AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kr
October 06, 2011 - October 30, 2011
firewall ground.
The easiest thing for me to do is to remove the insulated cover over the
braid (and 3 wires) to the point where the power wire needs to separate. I
imagine the braid will be a bit tight around the wires, so I could cut it
off at the point where the power wire separates and splice a separate ground
wire to it. Or does it need to shield the signal wire for that extra 10"?
Lemme know how this sounds to you.
Cheers,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354153#354153
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/uma_fuel_pressure_sender_wiring_625.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UMA fuel pressure sender wiring |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Jay :-)
Yes, I'm taking out the power wire to splice it to a rather short power supply
wire. But I still could have left it in for a bit longer, now that I look at the
finished product shown below.
I thought the braid might be too tight to get the wires out, but it worked just
fine. I removed the original white plastic covering to an inch before the power
lead takeoff and kept the other two wires in the braid. Used heat shrink to
cover the exposed braid and did the same thing where the signal wire comes out.
The last few inches has just the ground wire inside the braid. I stripped the
ground wire back 1/4" so it would contact the braid, then stuffed them both
into the faston terminal and crimped away.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354195#354195
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/uma_fuel_pressure_sender_wiring_151.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 10/06/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electric aircraft issues |
Bob, or anyone else out there in Aeroelectric land with Li-Ion battery
knowledge,
I have started to build, what I hope will be, an electric aircraft. The kit,
a Cumulus motor glider <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgUUN5lVbGI> , with a
20:1 glide ratio is ideal, and I have non-explosive A123 batteries
<http://www.robotcombat.com/products/images/bp_configs/pdf/ANR26650M1.pdf> .
The 560 batteries, 25HP/100V electric motor, and controller should weigh in
about the same as and fly as long as it would with the prescribed Rotax
engine. With a potential to fly about 2000 cycles (read 2000 flights), these
batteries will cost about 20% of the cost of mogas. if I can figure out how
to configure the batteries and charge them properly.
I could use a lot of advice regarding the battery pack architecture,
charging, and maintaining these Li-Ion batteries. I need to know how to weld
or solder the batteries into packs (I am thinking 32 packs places in series;
each pack having 16 or 17 cells in parallel). I need to find an inexpensive
way to charge them (I am thinking I could charge the 8 packs at a time; 30V
@ 50A for up to 45 minutes) but need to understand more about charging and
balancing.
A123 won't give me the time of day since they changed their focus to sell
batteries only to auto manufacturers so any words of wisdom would be
helpful.
Thanks,
Les
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
At 01:43 PM 10/7/2011, you wrote:
Bob, or anyone else out there in Aeroelectric
land with Li-Ion battery knowledge,
I have started to build, what I hope will be, an
electric aircraft. The kit, a Cumulus motor
glider, with a 20:1 glide ratio is ideal, and I
have non-explosive A123 batteries. The 560
batteries, 25HP/100V electric motor, and
controller should weigh in about the same as and
fly as long as it would with the prescribed Rotax
engine. With a potential to fly about 2000 cycles
(read 2000 flights), these batteries will cost
about 20% of the cost of mogas if I can figure
out how to configure the batteries and charge them properly.
I could use a lot of advice regarding the battery
pack architecture, charging, and maintaining
these Li-Ion batteries. I need to know how to
weld or solder the batteries into packs (I am
thinking 32 packs places in series; each pack
having 16 or 17 cells in parallel). I need to
find an inexpensive way to charge them (I am
thinking I could charge the 8 packs at a time;
30V @ 50A for up to 45 minutes) but need to
understand more about charging and balancing.
A123 wont give me the time of day since they
changed their focus to sell batteries only to
auto manufacturers so any words of wisdom would be helpful.
Thanks,
Les
I wish that the bright light at the end of
the tunnel was not an oncoming train.
There has been an intense interest in lighter/
more energetic batteries for aircraft since
Cessna bolted batteries and generators to the
C-140 many moons ago.
There have been some fits and starts on lithium
devices with mixed results. There ARE lithium
products flying on a number of air transport
category aircraft. Until a short time ago,
Cessna had sold several Citations with lithium
starting batteries aboard. Cessna had invested
mucho bux in a development program that for all
intents and purposes, produced an airworthy
product. Then we have these two documents:
SL525C-24-02A-R01
SB525C-24-05
The background on these publications seems to
stand on a battery fire in a factory airplane
that caused extensive damage and was difficult
to control.
It seems that the battery monitoring system may
have failed to predict and warn against a 'normal'
recharge of a badly depleted battery. Hence an
field investigation into software issues. The
other document speaks to what's necessary to replace
a lithium battery with either lead-acid or ni-cad
with only a logbook entry. This document does
not speak to a Cessna program that proposes to replace
all lithium products from the field.
I'm not ready to recommend that anyone bolt
a lithium device to their airplane. When the
big guys are stubbing their toes in spectacular
ways, I think it unwise to think that we are
well advised to expand a technology (that
is still an experiment) into our fun machines.
By the way, I think the cells involved in the
battery fire were the Lithium Iron devices from
A123. The fat lady hasn't even been handed the
sheet music much less received a curtain call.
I'll continue to track this series of events.
It sound like you'd like to be involved in the
development of a next generation aircraft. There
are a number of good texts on battery management.
I'll see if I can get some titles and sources
for you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
I'd be interested in information about building battery packs and
welding or soldering those batteries into battery packs. I just bought a
Li-on pack for my CPAP machine - $359! I'd love to try building my own
battery pack for a couple of purposes if I can do so safely and gain
some education.
M. Haught
On 10/7/2011 3:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> At 01:43 PM 10/7/2011, you wrote:
>
> Bob, or anyone else out there in Aeroelectric land with Li-Ion battery
> knowledge,
> I have started to build, what I hope will be, an electric aircraft.
> The kit, a Cumulus motor glider, with a 20:1 glide ratio is ideal, and
> I have non-explosive A123 batteries. The 560 batteries, 25HP/100V
> electric motor, and controller should weigh in about the same as and
> fly as long as it would with the prescribed Rotax engine. With a
> potential to fly about 2000 cycles (read 2000 flights), these
> batteries will cost about 20% of the cost of mogas if I can figure
> out how to configure the batteries and charge them properly.
>
> I could use a lot of advice regarding the battery pack architecture,
> charging, and maintaining these Li-Ion batteries. I need to know how
> to weld or solder the batteries into packs (I am thinking 32 packs
> places in series; each pack having 16 or 17 cells in parallel). I need
> to find an inexpensive way to charge them (I am thinking I could
> charge the 8 packs at a time; 30V @ 50A for up to 45 minutes) but need
> to understand more about charging and balancing.
>
> A123 wont give me the time of day since they changed their focus to
> sell batteries only to auto manufacturers so any words of wisdom would
> be helpful.
> Thanks,
> Les
>
> I wish that the bright light at the end of
> the tunnel was not an oncoming train.
>
> There has been an intense interest in lighter/
> more energetic batteries for aircraft since
> Cessna bolted batteries and generators to the
> C-140 many moons ago.
>
> There have been some fits and starts on lithium
> devices with mixed results. There ARE lithium
> products flying on a number of air transport
> category aircraft. Until a short time ago,
> Cessna had sold several Citations with lithium
> starting batteries aboard. Cessna had invested
> mucho bux in a development program that for all
> intents and purposes, produced an airworthy
> product. Then we have these two documents:
>
>
> SL525C-24-02A-R01
>
>
> SB525C-24-05
>
>
> The background on these publications seems to
> stand on a battery fire in a factory airplane
> that caused extensive damage and was difficult
> to control.
>
> It seems that the battery monitoring system may
> have failed to predict and warn against a 'normal'
> recharge of a badly depleted battery. Hence an
> field investigation into software issues. The
> other document speaks to what's necessary to replace
> a lithium battery with either lead-acid or ni-cad
> with only a logbook entry. This document does
> not speak to a Cessna program that proposes to replace
> all lithium products from the field.
>
> I'm not ready to recommend that anyone bolt
> a lithium device to their airplane. When the
> big guys are stubbing their toes in spectacular
> ways, I think it unwise to think that we are
> well advised to expand a technology (that
> is still an experiment) into our fun machines.
>
> By the way, I think the cells involved in the
> battery fire were the Lithium Iron devices from
> A123. The fat lady hasn't even been handed the
> sheet music much less received a curtain call.
> I'll continue to track this series of events.
>
> It sound like you'd like to be involved in the
> development of a next generation aircraft. There
> are a number of good texts on battery management.
> I'll see if I can get some titles and sources
> for you.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
H.Marvin Haught Jr.
Haught& Associates, Inc
Huntsville, AR 72740
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
I'm thinking that getting to the team is working on Monnett's Waiex
project would be where some of the most current and directly applied
knowledge could be found.
Bill
On 10/7/2011 2:43 PM, Les Goldner wrote:
>
> Bob, or anyone else out there in Aeroelectric land with Li-Ion battery
> knowledge,
>
> I have started to build, what I hope will be, an electric aircraft.
> The kit, a Cumulus motor glider
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgUUN5lVbGI>, with a 20:1 glide ratio
> is ideal, and I have non-explosive A123 batteries
> <http://www.robotcombat.com/products/images/bp_configs/pdf/ANR26650M1.pdf>.
> The 560 batteries, 25HP/100V electric motor, and controller should
> weigh in about the same as and fly as long as it would with the
> prescribed Rotax engine. With a potential to fly about 2000 cycles
> (read 2000 flights), these batteries will cost about 20% of the cost
> of mogas... if I can figure out how to configure the batteries and
> charge them properly.
>
> I could use a lot of advice regarding the battery pack architecture,
> charging, and maintaining these Li-Ion batteries. I need to know how
> to weld or solder the batteries into packs (I am thinking 32 packs
> places in series; each pack having 16 or 17 cells in parallel). I need
> to find an inexpensive way to charge them (I am thinking I could
> charge the 8 packs at a time; 30V @ 50A for up to 45 minutes) but need
> to understand more about charging and balancing.
>
> A123 won't give me the time of day since they changed their focus to
> sell batteries only to auto manufacturers so any words of wisdom would
> be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Les
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
There's a vendor on HFPack who is pretty knowledgable about the A123's as h
e
sells them to hams interested in pedestrian mobile operations - not that he
knows anything about aircraft, but he probably has the typical ham
operator's willingness to help a fellow experimenter all he can - a lot lik
e
Bob N, here ;)
Google it.
-Bill B
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> I'm thinking that getting to the team is working on Monnett's Waiex
> project would be where some of the most current and directly applied
> knowledge could be found.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 10/7/2011 2:43 PM, Les Goldner wrote:
>
> Bob, or anyone else out there in Aeroelectric land with Li-Ion battery
> knowledge,****
>
> I have started to build, what I hope will be, an electric aircraft. The
> kit, a Cumulus motor glider <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgUUN5lVbGI
>,
> with a 20:1 glide ratio is ideal, and I have non-explosive A123 batteries
<http://www.robotcombat.com/products/images/bp_configs/pdf/ANR26650M1.pdf>.
> The 560 batteries, 25HP/100V electric motor, and controller should weigh
in
> about the same as and fly as long as it would with the prescribed Rotax
> engine. With a potential to fly about 2000 cycles (read 2000 flights), th
ese
> batteries will cost about 20% of the cost of mogas=85 if I can figure out
how
> to configure the batteries and charge them properly.****
>
> I could use a lot of advice regarding the battery pack architecture,
> charging, and maintaining these Li-Ion batteries. I need to know how to w
eld
> or solder the batteries into packs (I am thinking 32 packs places in seri
es;
> each pack having 16 or 17 cells in parallel). I need to find an inexpensi
ve
> way to charge them (I am thinking I could charge the 8 packs at a time; 3
0V
> @ 50A for up to 45 minutes) but need to understand more about charging an
d
> balancing.****
>
> A123 won=92t give me the time of day since they changed their focus to se
ll
> batteries only to auto manufacturers so any words of wisdom would be
> helpful.****
>
> Thanks,
> Les ****
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
===========
>
===========
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
> Cessna had invested
> mucho bux in a development program that for all
> intents and purposes, produced an airworthy
> product. Then we have these two documents:
>
>
>SL525C-24-02A-R01
>
>
>SB525C-24-05
I note that my cut-n-paste of these two citations
did not carry the http: links with them. I'm
away from the office but will re-post the
links to these to documents when I get back.
