etc. I sort of thought that USB was just the form factor for the plug/receptacle
and that it doesn't really have any meaning with regards to the
data that is transmitted. Is there a difference in the data supplied from the
#3 pin of a USB GPS versus the data supplied from the corresponding pin (#5) on
the PS/2 connector on the BR355 unit?
Thanks for taking the time to answer my newby questions!
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350341#350341
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru Voltage Regulator Wires Mislabeled? |
At 12:20 PM 8/23/2011, you wrote:
Hello:
I noticed my voltage regulator for my Jabiru 3300 has the red and
yellow wires in different places than what the Jab schematic says.
The schematic, taken from the Jabiru manual, says the top 3 wires in
the plug are pale blue, black, and pale blue, in positions 1, 2 and 3
respectively. That agrees with my plug. But Jabiru says the bottom 3
wires are green (4), yellow (5), and red (6) whereas my voltage
regulator has red in the #4 position, and green in the #6 position.
I'm assuming I should go by the colors of the wires, figuring they
either mislabeled the schematic, or inserted the wrong wires in the
plug. I have long since removed this plug and replaced it with fast
on terminals. Pic of this with the schematic is attached.
Staying with the colors is a good bet . . . particularly
since the illustration of the connector does not state
whether it is a wire-side or mate-side view.
Emacs!
Emacs!
Unless there are pin numbers molded into the connector
body somewhere which conflict with the wiring diagram,
then the illustration is strongly suggestive of a mate-side
view . . . which agrees with the connector in the photo.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
On 08/23/2011 02:10 PM, rvtach wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rvtach"
>
> Tim and Nelson-
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> As to the 5 volts I may be able to pull that from the GRT Engine Information System which outputs 4.8 volts for excitation voltage or I can install a 12V to 5V converter from www.current-logic.com for $10.
>
> I looked at the GlobalSat BR355 unit and will probably go with that but I would
still like to learn how this works. My confusion is from the labels USB, RS-232,
Serial etc. I sort of thought that USB was just the form factor for the
plug/receptacle and that it doesn't really have any meaning with regards to the
data that is transmitted. Is there a difference in the data supplied from the
#3 pin of a USB GPS versus the data supplied from the corresponding pin (#5)
on the PS/2 connector on the BR355 unit?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my newby questions!
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
Try some of these for info:
> http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=serial+vs+usb
> <http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=serial+vs+usb>
USB is(are) serial interface, but serial interfaces come in an almost
infinite variety, while USB comes in only 3 common versions, that I'm
aware of.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
On 8/23/2011 12:10 PM, rvtach wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rvtach"
>
> Tim and Nelson-
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> As to the 5 volts I may be able to pull that from the GRT Engine Information System which outputs 4.8 volts for excitation voltage or I can install a 12V to 5V converter from www.current-logic.com for $10.
>
> I looked at the GlobalSat BR355 unit and will probably go with that but I would
still like to learn how this works. My confusion is from the labels USB, RS-232,
Serial etc. I sort of thought that USB was just the form factor for the
plug/receptacle and that it doesn't really have any meaning with regards to the
data that is transmitted. Is there a difference in the data supplied from the
#3 pin of a USB GPS versus the data supplied from the corresponding pin (#5)
on the PS/2 connector on the BR355 unit?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my newby questions!
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
I did just that, pulled the 5VDC off the EIS. Not flying yet but I know
of others who have used this option with success.
Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the link to the 12V -> 5V - I'm bookmarking that site; I like the
packaging/mounting.
> 4.8 volts for excitation voltage
Is this for the fuel probes?
Personally, I'd go with the DC-DC converter approach and have a 5V bus to power
future gadgets off of and not have to worry about this 'excitation voltage' and
what its properties are.
> My confusion is from the labels USB, RS-232, Serial etc.
Think of USB as a next generation serial bus for PC's. It was developed to
address hanging peripherals (mice, keyboards, printers, storage, cameras, etc)
off of a PC. More info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB
USB, as compared to RS-232, is very complex. The signaling on the wires
between the two is very different and non-compatible - hence the requirement for
the USB/RS-232 converter (it's not a simple matter of just connecting the wires
to the different pins as in the old serial DB9/DB25 converters).
There are tons of serial protocols. The 'USB' and 'RS-232' labels define how
the spec is applied.
> I sort of thought that USB was just the form factor for the plug/receptacle
> and that it doesn't really have any meaning with regards to the data that is
> transmitted.
The USB spec spells out the connector, power, signaling, bandwidth,
handshaking, topology, etc, etc. Compare the USB wikipedia link above to the
RS-232 wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-232
> Is there a difference in the data supplied from the #3 pin of a USB GPS versus
> the data supplied from the corresponding pin (#5) on the PS/2 connector on the
> BR355 unit?
Yes. A huge, incompatible one. ;)
Before you buy - I'd confirm 100% that the RS-232 port on the GRT can be
configured to what the GlobalSat will do. For example: 9600 baud, no parity, 8
bit data, 1 stop bit, etc (typically written as '9600 8N1' or something close to
that). Somewhere in the GlobalSat docs it should spell this out very clearly
and if it's configurable and how to change it, if needed. As an example,
sometime ago, I was fooling around with an NMEA 0183 device and it took me
awhile to figure out that my gadget was talking 4800 baud and I had assumed it
was talking 9600.
> PS/2
Oh wait ... You might need a PS/2 <-> RS-232 converter. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector
"The PS/2 keyboard interface was electrically the same as the 5-pin AT system,
and keyboards designed for one can be connected to the other with a simple
wiring adapter. The PS/2 mouse interface is substantially different from RS-232
(which was generally used for mice on PCs without PS/2 ports), but nonetheless
many mice were made that could operate on both with a simple wiring adapter."
It looks as if they are just just using the PS/2 connector out of convenience as
it has this on their site: "8. RS232 interface connection port." Oh, BTW, it
does 4800 baud but no mention of 8N1; If they are true to NMEA 0183, then they
are doing 8N1.
Let us know when you're ready, and we can walk you through the wiring.
Regards,
/\/elson
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, rvtach wrote:
>
> Tim and Nelson-
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> As to the 5 volts I may be able to pull that from the GRT Engine Information
> System which outputs 4.8 volts for excitation voltage or I can install a 12V
> to 5V converter from www.current-logic.com for $10.
>
> I looked at the GlobalSat BR355 unit and will probably go with that but I
> would still like to learn how this works. My confusion is from the labels USB,
> RS-232, Serial etc. I sort of thought that USB was just the form factor for
> the plug/receptacle and that it doesn't really have any meaning with regards
> to the data that is transmitted. Is there a difference in the data supplied
> from the #3 pin of a USB GPS versus the data supplied from the corresponding
> pin (#5) on the PS/2 connector on the BR355 unit?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my newby questions!
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350341#350341
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magneto Grounding |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I've got a Jabiru 3300, whose mags have fast on terminals. I know to connect them
to the inner wire of the shielded ignition leads and to separate the outer
braid, which connects to the engine ground. My #4 welding cable engine ground
connects the firewall to the starter case. I'm planning on connecting both mag
outer braids to the same spot, under the AN3 case bolt. So there'd be a #4 ring
and two 20awg rings under this bolt. So far so good?
While reading about this I read that one person says he connects the mag grounds
to each other at the switch. This would provide a redundant ground path in case
of a failure of one mag ground. He said it wouldn't cause any ground loop
noise problem. But isn't this why Bob says to "...attach the shield to one and
only one switch terminal at the cockpit end..."?
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350370#350370
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Grounding |
At 06:19 PM 8/23/2011, you wrote:
I've got a Jabiru 3300, whose mags have fast on terminals. I know to
connect them to the inner wire of the shielded ignition leads and to
separate the outer braid, which connects to the engine ground. My #4
welding cable engine ground connects the firewall to the starter
case. I'm planning on connecting both mag outer braids to the same
spot, under the AN3 case bolt. So there'd be a #4 ring and two 20awg
rings under this bolt. So far so good?
While reading about this I read that one person says he connects the
mag grounds to each other at the switch. This would provide a
redundant ground path in case of a failure of one mag ground. He said
it wouldn't cause any ground loop noise problem. But isn't this why
Bob says to "...attach the shield to one and only one switch terminal
at the cockpit end..."?
Failure of a magneto ground does not cause the engine
to stop . . . it only prevents the magneto control switch
from disabling that particular mag. This would be detected
during pre-flight . . . assuming that killing one mag
on a Jab3300 produces the classic 'mag-drop'.
If shutting down one of two mags does not produce a
tell-tale in the cockpit, then loss of a ground would
produce a latent failure. There's no good reason
to have multiple grounds but perhaps a good reason to
check ground integrity as part of a routine periodic
maintenance check.
I recommend each mag switch get grounded through the shield
of the p-lead where only the mag end of the p-lead shield
goes to the crankcase or other handy fastener on the engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | cooling fan thermostat |
| From: | Dan Ballin <dballin(at)gmail.com> |
Anyone have an easy/elegant solution. I'd like to put a cooling fan
on my glare shield that exhausts the avionics when the temperature
gets over about 120. I figured some use of a thermistor, but need
some guidance. I already have an avionics fan, but in the Legacy at
least, it is nice to be able to exhaust hot air as well, but really
only want it on when needed.
Thanks
Dan Ballin
Legacy N386DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Circuit protection for DO-160 compliance.... |
Greetings list,
I've got gauges (Westach) for oil pressure and fuel pressure but I'm
thinking I would like idiot lights as well. My preference is just to
hang a couple of comparitors on the wires to the gauges rather than add
additional switch-style sensors.
Are there any suggestions for signal and power filtering (resistor, cap,
etc.) so that my little comparitor and LED drive circuit is as robust as
something designed for DO-160 compliance? I'm skilled enough to make
some good guesses but if there are any tried true (aircraft/ DO-160)
methods for protecting the low impedance (power) input and the high
impedance (comparitor) inputs I'd love to hear about them. (I don't
need best guesses or untried approaches as I've got plenty of those
already).
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cooling fan thermostat |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
This is a 50C switch (122F) that should work for you:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=723-1192-ND
It's good for up to 1A and will reset at some point between 30C (95F) and 46C (115F).
It's unclear from the datasheet, but I think the mounting tab is not connected
to anything, so you can screw that to some aluminum at the back of your panel,
put a clip-on TO-220 heat sink on it to better sample the air temperature, or
allow it to float in the air you're measuring.
If you use it, let me know how it works for you.
--Daniel
On Aug 23, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Dan Ballin wrote:
>
> Anyone have an easy/elegant solution. I'd like to put a cooling fan
> on my glare shield that exhausts the avionics when the temperature
> gets over about 120. I figured some use of a thermistor, but need
> some guidance. I already have an avionics fan, but in the Legacy at
> least, it is nice to be able to exhaust hot air as well, but really
> only want it on when needed.
>
> Thanks
> Dan Ballin
> Legacy N386DM
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cooling fan thermostat |
Search for a temp switch. The industurll ones are most reliable. Good
luck finding one lower than 150-180. Typicaly thery are for
automotive use. Small however. Just hang it close to the heat source.
PaulW
========
At 06:55 PM 8/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>Anyone have an easy/elegant solution. I'd like to put a cooling fan
>on my glare shield that exhausts the avionics when the temperature
>gets over about 120. I figured some use of a thermistor, but need
>some guidance. I already have an avionics fan, but in the Legacy at
>least, it is nice to be able to exhaust hot air as well, but really
>only want it on when needed.
>
>Thanks
>Dan Ballin
>Legacy N386DM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply Connections |
Should any such power supply to the aircraft, or indeed any bench
testing of equipment, have the battery connected
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power Supply Connections
At 03:43 PM 8/22/2011, you wrote:
I just bought this power supply for my hangar:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250852141183&ssP
ageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123
I will plug it into my airplane's electrical system whenever I'm in
the hangar and running the instrument panel, such as when updating the
navigation database or running the "glass cockpit" in simulator mode for
practice. I'll also use it occasionally to top off the battery. I'll
plug it into a 120VAC wall outlet and it will supply 12VDC (as
adjustable from 10.8 to 13.2 VDC).
The availability of capable switch-mode power supplies
on eBay has really expanded over the past few years. The
$value$ has climbed steadily too. For a short period of time
about 7 years ago, the 'Connection offered a 25A, 13.8v
power supply for $125 . . . a good value at the time but
now one can acquire more output for less dollars. A good
example can be seen here:
http://tinyurl.com/3kx6rvc
These are not necessarily plug-in-play devices for powering
up your airplane on the ground . . . but they're close.
Some products caution against using them to 'charge a battery'.
It's not because the supply might be damaged by such a task,
it has to do with the BACKFLOW of current into a power supply
that is deprived of AC mains power while still connected to the
battery. I have a couple of exemplar supplies on my bench going
into a project for a customer. These are 28v, 15A supplies and
I'm using them to charge small batteries. Reverse current into
a powered down supply is about 50 milliamps. This backflow would
ultimately discharge a battery. Also, without a schematic to study,
I'm not 100% sure that this backflow would not damage the power
supply. I'm wiring Schottky diodes in series with the supplies
to prevent this condition.
Keep in mind to that a "12-volt" power supply will run your
ship's accessories, it takes at least 14.0 volts to top
off a battery. Adding 0.5 volts of drop in the isolation diode
and you'll find that your supply needs to be rated for 14.5
volts of output. One might consider a relay in series with the
supply's output that is powered from the same 120vac source
that energizes the power supply. If power is removed . . . or
fails while you're not around to deal with it . . . the relay
will drop out and effect an automatic disconnect.
A relay would be a good companion to the power supply linked
above . . . a diode would work well with a power supply rated
at 15 volts. In fact, the power supply cited above can be
adjusted to offset the small voltage across a heat-sink mounted
diode.
At 36 Amps, $67 and free shipping, this device is an exceptional
value.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cooling fan thermostat |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i would think mcmaster-carr type places have inline thermostats for this. i
have a thermostat off a woodburning stove that is wired inline to a motor
that is controlled to go on and circulate air around the stove when the
temp. goes up. same deal.
i guess i would also look at a panel switch . just turn it on whenever you
aren't wearing mittens. those fans use very little current and last
''forever''.
bob noffs
not elegant but not clunky either unless you leave the thermostat on the
stove!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dan Ballin wrote:
>
> Anyone have an easy/elegant solution. I'd like to put a cooling fan
> on my glare shield that exhausts the avionics when the temperature
> gets over about 120. I figured some use of a thermistor, but need
> some guidance. I already have an avionics fan, but in the Legacy at
> least, it is nice to be able to exhaust hot air as well, but really
> only want it on when needed.
>
> Thanks
> Dan Ballin
> Legacy N386DM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Nelson-
The 4.8 volts is for fuel probes but it sounds like a number of other GRT/RV guys
have successfully used that output to power the GPS receiver. I will probably
go with the converter anyway.
Thanks for the detailed explanation of serial/USB/RS-232. As to the PS/2 cable
on the GPS I think you are right about that choice of plug being simply convenience.
The tech guy at USGlobalSat (and their literature) said that the data output
of this GPS is RS-232.
After I double check that the GRT will be able to accept what this GPS has to offer
(4800 etc), I think that I'll be getting one of these and the 12V -> 5V converter
(which will actually convert anything from 10 - 32 volts down to 5 V).
I'll need to cut the plug off the GPS cable to get at the data and power wires
and build my own connector from a DB9.
Can't thank you enough for taking the time to educate me on all this. The best
thing about building a plane has been all the people who want to help. Maybe some
day I'll have a chance to pay it forward.
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350417#350417
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Battery terminal corrosion |
At 08:28 PM 8/23/2011, you wrote:
>Evenin=92 Bob '
>
>What causes the terminal posts on a battery to
>corrode, and is there any way to stop / prevent it?
>
It's difficult to get a liquid tight seal
between a battery post and the case material
on the older style, top-post batteries. Side
post batteries seem to be much better but
I don't understand why. I;m sure it's a design
issue. There have been remedies to the effects
of this leakage but no way to stop it. Here's a
bit I gleaned from the 'net . . .
To prevent corrosion of cables on top post
batteries use a small bead of silicone sealer at
the base of the post and place a felt battery
washer over it. Coat the washer with high
temperature grease or petroleum jelly (Vaseline),
then place cable on the post and tighten. Coat
the exposed cable end with the grease. Most folks
don't know that just the gases from the battery
condensing on metal parts cause most corrosion.
Emacs!
Automotive parts stores offer these treated
felt washers you can place under a terminal
on a top-post battery that contains
an alkaline agent which will tend to hold
off corrosion. But they will get 'used
up' and need to be replaced periodically.
Periodic baking soda wash, wire brush
brightening and re-assembly followed by
coating of grease is probably the easiest
but time consuming prophylactic.
If you're getting corrosion on a modern,
SLVA battery, it's probably suffering from
design flaws of some kind. 'Sealed' means
SEALED.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Tim-
Good advice and I agree wholeheartedly with your recommendation for a better GPS
for flying in the clouds. I will be VFR only for a while with plans to upgrade
to an IFR panel with the addition of a second EFIS and a Garmin 430/530 once
I am able to save the funds to accomplish that.
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350436#350436
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT GPS options |
Hi John,
Sounds like you've got it figured out. Holler if you've other questions.
/\/elson
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, rvtach wrote:
>
> Nelson-
>
> The 4.8 volts is for fuel probes but it sounds like a number of other GRT/RV
guys have successfully used that output to power the GPS receiver. I will probably
go with the converter anyway.
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation of serial/USB/RS-232. As to the PS/2 cable
on the GPS I think you are right about that choice of plug being simply convenience.
The tech guy at USGlobalSat (and their literature) said that the data
output of this GPS is RS-232.
>
> After I double check that the GRT will be able to accept what this GPS has to
offer (4800 etc), I think that I'll be getting one of these and the 12V -> 5V
converter (which will actually convert anything from 10 - 32 volts down to 5
V). I'll need to cut the plug off the GPS cable to get at the data and power wires
and build my own connector from a DB9.
>
> Can't thank you enough for taking the time to educate me on all this. The best
thing about building a plane has been all the people who want to help. Maybe
some day I'll have a chance to pay it forward.
>
> --------
> Jim McChesney
> Tucson, AZ
> RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350417#350417
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cooling fan thermostat |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Anyone have an easy/elegant solution. I'd like to put a cooling fan
> on my glare shield that exhausts the avionics when the temperature
> gets over about 120
The easiest and cheapest and lightest solution is to run the fan continuously.
Avionics last longer when operating cool.
If you like to make electronic circuits, here is an elegant solution:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/21448c.pdf
The data sheet has a schematic.
The IC is available here:
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Microchip/TC648VPA/?qs=JaP0%252bruNJH%2f4ckdZw9AR1g%3d%3d
The TC648VPA can be set to maintain any desired temperature.
Joe Gores
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350495#350495
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit protection for DO-160 compliance.... |
>
>
>Are there any suggestions for signal and power filtering (resistor,
>cap, etc.) so that my little comparitor and LED drive circuit is as
>robust as something designed for DO-160 compliance? I'm skilled
>enough to make some good guesses but if there are any tried true
>(aircraft/ DO-160) methods for protecting the low impedance (power)
>input and the high impedance (comparitor) inputs I'd love to hear
>about them. (I don't need best guesses or untried approaches as
>I've got plenty of those already).
It's somewhat circuit dependent. Sketch out
your circuits with component values and mail
them to me. I'll sketch suggested protection/
conditioning onto your drawings and return them.
Once your project is meeting design goals, I'd
be pleased if you share details with the List . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Day <wlday18(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs |
I want to wire a music jack and cellphone(iPhone) jack to my IC-a200=0A-
=0AIs there a diagram showing how to do this?=0A-=0AThanks=0ABill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
'Lectric Listers,
We're re-doing the entire panel on a flying RV-6A, replacing the vacuum
gauges with GRT, going with dual Lightspeed ignitions, solving noise
problems, cleaning up wire routing, and generally bringing it up to
"Aeroelectric" best practices. The aircraft belongs to my father-in-law,
who bought it flying from the original builder. I am the sucker, I mean
electrical engineer, who volunteered to do all the design work. Being an EE
means I tend to over-analyze things, so if you all think I'm being too
concerned here or there, feel free to tell me so.
With that in mind, I would appreciate feedback on the load analysis and
architecture selection. I have attached a .pdf of the latest rendition.
Items highlighted in yellow are total guesses -- if anyone knows better
numbers, by all means speak up. Items in bold/italic are items that will
remain powered via e-bus if the primary alternator fails. If anyone would
like a copy of the original spreadsheet, e-mail me off-list and I'll send it
to you.
Mission: Day/Night VFR, future IFR when pilots appropriately rated (we're
both private, non-instrument rated).
We will include the SD-8 alternator, and use dual displays (GRT HX and HS)
with dual AHRS for redundancy.
Architecture: I am recommending Z-10/8 to avoid rebooting the displays upon
startup. It adds a contactor, but my FIL requested that the displays remain
up during cranking.
Is there anything missing from the analysis?
Have I chosen appropriate flight phases and loads?
The flight current loads seem smaller than I was expecting, since I've heard
people clamoring for 60+ amp alternators. The current main alternator is a
special case, so I'll reserve discussion for a separate e-mail post.
____________
-Jeff-
Albuquerque, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Bill,
If you go to the Icom website, you can pull up the pin diagram for the
A-200. I wired my intercom to the A-200
fairly easily, and also added the Dynon D10A audio alarm. You shouldn't
have any problems once you get the
diagram for the pins.
Mike Welch
On Aug 26, 2011, at 9:28 PM, William Day wrote:
> I want to wire a music jack and cellphone(iPhone) jack to my IC-a200
>
> Is there a diagram showing how to do this?