It may well be that there's a bright future for
lithium technology in airplanes. Here's a
supplier of off the shelf devices that has
developed quite a following in the recreational
vehicle and motorcycle markets.
http://www.shoraipower.com/
Their batteries are fitted with special
connectors that service a specialized
charger/cell-balancing accessory. While
not 'required' . . . it's very existence
suggests that these batteries are not
drop-in replacements for lead-acid.
http://www.shoraipower.com/downloads/shoraiLfxInstallGuide.pdf
But as we all know and personally feel,
the worst thing you can experience in
flight is smoke/fire. Cessna thought they
had cracked that nut. Both Cessna and
the FAA were ready to allow these batteries
aboard John Q Public's airplane.
Obviously, there are some issues yet to be
resolved so that probability for a repeat
incident in flight drops to that magic
one-event-per-billion flight hours that the
FAA is so fond of.
The "oncoming train" remark was inappropriate
. . . energy exploitation has evolved from
basking in the sun to burning wood, burning
pig fat/whale oil and upward to splitting
atoms. Each step offered more concentrated
and energetic releases of heat. Each step
also came with elevated risks.
No doubt risk mitigation for the lithium
technologies will eventually prove adequate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 10/08/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
Right off the top of my head, I can think of 3 freighter losses linked to Li batteries.
One got on the ground and burned on the runway for about 4 hours, without
loss of life. The other two didn't end so well. In all cases, the batteries
were palletized for shipping, not even part of an active circuit. You can
also google a video of a laptop sitting on the floor at LAX, and watch it erupt.
It's pretty spectacular.
FWIW, at least one of the planes in my past was configured with the NiCads outside
the primary structure. Absolute worst case, a runaway battery could exit
the bottom of the composite blister without doing more grievous harm. I don't
think it would have even depressurized the plane.
Something to consider-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
>
>
>FWIW, at least one of the planes in my past was configured with the
>NiCads outside the primary structure. Absolute worst case, a
>runaway battery could exit the bottom of the composite blister
>without doing more grievous harm. I don't think it would have even
>depressurized the plane.
Which speaks to the evolution of a technology . . .
I recall working a MU2 accident down in TX that
involved a ni-cad battery fire . . . that would
have been in the 70's. We eventually learned how
to live amicably with that technology's worst
traits. Unfortunately, some of the lessons came
with very high costs.
I've not done a detailed study of incidents but
I sense a trend suggesting that the lithium
cells are particularly vulnerable to mischief when
allowed to deeply discharge and are then recharged
with the systems normal power source that is also
capable of running the whole system.
The Shorai folks caution against an energetic
recharge of a deeply depleted battery. The task
of bringing up a dead battery is best accomplished
by their proprietary charger/cell-balancing product.
I wonder if the laptop fire at LAX wasn't produced
in a computer being recharged by a pax during a
stop between planes. Batteries on airplanes tend
to be deeply discharged more often than not . . .
and then the pax hopes to get 'er charged back
up between flights.
So it seems likely that if one chooses to use
the Shorai (or any other product) for an
airplane, it is most likely to perform as advertised
for a cranking battery where the alternator picks
up system loads and replenishes a few percent of
discharge each flight cycle.
If one DOES experience an alternator failure,
then by all means, use what ever energy the battery
contains in carrying out plan-B. Upon reaching the
ground, remove the battery from the airplane for
specialized recharging in a less-risky environment.
The Cessna ramp fire probably involved a disorderly
recharge of a badly depleted battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Bill Dube, who used to post to this site re his LED lights, probably has as much experience as anyone with the A123 batteries. He uses them in his battery powered dragster motorcycle (www.killacycle.com) and Bonneville racer. Search the archives for his take on using & charging these batts.
Jim Berry
RV-10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354448#354448
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
You mentioned:
"The Shorai folks caution against an energetic
recharge of a deeply depleted battery."
This is not only true of a Lithium battery, but charging a discharged lead acid
battery with a high powered alternator that's trying to maintain a constant voltage
(just got aeroplane or car running from a jump start) is not very easy
on the battery.
How could one limit the charging amps going into the battery yet still allow the
alternator to carry any loads?
Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354459#354459
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
On 10/09/2011 03:36 PM, rparigoris wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rparigoris"
>
> Hi Bob
>
> You mentioned:
> "The Shorai folks caution against an energetic
> recharge of a deeply depleted battery."
> This is not only true of a Lithium battery, but charging a discharged lead acid
battery with a high powered alternator that's trying to maintain a constant
voltage (just got aeroplane or car running from a jump start) is not very easy
on the battery.
> How could one limit the charging amps going into the battery yet still allow
the alternator to carry any loads?
> Ron P.
>
That was my 1st reaction, as well. Achieving it should be as simple (not
to be confused with cheap...) as the alternator feeding a switching
power supply which feeds only the custom charging circuit for the battery.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Batteries? |
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
> 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...)
>
> 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.
Before even considering a lithium battery in a man carrying aircraft.
Please search for "lipo fire" on you-tube for examples of what *small*
r/c airplane lithium batteries are capable of doing when abused (by
physical damage or over charging). Granted, the A123 battery
chemistry is far more tolerant of abuse but not nearly to the extent
of a lead acid battery.
Also, any lithium battery technology is going to require some form of
electronic balancing controller if it's placed in a system capable of
recharging it. Ie. low voltage micro controllers monitoring the
charge and discharge current of the battery as a whole, and voltage
level of each cell. For anything off the self IC that you can buy the
standard way of handling one of these out of spec conditions is to
disconnect the battery from the load (or charge). Every laptop battery
you've owned has one of these buried inside it's significantly strong
plastic casing (the controller to keep the battery safe from
electronic abuse, the casing to keep it safe from physical abuse).
Still, you can find videos of laptops ablaze on you tube, which always
seem to get more exciting when the people in the video start tossing
glasses of water on the laptop in an attempt to put it out. (Am I the
last person that took high school chemistry ?)
In my opinion, for a battery that's basically there to crank an
engine, level out the load on an alternator, and in an emergency
provide reserve power, it just isn't worth it. You're better off
placing one of the 8amp b&c gear driven backup alternators and then
saving weight by installing a battery just adequate to crank the
engine with a very short reserve time (ie, get the plane on the ground
after a double alternator failure, not fly out the tank).
For a electrically launched glider where all the charging is done at
the ground without time pressure I guess it's workable (in fact, it's
available from at least one production glider company). It's about
the only system that I can think of that would make me feel more
unsafe than sitting next to a tank of gasoline.
c'ya,
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: System Design |
vAt 07:09 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
Could one or two of you expert electron herders look this over and
give any advise, pro or con?
http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Wiring%20page.html
Drawings like these are less than helpful. The
generous sprinkling of breakers and fuses says
the author was worried more about having things
burn up than about how things worked or what
materials and processes were used.
Suggest you hook your wagon to the AeroElectric-List
and let's talk about how you intend to use this
airplane and help you establish some design goals
for both normal and operations under failure of
any single component.
Once those goals are in place and shared, we
can assist you with a great deal more detail
than what is provided in the drawing you
cited above.
Tell us about your airplane, its engine and
how you plan to use it.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: System Design |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
I spoke too soon. I did not scroll down far enough in the webpage you cited . .
. The offered drawings are considerably more complete than I first perceived.
My original impressions about the sprinkling of fuses/breakers was valid . . .
and this architecture is more like an automobile than an airplane. In no way am
I suggesting that their system does not FUNCTION as advertised; only that it
would benefit from some lessons learned in the legacy aircraft architectures
and wiring. These folks have obviously done a lot of work to bring this product
to market and it looks like a well conceived project. This particular engine
might warrant a new Z-figure.
My original advice is still operative. Let's talk!
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354502#354502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Handheld Radio Antenna |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi guys,
Recently I got to get a close look at a friend's plane that he is almost finished
building.
It's been a year since I've seen it, because he lives a 2 1/2 hour drive away.
Anyway, I noticed he had a whip style com antenna, which will attach to his primary
radio,
a handheld unit. Upon close inspection, I noticed it did NOT appear to have a
ground plane.
He, too, said he wondered about that, but it is 'as purchased' from LEAF Aircraft
Parts.
I did a quick search and came up with the antenna in question, and sure enough,
it doesn't
look like it has a ground plane, or will allow you to add one.
My questions are;
A) Does it have a ground plane 'built in', and we just can't see it? OR,
B) Does it not need one (because it's for a handheld radio)?
Obviously with the adel clamp, it simply attaches to the airframe minus any grounding
requirements. We were just curious if everything is okay with this design. Thanks
for
any insight.
Here's the unit;
http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/product_info.php?products_id=12715
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio Antenna |
At 08:21 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
Hi guys,
Recently I got to get a close look at a friend's plane that he is
almost finished building.
It's been a year since I've seen it, because he lives a 2 1/2 hour drive away.
Anyway, I noticed he had a whip style com antenna, which will
attach to his primary radio,
a handheld unit. Upon close inspection, I noticed it did NOT appear
to have a ground plane.
He, too, said he wondered about that, but it is 'as purchased' from
LEAF Aircraft Parts.
I did a quick search and came up with the antenna in question, and
sure enough, it doesn't
look like it has a ground plane, or will allow you to add one.
My questions are;
A) Does it have a ground plane 'built in', and we just can't see it? OR,
B) Does it not need one (because it's for a handheld radio)?
Obviously with the adel clamp, it simply attaches to the airframe
minus any grounding
requirements. We were just curious if everything is okay with this
design. Thanks for
any insight.
Here's the unit;
http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/product_info.php?products_id=12715
Your suspicions are justified. Having said that, it's
also a sure bet that this device will probably function
better than the stock 'rubber duck' antenna in the
cabin. The antenna would probably work better if the coax
shield were brought to some metallic portion of the airframe
at the base of the antenna. Its SWR would certainly be
lower.
The ideas behind optimal antenna design are few and
simple. Unfortunately, the marketplace for "new and
improved" antenna designs is vulnerable to smoke-n-
mirrors merchandising.
The antenna cited is not optimal but it is an
improvement. At the same time, a bit of time and
effort in his workshop could produce an antenna
that works as well if not better.
One of MANY suggestions . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/DIY_Comm_Ant/DIY_Comm.html
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio Antenna |
Bob -
Have a couple of projects on which I need antennas. Just bought 3 of
the antenna mounts on ebay for $12+ including shipping. Where do I get
the coax connectors? I've been looking on line but haven't seen any
that look exactly like that one. Obviously, I'm new at this and am
totally unfamiliar with the parts. Will also need the antenna wire.
Do you have a section some where that I can read up on antenna
installation?
M. Haught
On 10/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:21 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Recently I got to get a close look at a friend's plane that he is
> almost finished building.
> It's been a year since I've seen it, because he lives a 2 1/2 hour
> drive away.
>
> Anyway, I noticed he had a whip style com antenna, which will attach
> to his primary radio,
> a handheld unit. Upon close inspection, I noticed it did NOT appear
> to have a ground plane.
> He, too, said he wondered about that, but it is 'as purchased' from
> LEAF Aircraft Parts.
>
> I did a quick search and came up with the antenna in question, and
> sure enough, it doesn't
> look like it has a ground plane, or will allow you to add one.
> My questions are;
>
> A) Does it have a ground plane 'built in', and we just can't see
> it? OR,
>
> B) Does it not need one (because it's for a handheld radio)?
>
> Obviously with the adel clamp, it simply attaches to the airframe
> minus any grounding
> requirements. We were just curious if everything is okay with this
> design. Thanks for
> any insight.
>
> Here's the unit;
>
> http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/product_info.php?products_id=12715
>
> Your suspicions are justified. Having said that, it's
> also a sure bet that this device will probably function
> better than the stock 'rubber duck' antenna in the
> cabin. The antenna would probably work better if the coax
> shield were brought to some metallic portion of the airframe
> at the base of the antenna. Its SWR would certainly be
> lower.
>
>
> The ideas behind optimal antenna design are few and
> simple. Unfortunately, the marketplace for "new and
> improved" antenna designs is vulnerable to smoke-n-
> mirrors merchandising.
>
> The antenna cited is not optimal but it is an
> improvement. At the same time, a bit of time and
> effort in his workshop could produce an antenna
> that works as well if not better.
>
> One of MANY suggestions . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/DIY_Comm_Ant/DIY_Comm.html
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
--
H.Marvin Haught Jr.
Haught& Associates, Inc
Huntsville, AR 72740
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
Greetings Listers,
I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control Panel (RCP)
unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in the airplane
and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the mounting holes
was broken off.
I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the RCP from
it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The hole for this
RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from the E-01 but appeared
to be exactly the same as far as make and connector hole.
Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is from
ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King AK-450. Except
for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look exactly the same
and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a Black button and a
single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend, it turns
out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the original
E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off, so the wiring
and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of the two different
RCP's is slightly different.
The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP that
doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized RCP won't
fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into this
before.
Thanks!
Matt Dralle
-
Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
Afternoon, Matt...
My first thought (if I read your note correctly) would be to use
the smaller one that works, and make a new miniature panel to
mount it in, then mount the new miniature panel to cover the
larger hole...It may look a little odd (you could paint it pink,
I suppose, to REALLY make it odd!) but it would keep you from
encountering any other problems that may crop up even if you
think you get the RCP working, as it may fail when needed the most.
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 10/10/2011 12:53 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>
>
> Greetings Listers,
>
> I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control Panel (RCP)
unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in the airplane
and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the mounting holes
was broken off.
>
> I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the RCP from
it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The hole for this
RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from the E-01 but appeared
to be exactly the same as far as make and connector hole.
>
> Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is from
ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King AK-450.
Except for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look exactly the same
and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a Black button and
a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
>
> But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend, it
turns out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the original
E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off, so the wiring
and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of the two different
RCP's is slightly different.
>
> The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP that
doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized RCP won't
fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
>
> Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into this
before.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt Dralle
>
>
> -
> Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
On 10/10/2011 11:53 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>
>
> Greetings Listers,
>
> I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control Panel (RCP)
unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in the airplane
and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the mounting holes
was broken off.
>
> I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the RCP from
it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The hole for this
RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from the E-01 but appeared
to be exactly the same as far as make and connector hole.
>
> Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is from
ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King AK-450.
Except for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look exactly the same
and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a Black button and
a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
>
> But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend, it
turns out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the original
E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off, so the wiring
and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of the two different
RCP's is slightly different.
>
> The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP that
doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized RCP won't
fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
>
> Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into this
before.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt Dralle
>
There's at least one ELT out there that has the leads in the 'phone
wire' re-arranged between the two ends. Sorry; I can't remember which
one, but an archive search might find some posts about it. Some have cut
the end to feed through the airframe, crimped on a new connector, & then
discovered that the wires were, IIRC, reversed in the connector in one end.
One thing to try (if the connector is the same as a regular
phone-to-wall-jack connector) is to simply grab a phone cable and a wall
jack. The wall jack makes using your volt/ohm meter a lot easier. plug
the connector into the switch module & the wall jack. Check resistances
& voltages with the switch in each of the possible positions, & make a
chart of the results. Repeat with the other switch module. Make a new
cable with re-arranged wires to give results that match the original switch.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
Hi Charlie,
I wish that you hit the List with the problem before doing the cutting. I
know something about this as I had asked one of Bob's Lists the very same
question. Did anyone know the difference in these two RCP units and how to
modify either to do the others job. I received no replies.
However, being that ACK and Ameri-King are arch rivals, they naturally would
not standardize the RCP. One is probably pull to ground and the other is a
pull up to control the ELT.
Hopefully, your message to the List will find a person that knows the
workings of these simple RCP boxes and advise a few changes to make it work.
I will be watching too for any answers....
Dave
_________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control
Panel...
>
>
> On 10/10/2011 11:53 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt
>> Dralle
>>
>>
>> Greetings Listers,
>>
>> I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control
>> Panel (RCP) unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel
>> in the airplane and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of
>> the mounting holes was broken off.
>>
>> I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the
>> RCP from it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The
>> hole for this RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from
>> the E-01 but appeared to be exactly the same as far as make and connector
>> hole.
>>
>> Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01
>> is from ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an
>> Ameri-King AK-450. Except for the difference in vertical size the two
>> RCP's look exactly the same and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both
>> have a Red and a Black button and a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt
>> battery.
>>
>> But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend,
>> it turns out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug
>> the original E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01
>> on/off, so the wiring and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal
>> wiring of the two different RCP's is slightly different.
>>
>> The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP
>> that doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized
>> RCP won't fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
>>
>> Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into
>> this before.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>>
> There's at least one ELT out there that has the leads in the 'phone wire'
> re-arranged between the two ends. Sorry; I can't remember which one, but
> an archive search might find some posts about it. Some have cut the end to
> feed through the airframe, crimped on a new connector, & then discovered
> that the wires were, IIRC, reversed in the connector in one end.
>
> One thing to try (if the connector is the same as a regular
> phone-to-wall-jack connector) is to simply grab a phone cable and a wall
> jack. The wall jack makes using your volt/ohm meter a lot easier. plug the
> connector into the switch module & the wall jack. Check resistances &
> voltages with the switch in each of the possible positions, & make a chart
> of the results. Repeat with the other switch module. Make a new cable with
> re-arranged wires to give results that match the original switch.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
I just got an email back from ACK Tech and they said:
"To use the Ameriking remote you must cut one end off the cable and turn it 180
degrees. - Mike Akatiff, ACK Technologies"
Simple enough! Yahoo!
Matt Dralle
At 09:53 AM 10/10/2011 Monday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
>Greetings Listers,
>
>I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control Panel (RCP)
unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in the airplane
and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the mounting holes
was broken off.
>
>I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the RCP from
it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The hole for this
RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from the E-01 but appeared
to be exactly the same as far as make and connector hole.
>
>Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is from
ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King AK-450.
Except for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look exactly the same
and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a Black button and
a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
>
>But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend, it turns
out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the original
E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off, so the wiring
and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of the two different
RCP's is slightly different.
>
>The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP that
doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized RCP won't
fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
>
>Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into this
before.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Matt Dralle
-
Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control |
Panel...
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Matt, Wouldn't it be even easier to just switch out the ELT and match up RCP
to appropriate ELT?
Rick Girard
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> >
>
> I just got an email back from ACK Tech and they said:
>
> "To use the Ameriking remote you must cut one end off the cable and turn it
> 180 degrees. - Mike Akatiff, ACK Technologies"
>
> Simple enough! Yahoo!
>
> Matt Dralle
>
>
> At 09:53 AM 10/10/2011 Monday, Matt Dralle wrote:
> dralle(at)matronics.com>
> >
> >
> >Greetings Listers,
> >
> >I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control
> Panel (RCP) unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in
> the airplane and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the
> mounting holes was broken off.
> >
> >I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the
> RCP from it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The
> hole for this RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from
> the E-01 but appeared to be exactly the same as far as make and connector
> hole.
> >
> >Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is
> from ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King
> AK-450. Except for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look
> exactly the same and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a
> Black button and a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
> >
> >But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend,
> it turns out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the
> original E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off,
> so the wiring and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of
> the two different RCP's is slightly different.
> >
> >The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP
> that doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized
> RCP won't fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
> >
> >Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into
> this before.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Matt Dralle
>
> -
> Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio Antenna |
At 11:30 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
Bob -
Have a couple of projects on which I need antennas. Just bought 3 of
the antenna mounts on ebay for $12+ including shipping. Where do I
get the coax connectors? I've been looking on line but haven't seen
any that look exactly like that one. Obviously, I'm new at this and
am totally unfamiliar with the parts. Will also need the antenna wire.
Do you have a section some where that I can read up on antenna installation?
Yes, there is a chapter on antennas and feed lines in
The 'Connection. Modern coax is available from
a variety of sources. RG400 141 or 142 are all suited
to your task. I have an RG142 special (your choice of
connectors installed for no extra charge). You might
consider the offering at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
You can get a 4-pack of those adapters off eBay
for about $11 including shipping at:
http://tinyurl.com/3zmxkg8
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio Antenna |
Thanks, Bob!!
Just ordered the adapters from EBay and got the antenna mounts this
morning. All I need is the coax! Will check it out on your site.
M. Haught
On 10/10/2011 9:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:30 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob -
>
> Have a couple of projects on which I need antennas. Just bought 3 of
> the antenna mounts on ebay for $12+ including shipping. Where do I
> get the coax connectors? I've been looking on line but haven't seen
> any that look exactly like that one. Obviously, I'm new at this and
> am totally unfamiliar with the parts. Will also need the antenna wire.
> Do you have a section some where that I can read up on antenna
> installation?
>
> Yes, there is a chapter on antennas and feed lines in
> The 'Connection. Modern coax is available from
> a variety of sources. RG400 141 or 142 are all suited
> to your task. I have an RG142 special (your choice of
> connectors installed for no extra charge). You might
> consider the offering at:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
>
> You can get a 4-pack of those adapters off eBay
> for about $11 including shipping at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3zmxkg8
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
H.Marvin Haught Jr.
Haught& Associates, Inc
Huntsville, AR 72740
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 10/10/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Haught <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio Antenna |
Bob -
Can I use 3/16 inch stainless welding rod for the antenna? The piano
wire rusts easily, and I have the welding rod on hand.
M. Haught
On 10/10/2011 9:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:30 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob -
>
> Have a couple of projects on which I need antennas. Just bought 3 of
> the antenna mounts on ebay for $12+ including shipping. Where do I
> get the coax connectors? I've been looking on line but haven't seen
> any that look exactly like that one. Obviously, I'm new at this and
> am totally unfamiliar with the parts. Will also need the antenna wire.
> Do you have a section some where that I can read up on antenna
> installation?
>
> Yes, there is a chapter on antennas and feed lines in
> The 'Connection. Modern coax is available from
> a variety of sources. RG400 141 or 142 are all suited
> to your task. I have an RG142 special (your choice of
> connectors installed for no extra charge). You might
> consider the offering at:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
>
> You can get a 4-pack of those adapters off eBay
> for about $11 including shipping at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3zmxkg8
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
H.Marvin Haught Jr.
Haught& Associates, Inc
Huntsville, AR 72740
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: System Design |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
The 100 amp starter fuse and 50 amp aircraft fuse are not normally used in aircraft.
Evidently this circuit has been used successfully. But I question why
the 100 amp starter fuse does not blow. I thought that starter motors draw hundreds
of amps.
The other fuses and wires are not sized to match each other or the loads.
The "Backup" switch is a single point of failure. When it fails, the engine
quits.
The ECU Select relay is another single point of failure. When it fails, the
engine quits. The relay is SPDT, not SPST as labeled.
The 25 amp fuse and wire for engine electrical power are more single points of
failure. When the fuse blows or the wire breaks, the engine quits.
The recommendation to "Replace capacitor every other annual inspection", is being
overly conservative. Other parts like fuses and switches are just as likely
to fail.
Joe Gores
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354671#354671
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
Are you making and selling the PC board used in this design? If so, details?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354677#354677
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
At 10:23 AM 10/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>Are you making and selling the PC board used in this design? If so, details?
I presume we're talking about the filtered mounting
board for a BuckPuck. Yes, I have boards with filters
install and no BuckPuck . . . or complete assemblies
with 1A BuckPuck. I guess if you wanted a bare board,
I could acomodate that also . . . but buying filter
components in small quantities is probably not
cost effective. See the catalog page on my website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
No Bob, Sorry,
Talking about the one that Eric Jones posted a schematic and directions for in
this post:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=84628
It is a design for a linear regulator instead of a switching regulator which is
a little less efficient but does the job without all of the noise issues.
I already have two of yours...they work great!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354713#354713
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: System Design |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Controlling the alternator field coil with the ignition switches is a bad idea.
The way it is now, the alternator can not be shut off without shutting off the
engine. If the alternator quits working, the alternator field should be shut
off to conserve the battery. If the alternator puts out too high of a voltage,
it needs to be shut off, preferably with automatic over-voltage protection.
I suggest using one of Bob's schematics instead of Viking's.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354737#354737
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Batteries? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A few years ago I related to Bob N. my experience with a a couple 12V carbon-zinc
Eveready lantern battery that I used to power a Telex intercom (which usually
plugged into the rarely-connected cigar lighter). The first battery was found
dead under mysterious circumstances (I was probably lucky). The replacement
battery, upon shutting down the aircraft was too hot to touch and I grabbed it
by the wires and tossed it out onto the asphalt. It melted a dent in the ramp.
It was smoking.
I surmised that the batteries had some internal crushing damage from rapid descent,
but perhaps they were damaged from voltage fed back from the intercom. But
I can't see how. The intercom was undamaged.
This whole thing remains a mystery, but I offer it as a clue regarding batteries.
Batteries might need to have mechanics that withstand deformation by rapid pressure
changes.
--------
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=354739#354739
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books and
CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on a
very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet to
detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft
electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
systems
Thanks in advance!
Dan Sherburn
Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Handheld Radio Antenna |
Yes ! Or 1/8 " whichever you have on hand.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marvin Haught
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:12 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Handheld Radio Antenna
>
>
>
> Bob -
>
> Can I use 3/16 inch stainless welding rod for the antenna? The piano
> wire rusts easily, and I have the welding rod on hand.
>
> M. Haught
>
>
> On 10/10/2011 9:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> > At 11:30 AM 10/10/2011, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob -
> >
> > Have a couple of projects on which I need antennas. Just bought 3 of
> > the antenna mounts on ebay for $12+ including shipping. Where do I
> > get the coax connectors? I've been looking on line but haven't seen
> > any that look exactly like that one. Obviously, I'm new at this and
> > am totally unfamiliar with the parts. Will also need the antenna wire.