>
> Thanks
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Day <wlday18(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs |
Mike=0A-=0AI have the pin-outs, just not sure which to use.=0A-=0AShoul
d I use=0A-=0A3 - Left audio=0AC - Right audio=0A4 - Gnd=0AJ - Mic for iP
hone=0A-=0A-=0ADo I need to do any thing special to share the audio?=0A
-=0AI understand the radio is Mono,- want to combine the 2 audio inputs
and want to tie the music and iPhone audio together.=0AI would not have mu
sic playing if I need to use the phone.=0A-=0ACan I pass the mic straight
through?=0A-=0AThanks=0ABill=0A-=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ico
mm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs=0AFrom: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotma
il.com>=0A=0ABill,=0A=0AIf you go to the Icom website, you can pull up the
pin diagram for the =0AA-200. I wired my intercom to the A-200 =0Afairly e
asily, and also added the Dynon D10A audio alarm. You shouldn't =0Ahave an
y problems once you get the =0Adiagram for the pins.=0A=0AMike Welch=0A=0A
=0AOn Aug 26, 2011, at 9:28 PM, William Day wrote:=0A=0A> I want to wire a
music jack and cellphone(iPhone) jack to my IC-a200=0A> =0A> Is there a dia
gram showing how to do this?=0A> =0A> Thanks=0A> Bill=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bill,
My expertise level may be closer to yours, rather than some of our
esteemed electro-gurus.
I think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our
premium members on this list, same as you.
But......it does sound like you are the right path with the stereo
inputs. I can't speak for the duplex nature of
the iPhone hook-up, though. While the Pin J may work for the "voice in"
part of the iPhone, I don't know
how the "hearing" part would work.
We need one of the 'truly qualified" to address this one for ya.
Sorry I am not more help.
If you can't get someone here on the list to speak with authority on
this matter, I'd suggest calling Icom.
They ought to know where to proceed.
Mike Welch
On Aug 27, 2011, at 6:51 AM, William Day wrote:
> Mike
>
> I have the pin-outs, just not sure which to use.
>
> Should I use
>
> 3 - Left audio
> C - Right audio
> 4 - Gnd
> J - Mic for iPhone
>
>
> Do I need to do any thing special to share the audio?
>
> I understand the radio is Mono, want to combine the 2 audio inputs
and want to tie the music and iPhone audio together.
> I would not have music playing if I need to use the phone.
>
> Can I pass the mic straight through?
>
> Thanks
> Bill
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs
> From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Bill,
>
> If you go to the Icom website, you can pull up the pin diagram for the
> A-200. I wired my intercom to the A-200
> fairly easily, and also added the Dynon D10A audio alarm. You
shouldn't
> have any problems once you get the
> diagram for the pins.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2011, at 9:28 PM, William Day wrote:
>
> > I want to wire a music jack and cellphone(iPhone) jack to my IC-a200
> >
> > Is there a diagram showing how to do this?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
Your analysis is the right way to approach this.
Some additions:
-battery charging current (peaks after start-up)
-alternator field current (if you have an external regulator)
But here=99s the big issue: Sometimes maximum loads are
experienced with the engine at low rpm (taxiing, approach). This
stresses the alternator more. Not a problem for short durations
(that=99s what the battery is for), but it can overheat the
alternator (low rpm, low airflow, high load). My personal opinion is
that a larger capacity alternator will be less stressed than one that is
just =98adequate=99.
Your analysis shows that a 35A alternator would probably be adequate
(even allowing for charging and alt field current), but I would
recommend one with higher capacity. I=99ve fried a 35A on the
ground with just a 15A load during taxi and a 80F OAT. My next plane
will have a 60A alternator. Also, pay attention to alternator diode
cooling=94mine had been melted right off, even with a blast tube.
In fact, if you have a spare thermometer input, epoxy a sensor to the
alternator diode pack. You may be surprised.
V
From: Jeff B.
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A load analysis/architecture
'Lectric Listers,
We're re-doing the entire panel on a flying RV-6A, replacing the
vacuum gauges with GRT, going with dual Lightspeed ignitions, solving
noise problems, cleaning up wire routing, and generally bringing it up
to "Aeroelectric" best practices. The aircraft belongs to my
father-in-law, who bought it flying from the original builder. I am the
sucker, I mean electrical engineer, who volunteered to do all the design
work. Being an EE means I tend to over-analyze things, so if you all
think I'm being too concerned here or there, feel free to tell me so.
With that in mind, I would appreciate feedback on the load analysis and
architecture selection. I have attached a .pdf of the latest rendition.
Items highlighted in yellow are total guesses -- if anyone knows better
numbers, by all means speak up. Items in bold/italic are items that
will remain powered via e-bus if the primary alternator fails. If
anyone would like a copy of the original spreadsheet, e-mail me off-list
and I'll send it to you.
Mission: Day/Night VFR, future IFR when pilots appropriately rated
(we're both private, non-instrument rated).
We will include the SD-8 alternator, and use dual displays (GRT HX and
HS) with dual AHRS for redundancy.
Architecture: I am recommending Z-10/8 to avoid rebooting the displays
upon startup. It adds a contactor, but my FIL requested that the
displays remain up during cranking.
Is there anything missing from the analysis?
Have I chosen appropriate flight phases and loads?
The flight current loads seem smaller than I was expecting, since I've
heard people clamoring for 60+ amp alternators. The current main
alternator is a special case, so I'll reserve discussion for a separate
e-mail post.
____________
-Jeff-
Albuquerque, NM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
I=99m upgrading my panel and am about to put my working Gen 1 BMA
EFIS Lite setup (EFIS, GPS, Magnetometer, OAT probe, keyboard) up for
sale on eBay. I remember seeing a post from someone interested in
buying up BMA equipment, but I can=99t seem to find that contact
info.
If you are interested in it or remember who it was that was looking for
them, please let me know off-list.
Thanks,
James
www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Radio receiver burn out |
| From: | "RVBUILDER1" <rvbuilder1(at)aol.com> |
While flying the other day my radio stopped receiving but would transmit ok. I
sent it to the factory and they said the the radio looked like the antenna had
a lighting strike because it was extremely fried inside.
I had no strike and have never flown in bad weather.
What could cause this?
Hear are some other observations
1) When my strobe is on when it flashes my amp meter discharges with each flash.
2) When I taxi past the antenna for the field I can hear the field identifer
in the headset but I am not on the frequency?
any ideas?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350778#350778
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
I favour a small alternator for less energy and slower voltage rise if
it runs away, and of course for the lighter weight. With modern
internally regulated alternators I wonder if any have thermal
protection. Certainly lots of cheap discrete power ic's have integral
temperature protection. Anybody know if there is any temperature
protection in modern alternators? The ones I've had apart have separate
diode assemblies so perhaps not for the diodes.
Ken
On 8/27/2011 12:02 PM, Vern Little wrote:
> Your analysis is the right way to approach this.
> Some additions:
> -battery charging current (peaks after start-up)
> -alternator field current (if you have an external regulator)
> But heres the big issue: Sometimes maximum loads are experienced with
> the engine at low rpm (taxiing, approach). This stresses the alternator
> more. Not a problem for short durations (thats what the battery is
> for), but it can overheat the alternator (low rpm, low airflow, high
> load). My personal opinion is that a larger capacity alternator will be
> less stressed than one that is just adequate.
> Your analysis shows that a 35A alternator would probably be adequate
> (even allowing for charging and alt field current), but I would
> recommend one with higher capacity. Ive fried a 35A on the ground with
> just a 15A load during taxi and a 80F OAT. My next plane will have a 60A
> alternator. Also, pay attention to alternator diode coolingmine had
> been melted right off, even with a blast tube. In fact, if you have a
> spare thermometer input, epoxy a sensor to the alternator diode pack.
> You may be surprised.
> V
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <slipstream(at)wavecable.com> |
| Subject: | It's the little things |
I had such a great time diagnosing a radio problem, I
figured I'd share it with the group. Here goes:
I installed a Z13/8 electrical system in my RV-7, pretty
much exactly as described in the current iteration. On
the radio side, I kept it fairly simple -- One GNS430W to
handle all my nav/comm needs, and an intercom. It
received GPS signals, vor/loc, and received comm. Good
sidetone on the intercom. I figured if it would receive,
it would send! It didn't. Pressing the PTT got me the
little "TX" indication on the GNS, but nobody could hear
me.
I looked through the list archives, and did some
trouble-shooting of my wiring. I removed the factory cork
gasket from my Comant antenna. I removed the aluminum
antenna screws I'd used and replaced 'em with steel
(desperation there). Checked my BNC crimps. Made sure I
didn't do anything really dumb like plug the nav coax into
the comm receptacle. I discovered after the fact that I
should have removed primer from under my antenna doubler,
but I was loathe to start drilling out rivets on another
goose chase.
I decided to let the "experts" give it a shot. I received
permission to fly the RV-7 nordo to the nearby towered
airport with a full-service avionics shop. They looked it
over, bench tested the GNS, took some readings off the
antenna and checked my amateur BNC crimping (not up to
their professional standards, it should be useable).
Finally got a bill for $100 and still no transmit.
I called Garmin factory support. In their opinion, my
Bose headset must be the problem. Thank you for calling.
I spent some time perusing the GNS installation manual.
Turns out there IS a "Comm won't transmit" item in the
toubleshooting pages. Answer: "Make sure it has power."
What kind of dopes do they think install these things?
It's like the home stereo instructions. "Make sure it's
plugged in."
I pulled the GNS out for the nth time and stared at the
back plate. The GNS-430 has three D-sub sockets
connecting it to the airplane -- "Main," "Comm," and
"Nav." The Main and Comm sockets both have power inputs
-- four power pins from two fuses or breakers. I knew
that transmitting drew more power by far than any other
function of the unit. Hmm.. My unspoken assumption had
been that if the unit received comm, it must have comm
power, right? Well, when nothing else pans out, you'll
try anything. I whipped out my little voltmeter and
tested the comm power pins. 3 volts?? Is that possible?
No idea, but when I touched the Main power pins, I got
the full 12 volts. I checked out the fuses and voila! My
comm power fuse had blown. As I was saying about dopes
and electronics...
I'm not sure how to explain the 3 volts I did get -- I
thought fuses were all-or-nothing affairs, but perhaps
not. Anyway, I popped in a new fuse and presto, I get
"loud and clear" reports from everybody I talk to. SO..
Maybe the "Comm" power pins need to be relabeled
"Transmit" power. And there you have it -- The $100 fuse.
Brooks
RV-7 N513BW Phase I ... :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
Vern & Ken, thanks for the input. I figured 10A or so ought to cover
charging, but after a cold day start that battery might be pretty taxed. I
did forget to consider the lower RPM during taxi and such.
Alternator: here's where I don't understand the present installation.
The present installation has an "Overhauled lightweight 35 Amp alternator"
from Mark Landoll's Electrical Service. It includes a Transpo F7078
external regulator. The sales documentation (attached) shows the regulator
installed as attached to the alternator. But, the as-built has the
regulator installed behind the instrument panel, separated from the
alternator. The field line appears to be directly switched. The regulation
signal, as stated by the Landoll data sheet as "the wye junction of the Ford
stator is the source of the signal for the F7078 regulator. At 1200 RPM, the
stator magnitude is only 35 mV." I'm not up to snuff on my motor/generator
theory, so I can't visualize what is happening with this setup. This setup
doesn't seem to match what I see in the Aeroelectric Connection. Is this an
optimal way of doing things, or are there advantages to the ways that Bob
describes vs. this Transpo setup? Will the split between alternator and
regulator create unforeseen issues?
Even if we kept the alternator, I would change the panel mounted B-lead
breaker protection to ANL style near the battery.
We might up the size of the alternator a bit and go with simple external
regulation (generic Ford regulator or such). So, my questions about
operation and potential for problems is mostly to satisfy my desire to
learn.
Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyone see
a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low voltage"
warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
-Jeff-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: It's the little things |
Howdy-
Might I suggest you contact the shop owner, tell him what you found, and that a
couple thousand people on this list all around the planet are waiting to see
how he handles the situation? We all make mistakes, but hopefully we don't make
others pay for them...
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with any of this. The
recommendation to switch the output of the voltage regulator eliminates
a lot of problems with switching the input/sense side of some regulators
(Bob has a lot of documentation on this problem).
The Wye center point is just like the neutral in your house wiring... it
should always be close to ground potential except when something bad
happens. My guess is the regulator can sense this (similar to a ground
fault detector). Not sure what it does when something goes wrong.
As for the crowbar... yes! It=99s very simple and cheap
insurance. Don=99t depend on an audible warning. The OVP
protection is much faster.
The only issue is keeping the alternator cool when loaded to full
capacity at low airspeeds and taxiing. You should be fine if you pay
attention to cooling, but there=99s not a lot of margin. If you
can, my suggestion of attaching a temperature probe to the alternator
may help=94program the GRT EIS to provide a warning when exceeding
about 150C on the diodes so you can do some load shedding. This applies
to any rating of alternator.
V
From: Jeff B.
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A load analysis/architecture
Vern & Ken, thanks for the input. I figured 10A or so ought to cover
charging, but after a cold day start that battery might be pretty taxed.
I did forget to consider the lower RPM during taxi and such.
Alternator: here's where I don't understand the present installation.
The present installation has an "Overhauled lightweight 35 Amp
alternator" from Mark Landoll's Electrical Service. It includes a
Transpo F7078 external regulator. The sales documentation (attached)
shows the regulator installed as attached to the alternator. But, the
as-built has the regulator installed behind the instrument panel,
separated from the alternator. The field line appears to be directly
switched. The regulation signal, as stated by the Landoll data sheet as
"the wye junction of the Ford stator is the source of the signal for the
F7078 regulator. At 1200 RPM, the stator magnitude is only 35 mV." I'm
not up to snuff on my motor/generator theory, so I can't visualize what
is happening with this setup. This setup doesn't seem to match what I
see in the Aeroelectric Connection. Is this an optimal way of doing
things, or are there advantages to the ways that Bob describes vs. this
Transpo setup? Will the split between alternator and regulator create
unforeseen issues?
Even if we kept the alternator, I would change the panel mounted B-lead
breaker protection to ANL style near the battery.
We might up the size of the alternator a bit and go with simple external
regulation (generic Ford regulator or such). So, my questions about
operation and potential for problems is mostly to satisfy my desire to
learn.
Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyone
see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low
voltage" warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
-Jeff-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter switch p-lead ground questions |
| From: | "RVBUILDER1" <rvbuilder1(at)aol.com> |
Bob
I have two impulse coupled mags on my Lyc 0-290D. That is what was on the engine
when purchased. Do I need the jumper on the G to R termial. I don't have
it on now and it starts fine.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350875#350875
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Zwijacz <mzwijacz(at)yahoo.com> |
CcxcvXcccc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter switch p-lead ground questions |
At 04:25 PM 8/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob
> I have two impulse coupled mags on my Lyc 0-290D. That is what
> was on the engine when purchased. Do I need the jumper on the G to
> R termial. I don't have it on now and it starts fine.
The jumper is used to disable a NON-impulse coupled magneto during
cranking. With two I-C mags, you want both mags working to the best
of their ability during cranking so no jumper is called for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Richards" <flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Maintenace Charger |
Hi Bob;
Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific
recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I have 6
U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle wet cells
rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps for the system.
Anything out there that you think would work well.
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
At 12:03 AM 8/28/2011, you wrote:
Vern & Ken, thanks for the input. I figured 10A or so ought to cover
charging, but after a cold day start that battery might be pretty
taxed. I did forget to consider the lower RPM during taxi and such.
Most belt driven alternators on a Lyc are running
pretty fast . . . even at idle/taxi speeds. They'll
produce a considerable percentage of rated output.
Legacy alternator/generator sizing in TC aircraft
calls for retaining 25% of rated output for battery
charging. There's no particular driver for having
recharge take place before takeoff . . . only that
the battery be topped off in the first hour to 90
minutes of operation.
Alternator: here's where I don't understand the present installation.
The present installation has an "Overhauled lightweight 35 Amp
alternator" from Mark Landoll's Electrical Service. It includes a
Transpo F7078 external regulator. The sales documentation (attached)
shows the regulator installed as attached to the alternator. But,
the as-built has the regulator installed behind the instrument panel,
separated from the alternator. The field line appears to be directly
switched. The regulation signal, as stated by the Landoll data sheet
as "the wye junction of the Ford stator is the source of the signal
for the F7078 regulator. At 1200 RPM, the stator magnitude is only 35
mV." I'm not up to snuff on my motor/generator theory, so I can't
visualize what is happening with this setup. This setup doesn't seem
to match what I see in the Aeroelectric Connection. Is this an
optimal way of doing things, or are there advantages to the ways that
Bob describes vs. this Transpo setup? Will the split between
alternator and regulator create unforeseen issues?
This is a pretty 'old' example of alternator design
and implementation. The first alternators we installed
on Cessna aircraft had an "S" or stator terminal which
was a tap on the center of a 'wye wound' stator. This
was used to sense whether or not the engine was running
and operate a field disconnect relay.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Legacy_EM_Regulator_(Ford).pdf
In automobiles, this feature disconnected the alternator
field supply when the engine wasn't running thus preventing
battery depletion in a parked car. Since airplanes had alternator
and battery switches, this feature was not needed. The field
relay was controlled directly through the battery/master switch.
Later, the solid state ov module was added in series
with the relay coil lead
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Cessna_OVModule.jpg
Even if we kept the alternator, I would change the panel mounted
B-lead breaker protection to ANL style near the battery.
That works.
We might up the size of the alternator a bit and go with simple
external regulation (generic Ford regulator or such). So, my
questions about operation and potential for problems is mostly to
satisfy my desire to learn.
That would be okay too. The Transpo regulator
is probably adequate to the task too but without
knowing more details on how it uses/needs the
'stator' connection, I can advise that going to
a generic 'Ford' regulator is a sure bed.
Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does
anyone see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the
"low voltage" warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
Yes, you want ov protection to be automatic and
FAST . . . MILLISECOND fast.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
At 12:38 PM 8/28/2011, you wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with any of
this. The recommendation to switch the output of
the voltage regulator eliminates a lot of
problems with switching the input/sense side of
some regulators (Bob has a lot of documentation on this problem).
The Wye center point is just like the neutral in
your house wiring... it should always be close to
ground potential except when something bad
happens. My guess is the regulator can sense
this (similar to a ground fault detector). Not
sure what it does when something goes wrong.
Not exactly. The 'wye-center-tap' on an alternator
will output considerable current . . . at about
1/2 system voltage. It's used for (1) controlling
field supply disconnect relays in some designs
and/or (2) producing a residual output for getting
an alternator to self-excite. This terminal was often
labeled "N" on some alternators which led individuals to
believe that it was some sort of ground or low-side
supply.
As for the crowbar... yes! Its very simple
and cheap insurance. Dont depend on an
audible warning. The OVP protection is much faster.
The only issue is keeping the alternator cool
when loaded to full capacity at low airspeeds and
taxiing. You should be fine if you pay attention
to cooling, but theres not a lot of
margin. If you can, my suggestion of attaching a
temperature probe to the alternator may
helpprogram thhe GRT EIS to provide a warning
when exceeding about 150C on the diodes so you
can do some load shedding. This applies to any rating of alternator.
The only alternators that get into cooling trouble
in flight are those not properly integrated into
the system on day-one. New installations on TC
aircraft are tested at max running load during
best angle of climb with data corrected for hot-
day conditions. This is how some alternators get
blast tubes and others do not. Alternator failure
due to overheating on an alternator bolted to the
front of a Lycoming is very rare and is traceable
to some poor choices.
If in doubt, do put a thermocouple on the diode
heat sink and slip another into the stator winding
for exploring the operation during the 40 hr flyoff.
But that's a lot of effort that's more likely to
be intellectually satisfying than practical.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: It's the little things |
My unspoken assumption had been that if the unit received comm, it
must have comm power, right? Well, when nothing else pans out,
you'll try anything. I whipped out my little voltmeter and tested
the comm power pins. 3 volts?? Is that possible? No idea, but when
I touched the Main power pins, I got the full 12 volts. I checked
out the fuses and voila! My comm power fuse had blown. As I was
saying about dopes and electronics...
I'm not sure how to explain the 3 volts I did get -- I thought fuses
were all-or-nothing affairs, but perhaps not. Anyway, I popped in a
new fuse and presto, I get "loud and clear" reports from everybody I
talk to. SO.. Maybe the "Comm" power pins need to be relabeled
"Transmit" power. And there you have it -- The $100 fuse.
The 3-volts you were seeing was probably coming OUT
of the radio as opposed to 'sneaking' across an
open fuse. Garmin has long been fond of the separate
input power for the transmitter of some models. On
some models, this input would like to have 28 volts
supplied even if the rest of the radio is running
on 14 volts.
Be sure and check for details on your particular
radio. You may want to add a 14/28v up-converter to
accommodate the transmitter. It will give you a lot
stronger output.
http://www.kenneke.com/avionics.html
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maintenace Charger |
At 09:57 AM 8/29/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Bob;
>
>Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific
>recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I
>have 6 U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle
>wet cells rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps
>for the system. Anything out there that you think would work well.
If you're simply wanting to maintain batteries
that are topped off at the time the RV is parked,
just about anything would work. But if you want
to top-off less-than-full batteries, then something
a bit more robust would be called for.
Anything with Schumacher's name on it would be a
good bet. Here's a 12A, processor controlled charger/
maintainer you can probably pick up at Walmart
for $50 or so.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator Wye - what voltage? |
>> The Wye center point is just like the neutral in your house
wiring... it should always be close to ground potential except when
something bad happens.