> > Do you have a section some where that I can read up on antenna
> > installation?
> >
> > Yes, there is a chapter on antennas and feed lines in
> > The 'Connection. Modern coax is available from
> > a variety of sources. RG400 141 or 142 are all suited
> > to your task. I have an RG142 special (your choice of
> > connectors installed for no extra charge). You might
> > consider the offering at:
> >
> > https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
> >
> > You can get a 4-pack of those adapters off eBay
> > for about $11 including shipping at:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3zmxkg8
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> H.Marvin Haught Jr.
> Haught& Associates, Inc
> Huntsville, AR 72740
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "shenglu" <xyxhxiao(at)hotmail.com> |
Most of the HID is 35 watts. I look forward to these about twice as bright as 100
watts incandescent, but not power them. I do not think this is an expensive
upgrade.
--------
|
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354750#354750
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "shenglu" <xyxhxiao(at)hotmail.com> |
Light resistance is not dependent on our wig grow up. They include the MOSFET drivers
and some simple two large internal timer-driven MOSFET. They cost more
than the type of car.
--------
|
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354753#354753
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
| From: | "shenglu" <xyxhxiao(at)hotmail.com> |
I can think of three ships with lithium loss. One is on the ground, there is no
loss of life, burnt down the runway about 4 hours. The other two did not end
so well.
--------
|
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354755#354755
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisey Power Supplies. |
At 02:08 PM 10/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>No Bob, Sorry,
>
>Talking about the one that Eric Jones posted a schematic and
>directions for in this post:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=84628
>
>It is a design for a linear regulator instead of a switching
>regulator which is a little less efficient but does the job without
>all of the noise issues.
>
>I already have two of yours...they work great!
Oh . . . if Eric doesn't have a board for the
LM317 version of a constant current generator,
I have a constant current board I'm doing for
a customer right now. It's based on a TO247
power mos-fet and is capable of offering constant
current values upwards of 3 amps.
Emacs!
This board is about 1.3 x 1.4 inches. The power
fet heat sinks through an insulating washer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Dan,=0A=0AThat is, indeed, a simple system and most of it looks good to thi
s novice.- I only see two issues, both in the starting/ignition circuit.
=0A=0AFirst, it appears that your starter contactor is energized whenever b
oth mags are hot.- That means your starter will always be engaged in flig
ht.- Adding a simple momentary-on start switch would be one way to fix th
at.=0A=0AThe second thing is that both mags are required to be hot, in orde
r to start.- That would be sort of okay if you had 2 impulse coupled mags
.- Since you only show the left mag as having an impulse coupling, you re
ally want to start with only the left mag hot.- =0A=0A=0AIf I recall, at
least one of Bob's diagrams uses 2-10 switches (in place of the 2-5's you s
how).- They are on-on-(on) with some fancy wiring that will fix both of t
hese problems.- Switch down = mag grounded, switch in the middle = ma
g hot, both switches momentarily up = energize starter contactor.- I be
lieve there's a way to have the up position ground out the unwanted mag, to
o.=0A=0APersonally, I prefer the simplicity and flexibility of independentl
y switched mags and an independent starter switch.=0A=0A-=0ADoug Ilg=0AGr
umman Tiger N74818, College Park-Airport (KCGS), Maryland=0AChallenger II
LSS LW (N641LG-reserved)-- kit underway at Laurel Suburban (W18)=0A=0A
-=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A>From: Dan Sherburn <dsh
erburn(at)att.net>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A>Sent: Tuesday, Oc
tober 11, 2011 9:03 PM=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Elec
trical Design=0A>=0A>=0A> =0A>I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). T
he Zenith Builders group =0Adirected me to the AeroElectric Connection. I'v
e ordered Bob's books and CD. =0AI've utilized one of the sample drawings I
'd like to use as the basis for an =0Aelectrical design for my Zenith. To d
ate, I'm planning on a very simple, day, =0AVFR airplane. Continental 0200,
no vacuum. As such, I'm looking for a very =0Asimple, proper electrical de
sign for the plane. Attached is a-straight =0Aforward-electrical design
taken from the AeroElectric Connection samples. =0APlease review and comme
nt. I've yet to detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll =0Ahave a simple GPS
and Comm (no Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".=0A>-=0A>I'm an Electr
ical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft =0Aelectrical s
ystems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control =0Asystems=0A>-
=0A>Thanks in advance!=0A>Dan Sherburn=0A>Michigan=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
10/12/2011
Hello Dan, You wrote: "....but a transponder is a "maybe"."
Please change that "maybe" to a "yes".
Having a transponder in an aircraft in this day and age is sort of like
having turn signals in an automobile. You may get by OK for a time with arm
signals in your automobile, but you will soon regret not having turn signals
installed.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: Someday you, your widow, or your children will be selling that airplane.
A prospective buyer will be discouraged by the lack of a transponder.
================================================================
From: "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books and
CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on a
very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet to
detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft
electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
systems
Thanks in advance!
Dan Sherburn
Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
At 09:54 PM 10/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>I can think of three ships with lithium loss. One is on the ground,
>there is no loss of life, burnt down the runway about 4 hours. The
>other two did not end so well.
Do you know of any Internet stories that describe
these events?
Also, welcome to the AeroElectric-List. Where
are you located? Are you building an airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
At 07:35 AM 10/12/2011, you wrote:
>Dan,
>
>That is, indeed, a simple system and most of it looks good to this
>novice. I only see two issues, both in the starting/ignition circuit.
>
>First, it appears that your starter contactor is energized whenever
>both mags are hot. That means your starter will always be engaged
>in flight. Adding a simple momentary-on start switch would be one
>way to fix that.
>
>The second thing is that both mags are required to be hot, in order
>to start. That would be sort of okay if you had 2 impulse coupled
>mags. Since you only show the left mag as having an impulse
>coupling, you really want to start with only the left mag hot.
>
>If I recall, at least one of Bob's diagrams uses 2-10 switches (in
>place of the 2-5's you show). They are on-on-(on) with some fancy
>wiring that will fix both of these problems. Switch down = mag
>grounded, switch in the middle = mag hot, both switches momentarily
>up = energize starter contactor. I believe there's a way to have
>the up position ground out the unwanted mag, too.
This mag/starter switch configuration is based on two,
2-5 on-off-(on) three position toggle switches. This
wiring is depicted in Figure Z-11.
If you study the wiring in Z-11, you'll see that the
starter cannot be cranked unless the right mag switch
is OFF. Then, raising the left mag switch from the stable,
mid position (mag hot) to full up, the starter contactor
is energized. The spring-loaded, full-up position of the
right mag siwtch is not used.
I used two identical switches so that the magneto
switches for normal flight ops are BOTH in the mid
position.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
And now you have the real story.- Forget most of what I said.- (I still
prefer independent switches/circuits, though.)=0A=0AThanks for the correct
ion, Bob.=0A=0A-=0ADoug Ilg=0AGrumman Tiger N74818, College Park-Airpor
t (KCGS), Maryland=0AChallenger II LSS LW (N641LG-reserved)-- kit under
way at Laurel Suburban (W18)=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A- - This mag/starter swit
ch configuration is based on two,=0A>- - 2-5 on-off-(on) three position
toggle switches. This=0A>- - wiring is depicted in Figure Z-11.=0A>=0A
>- - If you study the wiring in Z-11, you'll see that the=0A>- - st
arter cannot be cranked unless the right mag switch=0A>- - is OFF. Then
, raising the left mag switch from the stable,=0A>- - mid position (mag
hot) to full up, the starter contactor=0A>- - is energized. The spring
-loaded, full-up position of the=0A>- - right mag siwtch is not used.
=0A>=0A>- - I used two identical switches so that the magneto=0A>-
- switches for normal flight ops are BOTH in the mid=0A>- - position.
=0A>=0A>=0A>- Bob . . . =0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
| From: | "skywagon" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
Since this bulb failure issue was my original message and problem, I can add only
another piece of mechanical evidence that may or may not have anything to do
with the H7604 filament failures....
1. Under magnification, both filaments separated not in the coil section, but,
on the short straight ends just before their connection post.
2. I do not know if the filaments (bulbs) were originally installed in the vertical
or horizontal orientation. Rumor has it, that installing with the filaments
vertically removes some of the mechanical stress from wing vibration and
landing stresses.
3. I have installed the new H7604's with the filaments in the vertical orientation
and will report in the future if this seems to extend the bulb life.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354827#354827
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
At 11:44 AM 10/12/2011, you wrote:
>And now you have the real story. Forget most of what I said. (I
>still prefer independent switches/circuits, though.)
>
>Thanks for the correction, Bob.
Not necessarily a correction of your analysis . . . the
diagram you were evaluating was not accurately quoted
from Z-11. I'm glad you caught this . . . I sure didn't
the first time I looked at it.
Readers should keep in mind too that many FEATURES
of the various Z-figures can be interchanged. There's
perhaps a half dozen examples of practical magneto/starter
management spread across the various drawings.
The purpose of so many different z-figures is to
speak to ARCHITECTURES . . . not detailed features.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 10/12/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I need a switch that activates when something moves in front of a sensor. This
is not an aviation application. But I'm sure that someone on the list can save
me having to decipher all the offerings on Digi-key.
I'm envisioning something similar to a garage door opener saftey beam/switch, but
way smaller, to operate on 12 vdc, for detection of material in a machine process.
Thanks for any help,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354946#354946
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Optical Switch? |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I don't know if this is appropriate for your purpose but there's a class of
optically operated switches called photo-interupters. It's a U shaped piece
of plastic with an LED (usually infra-red) in one leg of the U shining acros
to a phototransistor in the other side of the U. If anything moves into the
gap it interrupts the beam and that trigger s the switch. They are small and
cheap. The Mouser.com catalog has lots of them, also digi-key or Newark.
They also have other types of "proximity" sensors that might be more useful
to you.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:31 PM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> I need a switch that activates when something moves in front of a sensor.
> This is not an aviation application. But I'm sure that someone on the list
> can save me having to decipher all the offerings on Digi-key.
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Optical Switch? |
John,
I built a little circuit exactly as you describe. It was the first electronic
circuit I ever built.
If you want, I can scan the circuit and email it to you. It's made with a 555
timer IC, a couple
of transistors, and a few other basic parts. If you want to build the circuit
you are talking about, this is it.
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
John;
There are literally tens of thousands of sensors that fit the limited
information you have provided. To narrow it down you need to specify the
range (distance) at which you are attempting to sense the object, the size
of the object, the surface finish, reflectivity, colour of the object, etc
etc. Then you need to know if you wish to use a through beam style (one of
the easiest to set up), retro reflective (sensor looks at a reflector behind
the object), or diffuse reflective (sensor looks directly for the object
just as would your eye) Each type has its pros and cons depending on the
characteristics of the application.
Here is a link to one family of sensors by one manufacturer out of hundreds
available. Their products are sold by all of the major electronics houses
such as Mouser, Digi-key, and Newark etc. The acceptable voltage range is 12
- 24 VDC the switching load current is 100ma max.
http://tinyurl.com/6hzwkwq
The brochures and data sheets listed here will enable you to make a choice
which fits your criteria. Look particularly at the "E3Z photoelectric
sensors data sheet" near the bottom of the page. It will list all the specs
necessary for you to make an informed decision for your particular
application.
I specify these and similar sensors by the dozen on a daily basis but cannot
recommend a specific part number for your application without much more
detail of the characteristics of your part and exactly what you're trying to
accomplish.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:32 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Optical Switch?
>
>
> I need a switch that activates when something moves in front of a sensor.
This is not
> an aviation application. But I'm sure that someone on the list can save me
having to
> decipher all the offerings on Digi-key.
>
> I'm envisioning something similar to a garage door opener saftey
beam/switch, but
> way smaller, to operate on 12 vdc, for detection of material in a machine
process.
>
> Thanks for any help,
> John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354946#354946
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Optical Switch? |
| From: | "jhausch" <jimhausch(at)gmail.com> |
jonlaury wrote:
> I need a switch that activates when something moves in front of a sensor. This
is not an aviation application. But I'm sure that someone on the list can save
me having to decipher all the offerings on Digi-key.
>
> I'm envisioning something similar to a garage door opener saftey beam/switch,
but way smaller, to operate on 12 vdc, for detection of material in a machine
process.
>
> Thanks for any help,
> John
John,
Bob is right on the mark. It sounds like he and I both make our living in the
factory automation world. If you just need one photo eye, I may have an old
demo unit I can send you or sell cheaply* Since you said this was for a machine
I am a little surprised you need 12v since most machines use 24v, but most
industrial dc sensors do run on 10-30vdc.