The wye is close to neutral in a three-phase AC generation or motor
situation. That's NOT true in our airplanes, where the phases are
rectified to DC, since each phase-to-phase pair alternates between being
ground on one end and bus voltage on the other end. In that case, the
wye floats at about half of bus voltage, but of course is alternating
current, not direct.
In fact, Bob N's former employer, Beechcraft, took advantage of that on
the 12 volt Bonanzas... they attached a six volt *AC* relay between the
wye and aircraft ground. When the alternator was putting out power,
that relay would close, turning off the "ALTERNATOR FAIL" light. If for
whatever reason the alternator quit (open field circuit, broken belt,
whatever) then the wye would float near ground, the AC relay would open,
and the FAIL light would light. Very clever!
I've been tempted to add just such cleverness to my Cessna Cardinal
someday...
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Supply Connections |
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com> |
Below is a link to my home 12 volt electrical system. Hyperlinks are
included to all the components. All my various electronics components
(cable modem, LAN switch, router, telephones, NAS, 12 volt CFL lights, etc)
attach to this system. Additional, I tap into it to charge/run the
electrical system on my "still at the house" RV-10.
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/house/dc/12volt.pdf
It served me well this past weekend as Irene came through and power was out
for about 12 hours. Before shedding load, not including lights, my devices
consume about 6 amps. The single Sears U1 battery lasted about 4 hours
before I turned on the generator.
I put this system in due to frequent power failures (brown-outs and
black-outs) in my area. It is cool watching all the WiFi SSIDs in your area
go away and yours is the only remaining. I did find out that the power
backup on the Internet service provide is only about 6-8 hours however.
--
William
N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Wye - what voltage? |
At 03:15 PM 8/29/2011, you wrote:
>> The Wye center point is just like the neutral in your house
wiring... it should always be close to ground potential except when
something bad happens.
The wye is close to neutral in a three-phase AC generation or motor
situation. That's NOT true in our airplanes, where the phases are
rectified to DC, since each phase-to-phase pair alternates between
being ground on one end and bus voltage on the other end. In that
case, the wye floats at about half of bus voltage, but of course is
alternating current, not direct.
Actually, it is DC albeit half-wave, 3-phase
rectified which is pretty 'bumpy'.
In fact, Bob N's former employer, Beechcraft, took advantage of that
on the 12 volt Bonanzas... they attached a six volt *AC* relay
between the wye and aircraft ground. When the alternator was putting
out power, that relay would close, turning off the "ALTERNATOR FAIL"
light. If for whatever reason the alternator quit (open field
circuit, broken belt, whatever) then the wye would float near ground,
the AC relay would open, and the FAIL light would light. Very clever!
That 'relay' was in fact a little two-transistor,
plus jelly-beans dc voltage level sensor. I remember
it well. We supplied about 4 versions to Beech and
Cessna. During my early years at Electro-Mech, I was
cleaning up some drawings and got two capacitors transposed
in the bill of materials for the Cessna Wallace Plant
version. The thing still passed functional test but
behaved badly on the airplanes. Worse yet, the puppies
were potted.
Needless to say this young fellow was embarrassed to
report to the boss that we needed to do a recall on
about $30,000 worth of production and launch a
quick-turn replacement program. That was more money
than I made in a year at that time!
Fred would have been fully within 'normal' supervisory
parameters to have chewed my you-know-what down
to bed-rock. He didn't miss a beat. "Talk to production
and get a reading on the replacements . . . I'll have
sales notify Cessna and start he recall. Get back to
me with a schedule." That's about the only words we
had on the matter. I didn't need him to tell me to
revise the functional test fixture to offer a more
realistic functionality.
I always appreciated this man's focus . . . and his
class. I've had about five supervisors that I truly
revered in my life and Fred Coslett was one of them.
I've been tempted to add just such cleverness to my Cessna Cardinal someday...
I can probably dig up the schematic of the original but
an active LV warning like the AEC9005 is probably
closer to the best-we-know-how-to-do today. Better
yet, the 9024 program has stumbled back to life. The
first 5 or so devices will be offered to individuals
who can put them into flying airplanes right now. We'll
want to get some field testing of the product and the
installation instructions before listing the thing in
the catalog.
Haven't got a schedule but the software IS moving
forward again.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Richards" <flagstone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maintenace Charger |
Bob:
Thanks for the reommendation.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Day <wlday18(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 |
Mike=0A-=0ATried emailling Icom, not much luck.=0A-=0AWill try to call
when I get home from work.=0A-=0ALost power over the weekend due to the s
tric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs=0AFrom: Michael Welch <mdn
anwelch7(at)hotmail.com>=0A=0AHi Bill,=0A=0A- My expertise level may be clos
er to yours, rather than some of our =0Aesteemed electro-gurus.=0A=0A- I
think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our =0Apremium
members on this list, same as you.- =0A=0A- But......it does sound like
you are the right path with the stereo =0Ainputs.- I can't speak for the
duplex nature of =0Athe iPhone hook-up, though.- While the Pin J may wor
k for the "voice in" =0Apart of the iPhone, I don't know =0Ahow the "hearin
g" part would work.=0A=0A- We need one of the 'truly qualified" to addres
s this one for ya.- =0ASorry I am not more help.=0A=0A- If you can't ge
t someone here on the list to speak with authority on =0Athis matter, I'd s
uggest calling Icom.=0AThey ought to know where to proceed.=0A=0AMike Welch
=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
Hi All,
I just found out about this very important survey regarding
homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate
for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12
accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for
homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how
I found out about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is
looking into placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community
and the EAA convinced them to look at this survey before making
any new rules.
Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
Time is now the issue.
Harley
__._,_.___
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Bill,
I made a quick call for you to Icom. In answer to your question about
hooking up an iPhone....not quite, sort of.
I'll explain. The tech support guy said "No", you can't do it
directly, BUT, he is pretty sure there are devices available
at ACS, Pacific Avionics, etc, etc. He called them "external devises".
I asked him if there was a diagram that showed which pin goes to
where, but he said that all that information
would be included with the external device. He said the external device
already has the 'engineering' and electronics,
and would include a pin diagram for easy installation.
So, you 'may' be able to hook up an iPhone, but check with the
avionics houses and see what they have.
Mike Welch
On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Day wrote:
> Mike
>
> Tried emailling Icom, not much luck.
>
> Will try to call when I get home from work.
>
> Lost power over the weekend due to the storm.
>
> Bill
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs
> From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> My expertise level may be closer to yours, rather than some of our
> esteemed electro-gurus.
>
> I think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our
> premium members on this list, same as you.
>
> But......it does sound like you are the right path with the stereo
> inputs. I can't speak for the duplex nature of
> the iPhone hook-up, though. While the Pin J may work for the "voice
in"
> part of the iPhone, I don't know
> how the "hearing" part would work.
>
> We need one of the 'truly qualified" to address this one for ya.
> Sorry I am not more help.
>
> If you can't get someone here on the list to speak with authority on
> this matter, I'd suggest calling Icom.
> They ought to know where to proceed.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>Hi All,
>I just found out about this very important survey regarding
>homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for
>homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per
>100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts).
>This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out
>about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into
>placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA
>convinced them to look at this survey before making any new rules.
>Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>Time is now the issue.
Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
were for the accidents and why anyone is led
to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
airplane is causation for the difference.
I note further that questionair's interest
in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
systems. I also wonder where the accident study
gets their numbers for total hours flown for
the two classes of aircraft.
Aside from entering recent experience numbers
on a medical every two years, I don't recall
that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
I flew.
Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
of government, this has the look and smell
of expansion of organization at the expense
of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
reject certain risks.
Exactly what is entered on this survey will
have little or no effect on outcome. As one
wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
statistics are made up on the spot." I
fear that this is but another cloud of
floobydust kicked up to distract from the
real agenda.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
>>
>> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>> Hi All,
>> I just found out about this very important survey regarding
>> homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident
>> rate for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft
>> (12 accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K
>> hours for homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11
>> which is how I found out about the survey. The article stated
>> that the FAA is looking into placing more restrictions on the
>> homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to look at this
>> survey before making any new rules.
>> Here is the link:
>> http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>> Time is now the issue.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
I had the same thoughts, Bob...I also am a bit skeptical...but
it's all we have at the moment! So, I filled it out in the hope
that the results just MIGHT make some kind of impression on
someone...I can't do anything by myself...and I don't want anyone
to restrict my freedom of flying because I can't afford the fees/
So thanks to the EAA for at least giving it a shot. Even though
they are fighting our wonderful government, once in awhile things
get decided in our favor.
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
certificated aircraft.
The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though. I
see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtail
the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately,
we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of high-quality
articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested
parties.
As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data. I
started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying
experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce the
accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not
even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and
that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't
like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots falling
out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better we
fix it ourselves.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Maintenace Charger |
You might also check RV sites. I eventually bought a unit that
supposedly charges low batteries, then maintains them at an optimum
level, all while using the least amount of electricity. I think it was
$100 or so and has 80 amp capability. If needed, I can go get the name
of the unit (will take some time, though).
David
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 09:57 AM 8/29/2011, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob;
>>
>> Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific
>> recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I have
>> 6 U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle wet
>> cells rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps for
>> the system. Anything out there that you think would work well.
>
> If you're simply wanting to maintain batteries
> that are topped off at the time the RV is parked,
> just about anything would work. But if you want
> to top-off less-than-full batteries, then something
> a bit more robust would be called for.
>
> Anything with Schumacher's name on it would be a
> good bet. Here's a 12A, processor controlled charger/
> maintainer you can probably pick up at Walmart
> for $50 or so.
> Emacs!
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Kitplanes had a series of articles recently that showed accident numbers
derived from the NTSB data.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>> Hi All,
>> I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt
>> aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts
>> is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours
>> w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was
>> reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the
>> survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more
>> restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to
>> look at this survey before making any new rules.
>> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>> Time is now the issue.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Part of the issue with accident "rates" is that they are usually divided by
hours flown. After all, the number of accidents doesn't mean anything
without some sort of context. Imagine two cases, one where 5 airplanes crash
in a year, and the airplanes in that group flew 5000 hours. The following
year, 6 crash, but the group flew 7000 hours. The number of accidents rose,
but the accident rate per hour flown decreased.
EAB aircraft are becoming more numerous, so the increase in
accident occurrences may or may not actually be leading to a higher accident
rate. Since the FAA has no idea how many hours we fly experimental airplanes
(or most other light GA airplanes by that matter), they make a guess and
hope for the best. Since the number of hours flown is the denominator of
most of these rates, then an increase in hours will decrease the accident
rate. The opposite is also true of course. A good survey could make that
guess more accurate, which will therefore improve the accuracy of the rates.
If they are underestimating our hours, then the rates will improve even if
the total number of accidents per year does not decrease. I don't know if
this survey will serve that purpose, since I haven't taken it. I'm also not
flying an experimental airplane currently.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
> Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
> certificated aircraft.
>
> The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though.
> I see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtail
> the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately,
> we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of high-quality
> articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
> problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
> title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested
> parties.
>
> As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data. I
> started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying
> experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
>
> The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce
> the accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not
> even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and
> that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't
> like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots falling
> out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
> portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better we
> fix it ourselves.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
>> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
>> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
>> airplane is causation for the difference.
>>
>> I note further that questionair's interest
>> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
>> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
>> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
>> the two classes of aircraft.
>>
>> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
>> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
>> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
>> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
>> I flew.
>>
>> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
>> of government, this has the look and smell
>> of expansion of organization at the expense
>> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
>> reject certain risks.
>>
>> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
>> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
>> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
>> statistics are made up on the spot." I
>> fear that this is but another cloud of
>> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
>> real agenda.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ====**==============================**=
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**
>> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ====**==============================**=
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ====**==============================**=
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**contribution
>> ====**==============================**=
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono |
gAttached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears
to me that they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If this
drawing is correct then the tip is grounded when the switch is in the
"mono" position. The ring would also be grounded when a mono plug is
inserted in the jack so this can't work. Am I missing something???
Thanks.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | stereo/mono audio switching |
Attached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears to me that
they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If it's correct the audio
goes to the "ring" in the jack when the switch is in "mono." That would ground
it when a mono plug is inserted in the jack. Am I missing something?
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
| From: | "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com> |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyone
> see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low voltage"
> warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
>
> Yes, you want ov protection to be automatic and
> FAST . . . MILLISECOND fast.
>
>
Thank you, Bob, I am glad this list exists so that we can learn, craft
fundamentally sound designs, and improve the status quo in aircraft
electrical design!
Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit such as
the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot indication of low
voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned module like the 9005 (or
combination like the LR3C), if we chose to use the EIS4000 and its
annunciator system, would there be any undesirable effects?
Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical
regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation?
-Jeff-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
I completed mine. No problem.
On 8/30/2011 9:58 AM, Harley wrote:
>
>
> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
> Hi All,
> I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt
> aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts
> is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours
> w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was
> reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the
> survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more
> restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to
> look at this survey before making any new rules.
> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
> Time is now the issue.
>
> Harley
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11 |
| From: | Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
good comments.
government wants to control everything.. like soviets.
not very many people killed below because of a falling experimental... thus
that won't wash.
the pilot may kill himself, that is his choice.
what they don't look at is hours of proficiency. How many folks want to
build an airplane (cheap) and then go fly it (newbie) with less than 100 hr
s
of prior flight time!!! what a recipe for disaster. And when it breaks a
little and it takes a year to fix it, not many hours per year... more lack
of piloting skills. So ask a more basic additional question(s) how many
hours does the average dead experiemental pilot have total, and how many
hours does the average dead experiemental pilot have in the last year....
vs. certified airplane spam can pilot? I am putting twice or three times th
e
hrs on my C182 than I did my glastar. cause way too often it was "no go"
broke when I had a trip I had to make.
bobf
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:56 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> ========================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&
Chapter 11-08-30&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&C
hapter 11-08-30&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Tue 08/30/11: 12
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:19 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 (Willi
am
> Day)
> 2. 07:01 AM - Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley)
> 3. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11
> (Michael Welch)
> 4. 01:41 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III)
> 5. 02:44 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley)
> 6. 02:56 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Ralph Finch)
> 7. 04:48 PM - Re: Maintenace Charger (David)
> 8. 05:57 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (David)
> 9. 06:43 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Jared Yates)
> 10. 06:43 PM - Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono (John Grosse)
> 11. 06:59 PM - stereo/mono audio switching (John Grosse)
> 12. 09:14 PM - Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture (Jeff B.)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: William Day <wlday18(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/
11
>
> Mike=0A-=0ATried emailling Icom, not much luck.=0A-=0AWill try to
call
> when I get home from work.=0A-=0ALost power over the weekend due to t
he s
AeroElec
> tric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs=0AFrom: Michael Welch
anwelch7(at)hotmail.com>=0A=0AHi Bill,=0A=0A- My expertise level may
be clos
> er to yours, rather than some of our =0Aesteemed electro-gurus.=0A=
0A- I
> think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our =0Aprem
ium
> members on this list, same as you.- =0A=0A- But......it does sound li
ke
> you are the right path with the stereo =0Ainputs.- I can't speak for t
he
> duplex nature of =0Athe iPhone hook-up, though.- While the Pin J may w
or
> k for the "voice in" =0Apart of the iPhone, I don't know =0Ahow the "
hearin
> g" part would work.=0A=0A- We need one of the 'truly qualified" to ad
dres
> s this one for ya.- =0ASorry I am not more help.=0A=0A- If you can'
t ge
> t someone here on the list to speak with authority on =0Athis matter, I
'd s
> uggest calling Icom.=0AThey ought to know where to proceed.=0A=0AMi
ke Welch
> =0A
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
>
>
> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
> Hi All,
> I just found out about this very important survey regarding
> homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate
> for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12
> accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for
> homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how
> I found out about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is
> looking into placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community
> and the EAA convinced them to look at this survey before making
> any new rules.
> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
> Time is now the issue.
>
> Harley
>
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs -
> 08/27/11
> From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Bill,
>
> I made a quick call for you to Icom. In answer to your question about
> hooking up an iPhone....not quite, sort of.
>
> I'll explain. The tech support guy said "No", you can't do it
> directly, BUT, he is pretty sure there are devices available
> at ACS, Pacific Avionics, etc, etc. He called them "external devises".
>
> I asked him if there was a diagram that showed which pin goes to
> where, but he said that all that information
> would be included with the external device. He said the external device
> already has the 'engineering' and electronics,
> and would include a pin diagram for easy installation.
>
> So, you 'may' be able to hook up an iPhone, but check with the
> avionics houses and see what they have.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Day wrote:
>
> > Mike
> >
> > Tried emailling Icom, not much luck.
> >
> > Will try to call when I get home from work.
> >
> > Lost power over the weekend due to the storm.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs
> > From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > My expertise level may be closer to yours, rather than some of our
>
> > esteemed electro-gurus.
> >
> > I think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our
> > premium members on this list, same as you.
> >
> > But......it does sound like you are the right path with the stereo
>
> > inputs. I can't speak for the duplex nature of
> > the iPhone hook-up, though. While the Pin J may work for the "voice
> in"
> > part of the iPhone, I don't know
> > how the "hearing" part would work.
> >
> > We need one of the 'truly qualified" to address this one for ya.
> > Sorry I am not more help.
> >
> > If you can't get someone here on the list to speak with authority on
>
> > this matter, I'd suggest calling Icom.
> > They ought to know where to proceed.
> >
> > Mike Welch
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
>
>
> At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
> >Hi All,
> >I just found out about this very important survey regarding
> >homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for
> >homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per
> >100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts).
> >This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out
> >about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into
> >placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA
> >convinced them to look at this survey before making any new rules.
> >Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
> >Time is now the issue.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
>
>
> >>
> >> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
> >> Hi All,
> >> I just found out about this very important survey regarding
> >> homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident
> >> rate for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft
> >> (12 accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K
> >> hours for homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11
> >> which is how I found out about the survey. The article stated
> >> that the FAA is looking into placing more restrictions on the
> >> homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to look at this
> >> survey before making any new rules.
> >> Here is the link:
> >> http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
> >> Time is now the issue.
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> > were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> > airplane is causation for the difference.
> >
> > I note further that questionair's interest
> > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> > systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> > gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> > the two classes of aircraft.
> >
> > Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> > on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> > I flew.
> >
> > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> > of government, this has the look and smell
> > of expansion of organization at the expense
> > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> > reject certain risks.
> >
> > Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> > have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> > statistics are made up on the spot." I
> > fear that this is but another cloud of
> > floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> > real agenda.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> I had the same thoughts, Bob...I also am a bit skeptical...but
> it's all we have at the moment! So, I filled it out in the hope
> that the results just MIGHT make some kind of impression on
> someone...I can't do anything by myself...and I don't want anyone
> to restrict my freedom of flying because I can't afford the fees/
>
> So thanks to the EAA for at least giving it a shot. Even though
> they are fighting our wonderful government, once in awhile things
> get decided in our favor.
>
> Harley
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
>
> I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
> Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
> certificated aircraft.
>
> The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though
.
> I
> see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtai
l
> the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately
,
> we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of
> high-quality
> articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
> problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
> title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested
> parties.
>
> As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data.
I
> started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying
> experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
>
> The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce
> the
> accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not
> even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and
> that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't
> like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots fallin
g
> out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
> portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better w
e
> fix it ourselves.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> > were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> > airplane is causation for the difference.
> >
> > I note further that questionair's interest
> > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> > systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> > gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> > the two classes of aircraft.
> >
> > Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> > on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> > I flew.
> >
> > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> > of government, this has the look and smell
> > of expansion of organization at the expense
> > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> > reject certain risks.
> >
> > Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> > have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> > statistics are made up on the spot." I
> > fear that this is but another cloud of
> > floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> > real agenda.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: David <ainut(at)knology.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Maintenace Charger
>
>
> You might also check RV sites. I eventually bought a unit that
> supposedly charges low batteries, then maintains them at an optimum
> level, all while using the least amount of electricity. I think it was
> $100 or so and has 80 amp capability. If needed, I can go get the name
> of the unit (will take some time, though).
>
> David
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > At 09:57 AM 8/29/2011, you wrote:
> >> Hi Bob;
> >>
> >> Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific
> >> recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I have
> >> 6 U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle wet
> >> cells rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps for
> >> the system. Anything out there that you think would work well.
> >
> > If you're simply wanting to maintain batteries
> > that are topped off at the time the RV is parked,
> > just about anything would work. But if you want
> > to top-off less-than-full batteries, then something
> > a bit more robust would be called for.
> >
> > Anything with Schumacher's name on it would be a
> > good bet. Here's a 12A, processor controlled charger/
> > maintainer you can probably pick up at Walmart
> > for $50 or so.
> > Emacs!
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
> get rid
> of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
> morality
> and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type o
f
> gubmnt
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: David <ainut(at)knology.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
>
>
> Kitplanes had a series of articles recently that showed accident numbers
> derived from the NTSB data.
>
> David M.
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> > At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
> >> Hi All,
> >> I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt
> >> aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts
> >> is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours
> >> w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was
> >> reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the
> >> survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more
> >> restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to
> >> look at this survey before making any new rules.
> >> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
> >> Time is now the issue.
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> > were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> > airplane is causation for the difference.
> >
> > I note further that questionair's interest
> > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> > systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> > gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> > the two classes of aircraft.
> >
> > Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> > on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> > I flew.
> >
> > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> > of government, this has the look and smell
> > of expansion of organization at the expense
> > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> > reject certain risks.
> >
> > Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> > have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> > statistics are made up on the spot." I
> > fear that this is but another cloud of
> > floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> > real agenda.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
> get rid
> of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
> morality
> and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type o
f
> gubmnt
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
> From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
>
> Part of the issue with accident "rates" is that they are usually divided
by
> hours flown. After all, the number of accidents doesn't mean anything
> without some sort of context. Imagine two cases, one where 5 airplanes
> crash
> in a year, and the airplanes in that group flew 5000 hours. The followin
g
> year, 6 crash, but the group flew 7000 hours. The number of accidents
> rose,
> but the accident rate per hour flown decreased.
>
> EAB aircraft are becoming more numerous, so the increase in
> accident occurrences may or may not actually be leading to a higher
> accident
> rate. Since the FAA has no idea how many hours we fly experimental
> airplanes
> (or most other light GA airplanes by that matter), they make a guess and
> hope for the best. Since the number of hours flown is the denominator of
> most of these rates, then an increase in hours will decrease the accident
> rate. The opposite is also true of course. A good survey could make tha
t
> guess more accurate, which will therefore improve the accuracy of the
> rates.
> If they are underestimating our hours, then the rates will improve even
if
> the total number of accidents per year does not decrease. I don't know i
f
> this survey will serve that purpose, since I haven't taken it. I'm also
> not
> flying an experimental airplane currently.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ralph Finch >wrote:
>
> > I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
> > Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
> > certificated aircraft.
> >
> > The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated
> though.
> > I see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or
> curtail
> > the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem.
> Fortunately,
> > we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of
> high-quality
> > articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
> > problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
> > title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interest
ed
> > parties.
> >
> > As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data
.
> I
> > started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flyin
g
> > experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
> >
> > The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduc
e
> > the accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft
> accident--not
> > even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, a
nd
> > that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn
't
> > like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots
> falling
> > out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
> > portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better
> we
> > fix it ourselves.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> >
> >> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> >> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> >> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> >> airplane is causation for the difference.
> >>
> >> I note further that questionair's interest
> >> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> >> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> >> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> >> the two classes of aircraft.
> >>
> >> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> >> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> >> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> >> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> >> I flew.
> >>
> >> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> >> of government, this has the look and smell
> >> of expansion of organization at the expense
> >> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> >> reject certain risks.
> >>
> >> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> >> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> >> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> >> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> >> fear that this is but another cloud of
> >> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> >> real agenda.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob . . .
> >>
> >> ====**==================
============**
> >> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**
> >> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> ====**==================
============**
> >> http://forums.matronics.com
> >> ====**==================
============**
> >> le, List Admin.
> >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**contribution
> >> ====**==================
============**
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono
>
> gAttached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears
> to me that they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If this
> drawing is correct then the tip is grounded when the switch is in the
> "mono" position. The ring would also be grounded when a mono plug is
> inserted in the jack so this can't work. Am I missing something???
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: stereo/mono audio switching
>
> Attached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears to
me
> that
> they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If it's correct the aud
io
> goes to the "ring" in the jack when the switch is in "mono." That would
> ground
> it when a mono plug is inserted in the jack. Am I missing something?
>
> John Grosse
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A load analysis/architecture
> From: "Jeff B." <loboflyer(at)gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
> >
> > Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyon
e
> > see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low voltag
e"
> > warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
> >
> > Yes, you want ov protection to be automatic and
> > FAST . . . MILLISECOND fast.
> >
> >
> Thank you, Bob, I am glad this list exists so that we can learn, craft
> fundamentally sound designs, and improve the status quo in aircraft
> electrical design!
>
> Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit such as
> the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot indication of lo
w
> voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned module like the 9005 (
or
> combination like the LR3C), if we chose to use the EIS4000 and its
> annunciator system, would there be any undesirable effects?
>
> Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical
> regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation?
>
> -Jeff-
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
=93I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.=94
'
Wayne Gretzkey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Day <wlday18(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11 |
Mike=0A-=0AI did the same, and got the same answer.=0A-=0AThank you for
your help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
>Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit
>such as the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot
>indication of low voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned
>module like the 9005 (or combination like the LR3C), if we chose to
>use the EIS4000 and its annunciator system, would there be any
>undesirable effects?
Oh, I mis-uderstood. I've often been asked about
using a panel indication of overvoltage as incentive
for a pilot to turn the alternator off.
My preference for low voltage indication is a
sun-light viewable flashing light unique to that
task. If the EIS system has warning tones or
a particularly annoying display of an out-of-
bounds parameter, that would be a practical
alternative.
>Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical
>regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation?
No, it's a solid state device but that's all
I know about it. Transpo has been around for
a long time. They're now part of WAI Global.
http://www.wai-wetherill.com/
There's no reason to swap out the regulator
if you have sufficient information on how
to hook it up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt survey |
Hi All-
The feds have been trying to isolate safety trends in the EAB universe for some
time. That is why they want my plane registered as an RV-8, even though Van
did not build it. This also ties into the EAB community's claim that professional
assistance leads to safer aircraft. And for those (like me)who have yet
to fly, the chicken little charge against EAB aircraft will undoubtedly contain
rhetoric about unqualified knuckleheads and crackpots in their garages with
a stack of 2x4's. Filling out the questionnaire with your aeronautical experience
and educational background will go a long way towards disproving that position.
And, as ever, participation numbers generated by our rank and file will
give the feds an idea as to whether or not they will get any resistance to proposed
restrictions on our dearly held freedoms'
Not that I have an opinion.... ;-)
I would implore you all to swamp them with positive info.
FWIW-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Harley...don't get excited. I also note that you have posted these..."run in circles,
scream and shout" viral notices on this website previously.
This sounds to me like a hoax or at least a waste of time. The FAA has all the
tools needed to get any information without anyone here getting excited.
Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached.
--------
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=351089#351089
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pictures_sept05_001_167.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Morning, Eric...*
Harley...don't get excited.
*I never get excited...;-)
*
I also note that you have posted these..."run in circles, scream
and shout" viral notices on this website previously.
I*have? I don't recall any ...unless you are talking about my
telling people to stay away from a couple of links that AVG
marked as having viruses. I know for a fact that many here don't
update their anti-virus software or even don't have any. I often
receive emails after posting warnings like that thanking me for
pointing it out to them and stating that they just updated their
anti-virus software. **Just trying to help. *
This sounds to me like a hoax or at least a waste of time.
*I'm not sure it's a waste of time...the FAA is planning a number
of new fees and restrictions to GA pilots, and anything that
anyone can do to let them know that they are barking up the wrong
tree and that there are other ways to save money is good in my
opinion. And the EAA is the only power we have. Tim LaDolce over
in the canard aviators forum sent me that (he also posted it in
the forum)...so I posted it here and on a couple of other
aviation forums as well.
*
The FAA has all the tools needed to get any information without
anyone here getting excited.
*Tools they continually change with little regard for us guys...
*
Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached.
*Why is he lying down (the photo was rotated, in case you missed
it)? ;-)
*-------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood
Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net *
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Listers,
I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I
know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one
radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if
there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single
antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task?
I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it
bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like
something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
>
>Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached.
>
>Why is he lying down (the photo was rotated, in case you missed it)? ;-)
Probably taken Sunday after a two day, 12-hour
stand up presentation. Eric and I met at a weekend
seminar about 6 years ago in Plymouth, MA.
That was a weekend to remember! Missed connections
going out. Arrived at motel after midnight. Slipped
in shower and busted my butt. Delivered the presentation
with a big bruise on my buns. Had a flight
cancelled on the way back and got to spend the
night in Detroit. Dropped a bag in the motel
parking lot and broke two bottles of wire. AC
in room didn't work so we played musical rooms
until finding one suitable for getting some
sleep about midnight. Had to be up at o-dark
thirty to catch plane for Wichita.
I wonder what I looked like when I got home!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Eric,=0A=0AThe FAA may have all the tools need to do a lot of things, but t
hey are government sloths that can't figure anything out. -They have to h
ire people to actually do something. -The problem is that they won't hire
anyone. -Instead, they will just simply ram rod new regulations without
regard to the GA community and without doing their real homework. -If any
body has any problems with it, it's after the fact.=0A=0AHere's an example
of government inefficiency and ineptness. Remember the Casey Anthony trial
down in Orlando? -Well, she was found not guilty, because the jury decide
d there simply wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty. -In other words
, the prosecution should have never gone to trial. -They were hoping to s
nooker the jury into making an emotional decision. -After they lost, they
were on TV congratulating each other for a great job done. -What great j
ob? -They lost! -In the commercial world, they would have be considered
flunkies! -Now the lead prosecutor is writing a book! -I bet you he wo
n't mention his ineptness! -The FAA guys are the same way.=0A-=0AHenado
r Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Eric M. Jones
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wednes
day, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Homebuilt S
ones" =0A=0AHarley...don't get excited. I also note th
at you have posted these..."run in circles, scream and shout" viral notices
on this website previously.=0A=0AThis sounds to me like a hoax or at least
a waste of time. The FAA has all the tools needed to get any information w
ithout anyone here getting excited.=0A=0AHey, here's a good photo of Bob Nu
ckolls attached.=0A=0A--------=0AEric M. Jones=0Awww.PerihelionDesign.com
=0A113 Brentwood Drive=0ASouthbridge, MA 01550=0A(508) 764-2072=0Aemjones@c
harter.net=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.ma
tronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351089#351089=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A
=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com//files/pictures_sept05_001_167.jpg=0A=0A=0A
=========================0A
===================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Stan -
It depends on your goals.
If you only want to use one radio at a time, a physical, mechanical coax
switch will do the job easily and inexpensively. Amateur radio
operators commonly use coax switches to switch one radio among multiple
antennas - works just as well the other way around.
But you if you mount a coax switch, the other radio is completely out of
the circuit - you can't talk on one and monitor the other.
I have seen adaptations of transmit/receive relays that would allow
attaching two radios to one antenna. In effect, when the operator keys
radio A, the T/R relay disconnects radio B, preventing back-feed damage.
This type of arrangement would allow you to use one radio and monitor
the other. These critters are scarce, and since it's an active device,
they tend to be expensive and temperamental.
neal
-----Original Message-----
Listers,
I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I
know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one
radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder
if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use
the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task?
I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it
bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like
something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net> |
Stan,
The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case
of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the primary
radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any
information to pass along about this device.
One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick
mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The
Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer
would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning.
Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum-wiring
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
Listers,
I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I
know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one
radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if
there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the
single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task?
I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it
bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like
something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
That was a weekend to remember! Missed connections
going out. Arrived at motel after midnight. Slipped
in shower and busted my butt. Delivered the presentation
with a big bruise on my buns. Had a flight
cancelled on the way back and got to spend the
night in Detroit. Dropped a bag in the motel
parking lot and broke two bottles of wire. AC
in room didn't work so we played musical rooms
until finding one suitable for getting some
sleep about midnight. Had to be up at o-dark
thirty to catch plane for Wichita.
I wonder what I looked like when I got home!
Bob . . .
Other than that. . . Was it a good weekend?
=98=BA
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Henador,
Actually the FAA is trying to pick up the pieces and repair the damage from
the criminally incompetent private sector. The homebuilders have all the
tools they need to get the accident rate down, but being a bunch of private
crooks they won't do it. The government has to step in to actually fix it.
Instead of cooperating, the private sector just stonewalls and denies.
Here are some examples of private criminality and incompetence. Remember the
Enron scandal in Texas, the Wall Street derivative trading, the
owner-verified housing loans, the huge BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
they couldn't stop for months? Well, if that happened in government they
wouldn't get a promotion anymore. But in private, they get trillion-dollar
bailouts, and $100 million bonuses! Who needs to write a book with a bonus
like that, huh?
Ralph Finch
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henador
Titzoff
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
Eric,
The FAA may have all the tools need to do a lot of things, but they are
government sloths that can't figure anything out. They have to hire people
to actually do something. The problem is that they won't hire anyone.
Instead, they will just simply ram rod new regulations without regard to the
GA community and without doing their real homework. If anybody has any
problems with it, it's after the fact.
Here's an example of government inefficiency and ineptness. Remember the
Casey Anthony trial down in Orlando? Well, she was found not guilty,
because the jury decided there simply wasn't enough evidence to find her
guilty. In other words, the prosecution should have never gone to trial.
They were hoping to snooker the jury into making an emotional decision.
After they lost, they were on TV congratulating each other for a great job
done. What great job? They lost! In the commercial world, they would have
be considered flunkies! Now the lead prosecutor is writing a book! I bet
you he won't mention his ineptness! The FAA guys are the same way.
Henador Titzoff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
What plane are you flying? If it is composite the handheld should work
fine; anyway, mine does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Barter
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
Stan,
The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In
case of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the
primary radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do
you have any information to pass along about this device.
One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the
stick mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary
radio. The Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The
simple answer would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it
is malfunctioning. Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum-wiring
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
Listers,
I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna.
I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because
one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I
wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio
to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the
task?
I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted
it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd
like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft
radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matroni
cs.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net> |
The Magnum is a rag and tube taildragger with dimensions similar to a Super
Cub. Others in similar planes have told me that their hand helds with just
the rubber duckie antenna work to varying degrees, depending on range and
altitude. I seem to recall a posting by Bob some time ago regarding how
much improved hand held performance would be if connect to the comm antenna.
If there is a simple way to accomplish this while isolating the panel
mounted main radio, I would like to do it.
A few years ago at Oshkosh I listened to a NTSB investigator describe an
incident with the chain of events leading to a crash with fatalities. A
electrical failure on a night cross country in west Texas prevented the
pilot of a 152 from turning on the lights at the last airport available
before running out of fuel. (Remember, chain of events.) Had they been
carrying a hand held radio, (or wired with Z13-8), the outcome may have been
different.
Some time ago Jim Weir published an article in Kitplanes magazine about
using a mini plug and receptacle to do this, but I think there ended up
being some problems with it.
Tom Barter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of F. Tim
Yoder
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
What plane are you flying? If it is composite the handheld should work fine;
anyway, mine does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Barter <mailto:kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
Stan,
The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case
of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the primary
radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any
information to pass along about this device.
One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick
mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The
Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer
would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning.
Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum-wiring
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter
Listers,
I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I
know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one
radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if
there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the
single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task?
I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it
bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like
something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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
________________________________________________________________________________
A quick question: I have been in a bit of a stall in building my panel, bu
t finally making headway again.
A year or 3 ago I bought a light strip from Being seen technology. This is
a nice strip of tape that gives what seems to be a moderate to low level o
f light, just about right to light up a my panel. There is a small transf
ormer type package that powers the strip. I find I cannot find the owners
manual that may have come with it and the web site is not present. It seem
s to work off a low current , 200+ volt system.. I have held my hand held
Nav-com close to this and do not get any interference until just about to
uching the power module.
Anybody else using this type of product?
What is the likely hood of interference? VOR, GPS, COM and a Dynon 10A?
Clearly fairly low cost LED strips are available now, so that is a clea
r , relatively low cost, non ulcer producing option.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
UMA can probably point you in the right direction for Electro-Luminescent
strip lighting information: www.umainstruments.com
Kind regards, 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
jtortho(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:51 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thin film light
A quick question: I have been in a bit of a stall in building my panel, but
finally making headway again.
A year or 3 ago I bought a light strip from Being seen technology. This is a
nice strip of tape that gives what seems to be a moderate to low level of
light, just about right to light up a my panel. There is a small
transformer type package that powers the strip. I find I cannot find the
owners manual that may have come with it and the web site is not present.
It seems to work off a low current , 200+ volt system.. I have held my
hand held Nav-com close to this and do not get any interference until just
about touching the power module.
Anybody else using this type of product?
What is the likely hood of interference? VOR, GPS, COM and a Dynon 10A?
Clearly fairly low cost LED strips are available now, so that is a clear
, relatively low cost, non ulcer producing option.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
>Who needs to write a book with a bonus like that, huh?
>
>Ralph Finch
Let's give this one a rest folks. If you have
specifics to discuss about FAA actions with
respect to OBAM aviation, fine. But the
sand and mud balls are being gathered up from
far afield and have no direct bearing on helping
folks on the List deal with a relevant bureaucracy
. . . or build airplanes.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
At 10:11 AM 8/31/2011, you wrote:
>Listers,
>I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one
>antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same
>time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav
>signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will
>allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an
>audio panel accomplish the task?
>I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is
>inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft
>radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between
>two aircraft radios.
There are things called 'diplexers' that will
prevent two transmitters on the same antenna
from destroying the opposite receiver but they're
VERY expensive and I'm not sure they can be had
for a broad frequency range like the VHF comm band.
Years ago I built an adapter that might serve your
purposes. It was a combination "splitter" in the
common receive mode so both radios could listen
simultaneously. When one of the transmitters was
selected and then keyed to talk, a relay disconnected
the opposite radio from the antenna system and made
a hard connection to the comm antenna for the
transmitter in use.
That was about 30 yeara ago and hand wired. I could
probably do a much more compact version on an
etched circuit board with captive BNC connectors
Should go together a lot quicker and be smaller
too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Some time ago Jim Weir published an article in Kitplanes magazine
>about using a mini plug and receptacle to do this, but I think there
>ended up being some problems with it.
>
>Tom Barter
We had some discussion a about the Tap-Jack
that would let a hand-held take ownership
of the ship's external VHF comm antenna.
I built one here . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/CommTap-Jack.jpg
. . . and bought an ICOM product to disassemble
here . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_Hand_Held_Adapter_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_Hand_Held_Adapter_2.jpg
Two problems: (1) The ICOM product made not the slightest
pretense for maintaining feed line integrity through
the device. (2) The quality of miniature, closed circuit
phone jacks generally suck for air. I just couldn't
get excited about this gizmo as a product. I think my
recommendations at the time called for having a cable-
male to cable-female junction in the antenna feed line be
accessible in flight. You could break into the coax using
a short piece of coax off your hand-held fitted with the
appropriate connectors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Unless you happen to live in Somalia, Government is here to stay. So the OBAM community
has two choices: engage the regulator to its best advantage, or ignore
it and reap the consequences.
It's not unreasonable for the regulator to seek more data to help it formulate
policy. It's gonna make policies whether you like it or not, and the OBAM side
is gonna come into it, whether it likes it or not too. There's no need to sell
your soul in the process, but at least you can help steer it in the direction
you want.
--------
Mike
Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351171#351171
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | Don't Shoot the Messenger |
A few facts and a couple opinions before presenting my take of the NTSB sur
vey:
1. The homebuilt/experimental accident rate is much higher than that
for certified GA
2. The daily NTSB preliminary aviation accident reports document the
creative (and oftentimes stupid) ways GA pilots find to crash, hurt or kill
themselves. They're on the internet available for all to read.
3. In all NTSB prelim reports, the word EXPERIMENTAL, if appropriate,
is contained in the first sentence - pretty high vis.
4. Opinion: The non-aviation civilian sector thinks GA flying is inhe
rently dangerous and our "Piper Cubs" are a heartbeat away from falling out
of the sky - on them!
5. Opinion: The word "EXPERIMENTAL" scares the folks referred to in
(4) above even more.
Even if you disagree with 4 - 5, you can't dispute (1). Seems to me a forma
l attempt to find the root cause(s) is a worthwhile endeavor - while acknow
ledging the inherent disgust/distrust of the NTSB/FAA bureaucracy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Why won't they just leave us alone?
David M.
mmayfield wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmayfield"
>
> Unless you happen to live in Somalia, Government is here to stay. So the OBAM
community has two choices: engage the regulator to its best advantage, or ignore
it and reap the consequences.
>
> It's not unreasonable for the regulator to seek more data to help it formulate
policy. It's gonna make policies whether you like it or not, and the OBAM side
is gonna come into it, whether it likes it or not too. There's no need to sell
your soul in the process, but at least you can help steer it in the direction
you want.
>
> --------
> Mike
>
> Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351171#351171
>
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Beech alternator fail "relay" |
>> That 'relay' was in fact a little two-transistor, plus jelly-beans
dc voltage level sensor. I rememberit well.
I think this may have predated you... I found it on my buddy's '59
V-tail Bonanza. Sure looked JUST like a 6 VAC relay to me. :-)
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
Tom,
I used the Icom box that Bob mentioned. But, after Bob's comments, you
may want to not consider the Icom product. Anyway you can view my photos of
it at _http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm_ (http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm) and
scroll down to 7 Feb. I have not given it a rigorous checkout, so take
Bob's comments as those of a professional.
Here is the Aircraft Spruce link to see their ad -
_http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/icomswitchbox.php_
(http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/icomswitchbox.php)
Regards,
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 9/1/2011 3:04:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case
of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the
primary
radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any
information to pass along about this device.
One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick
mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The
Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer
would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning.
Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
Avid Magnum-wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions.
I'm flying a RV-8A and using one radio at a time would be fine - both
radios also have a second freq monitor capability. I assumed there was some
type of coax manual switch available, but I was unsure where to search.
Has anyone heard of the Narco VP-16? Another guy on the list has one for
sale but I have no experience with them. Would it be suitable to safely
split the signal? I'd hate to risk damaging two high dollar radios.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 9/1/2011 3:04:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
It depends on your goals.
If you only want to use one radio at a time, a physical, mechanical coax
switch will do the job easily and inexpensively. Amateur radio
operators commonly use coax switches to switch one radio among multiple
antennas - works just as well the other way around.
But you if you mount a coax switch, the other radio is completely out of
the circuit - you can't talk on one and monitor the other.
I have seen adaptations of transmit/receive relays that would allow
attaching two radios to one antenna. In effect, when the operator keys
radio A, the T/R relay disconnects radio B, preventing back-feed damage.
This type of arrangement would allow you to use one radio and monitor
the other. These critters are scarce, and since it's an active device,
they tend to be expensive and temperamental.
neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Because when we fall out of the sky at the high rates we do, too often we
hit someone or something on the ground. If we would just kill only ourselves
and destroy only our own property....