I am in a meeting from 8-12 central time today, but could discuss your application
with you this afternoon. Email either of us and we should be able to get
you sorted out straightaway.
I forget which email address I have tied to this list, so use jimhausch (at symbol)
gmail (dot) com
*cheap is a relative term...simple industrial sensors can sell from 10 to 100 bucks.
Folks with a knowledge of circuitry (like folks who might hang out here
:) ) know the base component costs for a simple photo eye can be had for pennies.
I will never forget a sales call I made where the customer wanted a simple
emitter-receiver pair to run on AC power. I told for single piece quantities,
including the cables he needed and offering the output rating he needed, might
cost $100. He said "what! I can buy a garage door opener that includes
two photo eyes for $100!"..... such is life :)
Jim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=354980#354980
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | hello aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com |
hey aeroelectric-list@matronics.com wow this is crazy http://www.todayslocal10.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Toyota (denso) alternator |
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
I am using an internally regulated Toyota (Denso) alternator on my RV6. It
has the normal B+ charging lead and a plug with 3 spade connectors. One is
for the light, one for sense and one labeled IGN that supplies 12V to
energize the alternator before it starts running. Can anyone tell me what
happens to the output of this alternator if the IGN wire is disconnected
during flight (i.e. while the alternator is running)? I have my alternator
switch in this IGN line to take the alternator Off Line, but something tell
s
me this is not a good idea and that the alternator output may run away.
Regards, J=FCrgen Amtmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
At 12:17 PM 10/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>Since this bulb failure issue was my original message and problem, I
>can add only another piece of mechanical evidence that may or may
>not have anything to do with the H7604 filament failures....
>1. Under magnification, both filaments separated not in the coil
>section, but, on the short straight ends just before their connection post.
>2. I do not know if the filaments (bulbs) were originally installed
>in the vertical or horizontal orientation. Rumor has it, that
>installing with the filaments vertically removes some of the
>mechanical stress from wing vibration and landing stresses.
>3. I have installed the new H7604's with the filaments in the
>vertical orientation and will report in the future if this seems to
>extend the bulb life.
Hmmmm . . . I'm suspicious of any 'benefit' for
orientation of filaments to increase resistance
to vibration stresses. Most materials exhibit a
thing called a stress-to-events-ratio (S/N ratio)
where a number of events at a particular stress
level are required to structurally fail the
material. Further, the S/N curve is generally
not linear. In other words, raising the stress
level by a factor of 3 does not necessarily
result in failure at 1/3rd the number of cycles.
It might drop to 1/4th the number of cycles.
Stress transients on landing are short duration
but very few in number compared hours of in-flight
stimulus.
Tungsten has a unique metallurgical property where
the metal transforms from a brittle to a ductile
state at a rather low temperature. I think it was
on the order 500F. In any case, it was below the
dull-red-glow temperature. In the chapter on
lighting in the 'Connection, I described two
techniques for keeping a filament warm when the
light was OFF. Maintaining the brittle filament
at or above it's brittle-to-ductile transition
temperature has a marked effect on the S/N ratio.
It would be a very interesting experiment to
try some form of keep-warm system on an airplane
that exhibits a high failure rate for tungsten
filament lamps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lithium batteries |
In the days since this topic was last discussed
here on the list, I've done a little research
into the number and nature of 'battery induced
fires' aboard aircraft.
This was one of several interesting documents
I ran across during the search . . .
http://safetravel.dot.gov/Action_Plan.pdf
I have yet to discover a description of a battery
fire involving a SYSTEM battery on the 'net. If
anyone runs across such a narrative, I'd be pleased
to have the link. The ramp fire on the Cessna is
the first incident I'm aware of and that information
was 'through the grapevine'. Industry focus has been
on the vast majority of battery fires where the
devices were either packaged for shipment as
cargo/baggage or in relatively light duty service
as a component of a personal electronic device in
passenger spaces.
The document I cited states that only 27%
of incidents studied involved lithium batteries.
The remainder were other technologies, lead-acid
being the most probable. The consensus for
root cause of battery fires trends toward
short circuits . . . which is not a technology
issue but a process issue.
This short study suggests that our deliberations
will not benefit from a study of battery fire
incidents in the wild. The study confirms what
we already knew. Batteries offer very high
concentrations of energy in small volumes.
Unintentional and uncontrolled release of that
energy poses risks. Lithium elevates those risks
by ADDING combustible materials to the potential
release of energy.
So as the experiments and discussion of our SYSTEM
batteries goes forward, let's keep those differences
in mind. Further, it is probable that a citation of most
battery fire incidents in the wild will add little or
no useful information to the conversation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: hello aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (HIGH RISK) |
At 12:19 AM 10/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>hey aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com wow this is crazy
>http://www.todayslocal10.com
Rodney,
Has your email address been hijacked?
List-Members. Hitting on this link is HIGH RISK
not unlike the incident that visited the list
a few weeks ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toyota (denso) alternator |
At 10:30 AM 10/14/2011, you wrote:
I am using an internally regulated Toyota (Denso)
alternator on my RV6. It has the normal B+
charging lead and a plug with 3 spade
connectors. One is for the light, one for sense
and one labeled IGN that supplies 12V to energize
the alternator before it starts running. Can
anyone tell me what happens to the output of this
alternator if the IGN wire is disconnected during
flight (i.e. while the alternator is running)? I
have my alternator switch in this IGN line to
take the alternator Off Line, but something tells
me this is not a good idea and that the alternator output may run away.
Regards, Jrgen Amtmann
The risks of uncontrollable runaway for internally
regulated alternators is very low but not zero.
Commercial offerings of automotive conversions for
aircraft either modify the alternator for EXTERNAL
regulation and OV protection (a la B&C) or get
modified to accept external OV protection (a la
Plane-Power).
No doubt there are thousands of internally regulated
alternators flying without ov protection that have
never experienced a runaway failure . . . but there
have been a few . . . with predictable results.
The choice is yours.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toyota (denso) alternator (OOPS) |
At 10:30 AM 10/14/2011, you wrote:
I am using an internally regulated Toyota (Denso)
alternator on my RV6. It has the normal B+
charging lead and a plug with 3 spade
connectors. One is for the light, one for sense
and one labeled IGN that supplies 12V to energize
the alternator before it starts running. Can
anyone tell me what happens to the output of this
alternator if the IGN wire is disconnected during
flight (i.e. while the alternator is running)?
OOPS! I hit the 'send' button too soon.
Controlling power to the IGN lead will place the alternator
off/on-line while the engine is running. It's not
an unsafe or risky thing to do. However, there
are failures internal to the regulator that
cannot be controlled by the switched IGN lead.
Suggest you review the articles on ov protection
here:
http://tinyurl.com/3hj8gm2
I have my alternator switch in this IGN line to
take the alternator Off Line, but something tells
me this is not a good idea and that the alternator output may run away.
Regards, J=FCrgen Amtmann
The risks of uncontrollable runaway for internally
regulated alternators is very low but not zero.
Commercial offerings of automotive conversions for
aircraft either modify the alternator for EXTERNAL
regulation and OV protection (a la B&C) or get
modified to accept external OV protection (a la
Plane-Power).
No doubt there are thousands of internally regulated
alternators flying without ov protection that have
never experienced a runaway failure . . . but there
have been a few . . . with predictable results.
The choice is yours.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Optical Switch? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
To All,
Thanks for your input/suggestions.
Here's more information to help narrow the choices.
The gap to be sensed is
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355010#355010
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bob,
You are always surprising me with your knowledge background. My grey matter
stores a lot and I have a degree in electronics, however, I learn constantly
from your inputs to all these problems and questions.
Funny, I did not know that the halogen environment still included tungsten
filaments. I was assuming, some other mixture of metal was the basis for
these brighter lamps.
You bring up an interesting option...to keep the lamp filaments in their
flexible or ductile stage while in any none use state. I wonder what level
of current would be needed for that in a 12 - 14 v. system. And, an option
would have to be planned in the case of an alternator failure to cut the
background lamp current. Thanks, David
______________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
> At 12:17 PM 10/12/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>Since this bulb failure issue was my original message and problem, I can
>>add only another piece of mechanical evidence that may or may not have
>>anything to do with the H7604 filament failures....
>>1. Under magnification, both filaments separated not in the coil section,
>>but, on the short straight ends just before their connection post.
>>2. I do not know if the filaments (bulbs) were originally installed in
>>the vertical or horizontal orientation. Rumor has it, that installing
>>with the filaments vertically removes some of the mechanical stress from
>>wing vibration and landing stresses.
>>3. I have installed the new H7604's with the filaments in the vertical
>>orientation and will report in the future if this seems to extend the bulb
>>life.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm suspicious of any 'benefit' for
> orientation of filaments to increase resistance
> to vibration stresses. Most materials exhibit a
> thing called a stress-to-events-ratio (S/N ratio)
> where a number of events at a particular stress
> level are required to structurally fail the
> material. Further, the S/N curve is generally
> not linear. In other words, raising the stress
> level by a factor of 3 does not necessarily
> result in failure at 1/3rd the number of cycles.
> It might drop to 1/4th the number of cycles.
> Stress transients on landing are short duration
> but very few in number compared hours of in-flight
> stimulus.
>
> Tungsten has a unique metallurgical property where
> the metal transforms from a brittle to a ductile
> state at a rather low temperature. I think it was
> on the order 500F. In any case, it was below the
> dull-red-glow temperature. In the chapter on
> lighting in the 'Connection, I described two
> techniques for keeping a filament warm when the
> light was OFF. Maintaining the brittle filament
> at or above it's brittle-to-ductile transition
> temperature has a marked effect on the S/N ratio.
>
> It would be a very interesting experiment to
> try some form of keep-warm system on an airplane
> that exhibits a high failure rate for tungsten
> filament lamps.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed Grimes Position Light Parts |
At Sun-N-Fun this year, I purchased a used set of position/tail lights in
the tent. My plan was to use the PSA Enterprises LED replacement lenses for
a simple LED lighting system on my Murphy Super Rebel. When I got home, one
of the lights had no guts, i.e. the spring, phenolic washer, plastic washer,
wood spacer, and metal center pin. Before I hit the salvage yards, does
anyone have a single light or light parts laying around? I just need the
guts - WTB. I suppose I could machine the parts as well - probably not to
difficult other than time. Lesson learned, beware of parts in sealed bags.
Thanks,
Jerry Folkerts
SR2500 #093
www.mykitlog.com/jfolkerts
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
>
>Funny, I did not know that the halogen environment still included
>tungsten filaments. I was assuming, some other mixture of metal was
>the basis for these brighter lamps.
It's my assumption that they're still tungsten.
A quick look at Wikipeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamps
didn't suggest any 'new' materials.
You bring up an interesting option...to keep the lamp filaments
in their flexible or ductile stage while in any none use state. I
wonder what level of current would be needed for that in a 12 - 14 v. system.
The POWER needed is quite low but the current
is substantial due to the large positive temperature
coefficient of lamp resistance. I just took a couple
14v halogen lamps to the bench and was able to get
the first signs of visible light (tiny red glow) at
about 1.5 volts. However, the current draw was a
substantial portion of rated current at full voltage.
One example: A lamp I tested gave me first visible
light at 1.5V and 1.7A for a total of about 2.6W.
This lamp was rated at 55W at 14V or 3.9A.
This says that the resistor-diode technique described
in the 'Connection would be terribly inefficient. But
if you've got a fat alternator and some place to
let the heat dump out . . . the technique may be
practical . . . and low cost.
The obvious solution is to use a 2 t0 2.5v DC-DC
converter. There are a number of commercial off the
shelf products. Many such devices can be purchased
through the industrial surplus houses for a reasonable
price. Alternatively, you can do your own DC-DC buck
converter. There are a number of design tools
on the 'net that will assist in component selection.
The nice thing about it is that output ripple
voltage can be pretty high. Light bulbs don't care.
You WILL want to consider EMC filtering as these
devices operate in the 0.1 to 1.0 MHz range and
would be pretty noisy.
The fast-turn solution might be to use an LED
driver like the Buck Puck 2100 mA device
http://www.ledsupply.com/0a009-d-v-2100.php
throttled down through the dimming input to
get you a barely visible light output in a dark
hangar. EMC questions apply here too. The neat
thing about DC to DC conversion is efficiency.
Something like the Buck-Puck should be 85% efficient
or better. A 2.5 watt keep warm system for a 55w
lamp would only need 3W or so from the bus.
Another plus of the Buck Pucks is that they're
rated for up to 32 volts operating voltage.
PLENTY of headroom for observing DO-160 surge
requirements in a 14v system.