RF
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, David wrote:
>
> Why won't they just leave us alone?
>
> David M.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech alternator fail "relay" |
At 04:07 PM 9/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> >> That 'relay' was in fact a little two-transistor, plus
> jelly-beans dc voltage level sensor. I rememberit well.
>
>I think this may have predated you... I found it on my buddy's '59
>V-tail Bonanza. Sure looked JUST like a 6 VAC relay to me. :-)
An alternator on a '59 Bonanza? This must have been
some sort of after market mod. I don't think any alternators
were finding their way onto Wichita production aircraft
before about 1968 or thereabouts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
At 08:54 PM 9/1/2011, you wrote:
>Tom,
>I used the Icom box that Bob mentioned. But, after Bob's comments,
>you may want to not consider the Icom product. Anyway you can view
>my photos of it at
><http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm>http://www.rv-8a.net/2008.htm and
>scroll down to 7 Feb. I have not given it a rigorous checkout, so
>take Bob's comments as those of a professional.
>Here is the Aircraft Spruce link to see their ad -
><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/icomswitchbox.php>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/icomswitchbox.php
Those miniature closed circuit jacks will probably
work as advertised for several years. I'd go for
a Switchcraft or similar product. Corrosion and
loss of contact pressure over time puts the panel
mounted radio at-risk for loss of connection to
the antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal splitter |
At 09:07 PM 9/1/2011, you wrote:
>Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions.
>I'm flying a RV-8A and using one radio at a time would be fine -
>both radios also have a second freq monitor capability. I assumed
>there was some type of coax manual switch available, but I was
>unsure where to search.
>Has anyone heard of the Narco VP-16? Another guy on the list has
>one for sale but I have no experience with them. Would it be
>suitable to safely split the signal? I'd hate to risk damaging two
>high dollar radios.
I've attached a sketch for a modern incarnation
of the device I mentioned earlier today. It takes
4, surface mounted dpdt relays. The relays are wired
such that when neither PTT is active, the receivers
are both connected to the antenna through a modern
power splitter.
Energize either PTT and the opposite receiver is
disconnected, it's audio is quieted through a set
of relay contacts and the splitter is isolated from
the antenna.
The whole assembly can be put on an etched circuit
board about 2" x 2.5". Power, audio and PTT signals
are brought off through a 9 pin d-sub. The relays
are miniature DPDT devices mounted over a solid
ground plane to minimize effects to feed-line
integrity.
It's configured such that +14v power has to be
present on the board before EITHER radio can be
keyed. This prevents loss of power from allowing
a transmitter to be keyed without benefit of
protection by transferring the proper contacts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Two Radios, One Antenna |
Here's a refined concept of the device I was talking
about yesterday. The bill of materials for this gizmo
would be on the order of $50. It would have to sell
for $100 to $125 with mating connectors as a kit.
Seems like a lot of fuss to avoid putting a second
antenna on the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas Barter" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net> |
| Subject: | Two Radios, One Antenna |
My goal is to be able to connect the hand held to the antenna if the main
comm should be unusable. No duplexing needed. Would a device like the one
shown be suitable for the task? Feed the antenna lead into the common, and
connect the main radio to one output and the handheld jack to the other. I
realize that these devices are rated for certain frequency bands, and one
would need to be sure it was functional across the A/C comm range.
Tom Barter
-----Original Message-----
Here's a refined concept of the device I was talking
about yesterday. The bill of materials for this gizmo
would be on the order of $50. It would have to sell
for $100 to $125 with mating connectors as a kit.
Seems like a lot of fuss to avoid putting a second
antenna on the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two Radios, One Antenna |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
If your feed line is routed in a way that makes a switch like that accessibl
e to you in the cockpit, can you just cut the feed line and crimp on two opp
osite sex BNC connectors? If your handheld has a BNC style connection for t
he antenna, just use the corresponding sex of connector on the antenna side o
f the splice. Normal operations would be with the connectors joined. If the
com goes TU, disconnect the joint and attach the antenna side directly to t
he handheld. This would be a very crude switch but you are not going to be c
ycling it frequently.
On Sep 2, 2011, at 18:36, "Thomas Barter" w
rote:
> My goal is to be able to connect the hand held to the antenna if the main c
omm should be unusable. No duplexing needed. Would a device like the one s
hown be suitable for the task? Feed the antenna lead into the common, and c
onnect the main radio to one output and the handheld jack to the other. I r
ealize that these devices are rated for certain frequency bands, and one wou
ld need to be sure it was functional across the A/C comm range.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Barter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> Here's a refined concept of the device I was talking
>
> about yesterday. The bill of materials for this gizmo
>
> would be on the order of $50. It would have to sell
>
> for $100 to $125 with mating connectors as a kit.
>
>
>
> Seems like a lot of fuss to avoid putting a second
>
> antenna on the airplane.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Radios, One Antenna |
At 08:20 PM 9/2/2011, you wrote:
>If your feed line is routed in a way that makes a switch like that
>accessible to you in the cockpit, can you just cut the feed line and
>crimp on two opposite sex BNC connectors? If your handheld has a
>BNC style connection for the antenna, just use the corresponding sex
>of connector on the antenna side of the splice. Normal operations
>would be with the connectors joined. If the com goes TU, disconnect
>the joint and attach the antenna side directly to the handheld. This
>would be a very crude switch but you are not going to be cycling it
>frequently.
I think this is the most elegant. We talked about this
on the List some years ago. The idea was to route the
comm antenna coax in such a way that a 'service loop'
was joined at some point in the middle by a male-female
cable pair of connectors. This loop might be just under
the pilot's knees in front of the seat. If the main radio
goes down, open this service loop and connect your HT into
the coax.
One builder made his service loop about 24" in circumference
on the cable-male end that fed the antenna. He didn't need
to carry an extension coax . . . he just opened the
connectors, un-coiled the loop and connected it to his
hand held.
We also discussed using a pair of right-angle adapters on
the hand-held antenna jack arranged so that the coax comes
up the back side of the hand held, makes two 90-degree
turns and drops onto the HT antenna jack.
This is a very low cost, very reliable means for sharing
duties on a single antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | What's that beeping?? |
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Whats_that_beeping1.wmv
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Whelen LED landing lights . . . |
Bill Shank sent me his Whelen PLED1L landing lights
to get some performance data on them. The current draw
on these puppies looks like this:
Emacs!
They don't even start to draw current until 8.8 volts and
go into constant 1.2 amps constant current above 12.5 volts.
The flashers we used to use for wig-wagging the incandescent lamps
won't work with these devices. I'm developing a new recommendation.
At 1.2 amps per lamp, the current draw is quite nominal. This
product ought to open some new horizons for Rotax powered aircraft
that have not been able to support the legacy landing light
products.
2.4 amps for DUAL landing lights and 1.2 amps in wig-wag is
quite doable with the Rotax 18A alternator.
Watch this space . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's that beeping?? |
OH so THATS why my insurance is so high. Thanks for the video Bob.
Rodney
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
> See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Whats_that_beeping1.wmv
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | A piece of history |
I've just uploaded the service manual for a Narco
VTR-2A Omnigator MKII (affectionately known as a
'coffee grinder') VHF Comm/VOR/LOC/MB radio to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/
This is an interesting piece of history. Note how
antennas were arranged. The manual speaks of a
'full up' system with two transceivers for a
grand total of 54 transmit channels!
The underside of these radios were virtual rat's
nests of components, topside was stuffed with
HOT vacuum tubes and really clever tuning
mechanisms.
My first flying lesson was in a Ercoup with
the VTR-1 predecessor to this radio. Folks
used to go poke holes in clouds flying
behind these radios. They were quite amazing
performers for the bux.
Enjoy a little trek through the avionics of
yesteryear . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | ELT panel control modules..... |
Hi Bob,
I am curious if you have the schematics for the panel mounted ELT test
modules that control the ELT via a telephone like cable. Seems like the
various manuf. intentionally design this little control boxes so that they
cannot be substituted for another when one changes out an ELT but, would
like to not remove the small panel mounted test/reset module. Having never
opened one up, I suspect that with minor changes the unit could be made to
work with another manuf. ELT.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.....
DL
_____________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 8:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: A piece of history
>
>
> I've just uploaded the service manual for a Narco
> VTR-2A Omnigator MKII (affectionately known as a
> 'coffee grinder') VHF Comm/VOR/LOC/MB radio to
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/
>
> This is an interesting piece of history. Note how
> antennas were arranged. The manual speaks of a
> 'full up' system with two transceivers for a
> grand total of 54 transmit channels!
>
> The underside of these radios were virtual rat's
> nests of components, topside was stuffed with
> HOT vacuum tubes and really clever tuning
> mechanisms.
>
> My first flying lesson was in a Ercoup with
> the VTR-1 predecessor to this radio. Folks
> used to go poke holes in clouds flying
> behind these radios. They were quite amazing
> performers for the bux.
>
> Enjoy a little trek through the avionics of
> yesteryear . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
power I'd like to have.
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
compression stroke.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear
battery for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but
found the same situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out
for the same reason.
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but
again, unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a
re-boot of the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel
on one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second
battery capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together
providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had
to compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or
conserving power for a start.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master
or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like
the result. However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the
batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation
on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice
on a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter
will fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot),
interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Have you measured the voltage at the starter and an adjacent ground point and compared
it to the same measurement at the battery terminals, both while cranking?
Possibly you have a bad or loose connection somewhere that is contributing to your
hard cranking.
Certainly worth a try (if you haven't already done this) to avoid replacing the
battery and battery holder.
Dick Tasker
Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit disappointed
with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s. When starting
with a single new PC680, I don't seem to
> have the cranking power I'd like to have.
>
> Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first compression
stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it cranks fine
but sometimes it takes several tries to
> get over the first compression stroke.
>
> At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear battery for
a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but found the same situation.
Now he is in the process of
> changing it out for the same reason.
>
> If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but again,
unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a re-boot of the
3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
>
> At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to include
1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic interchange capability
I was after.
>
> I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning something
similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more background....
>
> My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG cable
feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable carries the
rest of the power forward. The batteries
> are both grounded close to where they are located and no separate ground cable
is used. I followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
>
> What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel on one
battery without the engine running. And then to have a second battery capable
of most engine starts. Linking the
> batteries together providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged
batteries.
>
> Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had to compromise
between running the avionics for extended periods or conserving power
for a start.
>
> What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible (Z-14 req'd
switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible. So it is a fuse-centric
design, with 4 breakers and no
> avionics master or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really
like the result. However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed
the batteries for a start which caused me
> to lose my engine instrumentation on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
>
> So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice on a
single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter will fix
it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B
> spot), interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
>
> Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A piece of history |
At 05:21 AM 9/4/2011, you wrote:
>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>
>Just happen to have one of those boxes in my shop.
I've collected a few of those too. Had
to get rid of all but one. One can easily
accumulate too much 'history'!
>Remember well what a major improvement it was over the multiple
>little boxes with the silver and black sunbursts on them that NARCO
>first offered.
If you run across any examples or documents
on NARCO products that pre-date the coffee
grinders, I'd appreciate pictures/access
to them.
> When I was working on my Instrument rating at the University Of
> Illinois (1950), we had a Beta test version of those little boxes
> installed in our Cessna 170 instrument trainer..
>
>While we still had to use the four course range for the flight test,
>it was fun to be able to shoot a localizer approach. There were no
>VOR stations close enough to Champaign for us to be able to try out
>that omni stuff.
Yeah . . . when we moved into our new house
on the east side of Wichita in 1952, I was
about 5 blocks away from the ICT 4-course
station on east Pawnee, just west of the
Cessna factory.
It was EASY to hear it on my crystal set!
I've posted a bunch of pictures of older radios
on the website. Interested folks can get a peek
of radios that were one-of-a-kind, pretty quaint,
but a really big deal for the guy in a small
airplane to actually TALK to somebody on the ground!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Bill,
You might try moving one of the 680s closer to the firewall and tie
into the large no. 2 cable up there. Also, triple check all the
connections to make sure they're really solid.
Are you using a ground cable or strap back from the engine case to the airframe?
FWIW, I grounded my aft-mounted 925 to the vertical edge of the
baggage floor that supports the tailcone closeout. I used a braided
grounding strap. Works great.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
> disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
> When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
> power I'd like to have.
>
> Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
> compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
> cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
> compression stroke.
>
> At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear battery
> for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but found the same
> situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out for the same reason.
>
> If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but again,
> unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a re-boot of
> the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
>
> At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
> include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
> interchange capability I was after.
>
> I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning something
> similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more background....
>
> My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
> cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
> carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
> close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
> followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
>
> What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel on
> one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second battery
> capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together providing an
> option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
>
> Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had to
> compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or conserving
> power for a start.
>
> What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible (Z-14
> req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible. So it is
> a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master or separate
> on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like the result.
> However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the batteries for a
> start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation on the GRT HX
> display while it re-booted.
>
> So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice on
> a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter will
> fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot), interchangeability, and
> the need to design a new battery mount.
>
> Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 with Z-14
At 03:28 PM 9/4/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Have you measured the voltage at the starter and an adjacent ground
>point and compared it to the same measurement at the battery
>terminals, both while cranking?
>
>Possibly you have a bad or loose connection somewhere that is
>contributing to your hard cranking.
>
>Certainly worth a try (if you haven't already done this) to avoid
>replacing the battery and battery holder.
>
>Dick Tasker
Absolutely. These batteries have a DEMONSTRATED ability
to do the job for which you've installed them. You need
DATA on where energy from the batteries is being lost
before it reaches the starter motor.
Unfortunately, the current draw of a starter motor
is so wiggly, it's difficult to get meaningful measurements
on a starter while standing behind a swinging prop. Suggest
you acquire the use of a battery load tester like this
Harbor Freight product
Emacs!
Unhook the starter feed wire at the starter and put
a bolt through the lug end with a nut to get a good
grip. Clip the red test lead to the bolt (you don't
want an imperfect connection to burn your lug).
Similarly, fabricate a short piece of 4AWG with
a lug-bolt assembly on one end and a lug on the
other suitable for grounding to your engine . . .
preferably the same bolt that attaches the starter.
The voltmeter on this tester reads voltage
right at the test clips . . . so you don't need
to worry about votlage drop in the long fat-wires.
Simulate an engine cranking event while cranking
the load tester up to 200A . . . you should have
9V+
Use the same tester to load each battery until
the voltage drops to 9V. Each battery should
be capable of delivering 9V at 400 amps or more.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ciolino" <johnciolino(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
I am having the same problem with my RV-8. PC680 is mounted in the right
foot well just behind the firewall and connected by #2 welding cable to the
starter solenoid and then to the starter. I have checked the connections to
make sure they are tight (and they are). I am perplexed. If you find a
solution please share.
John Ciolino
RV-8
N894Y
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Watson
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
power I'd like to have.
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
compression stroke.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear
battery for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but
found the same situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out
for the same reason.
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but
again, unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a
re-boot of the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel
on one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second
battery capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together
providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had
to compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or
conserving power for a start.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master
or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like
the result. However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the
batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation
on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice
on a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter
will fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot),
interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
The one factor you haven't mentioned is which starter you chose. Some
light weight starters require a MUCH larger current draw than
others(over 300 amps vs less than 200). If they don't get the full
current the starter wants, it won't have the torque to move the piston
past TDC.
On 9/4/2011 2:27 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Saylor
>
> Bill,
>
> You might try moving one of the 680s closer to the firewall and tie
> into the large no. 2 cable up there. Also, triple check all the
> connections to make sure they're really solid.
>
> Are you using a ground cable or strap back from the engine case to the airframe?
>
> FWIW, I grounded my aft-mounted 925 to the vertical edge of the
> baggage floor that supports the tailcone closeout. I used a braided
> grounding strap. Works great.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Watson
>>
>> I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
>> disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
>> When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
>> power I'd like to have.
>>
>> Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
>> compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
>> cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
>> compression stroke.
>>
>> At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear battery
>> for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but found the same
>> situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out for the same reason.
>>
>> If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but again,
>> unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a re-boot of
>> the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
>>
>> At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
>> include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
>> interchange capability I was after.
>>
>> I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning something
>> similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more background....
>>
>> My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
>> cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
>> carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
>> close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
>> followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
>>
>> What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel on
>> one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second battery
>> capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together providing an
>> option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
>>
>> Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had to
>> compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or conserving
>> power for a start.
>>
>> What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible (Z-14
>> req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible. So it is
>> a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master or separate
>> on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like the result.
>> However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the batteries for a
>> start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation on the GRT HX
>> display while it re-booted.
>>
>> So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice on
>> a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter will
>> fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot), interchangeability, and
>> the need to design a new battery mount.
>>
>> Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
I bet you a dollar both of you are using a permanent magnet starters. I've
had the same issue when I used one, even with #2AWG cable through out.
My easy solution was to replace the starter with a field wound unit - a B&C
starter in my case.
Poof! Problem gone...and now the engine spins faster and doesn't have any
problem making it over the first blade.
-James
Berkut/Race13
www.berkut13.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ciolino
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
I am having the same problem with my RV-8. PC680 is mounted in the right
foot well just behind the firewall and connected by #2 welding cable to the
starter solenoid and then to the starter. I have checked the connections to
make sure they are tight (and they are). I am perplexed. If you find a
solution please share.
John Ciolino
RV-8
N894Y
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Watson
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
power I'd like to have.
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
compression stroke.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear
battery for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but
found the same situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out
for the same reason.
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but
again, unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a
re-boot of the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel
on one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second
battery capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together
providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had
to compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or
conserving power for a start.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master
or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like
the result. However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the
batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation
on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice
on a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter
will fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot),
interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Bill,
First of all congratulations on finishing the paint and getting Tigressa
flying.
I've attached a link from Sky-Tec that walks through trouble shooting. My
original engine (Lycoming io-540 through Van's) came with a lightweight LS
starter as stock. I called Lycoming and had the starter switched to the NL
inline unit. Per the info page, Sky-Tec starters require a minimum of 10v
at starter to work consistently.
http://www.skytecair.com/Troubleshooting.htm
Again congrats on the achievement.
Tom Hanaway
RV-10
Boynton Beach
As always, consider the source as I'm finishing prep work prior to painting
and am still on the ground :^)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Watson
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
-->
I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
power I'd like to have.
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first
compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it
cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first
compression stroke.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear battery
for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but found the same
situation. Now he is in the process of changing it out for the same reason.
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but again,
unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a re-boot of
the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to
include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG
cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable
carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded
close to where they are located and no separate ground cable is used. I
followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel on
one battery without the engine running. And then to have a second battery
capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together providing an
option for tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had to
compromise between running the avionics for extended periods or conserving
power for a start.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master or
separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like the
result. However, I've already found myself having to crossfeed the
batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation on
the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice on
a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter will
fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot), interchangeability, and
the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 with Z-14
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Yes, I think I have the Skytech LS starter. I will go thru the trouble
shooting but based on some of the other comments, sounds like my starter
may be a non-starter in this situation.
Need to collect data, check some stuff, and figure it out.
Thanks
Bill " has a plan now" Watson
On 9/4/2011 6:54 PM, Tom Hanaway wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Hanaway"
>
> Bill,
> First of all congratulations on finishing the paint and getting Tigressa
> flying.
>
> I've attached a link from Sky-Tec that walks through trouble shooting. My
> original engine (Lycoming io-540 through Van's) came with a lightweight LS
> starter as stock. I called Lycoming and had the starter switched to the NL
> inline unit. Per the info page, Sky-Tec starters require a minimum of 10v
> at starter to work consistently.
>
> http://www.skytecair.com/Troubleshooting.htm
>
> Again congrats on the achievement.
>
> Tom Hanaway
> RV-10
> Boynton Beach
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Herring <dsleepy47(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
If you have an LS starter=2C does your starter circuit go through the maste
r solenoid=2C an airframe starter solenoid and the starter mounted solenoid
? If so try bypassing the airframe solenoid and connecting the start switch
to the starter solenoid per diagram A here: http://www.skytecair.com/Wirin
g_diag.htm. to see if you get better starting
> Date: Sun=2C 4 Sep 2011 15:58:58 -0400
> From: Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s p
owering RV-10 with Z-14
>
om>
>
> I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
> disappointed with one design decision=2C that is=2C the use of dual PC680
s.
> When starting with a single new PC680=2C I don't seem to have the crankin
g
> power I'd like to have.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Same thing here. I lived in the DFW area, and was a member of the Granbury EAA
chapter that Rich and the Skytec guys belong to so I didn't even hesitate to
swap to the NL when I got my engine. The PM starters have a well-documented
history of being power hogs. No good reason to dump a Skytec for a B&C when
the Skytec NL is cheaper and lighter and works just as good.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Hanaway
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering
RV-10 with Z-14
-->
Bill,
First of all congratulations on finishing the paint and getting Tigressa flying.
I've attached a link from Sky-Tec that walks through trouble shooting. My original
engine (Lycoming io-540 through Van's) came with a lightweight LS starter
as stock. I called Lycoming and had the starter switched to the NL inline unit.
Per the info page, Sky-Tec starters require a minimum of 10v at starter
to work consistently.
http://www.skytecair.com/Troubleshooting.htm
Again congrats on the achievement.
Tom Hanaway
RV-10
Boynton Beach
As always, consider the source as I'm finishing prep work prior to painting and
am still on the ground :^)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 3:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering
RV-10 with Z-14
-->
I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit disappointed
with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking power
I'd like to have.