And, an option would have to be planned in the case of an alternator
failure to cut the background lamp current. Thanks,
You bet. Of course, things light landing lights
might drive from the main bus which would be down
during battery only ops anyhow. If you've got
battery left over on short final, then bring the
main bus back up and use the landing light.
The keepwarm circuit is a great mitigation
of inrush current too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Optical Switch? |
John;
Based on the new information you've supplied an Omron E3Z-T61 0.5M or
E3Z-T61A 0.5M should do the trick or you could go to a fiber optic series
such as the E3X-A11 or E3X-A41 which use a 2mm plastic fiber optic cable to
transmit the light beam allowing the actual sensor to be remotely mounted.
The T61 is an infrared sensor; the T61A is visible red light. These sensors
are NPN switching, if you need or desire PNP switching substitute an 8 for
the 6 in the part #
The E3X series are red visible light the A11 model is NPN the A41 model is
PNP
All of these sensors are through beam as you've requested. For the E3X
series you can use unterminated fiber as a substitute for the rather
expensive accessory fibers sold by Omron. I can send you several feet in the
mail free should you decide to go that route. Just PM me your address if you
wish some fiber.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 12:40 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Optical Switch?
>
>
> To All,
>
> Thanks for your input/suggestions.
> Here's more information to help narrow the choices.
>
> The gap to be sensed is
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355010#355010
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Batteries? |
I've heard of much worse than this with a NiCad aircraft battery which
almost resulted in a Sikorsky S-92 being unceremoniously dumped off an oil
platform. Batteries are not always our friends.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: October 11, 2011 9:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lithium Batteries?
A few years ago I related to Bob N. my experience with a a couple 12V
carbon-zinc Eveready lantern battery that I used to power a Telex intercom
(which usually plugged into the rarely-connected cigar lighter). The first
battery was found dead under mysterious circumstances (I was probably
lucky). The replacement battery, upon shutting down the aircraft was too hot
to touch and I grabbed it by the wires and tossed it out onto the asphalt.
It melted a dent in the ramp. It was smoking.
I surmised that the batteries had some internal crushing damage from rapid
descent, but perhaps they were damaged from voltage fed back from the
intercom. But I can't see how. The intercom was undamaged.
This whole thing remains a mystery, but I offer it as a clue regarding
batteries.
Batteries might need to have mechanics that withstand deformation by rapid
pressure changes.
--------
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=354739#354739
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:02 am
Bob:
I recall working a MU2 accident down in TX that
involved a ni-cad battery fire . . .
Glen: was that the one involving a runaway battery that severed the
pitch control system?
No . . . at least I don't think so. This airplane
used two sets of 24 volt ni-cads that were hooked
in series to get 48 volts to start the engines; then
reconnected in parallel for normal ops. My mentor, Ken
Razak asked me to look at the series-parallel switching
system as a potential root cause of the battery fire.
The pilot got the airplane down on the ground from about
10K onto the grass adjacent to a runway. All souls got
out and the fire crews were able to quickly put out
the fire.
Since the system was behaving normally for a departure
and climb to 10K there was little reason to suspect that
the series-parallel switching system was 'stuck' in an
abnormal condition. But given the paralleled generators
capable of putting many amps into those nice little light
weight batteries, it was far more likely that the battery
array suffered thermal runaway and went into self destruction.
This was the era of before-battery-overheat-monitors.
Some years later, a technician I hired to work with me
in the video business mentioned a burned airplane he helped
restore in Tx. Turns out it was the same MU-2,
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aircraft issues |
Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:36 pm
Hi Bob
You mentioned: "The Shorai folks caution against an energetic
recharge of a deeply depleted battery."
This is not only true of a Lithium battery, but charging a discharged
lead acid battery with a high powered alternator that's trying to
maintain a constant voltage (just got aeroplane or car running from a
jump start) is not very easy on the battery.
How could one limit the charging amps going into the battery yet
still allow the alternator to carry any loads?
Ron P.
It's not terribly difficult. We've had generator
regulators that could not only limit the generator's
output current . . . but the can current-balance to
paralleled generators.
It would not be difficult to design a regulator that
would limit re-charge current to the battery. This would
call for a scheduled reduction of bus voltage while the
really beat battery catches it's breath. The voltage
would not be so depressed that it hampered normal system
operations . . . but such a regulator would have prevented
ni-cad fires and eliminated the need to add the battery overheat
monitor to ni-cad fitted airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Batteries? |
At 09:20 PM 10/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>I've heard of much worse than this with a NiCad aircraft battery which
>almost resulted in a Sikorsky S-92 being unceremoniously dumped off an oil
>platform. Batteries are not always our friends.
One could say the same thing about barrels
of gasoline, 400 h.p. engines in street machines,
or BD-5J airplanes.
When operated within their respective limits compatible
with the environment, they can seem quite benign
and spectacularly useful.
But in the wrong hands short of skill or knowledge,
they can prove quite hazardous. I was out on a field trip
with K. Razak many moons ago and had to slap out an
escalating source of smoke and bad smells from a pants
pocket. I'd tossed a handful of AA alkaline cells
into the pocket with a bunch of coins and a key-ring.
If those had been synthetic as opposed to good ol'
denim Dickies, I might still bear the "mark of Duracell"
on my thigh!
I did it in good company. Had lots of lawyers standing
around hoping we were going to do some good things
for them. I told them that hat-dance entertainment
was no extra charge. Now, if that had been a
lithium cell . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: [Spam] AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 10/14/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: [Spam] AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - |
10/14/11
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
Hey kfohringer(at)usa.net, the last few weeks, I have been getting some "no content"
emails from you through the list. Gmail is usually pretty good for aeroelectric
emails, though. Any ideas?
__
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
On Oct 15, 2011, at 2:26 AM, "K Fohringer" wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ameri-King AK-450 vs ACK E-10 Remote Control Panel... |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
matt, been there but not with an elt. i would replace the elt transmitter to
match your panel or, if you are sticking to the same transmitter i would
make a very nice unobtrusive plate to cover your large hole and put the
smaller one thru the plate. if by magic the hole has healed, skip all this
[never worked for me]/
bob noffs
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> >
>
>
> Greetings Listers,
>
> I have an RV-6 with an ACK E-01 ELT unit and the small Remote Control Panel
> (RCP) unit. Last month, I completely replaced the instrument panel in the
> airplane and when I removed the ELT's RCP, I noticed that one of the
> mounting holes was broken off.
>
> I had another ELT on the shelf for another project and so I grabbed the RCP
> from it and designed a hole in the new instrument panel for it. The hole
> for this RCP was about twice the height of the hole for the RCP from the
> E-01 but appeared to be exactly the same as far as make and connector hole.
>
> Well, I didn't really put two and two together at the time but the E-01 is
> from ACK Technologies, and the RCP from the other unit is an Ameri-King
> AK-450. Except for the difference in vertical size the two RCP's look
> exactly the same and accept the same RJ-11 connector. Both have a Red and a
> Black button and a single Red LED. Both take a 3 volt battery.
>
> But here's the bummer, after I put everything back together this weekend,
> it turns out that the new RCP will NOT turn the E-01 on/off. If I plug the
> original E-01 RCP in to the same RJ-11 wire, it does turn the E-01 on/off,
> so the wiring and E-01 are fine. It just seems that the internal wiring of
> the two different RCP's is slightly different.
>
> The bigger bummer is that now I have a large hole in my panel for the RCP
> that doesn't work, so I have to figure something out. The original-sized
> RCP won't fit because its too small and the panel hole is too big.
>
> Can anyone lend any advice on the situation? Surely others have run into
> this before.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt Dralle
>
>
> -
> Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Battery Charge Information |
Hi All,=0A=0AI need to build a battery charger to charge 3 AGM batteries wi
red in series.- These are 12 + 12 + 4 volts. From the manufacturers data
sheets I given to understand that the charge cycle is 2.4 to 2.5v per cell
and the float cycle is 2.26 to 2.3v per cell.=0A=0AI would like to build a
battery charger with some "smarts" in it that =0Awill switch over to a floa
t charge mode at the appropriate time and I would like to understand when t
o switch from charge to float.- From my reading of http://batteryuniversi
ty.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery it looks like the chang
e from charge to float occurs at 9 hours.=0A=0AI know that there are many c
ommercial chargers that do this and I was wondering is the change from char
ge to float time based or is it done by measuring voltage / current paramet
ers ?=0A=0AThanks,- Paul=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charge Information |
At 09:53 AM 10/15/2011, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I need to build a battery charger to charge 3 AGM batteries wired in
>series. These are 12 + 12 + 4 volts. From the manufacturers data
>sheets I given to understand that the charge cycle is 2.4 to 2.5v
>per cell and the float cycle is 2.26 to 2.3v per cell.
>
>I would like to build a battery charger with some "smarts" in it
>that will switch over to a float charge mode at the appropriate time
>and I would like to understand when to switch from charge to
>float. From my reading of
>http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery
>it looks like the change from charge to float occurs at 9 hours.
Sorta . . . what's your technology of choice? Analog
jelly beans or digital?
>I know that there are many commercial chargers that do this and I
>was wondering is the change from charge to float time based or is it
>done by measuring voltage / current parameters ?
They vary. If you've got a lot of time, the easiest
is to apply constant current equal to 1/10 of the
array's a.h. capacity and watch the voltage. When
the voltage reaches 2.5 v/cell, start a timer for
some 'top off' cycle . . . say two hours. Then
drop to a maintenance voltage that is just a tad higher
than the open circuit. For 12v batteries, this is
about 13.0 volts so shoot for 2.2 volts per cell.
Real easy to do with a micro-controller if you
know how to herd the bytes. A little harder with
jelly-beans but doable. Here's the Schumacher
1562 profile.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
It might be that you could 'jeep' a Schumacher
1562 electronics to do your task by fiddling with
some scaling resistors and increasing the charge
source voltage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
.....again, Bob, I appreciate the insight you gave this matter.
Some interesting results you found for the keep alive current needs being
that the current requirement is nearly 50% of the operating current but at
low power. The DC to DC for the low voltage stage is an interesting
idea.... I am going to run this next set of bulbs with the vertically
oriented filaments and keep closer tabs on the time to failure.....
If the same short life, then it is time to use your idea or move on the next
generation of lighting system.
Thanks, David
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
>
>>
>>Funny, I did not know that the halogen environment still included tungsten
>>filaments. I was assuming, some other mixture of metal was the basis for
>>these brighter lamps.
>
> It's my assumption that they're still tungsten.
> A quick look at Wikipeda
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamps
>
> didn't suggest any 'new' materials.
>
> You bring up an interesting option...to keep the lamp filaments in
> their flexible or ductile stage while in any none use state. I wonder
> what level of current would be needed for that in a 12 - 14 v. system.
>
> The POWER needed is quite low but the current
> is substantial due to the large positive temperature
> coefficient of lamp resistance. I just took a couple
> 14v halogen lamps to the bench and was able to get
> the first signs of visible light (tiny red glow) at
> about 1.5 volts. However, the current draw was a
> substantial portion of rated current at full voltage.
> One example: A lamp I tested gave me first visible
> light at 1.5V and 1.7A for a total of about 2.6W.
> This lamp was rated at 55W at 14V or 3.9A.
>
> This says that the resistor-diode technique described
> in the 'Connection would be terribly inefficient. But
> if you've got a fat alternator and some place to
> let the heat dump out . . . the technique may be
> practical . . . and low cost.
>
> The obvious solution is to use a 2 t0 2.5v DC-DC
> converter. There are a number of commercial off the
> shelf products. Many such devices can be purchased
> through the industrial surplus houses for a reasonable
> price. Alternatively, you can do your own DC-DC buck
> converter. There are a number of design tools
> on the 'net that will assist in component selection.
> The nice thing about it is that output ripple
> voltage can be pretty high. Light bulbs don't care.
> You WILL want to consider EMC filtering as these
> devices operate in the 0.1 to 1.0 MHz range and
> would be pretty noisy.
>
> The fast-turn solution might be to use an LED
> driver like the Buck Puck 2100 mA device
>
> http://www.ledsupply.com/0a009-d-v-2100.php
>
>
> throttled down through the dimming input to
> get you a barely visible light output in a dark
> hangar. EMC questions apply here too. The neat
> thing about DC to DC conversion is efficiency.
> Something like the Buck-Puck should be 85% efficient
> or better. A 2.5 watt keep warm system for a 55w
> lamp would only need 3W or so from the bus.
>
> Another plus of the Buck Pucks is that they're
> rated for up to 32 volts operating voltage.
> PLENTY of headroom for observing DO-160 surge
> requirements in a 14v system.