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the first compression
stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn over, it cranks fine
but sometimes it takes several tries to get over the first compression stroke.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear battery for
a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but found the same situation.
Now he is in the process of changing it out for the same reason.
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but again, unless
both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a re-boot of the 3
GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration to include
1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic interchange capability
I was after.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1) 2AWG cable
feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG cable carries the rest
of the power forward. The batteries are both grounded close to where they
are located and no separate ground cable is used. I followed Bob's grounding
advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the panel on one
battery without the engine running. And then to have a second battery capable
of most engine starts. Linking the batteries together providing an option for
tough starts or partially discharged batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've had to compromise
between running the avionics for extended periods or conserving power for
a start.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics master or separate
on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I really like the result. However,
I've already found myself having to crossfeed the batteries for a start
which caused me to lose my engine instrumentation on the GRT HX display while
it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking juice on a single
battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on the starter will fix it
but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot), interchangeability, and the need to
design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
I remember that it was just this chart that prompted me to switch to the NL
starter. Sent the paragraph from the last frame of the chart to the
Lycoming customer service rep and they swapped out for NL at no charge.
"Sky-Tec recommends the use of the 149-NL starter on all RV-10 applications,
not the 149-12LS Van's used on the factory's RV-10."
Tom H.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Herring
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
If you have an LS starter, does your starter circuit go through the master
solenoid, an airframe starter solenoid and the starter mounted solenoid? If
so try bypassing the airframe solenoid and connecting the start switch to
the starter solenoid per diagram A here:
http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_diag.htm. to see if you get better starting
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 15:58:58 -0400
> From: Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s
powering RV-10 with Z-14
>
>
> I've just flown the first dozen hours with my new RV-10 and am a bit
> disappointed with one design decision, that is, the use of dual PC680s.
> When starting with a single new PC680, I don't seem to have the cranking
> power I'd like to have.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 with Z-14
Unless the battery is fully charged, it just barely turns over the
first compression stroke on a cold engine (IO-540). If it does turn
over, it cranks fine but sometimes it takes several tries to get over
the first compression stroke.
Do a load test on the battery to make sure it's
good. Use legacy automotive load tester to drag
battery down to 9 volts for 15 seconds. Read
current needed to do this at the end of 15 seconds.
Should be 400 amps or better . . . most new 18 a.h.
batteries are good for more.
At the same time, my EAA Tech Counselor has been working on a rear
battery for a Citabria. He used the certified version of the 680 but
found the same situation. Now he is in the process of changing it
out for the same reason.
Did he check this battery independently of
airplane issues?
If I crossfeed the 2 batteries, I get better cranking performance but
again, unless both batteries are fully charged, I'm likely to cause a
re-boot of the 3 GRT HX screens powered by the 2nd battery.
At this point, I'm thinking I need to change my battery configuration
to include 1 PC925 for cranking. But doing so will lose the periodic
interchange capability I was after.
When B&C started handling the svla/rg/starved electrolyte
batteries many moons ago, it was discovered that they
would out-perform their flooded counterparts that had
twice the capacity.
I'd be interested in comments or suggestions. If you are planning
something similar, I'd say "beware" at this point. Here's some more
background....
There's been some mention of the extra cranking
current demands of starters supplied on Lycoming
engines. It would be VERY interesting to do a swap
out for a B&C starter as an experiment. I can probably
arrange to have one shipped to you at no cost
if you're willing to do the work.
My RV-10 has the batteries installed behind the cargo area with (1)
2AWG cable feeding the starter from 1 or both batteries. A 2nd 8AWG
cable carries the rest of the power forward. The batteries are both
grounded close to where they are located and no separate ground cable
is used. I followed Bob's grounding advice pretty closely.
What I was after with the Z-14 was the ability to run most of the
panel on one battery without the engine running. And then to have a
second battery capable of most engine starts. Linking the batteries
together providing an option for tough starts or partially discharged
batteries.
Why run the panel? I've been in a couple of situations where I've
had to compromise between running the avionics for extended periods
or conserving power for a start.
A starting operation should not demand more than
a few percent of a battery's total capacity. If you
have sluggish starter performance, the problem
is probably not related to battery size.
What I also envisioned was a panel with as few switches as possible
(Z-14 req'd switches not withstanding) and as few breakers as possible.
So it is a fuse-centric design, with 4 breakers and no avionics
master or separate on/off switches for any of the panel stuff. I
really like the result. However, I've already found myself having to
crossfeed the batteries for a start which caused me to lose my engine
instrumentation on the GRT HX display while it re-booted.
So, I really like the design except for not having enough cranking
juice on a single battery. I'm thinking the next size Odyssey on
the starter will fix it but cost me 10.5 lbs (in a good W&B spot),
interchangeability, and the need to design a new battery mount.
Bill "really loving the new '10" Watson
I'd really like to see the outcome of a
swap-out experiment.
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Staton <pj260(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bob & Listers et al -
I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years! I
am building an RV6, and I came into the project after it was very well
along. This has posed some interesting issues with placement of
components and such. I am in the design process now for the
electrical/avionics suite, and need some advice. My avionics will
consist of a Terra TX720D, TR200D, and a TriNav C for navigation. I will
also have a King KY-97A for the second comm. My dilemma concerns the
GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am going to build a dedicated GS
antenna and mount it on the canopy glareshield. The VOR antenna is the
issue. I have a splitter that will handle two VORS & two GS, but I
believe I would need the longer antenna to use it. After all of this
digression, I come to the question - if I mount a VOR antenna in the
roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss will I incur if I bend
the elements to follow the side of the fuselage? The wingtips are
probably not going to be a good option, either - there will be an APRS
J-pole antenna in one, at least. The illustration in the book seems to
show the elements with a pronounced bend aft. If that will work without
significant loss, that may be the answer. Most of my navigation will be
by GPS anyway, so VOR is not the issue it would have been 20 years ago.
Thanks in advance for all of the good info!
Sam Staton
Jacksonville, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 w
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
Try running a #0 ga wire external along with a dedicated ground just for a test
start. Even a long set of jumper cables ran parallel can tell you we have wire
size issues.
Our #2 ga is too small for the log run and current draw. Since Van recommended
that is what I have and it would be alot of work to change now. After almost
finished I have modified most of Vans shortcomings, but not this one.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983SB Baffles then fuel/oil/exhaust.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351464#351464
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 09:42 AM 9/5/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Try running a #0 ga wire external along with a dedicated ground just
>for a test start. Even a long set of jumper cables ran parallel can
>tell you we have wire size issues.
>
> Our #2 ga is too small for the log run and current draw. Since Van
> recommended that is what I have and it would be alot of work to
> change now. After almost finished I have modified most of Vans
> shortcomings, but not this one.
There is no really good reason to NEED #0
fat wires in a small airplane. There are
tens of thousands of light aircraft flying
with #2 feeders . . . even with the batteries
in back. Thousands more flying with #4 fat-wires
with batteries in front.
A sad but irrefutable fact is that most starter
manufacturers do not speak to efficiency at their
intended task. About 10 years ago, I e-mailed
4 manufacturers asking if they would provide
samples for testing on a dynamometer for the purpose
of gathering data for a Lightplane Maintenance article.
Only one of the four offered to provide test samples.
Hence, no data, no article, continued ignorance amongst
system integrators and TC/OBAM aircraft customers.
One generally doesn't get away with such behavior
in the TC aircraft world. I've wrestled with reluctant
suppliers . . . but ultimately won the day when they
considered the potential for NOT getting their product
listed on the airplane's type certificate.
Bottom line is that there are good reasons based
on simple ideas in physics that make one starter
behave differently from another starter in the same
installation. 90% of the time, it has nothing to
do with the way the starter is installed/wired.
A particular combination of components can appear
to indicate a 'bad battery' when in fact the starter
is just not very efficient. It's not always a bad
idea to trade off efficiency for weight or price . . .
but there are practical limits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:51 AM 9/5/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob & Listers et al -
> I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years!
Welcome to the party!
My dilemma concerns the GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am
going to build a dedicated GS antenna and mount it on the canopy
glareshield. The VOR antenna is the issue. I have a splitter that
will handle two VORS & two GS, but I believe I would need the longer
antenna to use it.
Correct.
After all of this digression, I come to the question - if I mount a
VOR antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss
will I incur if I bend the elements to follow the side of the fuselage?
Unable to quantify in any terms that would
be meaningful. A wet string will have some
level of performance as an antenna. A laboratory
grade, test range antenna will come very close
to theoretical performance. All practical antennas
fall somewhere between wet strings and the best-we-
know-how-to-do. Just what you can settle for as
"practical" isn't quantifiable.
Suggest you consider the legacy 'cat whisker'
antenna in the fin cap. This isn't ideal but
has been a practical performer for 50 years.
Further, at such time as you decide to eliminate
VOR capability entirely, you'll have very little
work to do on the airplane to make it look like
the antenna was never there.
Another option is the v-swept antenna mounted
on the tailcone under the rudder.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10
I sent an email off earlier today to Vans, Lycoming, and Sky-Tec requesting
clarification on Sky-Tec's recommendation to use the 149-NL over the
Vans/Lycoming supplied 149-12LS.. The following is the response that I
received from Rich at Sky-Tec. I have his permission to re-post his email.
He doesn't participate in the forums, but welcomes anyone to communicate
directly with him via email or telephone.
bob
-----Original Message-----
From: richc(at)skytecair.com [mailto:richc(at)skytecair.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Skytec Starter
Bob,
This is important dialogue. We (Sky-Tec) have been completely unsuccessful
getting vans customers the ability to receive the 149-NL on their rv-10 540
purchases. It would be nice for something to break the log jam.
The 149-LS works well on van's factory 10 (and many other 54 applications
through the years) and that keeps some content with its ongoing use and
recommendation. But in the field, others aren't able to get their electrical
systems capable of delivering the additional current the LS requires to
provide the "Sky-Tec start" we all know, love and expect from our 540
engines.
I am growing a bit "over accustomed" shall we say to providing those no
charge swap outs. But we will continue since we owe so much of our success
to date to the very parties involved: Lycoming, vans, and the experimental
builders.
If anybody wants a good deal on some swapped out 149-12LS starters, let me
know ; ) I can't sell them as new and must rebuild them to satiate FAA
requirements.
In the meantime, keep those swap requests coming and please keep asking vans
and Lycoming to kindly consider an empl change for rv-10 540 engine builds.
Best,
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Just so you know, I've had the Bob Archer VOR antenna in the left
wingtip on our RV-6A for years and found it to work just fine for both
VOR and glideslope. The best part is that it's not out in the wind or
poking people in the eye.
Ed Holyoke
On 9/5/2011 6:51 AM, Sam Staton wrote:
>
> Bob & Listers et al -
> I think this may be my first post ever, after lurking for years! I
> am building an RV6, and I came into the project after it was very well
> along. This has posed some interesting issues with placement of
> components and such. I am in the design process now for the
> electrical/avionics suite, and need some advice. My avionics will
> consist of a Terra TX720D, TR200D, and a TriNav C for navigation. I
> will also have a King KY-97A for the second comm. My dilemma concerns
> the GS/VOR antennas. I'm pretty sure that I am going to build a
> dedicated GS antenna and mount it on the canopy glareshield. The VOR
> antenna is the issue. I have a splitter that will handle two VORS &
> two GS, but I believe I would need the longer antenna to use it. After
> all of this digression, I come to the question - if I mount a VOR
> antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment, how much loss will I
> incur if I bend the elements to follow the side of the fuselage? The
> wingtips are probably not going to be a good option, either - there
> will be an APRS J-pole antenna in one, at least. The illustration in
> the book seems to show the elements with a pronounced bend aft. If
> that will work without significant loss, that may be the answer. Most
> of my navigation will be by GPS anyway, so VOR is not the issue it
> would have been 20 years ago. Thanks in advance for all of the good info!
>
> Sam Staton
> Jacksonville, FL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 with Z-14
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 w
| From: | "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
I sent an email off to Vans, Lycoming, and Sky-Tec requesting clarification on
Sky-Tec's recommendation to use the 149-NL over the Vans/Lycoming supplied 149-12LS..
The following is the response that I received from Rich at Sky-Tec.
I have his permission to re-post his email. He doesn't participate in the forums,
but welcomes anyone to communicate directly with him via email or telephone.
bob
-----Original Message-----
From: richc(at)skytecair.com [mailto:richc(at)skytecair.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Skytec Starter
Bob,
This is important dialogue. We (Sky-Tec) have been completely unsuccessful getting
vans customers the ability to receive the 149-NL on their rv-10 540 purchases.
It would be nice for something to break the log jam.
The 149-LS works well on van's factory 10 (and many other 54 applications through
the years) and that keeps some content with its ongoing use and recommendation.
But in the field, others aren't able to get their electrical systems capable
of delivering the additional current the LS requires to provide the "Sky-Tec
start" we all know, love and expect from our 540 engines.
I am growing a bit "over accustomed" shall we say to providing those no charge
swap outs. But we will continue since we owe so much of our success to date to
the very parties involved: Lycoming, vans, and the experimental builders.
If anybody wants a good deal on some swapped out 149-12LS starters, let me know
; ) I can't sell them as new and must rebuild them to satiate FAA requirements.
In the meantime, keep those swap requests coming and please keep asking vans and
Lycoming to kindly consider an empl change for rv-10 540 engine builds.
Best,
Rich
--------
Bob Leffler
N410BL - FWF
RV-10 #40684
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351522#351522
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 w
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob,
Same info I got from skytec when planning eng order through Van's. Lycoming told
me to swap it out after I received engine. I already had #2 ga wire ran. I have
PC925 main and PC680 aux bat both in the back. What I noticed with cert planes/IO-540
is that they had 35 aH bat.
So, I believe it is a combination of inadequate bat and wire size for the long
run to the front. I will see how my 925 starts it and change if I need to then.
I can combine bat for 43 aH during cold wx if needed.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983SB Baffles then fuel/oil/exhaust.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351523#351523
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
Actually, a "standard" 35 series battery, as used in many certified
planes with battery in the tail cone is only 29 amp hours(CB35A or
RG35A) or less. The battery that I recall Vans recommending is either 22
or 24 amp hours (RG25 or RG25XC).
On 9/6/2011 3:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rv10flyer"
>
> Bob,
>
> Same info I got from skytec when planning eng order through Van's. Lycoming told
me to swap it out after I received engine. I already had #2 ga wire ran. I
have PC925 main and PC680 aux bat both in the back. What I noticed with cert
planes/IO-540 is that they had 35 aH bat.
>
> So, I believe it is a combination of inadequate bat and wire size for the long
run to the front. I will see how my 925 starts it and change if I need to then.
I can combine bat for 43 aH during cold wx if needed.
>
> --------
> Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
> Bldr# 40983SB Baffles then fuel/oil/exhaust.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351523#351523
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
(my original post seems to have been blank - pardon if this is a
re-post with some additional info)
Some data:
Using the HF Battery Load Tester with a 200amps load applied at the
disconnected starter lead, I got 7.5 volts on one battery, 8 volts
with both batteries. That is short of the 9 volts you suggested I
should get,
I used a 6" 8awg lead for the ground attached to one of the starter's
mounting bolts.
I saw a similar results when I went to a ground block directly on the
firewall (I think this block has a 8awg line running back to the
batteries in addition to it's airframe connection).
My plan is to repeat this test tomorrow after re-charging the
batteries. I'll also test the battery directly. Assuming I get the
same result, and the battery is good, it appears that I have some
deficiency in either the ground or power circut for the starter.
I'll try to use the tester to work my way from the starter back thru the
power circuit and the ground connections.
Some more data:
After charging overnight and working my way back towards the battery, I
hooked up the tester to the battery side of the starter solenoid and the
ground stud on the firewall. I got 8.5 volts going to 8.0 volts after
15 seconds with a 200 amp load.
Then I took the tester directly to the battery - 8.5 volts with a 200amp
load (??!!). Bad Battery? I think not, so...
Yesterday, I went out an bought Schumacher charger at Walmart. I had
been using another 'maintainer' type charger (I'll get the brand and
specs later). With all this electrical work, I felt like I needed
something with more options like fast/slow charge. I charged up some
older batteries including my old 680s. One battery was clearly bad per
the tester and wouldn't take a charge. The other one seemed good. And
after a full charge, it tested 10 volts @ 200amps for 15 seconds.
That's more than I was getting with my 'fully charged' new battery.
I think I have some charging issues. I suspect at this point that the
'maintainer' type charger is not fully charging my 2 batteries for some
reason. That combined with the fact that almost every flight is
followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging.
So, right now I'm using the new charger on the batteries in the
aircraft. I suspect when finished, I'll be getting 10 volts @200 amps
at the terminals, and close to that at the starter.
Will report later.
Bill "transitioning from building to operating mode" Watson
On 9/4/2011 5:53 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:28 PM 9/4/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have you measured the voltage at the starter and an adjacent ground
>> point and compared it to the same measurement at the battery
>> terminals, both while cranking?
>>
>> Possibly you have a bad or loose connection somewhere that is
>> contributing to your hard cranking.
>>
>> Certainly worth a try (if you haven't already done this) to avoid
>> replacing the battery and battery holder.
>>
>> Dick Tasker
>
> Absolutely. These batteries have a DEMONSTRATED ability
> to do the job for which you've installed them. You need
> DATA on where energy from the batteries is being lost
> before it reaches the starter motor.
>
> Unfortunately, the current draw of a starter motor
> is so wiggly, it's difficult to get meaningful measurements
> on a starter while standing behind a swinging prop. Suggest
> you acquire the use of a battery load tester like this
> Harbor Freight product
> --
> Unhook the starter feed wire at the starter and put
> a bolt through the lug end with a nut to get a good
> grip. Clip the red test lead to the bolt (you don't
> want an imperfect connection to burn your lug).
> Similarly, fabricate a short piece of 4AWG with
> a lug-bolt assembly on one end and a lug on the
> other suitable for grounding to your engine . . .
> preferably the same bolt that attaches the starter.
>
> The voltmeter on this tester reads voltage
> right at the test clips . . . so you don't need
> to worry about votlage drop in the long fat-wires.
> Simulate an engine cranking event while cranking
> the load tester up to 200A . . . you should have
> 9V+
>
> Use the same tester to load each battery until
> the voltage drops to 9V. Each battery should
> be capable of delivering 9V at 400 amps or more.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
I seem to be overlooking the obvious, or as a old Spanish saying goes,
"looking for the burro while sitting on the burro".
It seems that I have a bad battery. It's amazing how easy it is to talk
one's self into overlooking the obvious. It helps to have the right
tools but you actually have to use them and believe them.
Anyway, after fully charging my starter battery I was unable to get any
better readings than 8.5 volts with a 200amp load at the starter, 9.0
volts at the battery.
Going back to a battery I had pulled, I get 9 volts with a 200 amp load
at the starter, 10 volts at the battery. And it had not been topped off.
That seems like some pretty straght forward findings and yet I'm still
doubting it. Will have to try a couple of starts and check everything
again.
In any case, that HF "carbon pile" battery tester is looking like a very
useful piece of equipment in maintaining an all electric, 2 battery
aircraft.
Bill "remaining high up on the learning curve" Watson
On 9/6/2011 9:54 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> (my original post seems to have been blank - pardon if this is a
> re-post with some additional info)
>
> Some data:
> Using the HF Battery Load Tester with a 200amps load applied at the
> disconnected starter lead, I got 7.5 volts on one battery, 8 volts
> with both batteries. That is short of the 9 volts you suggested I
> should get,
> I used a 6" 8awg lead for the ground attached to one of the starter's
> mounting bolts.
> I saw a similar results when I went to a ground block directly on the
> firewall (I think this block has a 8awg line running back to the
> batteries in addition to it's airframe connection).
>
> My plan is to repeat this test tomorrow after re-charging the
> batteries. I'll also test the battery directly. Assuming I get the
> same result, and the battery is good, it appears that I have some
> deficiency in either the ground or power circut for the starter.
>
> I'll try to use the tester to work my way from the starter back thru
> the power circuit and the ground connections.
>
> Some more data:
> After charging overnight and working my way back towards the battery,
> I hooked up the tester to the battery side of the starter solenoid and
> the ground stud on the firewall. I got 8.5 volts going to 8.0 volts
> after 15 seconds with a 200 amp load.
>
> Then I took the tester directly to the battery - 8.5 volts with a
> 200amp load (??!!). Bad Battery? I think not, so...
>
> Yesterday, I went out an bought Schumacher charger at Walmart. I had
> been using another 'maintainer' type charger (I'll get the brand and
> specs later). With all this electrical work, I felt like I needed
> something with more options like fast/slow charge. I charged up some
> older batteries including my old 680s. One battery was clearly bad
> per the tester and wouldn't take a charge. The other one seemed
> good. And after a full charge, it tested 10 volts @ 200amps for 15
> seconds. That's more than I was getting with my 'fully charged' new
> battery.
>
> I think I have some charging issues. I suspect at this point that the
> 'maintainer' type charger is not fully charging my 2 batteries for
> some reason. That combined with the fact that almost every flight is
> followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging.
>
> So, right now I'm using the new charger on the batteries in the
> aircraft. I suspect when finished, I'll be getting 10 volts @200 amps
> at the terminals, and close to that at the starter.
>
> Will report later.
>
> Bill "transitioning from building to operating mode" Watson
>
> On 9/4/2011 5:53 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 03:28 PM 9/4/2011, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you measured the voltage at the starter and an adjacent ground
>>> point and compared it to the same measurement at the battery
>>> terminals, both while cranking?
>>>
>>> Possibly you have a bad or loose connection somewhere that is
>>> contributing to your hard cranking.
>>>
>>> Certainly worth a try (if you haven't already done this) to avoid
>>> replacing the battery and battery holder.