>
> And, an option would have to be planned in the case of an alternator
> failure to cut the background lamp current. Thanks,
>
> You bet. Of course, things light landing lights
> might drive from the main bus which would be down
> during battery only ops anyhow. If you've got
> battery left over on short final, then bring the
> main bus back up and use the landing light.
>
> The keepwarm circuit is a great mitigation
> of inrush current too.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charge Information |
Bob,=0A=0AThanks for your thoughts.- I had planned to build it with a PIC
Micro.--=0A=0APaul=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom:
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectr
ic-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:42 AM=0ASubject
: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charge Information=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-L
ist message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric
.com>=0A=0AAt 09:53 AM 10/15/2011, you wrote:=0A> Hi All,=0A> =0A> I need t
o build a battery charger to charge 3 AGM batteries wired in series.- The
se are 12 + 12 + 4 volts. From the manufacturers data sheets I given to und
erstand that the charge cycle is 2.4 to 2.5v per cell and the float cycle i
s 2.26 to 2.3v per cell.=0A> =0A> I would like to build a battery charger w
ith some "smarts" in it that will switch over to a float charge mode at the
appropriate time and I would like to understand when to switch from charge
to float.- From my reading of http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article
/charging_the_lead_acid_battery it looks like the change from charge to flo
at occurs at 9 hours.=0A=0A- Sorta . . . what's your technology of choic
e? Analog=0A- jelly beans or digital?=0A=0A=0A> I know that there are ma
ny commercial chargers that do this and I was wondering is the change from
charge to float time based or is it done by measuring voltage / current par
ameters ?=0A=0A- They vary. If you've got a lot of time, the easiest=0A
- is to apply constant current equal to 1/10 of the=0A- array's a.h.
capacity and watch the voltage. When=0A- the voltage reaches 2.5 v/cell,
start a timer for=0A- some 'top off' cycle . . . say two hours. Then=0A
- drop to a maintenance voltage that is just a tad higher=0A- than th
e open circuit. For 12v batteries, this is=0A- about 13.0 volts so shoot
for 2.2 volts per cell.=0A=0A- Real easy to do with a micro-controller
if you=0A- know how to herd the bytes. A little harder with=0A- jelly
-beans but doable. Here's the Schumacher=0A- 1562 profile.=0A=0Ahttp://w
ww.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg=0A=0A- It might be
that you could 'jeep' a Schumacher=0A- 1562 electronics to do your task
by fiddling with=0A- some scaling resistors and increasing the charge=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SL30 serial output stream |
| From: | "ploucandco" <ploucandco(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello all,
I am looking for an extract of the SL30 serial output stream. It should be something
like this one:
$PMRRV21817??:BB
$PMRRV22V17052
$PMRRV23V16548B
$PMRRV24V08458D
$PMRRV25VISLE 0A
$PMRRV28E4?PMBF
$PMRRV21817??:BB
$PMRRV22V17052
$PMRRV23V16548B
If someone with an SL30 can hook up his PC and give me a few seconds of the data
output stream, I would appreciate.
I am trying to emulate an SL30 to get the output of an ADF on a Dynon D10A HSI
as bearing pointer.
Thanks, Jacques.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355146#355146
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charge Information |
At 12:38 PM 10/15/2011, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for your thoughts. I had planned to build it with a PIC Micro.
aha! great! if you'd post your hardware proposal
sketches perhaps we could collaborate together
and perhaps inspire others to rise to the occasion
of their own ideas. I think the PICs are here
to stay . . .
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | MegaSquirt family of engine controllers |
Have any of you knowledgeable guys evaluated the MS systems? They sound
wonderful to me, as a programmer, but I have so little knowledge of
electronics and circuitry I'd like to get an expert's take on them. it
would be ideal if y'all could comment on one of the systems that control
spark, squirt, and everything. :)
Thanks,
David Merchant
(no, I'm really not trying to be facetious. I intend on using this in
my Mustang II, with Ford engine. I'm still trying to learn how to apply
Bob's book to my application.)
--
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: Optical Switch? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Optical switchers,
Again thanks for stepping up and your generous offers.
Bob, thanks for doing my legwork. I'm a little buried right now, but I'm going
to look at the part #'s you gave me and determine what looks best.
Cheers,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355201#355201
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MegaSquirt family of engine controllers |
David
I use an MS2 for backup fuel injection feeding a second set of
injectors. At the time, ignition was not an option but I would use it
also for backup ignition if building now. The system tests fine on every
flight. I would not be comfortable running it as a single primary
controller unless there were two of them set up for redundant either/or
operation with no common failure modes. Then again I also run Z-14 to
give it an independent power source so I do tend to be conservative.
There are lots of ways for such a one off system to fail due to assembly
and installation errors. The manual and circuit board quality is very
good though. It can be a fair bit of effort learning how to set it up
for your type of injectors and ignition system but I suspect lots of
help is still available providing you don't mention it's for an
aircraft. Wideband O2 (air fuel ratio) meters in the $200. range now
greatly simplify tuning these systems but make sure it is a true
wideband meter. If you are not planning two systems, I'd suggest you
also consider a pre-wired and assembled SDS EFI system. Tracy Cook also
offers some controllers which are partially redundant.
I also use the Megaview display for real time display of the MS sensors
and outputs. It has proven useful for quick and easy trouble shooting
and provides a manifold pressure display.
Backups have given me some unanticipated benefits. My primary system is
the subaru oem system and any concerns about fuel or ignition can be
confirmed or resolved just be switching systems.
Ken
On 15/10/2011 9:06 PM, David wrote:
>
> Have any of you knowledgeable guys evaluated the MS systems? They sound
> wonderful to me, as a programmer, but I have so little knowledge of
> electronics and circuitry I'd like to get an expert's take on them. it
> would be ideal if y'all could comment on one of the systems that control
> spark, squirt, and everything. :)
>
> Thanks,
> David Merchant
> (no, I'm really not trying to be facetious. I intend on using this in my
> Mustang II, with Ford engine. I'm still trying to learn how to apply
> Bob's book to my application.)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
At 11:50 AM 10/15/2011, you wrote:
>
>I am going to run this next set of bulbs with the vertically
>oriented filaments and keep closer tabs on the time to
>failure.....If the same short life, then it is time to use your idea
>or move on the next generation of lighting system.
>Thanks, David
If you arrive at this decision point, take a look at
free-for-downloading switch mode power supply program
from Linear Technology. Here's a promo on the software:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xyjDPbT2Kg
Express PCB
http://expresspcb.com/
also offers free layout software, attractive
prices and fast turnaround for two-layer, pth boards.
Needless to say, your dynamic performance requirements
for this application are VERY loose. You'll want to
include some brute force filtering and a metallic
enclosure for forestall any EMC issues. But it would
be a pretty low-risk project for first-pass success.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
Bob,
Again, thanks for the interesting leads to options that I had not known
about.....
Dave
____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag
circuitry....failure mode
>
>
> At 11:50 AM 10/15/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>I am going to run this next set of bulbs with the vertically oriented
>>filaments and keep closer tabs on the time to failure.....If the same
>>short life, then it is time to use your idea or move on the next
>>generation of lighting system.
>>Thanks, David
>
> If you arrive at this decision point, take a look at
> free-for-downloading switch mode power supply program
> from Linear Technology. Here's a promo on the software:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xyjDPbT2Kg
>
> Express PCB
>
> http://expresspcb.com/
>
> also offers free layout software, attractive
> prices and fast turnaround for two-layer, pth boards.
> Needless to say, your dynamic performance requirements
> for this application are VERY loose. You'll want to
> include some brute force filtering and a metallic
> enclosure for forestall any EMC issues. But it would
> be a pretty low-risk project for first-pass success.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
> < Go ahead, make my day . . . >
> < show me where I'm wrong. >
> ================================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 10/16/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 10/16/11 |
What goes with this guy
It always comes up blank(NO MSG)
It's appeared at least a half dozen times
Dick
In a message dated 10/17/2011 2:42:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
kfohringer(at)usa.net writes:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 10/16/11 |
His e-mail account has probably been hijacked.
Mine was last week. I had to change password and alter security settings.
Hope it doesn't happen again.
Rod
From: RGent1224(at)aol.com
Date: Mon=2C 17 Oct 2011 09:57:10 -0400
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 10/1
6/11
What goes with this guy
It always comes up blank(NO MSG)
It's appeared at least a half dozen times
Dick
In a message dated 10/17/2011 2:42:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time=2C
kfohringer(at)usa.net writes:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL30 serial output stream |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
I can send you the SL30 Installation manual that has all you need to decipher the
SL30 protocol. It is very easy to understand since it is fully documented
in this book. You could also use the well documented NMEA and AVIATION standards
as the D10A works with all three.
Just PM me your email address and I will send you the book.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355289#355289
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL30 serial output stream |
| From: | "ploucandco" <ploucandco(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Brantel, but the stream that I created is coming directly from the SL30
installation manual rev 03a.
I am still looking for the real stream coming from the SL30.
Jacques.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355312#355312
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul McAllister <l_luv2_fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charge Information |
Bob,=0A=0A=0AYes I just love PIC's.- I am feeling a bit dated when I can
tell you that first learned to tinker with this stuff on Data General Nova'
s and Motorola 6800's.- The first real useful device I had was the 8051 a
nd I can recall that it nearly used to bring tears to my eyes to try and ge
t a serial i/o working in assembly language.=0A=0A=0AFast forwarding 20 yea
rs to PIC's where a single line of code takes care of a serial i/o that is
native to the chip, along with as many timers, ADC and parallel i/o all on
a single chip. Gee its just too easy.=0A=0A=0ACheers,- Paul=0A=0A=0Ado no
t archive.=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuck
olls, III" =0A=0A=0AAt 12:38 PM 10/15/2011,
you wrote:=0A> Bob,=0A> =0A> Thanks for your thoughts.- I had planned to
build it with a PIC Micro.=0A=0A- aha! great! if you'd post your hardware
proposal=0A- sketches perhaps we could collaborate together=0A- and pe
rhaps inspire others to rise to the occasion=0A- of their own ideas.- I
think the PICs are here=0A- to stay . . .=0A=0A=0A=0A- - - Bob .
. .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Change you can bank on . . . |
>
>Fast forwarding 20 years to PIC's where a single line of code takes
>care of a serial i/o that is native to the chip, along with as many
>timers, ADC and parallel i/o all on a single chip. Gee its just too easy.
But a prime example of how exploitation of intellectual
advances replaces the taxation of $time$. It also changes
the paradigm for what the up-and-coming generations need
to learn in order to prosper.
I used to lay out etched circuit boards on sheets of
Mylar with rolls of tape and sticky donuts. The art
was photographed and subsequent negatives used to
transfer etch patterns to copper clad with very
labor intensive processes. Turn-time on finished
boards was generally a week or more with setup
charges for small quantities costing more than
the boards.
Now I do it on a screen, e-mail the file along
with a credit card number and get finished boards
back in 3 days (two of those days are consumed by
Second Day Air service!).
A whole lot of folks 'lost their jobs' over these
transitions . . . as did the buggy whip and lamp
wick makers of yesteryear. He who cannot or will not
adapt is destined to disappointment. I observe
growing levels of 'disappointment' in the once great
airplane companies I've worked for. The exploitation
of change is routine in our work shops where the
OBAM aircraft work product of individuals equals
or exceeds that which was once the purview of factories.
The transitions have roots in the minds and hands
of the creative . . . not in the decisions of
the board rooms and trading floors. I once gave
a presentation on how a PIC and a a hand-full of
jelly-beans on a 2 x 2 board replaced a 3 x 6
board with over 100 parts for about 1/10th
the cost. Everybody smiled, said "good job"
and then went to look for a coffee refill and
to see what kind of donuts were left . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Morning OC,
I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a
transponder is needed by everyone.
Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is
required, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is required
makes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA. Sure, for
those of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like O'Hare International
Airport, it is required equipment, but out in the boonies, it is just
another toy for most.
As Always, It All Depends!
For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that can
be done without.
As for resale value, ANY electronics you install will be the fastest
depreciating component in the airplane!
Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks. Two
years ago it would bring 2400.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
In a message dated 10/12/2011 7:55:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
10/12/2011
Hello Dan, You wrote: "....but a transponder is a "maybe"."
Please change that "maybe" to a "yes".
Having a transponder in an aircraft in this day and age is sort of like
having turn signals in an automobile. You may get by OK for a time with
arm
signals in your automobile, but you will soon regret not having turn
signals
installed.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: Someday you, your widow, or your children will be selling that
airplane.
A prospective buyer will be discouraged by the lack of a transponder.
================================================================
From: "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books and
CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on a
very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet to
detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft
electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
systems
Thanks in advance!
Dan Sherburn
Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
Regarding "required" airspace for a transponder, you are correct.