>>>
>>> Dick Tasker
>>
>> Absolutely. These batteries have a DEMONSTRATED ability
>> to do the job for which you've installed them. You need
>> DATA on where energy from the batteries is being lost
>> before it reaches the starter motor.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the current draw of a starter motor
>> is so wiggly, it's difficult to get meaningful measurements
>> on a starter while standing behind a swinging prop. Suggest
>> you acquire the use of a battery load tester like this
>> Harbor Freight product
>> --
>> Unhook the starter feed wire at the starter and put
>> a bolt through the lug end with a nut to get a good
>> grip. Clip the red test lead to the bolt (you don't
>> want an imperfect connection to burn your lug).
>> Similarly, fabricate a short piece of 4AWG with
>> a lug-bolt assembly on one end and a lug on the
>> other suitable for grounding to your engine . . .
>> preferably the same bolt that attaches the starter.
>>
>> The voltmeter on this tester reads voltage
>> right at the test clips . . . so you don't need
>> to worry about votlage drop in the long fat-wires.
>> Simulate an engine cranking event while cranking
>> the load tester up to 200A . . . you should have
>> 9V+
>>
>> Use the same tester to load each battery until
>> the voltage drops to 9V. Each battery should
>> be capable of delivering 9V at 400 amps or more.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Corey Crawford <corey.crawford(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
I believe the Odyssey batteries require a special charger, and "regular"
battery maintainers are bad for them. It's possible its been damaged if it's
been float charged using a less-than-ideal battery charger/maintainer.
You can find more about the branded Odyssey chargers here:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/chargers.html
List of approved chargers here:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/documents/ODYSSEYapproved12Vchargers_OCT2010_002.pdf
More information on charging can also be found in the Owner's Manual:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/documents/US-ODY-OM-009_0611.pdf
Good luck!
--
Corey Crawford
corey.crawford(at)gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> I seem to be overlooking the obvious, or as a old Spanish saying goes,
> "looking for the burro while sitting on the burro".
>
> It seems that I have a bad battery. It's amazing how easy it is to talk
> one's self into overlooking the obvious. It helps to have the right tools
> but you actually have to use them and believe them.
>
> Anyway, after fully charging my starter battery I was unable to get any
> better readings than 8.5 volts with a 200amp load at the starter, 9.0 volts
> at the battery.
>
> Going back to a battery I had pulled, I get 9 volts with a 200 amp load at
> the starter, 10 volts at the battery. And it had not been topped off.
>
> That seems like some pretty straght forward findings and yet I'm still
> doubting it. Will have to try a couple of starts and check everything
> again.
>
> In any case, that HF "carbon pile" battery tester is looking like a very
> useful piece of equipment in maintaining an all electric, 2 battery
> aircraft.
>
> Bill "remaining high up on the learning curve" Watson
>
>
> On 9/6/2011 9:54 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> (my original post seems to have been blank - pardon if this is a re-post
> with some additional info)
>
> Some data:
> Using the HF Battery Load Tester with a 200amps load applied at the
> disconnected starter lead, I got 7.5 volts on one battery, 8 volts with
> both batteries. That is short of the 9 volts you suggested I should get,
> I used a 6" 8awg lead for the ground attached to one of the starter's
> mounting bolts.
> I saw a similar results when I went to a ground block directly on the
> firewall (I think this block has a 8awg line running back to the batteries
> in addition to it's airframe connection).
>
> My plan is to repeat this test tomorrow after re-charging the batteries.
> I'll also test the battery directly. Assuming I get the same result, and
> the battery is good, it appears that I have some deficiency in either the
> ground or power circut for the starter.
>
> I'll try to use the tester to work my way from the starter back thru the
> power circuit and the ground connections.
>
> Some more data:
> After charging overnight and working my way back towards the battery, I
> hooked up the tester to the battery side of the starter solenoid and the
> ground stud on the firewall. I got 8.5 volts going to 8.0 volts after 15
> seconds with a 200 amp load.
>
> Then I took the tester directly to the battery - 8.5 volts with a 200amp
> load (??!!). Bad Battery? I think not, so...
>
> Yesterday, I went out an bought Schumacher charger at Walmart. I had been
> using another 'maintainer' type charger (I'll get the brand and specs
> later). With all this electrical work, I felt like I needed something with
> more options like fast/slow charge. I charged up some older batteries
> including my old 680s. One battery was clearly bad per the tester and
> wouldn't take a charge. The other one seemed good. And after a full
> charge, it tested 10 volts @ 200amps for 15 seconds. That's more than I was
> getting with my 'fully charged' new battery.
>
> I think I have some charging issues. I suspect at this point that the
> 'maintainer' type charger is not fully charging my 2 batteries for some
> reason. That combined with the fact that almost every flight is followed by
> much battery draining panel work followed by charging.
>
> So, right now I'm using the new charger on the batteries in the aircraft.
> I suspect when finished, I'll be getting 10 volts @200 amps at the
> terminals, and close to that at the starter.
>
> Will report later.
>
> Bill "transitioning from building to operating mode" Watson
>
> On 9/4/2011 5:53 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 03:28 PM 9/4/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Have you measured the voltage at the starter and an adjacent ground point
> and compared it to the same measurement at the battery terminals, both while
> cranking?
>
> Possibly you have a bad or loose connection somewhere that is contributing
> to your hard cranking.
>
> Certainly worth a try (if you haven't already done this) to avoid replacing
> the battery and battery holder.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
>
> Absolutely. These batteries have a DEMONSTRATED ability
> to do the job for which you've installed them. You need
> DATA on where energy from the batteries is being lost
> before it reaches the starter motor.
>
> Unfortunately, the current draw of a starter motor
> is so wiggly, it's difficult to get meaningful measurements
> on a starter while standing behind a swinging prop. Suggest
> you acquire the use of a battery load tester like this
> Harbor Freight product
> --
> Unhook the starter feed wire at the starter and put
> a bolt through the lug end with a nut to get a good
> grip. Clip the red test lead to the bolt (you don't
> want an imperfect connection to burn your lug).
> Similarly, fabricate a short piece of 4AWG with
> a lug-bolt assembly on one end and a lug on the
> other suitable for grounding to your engine . . .
> preferably the same bolt that attaches the starter.
>
> The voltmeter on this tester reads voltage
> right at the test clips . . . so you don't need
> to worry about votlage drop in the long fat-wires.
> Simulate an engine cranking event while cranking
> the load tester up to 200A . . . you should have
> 9V+
>
> Use the same tester to load each battery until
> the voltage drops to 9V. Each battery should
> be capable of delivering 9V at 400 amps or more.
>
>
> **
>
> Bob . . .
> **
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 09/06/2011 01:30 PM, Corey Crawford wrote:
> I believe the Odyssey batteries require a special charger, and "regular"
> battery maintainers are bad for them.
If that is true, do they also require a special alternator to charge
them when in flight? Just sayin'... ;-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
Seems logical but an excerpt from the Odyssey spec sheet is
interesting... Thanks Corey Crawford
"To get long life from the ODYSSEY battery, it is important that the
battery is kept near full charge, approximately
12.8 volts. If there are electrical loads during storage, then the
negative battery cable should be disconnected or an
independent float charger used. Low power 2.0 amp chargers for storage
charge will keep a fully charged battery
fully charged but cannot recharge if the ODYSSEY battery becomes
discharged."
"Racing Vehicles using total loss (no alternator) - standard automotive
type chargers are not designed
to return 105-108% of the energy removed. They normally boost charge to
80-95% and expect the alternator
to complete the charge. Chargers listed on our website at
www.odysseybattery.com are specifically designed
for ODYSSEY batteries that are routinely deeply discharged. They provide
the 105-108% recharge and then
switch to storage charge."
On 9/6/2011 1:46 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
>
> On 09/06/2011 01:30 PM, Corey Crawford wrote:
>> I believe the Odyssey batteries require a special charger, and "regular"
>> battery maintainers are bad for them.
> If that is true, do they also require a special alternator to charge
> them when in flight? Just sayin'... ;-)
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | What charge setting for Odyssey battery and Schumacher |
XC10 charger
There are charge settings on the 10 amp Schumacher charger - Standard,
AGM, or Gel.
I'm currently using 'standard' to charge my Odyssey 680s - is that
correct?
I can't tell from reading the doc.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 07:55 AM 9/6/2011, you wrote:
>
>Actually, a "standard" 35 series battery, as used in many certified
>planes with battery in the tail cone is only 29 amp hours(CB35A or
>RG35A) or less. The battery that I recall Vans recommending is
>either 22 or 24 amp hours (RG25 or RG25XC).
Ampere hour ratings of batteries can be exceedingly
short on useful information. A battery's internal
resistance can have a profound effect on DELIVERED
energy. Here is an exemplar energy delivery plot on
a 33 a.h. RG battery:
Emacs!
Note that it will deliver 33 a.h. at a 20 hour discharge cycle
loaded at only 1.65 amps. When loaded with say, 6.6A of endurance
loads, you get just over 4 hours or 26 a.h. Load it heavier to like
53 amps an the critter tosses in the towel in 20 minutes or 1/3 hour
for a 'rating' of about 17 a.h.
A flooded battery would not do as well as this AGM example.
So there are TWO characteristics you're interested in for
assessing a battery's flight worthiness:
Delivery at heavy loads for cranking and delivery at moderate
loads for alternator-out endurance. But any notions that
paralleling a couple of batteries will combine for a 'name
plate rated' level of performance is kind of wishful thinking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 08:54 AM 9/6/2011, you wrote:
>(my original post seems to have been blank - pardon if this is a
>re-post with some additional info)
>
>Some data:
>Using the HF Battery Load Tester with a 200amps load applied at the
>disconnected starter lead, I got 7.5 volts on one battery, 8 volts
>with both batteries. That is short of the 9 volts you suggested I should get,
>I used a 6" 8awg lead for the ground attached to one of the
>starter's mounting bolts.
>I saw a similar results when I went to a ground block directly on
>the firewall (I think this block has a 8awg line running back to the
>batteries in addition to it's airframe connection).
Okay, those batteries are crippled by virtue
of discharge, worn out or both.
>My plan is to repeat this test tomorrow after re-charging the
>batteries. I'll also test the battery directly. Assuming I get the
>same result, and the battery is good, it appears that I have some
>deficiency in either the ground or power circut for the starter.
>
>I'll try to use the tester to work my way from the starter back thru
>the power circuit and the ground connections.
Might be a waste of time. If you can't get 400-700
amps from a freshly charged battery, then you're
starting the race with holes in the soles of your
sneakers.
>
>
>Some more data:
>After charging overnight and working my way back towards the
>battery, I hooked up the tester to the battery side of the starter
>solenoid and the ground stud on the firewall. I got 8.5 volts going
>to 8.0 volts after 15 seconds with a 200 amp load.
>
>Then I took the tester directly to the battery - 8.5 volts with a
>200amp load (??!!). Bad Battery? I think not, so...
I think so.
>Yesterday, I went out an bought Schumacher charger at Walmart. I
>had been using another 'maintainer' type charger (I'll get the brand
>and specs later). With all this electrical work, I felt like I
>needed something with more options like fast/slow charge. I charged
>up some older batteries including my old 680s. One battery was
>clearly bad per the tester and wouldn't take a charge. The other
>one seemed good. And after a full charge, it tested 10 volts @
>200amps for 15 seconds. That's more than I was getting with my
>'fully charged' new battery.
Those batteries are toast.
>I think I have some charging issues. I suspect at this point that
>the 'maintainer' type charger is not fully charging my 2 batteries
>for some reason. That combined with the fact that almost every
>flight is followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging.
What kind of "maintainer type charger" are you
using? The Schumacher will do the job . . . assuming
the battery is willing and able to take on the energy
offered.
>So, right now I'm using the new charger on the batteries in the
>aircraft. I suspect when finished, I'll be getting 10 volts @200
>amps at the terminals, and close to that at the starter.
Those batteries are essentially shot. Your experience
goes to my oft repeated recommendations for periodic
load and cap chencking of the ship's batteries. Given
that you have Z-14, perhaps cap-checks are not so important.
You're not going to depend on batteries for endurance
issues. But LOAD checking after an over-night on the
charger will tell the tale without ever turning your
master switch on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | There's value in 'knowing the numbers' |
That seems like some pretty straight forward findings and yet I'm
still doubting it. Will have to try a couple of starts and check
everything again.
A wise old feller once opined:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in
numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it
may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your
thoughts advanced to the stage of science."
In any case, that HF "carbon pile" battery tester is looking like a
very useful piece of equipment in maintaining an all electric, 2
battery aircraft.
Absolutely. Being able to do meaningful cap
checks is also useful but not nearly so.
I'm learning refrigeration with the notion of
getting some BIG reductions in my $500 electric bills.
The last two months . . . (100+ temps every day).
I'm willing to experiment to some degree with my
own a/c but when a neighbor's system appeared low
on gas, I deferred to a local gentleman who had
been making a/c systems work better around here for
a number of years. I watched over his shoulder as
he hooked up only a low-side gage, put a wet finger
to the wind, ear to the ground, scratched a few itchy
spots and ran some gas into the system without being
able to articulate the meaning of what he was seeing
on the gage. When the suction line began to sweat,
he figured 'that's enough'.
I came home and bought a set of instruments off
eBay that will let me QUANTIFY super-heat and/or
sub-cooling for the lucid interpretation of just
what's going on. Lord Kelvin was right. If you can't
measure it, ya don't know squat. Told the next door
neighbor that "Ernie's demonstration was very instructive
and I was good to go for her next service call . . . we'll
soap some joints too and see if we can spot the leak(s).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 12:30 PM 9/6/2011, you wrote:
I believe the Odyssey batteries require a special charger, and
"regular" battery maintainers are bad for them. It's possible its
been damaged if it's been float charged using a less-than-ideal
battery charger/maintainer.
You can find more about the branded Odyssey chargers here:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/chargers.html
List of approved chargers here:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/documents/ODYSSEYapproved12Vchargers_OCT2010_002.pdf
More information on charging can also be found in the Owner's Manual:
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/documents/US-ODY-OM-009_0611.pdf
The only 'fly' in this alphabet soup of chargers
assumes that you're really going to need to do
significant charging to your battery(ies). If
one's alternator(s) is working properly, the
ship's battery should never be subjected to
serious discharge. Getting the engine started
shouldn't take more than 5% or so of the battery's
capacity.
When you park the airplane, the battery should be
toped off and require no maintenance if you plan
to fly again in less than 90 days or so.
Long term storage can be supported by the smallest
of Battery-Minder style products. NOW . . . if
you routinely discharge your battery as a source
of portable power like for trolling motors, then
any AGM rated smart charger will do the job. Just
check it after being plugged in for a day or so
and see that the float voltage is not over 13.5
volts. It can be as low as 12.8 at room temperatures.
The point is that uncontrolled 'trickle charging'
of an RG battery will kill it. I'm surprised that
Odyssey even mentions the term as a useful
operating description.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 12:46 PM 9/6/2011, you wrote:
>
>On 09/06/2011 01:30 PM, Corey Crawford wrote:
> > I believe the Odyssey batteries require a special charger, and "regular"
> > battery maintainers are bad for them.
>
> If that is true, do they also require a special alternator to charge
>them when in flight? Just sayin'... ;-)
Good question . . . and the answer is 'no'. Alternators
in vehicles, generally are not called upon to charge
a deeply discharged batter. Further, they're always
in a top-off mode at 14.6 volts or thereabouts. Given
the intermittent abuse of batteries in airplane service,
the charging system doesn't need to be really fussy.
But folks who routinely deep-cycle an RG battery in motive
power (or no-alternator racing machines) will no doubt
experience an extended service life with reasonable
attention to recharging from AC mains. The manner
in which we used batteries will not be so cost-effective
for having purchased a sophisticated charger . . .
but it doesn't hurt either.
The "automotive" chargers referred to on the Odyssey
literature are becoming increasingly rare. Just about
everybody in the business has incorporated AGM/RG/SVLA
top-off routines like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
but even then, if you used an older style charger to
bring your sealed battery up enough to crank the engine,
it's no big deal. Once the engine is running, the
alternator will finish the job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
Well Bob, I think you've just about nailed my somewhat non-standard but
somewhat common new airplane situation pretty well....
On 9/6/2011 9:42 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> The only 'fly' in this alphabet soup of chargers
> assumes that you're really going to need to do
> significant charging to your battery(ies). If
> one's alternator(s) is working properly, the
> ship's battery should never be subjected to
> serious discharge. Getting the engine started
> shouldn't take more than 5% or so of the battery's
> capacity.
so, for the past 3 years of finishing up my RV10, I've had 2 batteries
in there with very occassional but sometimes lenthy use supplemented
with a whole lot of trickle charging using a Battery Tender 2 amp
charger. A form of slow death... which I kind of realized when it came
time to fly. I swapped out both batteries with a new and almost new
battery. However, they never saw an alternator.
>
> When you park the airplane, the battery should be
> toped off and require no maintenance if you plan
> to fly again in less than 90 days or so.
Well, first we did some short ground runs of the engine along with a lot
of lengthy panel runs. Using the little 2 amp (1.2 amp?) Battery
Tender to top these 2 new batteries off. Again slow death administered
for a relatively short time
>
> Long term storage can be supported by the smallest
> of Battery-Minder style products. NOW . . . if
> you routinely discharge your battery as a source
> of portable power like for trolling motors, then
> any AGM rated smart charger will do the job. Just
> check it after being plugged in for a day or so
> and see that the float voltage is not over 13.5
> volts. It can be as low as 12.8 at room temperatures.
Well, the AGM rated Schumacher would have probably saved me... but I
just bought one 2 days ago....
>
> The point is that uncontrolled 'trickle charging'
> of an RG battery will kill it. I'm surprised that
> Odyssey even mentions the term as a useful
> operating description.
Kill batteries? yes I did.
But now I have the charger needed to avoid it, and more important, I'm
flying more and testing/configuring panel stuff less.
Where I am now is that I have 3 batteries of varying degrees of health.
Two of them look like they will start the engine better than number 3,
so number 3 goes to the graveyard. I'll continue to use these 2 thru my
abusive Phase 1 work, and continue to top them off with the Schumacher
AGM-capable charger as needed. When I get to Phase 2, a fresh battery
will be added in the Starter position, and my best number 2 will work
the panel. From there I can start a regular
new>batt1>batt2>dumprecyclebin rotation.
Given the LS /non-LS Skytech/B&C starter issues, I'm looking forward to
seeing how 'snappy' my fresh battery will be.... maybe a different
starter will improve things even more.
... but more important, now I have some quantifying tools to track
conditions and analyze performance. I intend to log each battery's
condition periodically so I can see what the hell is going on. Right
now I have stickies all over my batteries with date, time, condition,
and tester results. If you don't get some numbers and write them down,
you aren't really doing anything.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | odyssey PC680 Battery |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I have been reading the numerous posts regarding the PC680 battery. I don't understand
why when responding to the posts the forum BBS generates an entirely
new thread each post, so it is a slow process to follow the posts on this subject.
So I am going to repeat the original post question in hopes of getting additional
actual performance responses.
We are finalizing the electrical for our RV-10 and the plan is to go with 2 PC680
Odyssey batteries. One will be the main and the other the Aux STBY buss power.
I am looking for feedback on the performance of the 680 for cranking power etc.
in the RV-10. Or any other comments before I finalize the purchase.
Thanks,
Bill
__________________
--------
Bill Peyton
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351620#351620
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: odyssey PC680 Battery |
>
>We are finalizing the electrical for our RV-10 and the plan is to go
>with 2 PC680 Odyssey batteries. One will be the main and the other
>the Aux STBY buss power.
>
>I am looking for feedback on the performance of the 680 for cranking
>power etc. in the RV-10. Or any other comments before I finalize the purchase.
I thought we touched on that. The PC680 is
an upper-crust SVLA/RG/AGM product by a company
that builds them on a highly automated production
line. The most noteworthy feature of walking
through their factory was how few people were
in evidence for a facility that made 50,000
batteries a day.
Any performance data you're going to receive
outside accurately quantified testing will be
anecdotal. You'd find that the majority of
folks flying them like 'em. A few will think
Hawker/Enersys walks on water . . . and a few
that have given up gold-plated batteries in
favor of more generic devices that cost 1/3
the price.
The biggest hurdle the owner/operator has
to navigate is to acquire the mind-set that
batteries, like tires, oil and spark-plugs
have a service life. But it's a service
life with a twist. It's hard to abuse oil,
spark plugs and tires such that they die really
early . . . batteries are not so forgiving.
Perceived "cranking power" is a function of many
variables not the least of which is wiring,
starter/engine combinations and ambient
temperatures. There's a high probability
that you're going to be satisfied with the
PC680 the way you use it. But over the lifetime
of the airplane, it would be interesting to
figure battery costs per operating hour with
an idea of seeing if lower cost products are
more economical.
Bob . . .
>Thanks,
>Bill
>__________________
>
>--------
>Bill Peyton
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351620#351620
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey |
PC680s powering RV-10 w
Well, the AGM rated Schumacher would have probably saved me... but I
just bought one 2 days ago....
Maybe not. I've often suggested that builder's
do their shop testing with a tired car battery
supported by a switchmode power supply plugged into
the wall. Don't spend a time on flight batteries
until the day before ground runs in preparation
for first flight.
Where I am now is that I have 3 batteries of varying degrees of health.
Two of them look like they will start the engine better than number
3, so number 3 goes to the graveyard. I'll continue to use these 2
thru my abusive Phase 1 work, and continue to top them off with the
Schumacher AGM-capable charger as needed.
If those are testing under 200A, they're not
even flight worthy. I'll bet they cap-check at
under 50% of new.
When I get to Phase 2, a fresh battery will be added in the
Starter position, and my best number 2 will work the panel. From
there I can start a regular new>batt1>batt2>dumprecyclebin rotation.
Given the LS /non-LS Skytech/B&C starter issues, I'm looking forward
to seeing how 'snappy' my fresh battery will be.... maybe a different
starter will improve things even more.
That's pretty much a given.
... but more important, now I have some quantifying tools to track
conditions and analyze performance. I intend to log each battery's
condition periodically so I can see what the hell is going on. Right
now I have stickies all over my batteries with date, time, condition,
and tester results. If you don't get some numbers and write them
down, you aren't really doing anything.
You got it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey |
PC680s powering RV-10 w
On 9/7/2011 12:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If those are testing under 200A, they're not
> even flight worthy. I'll bet they cap-check at
> under 50% of new.
What do you mean by "cap-check"?
do not archve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
What do you mean by "cap-check"?
Total AH capacity of the battery
do not archve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries aboard aircraft |
At 12:36 PM 9/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>On 9/7/2011 12:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> If those are testing under 200A, they're not
>> even flight worthy. I'll bet they cap-check at
>> under 50% of new.
> What do you mean by "cap-check"?
Capacity check. How long will the battery run
useful items in an alternator-out condition . . .
or how long will the battery run certain gizmos on
the ground . . . and perhaps still start the engine?
A load-test goes to starting engines, a cap-check
goes to KNOWING with CONFIDENCE what kind of an
energy budget you can support with the fully charged
battery. Batteries are sized in the heavy iron
such that they supply specific loads for 30 minutes
during alternator/generator-out events when
worn to 80% of as-new capacity.
They still crank the engine just fine . . . but no
longer meet design goals operations under loss of
engine driven power sources.
Suggest you review Chapter 2 of The 'Connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
| From: | Timothy Farrell <motoracer(at)gmail.com> |
Bill,
This particular comment got my attention:
*"That combined with the fact that almost every flight is
followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging."
*I recall recently reading that draining the power of the Odyssey
batteries by doing service items such as long database upgrades and
gear swings is particularly bad for them. I don't know how much panel
work you got into, but it is possible that there was some damage
caused this way by not using an APU.
-Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
That's exactly what I was trying to say. From what I'm beginning to
understand, it's bad for the batteries. I'm not using any kind of power
supply other than the 2 batteries hooked to a 'trickle' charger. Bad stuff.
I'm still into a lot of panel configuration work and I'm still depending
on the flight batteries for that work. Now that I'm flying, it's
probably not so damaging.
I thought that hooking up the 10 amp Schumacher charger to my 2
batteries during this work might be a viable solution. But it appears
that the Schumacher has enough 'smarts' to see that there are 2
batteries involved and it goes into error mode for some reason.
Bill "now that the weather has cleared, we're going back to flying" Watson
On 9/7/2011 8:35 PM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
> Bill,
>
> This particular comment got my attention:
>
> **"That combined with the fact that almost every flight is
> followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging."
>
>
> **I recall recently reading that draining the power of the Odyssey batteries
by doing service items such as long database upgrades and gear swings is particularly
bad for them. I don't know how much panel work you got into, but it is
possible that there was some damage caused this way by not using an APU.
>
>
> -Tim
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
At 08:49 PM 9/7/2011, you wrote:
>That's exactly what I was trying to say. From what I'm beginning to
>understand, it's bad for the batteries. I'm not using any kind of
>power supply other than the 2 batteries hooked to a 'trickle'
>charger. Bad stuff.
Yeah . . . while the little charger/maintainer will eventually
top-off the battery it's connected to, using that battery to
'run things' puts what we call a deep cycle on it. You can
buy batteries optimized for deep-cycle service like trolling
motors, mobility carts, etc. But the Odyssey is not well disposed
to living this kind of life.
Even in our cars, the battery is taxed only a few seconds each
start-run cycle to get an engine started whereupon it's quickly
recharged. All batteries are good for hundreds to thousands
of such cycles where each discharge event uses a few percent
off the top.
But taking a battery down below 75% or so is a deep cycle
that has an effect on service life. If you've been using
the batteries like this for some time, it would account for
their relatively soggy condition.
When your choice of batteries comes with a premium price,
it seems practical to consider some sort of ac mains driven
ground power device for extended ground ops.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
So going back throught the archives, it seems like my charging setup
would serve as a good ground power unit if the charger were upgraded
from a 2 amp "maintainer" type to a 10 amp "smart" charger like the X10
Schumacher I recently picked up from Walmart. It would power all or
most of my panel setup and practice work, prevent the batteries from
getting deep discharged, and bring them up to full charge pretty quickly
once the load was removed.
Assuming that's right, the problem I'm having right now is that the
Schumacher doesn't seem to like to be connected to both batteries
simultaneously. It goes into some kind of blinking fault mode. Any
thought?
(I'm going to check the model number again but recall "X10")
Bill
On 9/8/2011 6:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:49 PM 9/7/2011, you wrote:
>> That's exactly what I was trying to say. From what I'm beginning to
>> understand, it's bad for the batteries. I'm not using any kind of
>> power supply other than the 2 batteries hooked to a 'trickle'
>> charger. Bad stuff.
>
> Yeah . . . while the little charger/maintainer will eventually
> top-off the battery it's connected to, using that battery to
> 'run things' puts what we call a deep cycle on it. You can
> buy batteries optimized for deep-cycle service like trolling
> motors, mobility carts, etc. But the Odyssey is not well disposed
> to living this kind of life.
>
> Even in our cars, the battery is taxed only a few seconds each
> start-run cycle to get an engine started whereupon it's quickly
> recharged. All batteries are good for hundreds to thousands
> of such cycles where each discharge event uses a few percent
> off the top.
>
> But taking a battery down below 75% or so is a deep cycle
> that has an effect on service life. If you've been using
> the batteries like this for some time, it would account for
> their relatively soggy condition.
>
> When your choice of batteries comes with a premium price,
> it seems practical to consider some sort of ac mains driven
> ground power device for extended ground ops.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s |
powering RV-10 w
Bill,
If one puts a dead/low batt in the bunch then the Shumaker 1 or 1.5a
maintainer will always will go into fault mode. Separate the batts
and put a little load on them all and then charge the low one with a
2amp charger (not a maintainer) then start over with the maintainer
and all the batts in parallel.
For your newer 2/10a charger then it probably wont charge a low batt.
In that case charge 2 batts in parallel and that should overcome the
smart circuit in the newer chargers. My vintage chargers have no
smarts and will attempt to charge a dead battery. Not good for the charger.
Some times a low batt has to be charged at the 10a setting, but you
still have to overcome the smart circuit in the later model chargers.
Use the 2a setting before trying the 10a.
I have a large fleet of vehicles and shure enough it comes with lots
of batt experience.
Bottom line is one of your batts is quite discharged.
PaulW
=============
At 07:49 PM 9/7/2011, Bill Watson wrote:
>That's exactly what I was trying to say. From what I'm beginning to
>understand, it's bad for the batteries. I'm not using any kind of
>power supply other than the 2 batteries hooked to a 'trickle'
>charger. Bad stuff.
>
>I'm still into a lot of panel configuration work and I'm still
>depending on the flight batteries for that work. Now that I'm
>flying, it's probably not so damaging.
>
>I thought that hooking up the 10 amp Schumacher charger to my 2
>batteries during this work might be a viable solution. But it
>appears that the Schumacher has enough 'smarts' to see that there
>are 2 batteries involved and it goes into error mode for some reason.
>
>Bill "now that the weather has cleared, we're going back to flying" Watson
>
>On 9/7/2011 8:35 PM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
>>Bill,
>>
>>This particular comment got my attention:
>>
>>
>>
>>"That combined with the fact that almost every flight is
>> followed by much battery draining panel work followed by charging."
>>
>>
>>I recall recently reading that draining the power of the Odyssey
>>batteries by doing service items such as long database upgrades and
>>gear swings is particularly bad for them. I don't know how much
>>panel work you got into, but it is possible that there was some
>>damage caused this way by not using an APU.
>>
>>
>>-Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial experience with dual Odyssey PC680s powering |
RV-10 w
At 06:18 AM 9/8/2011, you wrote:
So going back through the archives, it seems like my charging setup
would serve as a good ground power unit if the charger were upgraded
from a 2 amp "maintainer" type to a 10 amp "smart" charger like the
X10 Schumacher I recently picked up from Walmart.
Maybe. If the charger is no noisier than an alternator,
this might be useful.
It would power all or most of my panel setup and practice work,
prevent the batteries from getting deep discharged, and bring them up
to full charge pretty quickly once the load was removed.
Assuming that's right, the problem I'm having right now is that the
Schumacher doesn't seem to like to be connected to both batteries
simultaneously. It goes into some kind of blinking fault mode. Any thought?
(I'm going to check the model number again but recall "X10")
How are you connecting 2 batteries in parallel?
If it's Z-14 with all three contactors closed,
keep in mind that three contactors will waste about
2.5 amps of your charger/power-supply output.
If the charger is barfing . . . check the open-circuit
voltage of each battery while not connected to anything.
Most modern chargers will have an automatic rejection
feature for connecting to a badly discharged battery.
If either or both of the batteries is below 11 volts,
then they contain less than 5% of capable capacity.
A short term connection with a BEEFY charging source
might pump them up enough to allow a finish charge with
the automatic charger.
I've often used jumper cables to put a really dead battery
across a vehicle battery with the engine running. A couple
minutes is enough . . . then move it to the bench for
automatic charging.
Understand that TIME any battery spends in the lower regions
of rated capacity eats away at the battery's vital chemistry.
Batteries in normal service will last many years. But they
are similar to house plants. They will recover from a pretty
severe case of droopy leaves if you address the shortage of
water soon and in adequate quantity. Delay beyond a point
where living cells die off, and total recovery is impossible.
Continued performance is degraded if not terminated.
Visualize your battery as 6-cells rated at about 2.2
volts each . . . wired in series to form a "12-volt"
battery. Each cell is comprised of millions of micro-cells.
All are in parallel, each has a very high source impedance
(perhaps 1000 ohms), each contributes a tiny portion of
total capacity to store energy. Allow the battery to set
in a depleted or semi-depleted state and there is risk
for loosing a percentage of micro-cells. If you loose 1/2
of them, capacity drops by half and source impedance doubles.
This makes for a VERY soggy battery. For most purposes
in aviation, such a battery is no longer serviceable . . .
even if you manage to crank an engine with it.
There are many products that claim to 'recover' worn
out or abused batteries. Do a Google on "battery desulfator"
and you'll get thousands of hits. Check out the Concorde Battery
website for this document.
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0171.pdf
On page 106 you will find a "conditioning charge"
procedure. This is a real sledge hammer approach that
has a limited value in recovering some batteries that
do not test strong enough for return to service.
I've seen similar procedures called out in countless
maintenance manuals. It's not a sure bet but it's
the most promising in this world of TV Infomercials
that offer, "the world's greatest battery charger and
recovery system."
The production lines at Beech are fitted with "trash
batteries" on little carts that are connected into
the airplane and then supported by a ground power cart.
The ship's flight battery doesn't get connected until
the airplane is out the door.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio receiver burn out |
At 01:02 PM 8/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>While flying the other day my radio stopped receiving but would
>transmit ok. I sent it to the factory and they said the the radio
>looked like the antenna had a lighting strike because it was
>extremely fried inside.
> I had no strike and have never flown in bad weather.
> What could cause this?
That's a real mystery . . .
> Hear are some other observations
>
> 1) When my strobe is on when it flashes my amp meter discharges
> with each flash.
'Discharges' or just wiggles? It is not uncommon
for the ammeter to show some response to cyclic
current draw to the system.
> 2) When I taxi past the antenna for the field I can hear the
> field identifer in the headset but I am not on the frequency?
This might be leaking into your audio system. As
I write these words, I can reach up and touch the
volume control knob of my amplified computer speakers
and hear the broadcast material from a 5KW radio station
less than a mile away. My fingers provide extra "antenna"
for conducting an interference into the audio system.
I suspect that your proximity to a strong signal triggers
the transient interference event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag relay |
| From: | "Helidesigner" <mwscott2(at)comcast.net> |
I purchased the B&C wig wag relay and wired it according to the schematic for an
off-on-on switch and B&C diode assembly. The wig-wag is in the middle position.
I included the resistors between the relay and ground shown in the updated
schematic. The system works fine with incandecent nav lights but not with the
LED landing lights. Only one LED light turns on in wig wag mode and both lights
turn on in continuous on mode. The nav lights draw about 3.2 amps, the LED
lights about 3.7 amp. Anyone know what is going on here and how to fix it. Should
I just purchase an electronic wig wag unit designed for LED's?
--------
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351786#351786
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lithium Batteries? |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
Good morning, Bob.
I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the use of lithium batteries in
OBAM aircraft. (http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/)
(We're starting to see a lot of certification efforts for them around
Wichita, Albuquerque, Savannah, other places on the east coast...)
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag |
relay
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
If I recall, the B&C flasher will only cycle if it sees a load. I bet the
LEDs aren't drawing enough for the B&C to recognize that you actually have
two lights hooked up...
Sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer a solution.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Helidesigner wrote:
> mwscott2(at)comcast.net>
>
> I purchased the B&C wig wag relay and wired it according to the schematic
> for an off-on-on switch and B&C diode assembly. The wig-wag is in the middle
> position. I included the resistors between the relay and ground shown in
> the updated schematic. The system works fine with incandecent nav lights but
> not with the LED landing lights. Only one LED light turns on in wig wag mode
> and both lights turn on in continuous on mode. The nav lights draw about 3.2
> amps, the LED lights about 3.7 amp. Anyone know what is going on here and
> how to fix it. Should I just purchase an electronic wig wag unit designed
> for LED's?
>
> --------
> Thanks
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351786#351786
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag |
relay
At 07:56 AM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>I purchased the B&C wig wag relay and wired it according to the
>schematic for an off-on-on switch and B&C diode assembly. The
>wig-wag is in the middle position. I included the resistors between
>the relay and ground shown in the updated schematic. The system
>works fine with incandecent nav lights but not with the LED landing
>lights. Only one LED light turns on in wig wag mode and both lights
>turn on in continuous on mode. The nav lights draw about 3.2 amps,
>the LED lights about 3.7 amp. Anyone know what is going on here and
>how to fix it. Should I just purchase an electronic wig wag unit
>designed for LED's?
I modified that drawing for B&C based on testing I
did using one of the flashers from their inventory.
The resistors were added to emulate the fixed load
offered by incandescent lamps. You are the second
individual who was unable to duplicate the behavior
I was getting on the bench. I have a pair of Whelen
LED landing lights loaned to me by another reader
and I plotted their current draw vs. voltage curve
which I posted on the List a few days ago.
I'm somewhat tied up with some family matters and
can't get back to the bench right now to figure out
what's going on . . . but the solution will not
be difficult. Sit tight for the moment . . . watch
this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Batteries? |
At 08:02 AM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>Good morning, Bob.
>
>I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the use of lithium
>batteries in OBAM aircraft.
>(<http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/>http://www.lithiumaviationbattery.com/)
>
>(We're starting to see a lot of certification efforts for them
>around Wichita, Albuquerque, Savannah, other places on the east coast...)
I've not had any conversation with the lithium battery
program manager at HBC in a couple of years. I'll
drop him a note and see if there's anything close to
getting onto a type certificate.
This is one area where the OBAM aircraft owner
is justified in a wait-and-see response. It
isn't like you can't go flying without a lithium
battery. The ARE more expensive. They have fragilities
and performance issues that may make their price
difference still more unattractive. It would be
useful to have some first-hand feedback from users.
While the weight savings is compelling, they are
not a drop-in replacement for RG in every respect.
But if you're willing to be one of those users
eager to share you own first-hand experiences,
go for it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroLed landing lights not working with wig wag |
relay
Strange, from what I have seen of the AeroLEDs landing lights, there is
no need for a separate circuit for wing-wag. The units already have
that circuitry and functionality built in. Do you have some older units
that don=99t include that feature?
From: Andrew Zachar
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AeroLed landing lights not working
with wig wag relay
If I recall, the B&C flasher will only cycle if it sees a load. I bet
the LEDs aren't drawing enough for the B&C to recognize that you
actually have two lights hooked up...
Sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer a solution.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Helidesigner
wrote:
I purchased the B&C wig wag relay and wired it according to the
schematic for an off-on-on switch and B&C diode assembly. The wig-wag is
in the middle position. I included the resistors between the relay and
ground shown in the updated schematic. The system works fine with
incandecent nav lights but not with the LED landing lights. Only one LED
light turns on in wig wag mode and both lights turn on in continuous on
mode. The nav lights draw about 3.2 amps, the LED lights about 3.7 amp.
Anyone know what is going on here and how to fix it. Should I just
purchase an electronic wig wag unit designed for LED's?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure mode |
A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen bulbs,
i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
modes.
I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic recognition.
They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either OFF-ON-PULSED.
( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to fail
nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is the
major use.
My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or ramped
up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the primary
cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow that
ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
would be greatly appreciated. David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Switch to HID.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
bulbs,
i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
modes.
I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
recognition.
They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
OFF-ON-PULSED.
( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
fail
nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is
the
major use.
My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
ramped
up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
primary
cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow
that
ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
would be greatly appreciated. David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual sets.....
David
____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> Switch to HID.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
> bulbs,
> i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>
> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
> modes.
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
> recognition.
> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
> OFF-ON-PULSED.
> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
> fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is
> the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
> ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
> primary
> cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow
> that
> ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
>
> would be greatly appreciated. David
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
OK, how about LED?
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
sets.....
David
____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> Switch to HID.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
> bulbs,
> i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>
> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
> modes.
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
> recognition.
> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
> OFF-ON-PULSED.
> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
> fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is
> the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
> ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
> primary
> cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would slow
> that
> ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around
it
>
> would be greatly appreciated. David
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is
either OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to
fail nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic
recognition is the major use.
My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or
ramped up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up
is the primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke
(induction) would slow that ramping down and return normal life to
these devices.
If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around
it would be greatly appreciated.
Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
landing lights. Remember this plot?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
sticking with it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bob,
I think that you are totally correct concerning the thermo rapid cycle being
the stress failure mode.
When viewing the filaments with a mag. lens they look completely normal and
intact until you look carefully at one end of the filament. They are broken
at the very end.
Odd that I have not run into others that are having the same problem as
these bulbs are used in a lot of recognition applications.
I suspect that if I left them ON continually, they would last a normal life.
And, as you outline, in PULSE mode the thermo aspect is too much stress. I
wonder now, if there is a heavy duty version of this bulb with bullet proof
filament structure.
I am installing new bulbs when delivered and will report back when I have a
similar failure. Hopefully, I may have learned more.
Thanks, David
___________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
> recognition. They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
> OFF-ON-PULSED. ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
>
> They fail in less than 10 hrs of operation. Interesting both seem to fail
> nearly at the same time. The "pulse" mode for traffic recognition is the
> major use.
>
> My ignorant guess is that halogen bulbs do not like to be pulsed or ramped
> up too quickly during pulse mode. If the rapid power ramp up is the
> primary cause, I am wondering if an appropriate choke (induction) would
> slow that ramping down and return normal life to these devices.
>
> If I were to do a WAG . . . I'm guessing that you're
> getting repetitive stress cracks in the filaments.
> These things operate somewhat hotter than their older
> cousins . . . most seem to have heavier filaments too.
>
> There are two things that erode filament integrity . . .
> evaporation (total operating hours issue) and stress
> cracks (combination of vibration and temperature cycling).
> I'm wondering if the halogens are not more highly stressed
> during each illumination cycle. Since a wig-wag operates
> on the order of 2 flashes per second, 10 hours of flashing
> would offer 72,000 or so temperature cycles. Far more cycles
> than would be expected in automotive applications. Just
> assuming 200 cycles per day in a high-beam lamp for night
> highway driving would take 360 straight days of such service
> to equal 10 hours of wig-wag.
>
> Any insight, suggestions into the failure mode and how to work around it
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Not sure 'current ramping' would have a very useful effect.
> Some of you may recall an experiment we did some years back
> to evaluate the usefulness of inrush-limiters in wig-wagged
> landing lights. Remember this plot?
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>
> We discovered that the lamp temperature stays pretty warm
> during a 250 mS off-cycle such that you don't see the typical
> cold-filament inrush each time the lamp is powered up. But
> the temperature excursions between no-visible light and full
> intensity is still significant. It may well be that the very
> thing that makes the halogen a stellar illuminator amongst
> incandescent lamps is it's Achilles Heel as well.
>
> Just a guess . . . but until I hear/get a better idea, I'm
> sticking with it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bruce,
...also a good suggestion, but, like HID's they are quite expensive when one
needs a really bright recognition lamp.
I plan to keep watching the LED market and see what comes in cost
reduction.... Thanks, David
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> OK, how about LED?
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:49 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
> Good suggestion...all except for the considerable cost for dual
> sets.....
> David
>
> ____________________________________________________
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
> circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>>
>> Switch to HID.
>>
>> Bruce
>> WWW.Glasair.org
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> David
>> Lloyd
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
>> circuitry....failure mode
>>
>>
>>
>> A general question for Bob and the List Members concerning halogen
>> bulbs,
>> i.e., GE H7604 landing light style.
>>
>> I am hoping someone on the List knows a lot about halogen bulb failure
>> modes.
>>
>> I have H7604 lamps in my wing tips that aid landing and traffic
>> recognition.
>> They are controlled by a solid state switcher that is either
>> OFF-ON-PULSED.
>> ( I do not know the turn-on ramp characteristics..)
August 17, 2011 - September 09, 2011
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kp