However, another VERY valuable attribute of the transponder is having
the
various airspace monitors (ATC guys) keep an eye on you with "Flight
Following".
For the few 'several hundred mile 'cross-countrys' I've been on, plus
a few shorter ones,
I've enjoyed the security of knowing the ATC guys were watching out for
me. The 5-6
x-country journeys I can think of were over mountains, or remote
deserts.
Absolutely necessary? No. A little comforting? Very much so!
Mike Welch
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:46 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning OC,
>
> I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a
transponder is needed by everyone.
>
> Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is
required, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is
required makes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA.
Sure, for those of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like
O'Hare International Airport, it is required equipment, but out in the
boonies, it is just another toy for most.
>
> As Always, It All Depends!
>
> For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that
can be done without.
>
> As for resale value, ANY electronics you install will be the fastest
depreciating component in the airplane!
>
> Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
>
> The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks.
Two years ago it would bring 2400.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, Illinois
>
> In a message dated 10/12/2011 7:55:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
>
> 10/12/2011
>
> Hello Dan, You wrote: "....but a transponder is a "maybe"."
>
> Please change that "maybe" to a "yes".
>
> Having a transponder in an aircraft in this day and age is sort of
like
> having turn signals in an automobile. You may get by OK for a time
with arm
> signals in your automobile, but you will soon regret not having turn
signals
> installed.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and
effort to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> PS: Someday you, your widow, or your children will be selling that
airplane.
> A prospective buyer will be discouraged by the lack of a transponder.
>
> ========================
===============
>
> From: "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
>
> I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
> directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books
and
> CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
> basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on
a
> very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
> I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
> Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
> AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet
to
> detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
> Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
>
> I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of
Aircraft
> electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
> systems
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Dan Sherburn
> Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
I believe a functioning transponder with an altitude encoder is priceless fo
r enhancing safety. Modern collision avoidance systems use the transponder a
nd mode C read outs to make your presence known to fast movers and allow the
TCAS to calculate evasive maneuvers if needed. My aircraft will definitely
be equipped with a transponder with Mode C.
Bob S.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:46, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning OC,
>
> I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a transp
onder is needed by everyone.
>
> Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is requ
ired, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is required ma
kes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA. Sure, for thos
e of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like O'Hare International A
irport, it is required equipment, but out in the boonies, it is just another
toy for most.
>
> As Always, It All Depends!
>
> For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that can
be done without.
>
> As for resale value, ANY electronics you install will be the fastest depre
ciating component in the airplane!
>
> Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
>
> The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks. Two
years ago it would bring 2400.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, Illinois
>
> In a message dated 10/12/2011 7:55:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bakerocb
@cox.net writes:
>
> 10/12/2011
>
> Hello Dan, You wrote: "....but a transponder is a "maybe"."
>
> Please change that "maybe" to a "yes".
>
> Having a transponder in an aircraft in this day and age is sort of like
> having turn signals in an automobile. You may get by OK for a time with ar
m
> signals in your automobile, but you will soon regret not having turn signa
ls
> installed.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort t
o
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> PS: Someday you, your widow, or your children will be selling that airplan
e.
> A prospective buyer will be discouraged by the lack of a transponder.
>
> =========================
==============
>
> From: "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
>
> I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
> directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books and
> CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
> basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on a
> very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
> I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
> Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
> AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet to
> detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
> Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
>
> I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft
> electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
> systems
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Dan Sherburn
> Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Morning Mike,
As I said before, It all depends.
Personally, I enjoy flying without contacting Flight Following. If the
weather is such that I think I may need to fly in cloud or in reduced
visibilities, I will file IFR. Sometimes I file IFR if the terrain is very
intimidating.
The vast majority of time I enjoy just getting by on my own.
Figure I am saving the taxpayers a little bit of money each time I avoid
taking Federal Aid.
However, I certainly encourage the use of flight following by anyone who
feels it adds to their comfort of flight. Just doesn't do anything for me.
Probably just part of my reactionary cantankerous nature I guess
Managed to make it through some sixty-five years of flying and thirty-eight
thousand hours doing it that way.
Seems to work for me.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/18/2011 9:33:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com writes:
Bob,
Regarding "required" airspace for a transponder, you are correct.
However, another VERY valuable attribute of the transponder is having the
various airspace monitors (ATC guys) keep an eye on you with "Flight
Following".
For the few 'several hundred mile 'cross-countrys' I've been on, plus a
few shorter ones,
I've enjoyed the security of knowing the ATC guys were watching out for
me. The 5-6
x-country journeys I can think of were over mountains, or remote deserts.
Absolutely necessary? No. A little comforting? Very much so!
Mike Welch
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:46 AM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Good Morning OC,
I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a
transponder is needed by everyone.
Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is
required, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is required
makes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA. Sure, for
those of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like O'Hare
International Airport, it is required equipment, but out in the boonies, it is
just
another toy for most.
As Always, It All Depends!
For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that can
be done without.
As for resale value, ANY electronics you install will be the fastest
depreciating component in the airplane!
Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks. Two
years ago it would bring 2400.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
In a message dated 10/12/2011 7:55:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
_bakerocb(at)cox.net_ (mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net) writes:
(mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net) >
10/12/2011
Hello Dan, You wrote: "....but a transponder is a "maybe"."
Please change that "maybe" to a "yes".
Having a transponder in an aircraft in this day and age is sort of like
having turn signals in an automobile. You may get by OK for a time with
arm
signals in your automobile, but you will soon regret not having turn
signals
installed.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: Someday you, your widow, or your children will be selling that
airplane.
A prospective buyer will be discouraged by the lack of a transponder.
=======================================
From: "Dan Sherburn" <_dsherburn(at)att.net_ (mailto:dsherburn(at)att.net) >
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
I'm building a Zenith CH750 (just started). The Zenith Builders group
directed me to the AeroElectric Connection. I've ordered Bob's books and
CD. I've utilized one of the sample drawings I'd like to use as the
basis for an electrical design for my Zenith. To date, I'm planning on a
very simple, day, VFR airplane. Continental 0200, no vacuum. As such,
I'm looking for a very simple, proper electrical design for the plane.
Attached is a straight forward electrical design taken from the
AeroElectric Connection samples. Please review and comment. I've yet to
detail avionics, but at a minimum I'll have a simple GPS and Comm (no
Nav), but a transponder is a "maybe".
I'm an Electrical Engineer, which doesn't mean alot in terms of Aircraft
electrical systems; just that I'm comfortable with electrical control
systems
Thanks in advance!
Dan Sherburn
Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shank" <WRShank(at)spoerrprecast.com> |
Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and run
it to my audio panel. Other than EI's tone generator, is there an easy way
to do this?
Thanks
Bill Shank RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Morning Bob S.
And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder
supply traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast
movers?
Some day, that system will work. Right now it is often just a provider of
false security. The best way to avoid a collision is to look out the
window and avoid flying where the fast movers who never look out the window are
prevalent.
As I have said so often. It All Depends!
I prefer to save my money until the product is ready for prime time.
Happy Skies,
Bob S.
Rarely abbreviated from Bob Siegfried.
Downers Grove, Illinois
In a message dated 10/18/2011 9:56:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
endspeed(at)yahoo.com writes:
I believe a functioning transponder with an altitude encoder is priceless
for enhancing safety. Modern collision avoidance systems use the
transponder and mode C read outs to make your presence known to fast movers and
allow the TCAS to calculate evasive maneuvers if needed. My aircraft will
definitely be equipped with a transponder with Mode C.
Bob S.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:46, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Good Morning OC,
I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a
transponder is needed by everyone.
Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is
required, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is required
makes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA. Sure, for
those of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like O'Hare
International Airport, it is required equipment, but out in the boonies, it is
just
another toy for most.
As Always, It All Depends!
For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that can
be done without.
As for resale value, ANY electronics you install will be the fastest
depreciating component in the airplane!
Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks. Two
years ago it would bring 2400.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
At 10:36 AM 10/18/2011, you wrote:
>Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will
>ground a line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to
>the line and run it to my audio panel. Other than EI's tone
>generator, is there an easy way to do this?
>
"Easy" is difficult to quantify. How handy
are you with the soldering iron? In the
audio systems chapter of the 'Connection
I illustrated a variety of tone generators
that could be adapted to various functions
in the well appointed airplane.
The SIMPLEST solution is an 8-pin PIC
uController with some pretty rudimentary
software. This approach could do about
any sort of 'noise' short of a string
quartet. The schematics I illustrated
are less versatile but can be fabricated
from rudimentary parts.
What would you like to tone to sound like?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Hi Bill,
I used this line from the EI clock, but instead take it to a light on the
annunciator panel (design as supplied by another lister here). It lights u
p
a green 1 x 1/2" or so LED array.
James
On 18 October 2011 16:36, Bill Shank wrote:
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
> line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and r
un
> it to my audio panel. Other than EI=99s tone generator, is there an
easy way
> to do this?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill Shank RV6****
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Hi Bill,
I used this line from the EI clock, but instead take it to a light on the
annunciator panel (design as supplied by another lister here). It lights u
p
a green 1 x 1/2" or so LED array.
James
On 18 October 2011 16:36, Bill Shank wrote:
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
> line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and r
un
> it to my audio panel. Other than EI=99s tone generator, is there an
easy way
> to do this?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill Shank RV6****
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Hi Bill,
I used this line from the EI clock, but instead take it to a light on the
annunciator panel (design as supplied by another lister here). It lights u
p
a green 1 x 1/2" or so LED array.
James
On 18 October 2011 16:36, Bill Shank wrote:
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
> line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and r
un
> it to my audio panel. Other than EI=99s tone generator, is there an
easy way
> to do this?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill Shank RV6****
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
> **
> Good Morning Bob S.
>
> And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder
> supply traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast
> movers?
>
>
Right now, all of it.
TCAS provides interrogation from the aircraft in which it is installed. You
can be in a mountain valley, and that fast moving airplane will see you,
present your information to him, and provide him a traffic advisory or
resolution advisory. You won't know about him, but he'll know about you.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shank" <WRShank(at)spoerrprecast.com> |
Bob, I'm thinking a ding dong sound, nothing that would startle you. I
will
take a look at the Connection tonight. I have no experience soldering
boards
but would like to learn.
Thanks
Bill Shank
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EI clock chime
At 10:36 AM 10/18/2011, you wrote:
Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and
run
it to my audio panel. Other than EI=12s tone generator, is there an easy
way
to do this?
"Easy" is difficult to quantify. How handy
are you with the soldering iron? In the
audio systems chapter of the 'Connection
I illustrated a variety of tone generators
that could be adapted to various functions
in the well appointed airplane.
The SIMPLEST solution is an 8-pin PIC
uController with some pretty rudimentary
software. This approach could do about
any sort of 'noise' short of a string
quartet. The schematics I illustrated
are less versatile but can be fabricated
from rudimentary parts.
What would you like to tone to sound like?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Hi Bill,
I used this line from the EI clock, but instead take it to a light on the
annunciator panel (design as supplied by another lister here). It lights u
p
a green 1 x 1/2" or so LED array.
James
On 18 October 2011 16:36, Bill Shank wrote:
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
> line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and r
un
> it to my audio panel. Other than EI=99s tone generator, is there an
easy way
> to do this?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill Shank RV6****
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good morning, Bob S.'
-
- TCAS works great right now. And it works-everywhere as in 100% of U.S
. airspace as well as over some God forsaken pieces of real estate worldwid
e.- It is strictly between your transponder/mode C-and the TCAS system
of the fast mover.- Many, many times professional flight crews search for
ATC called traffic and cannot find it!- Vigilance is a nice thing but it
definitely doesn't solve the problem of avoiding traffic you cannot find d
espite your best efforts.- See and avoid obviously has its limitations.
- But see and avoid aided by TCAS-is-much more effective.- Many tim
es crews using-TCAS can find traffic and if they can't, the TCAS can give
evasive maneuver guidance.- So, if you want to show up on the big jets T
CAS display, install a transponder with Mode C.- Good day to you.
-
Bob--S.
--- On Tue, 10/18/11, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 11:26 AM
Good Morning Bob S.
-
And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder supp
ly traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast mover
s?
-
Some day, that system will work. Right now it is often- just a provider o
f false security. The best way to avoid a collision is to look out the wind
ow and avoid flying where the fast movers who never look out the window are
prevalent.
-
As I have said so often. It All Depends!
-
I prefer to save my money until the product is ready for prime time.
-
Happy Skies,
-
Bob S.
-
Rarely abbreviated from Bob Siegfried.
Downers Grove, Illinois
-
In a message dated 10/18/2011 9:56:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time, endspeed@
yahoo.com writes:
I believe a functioning transponder with an altitude encoder is priceless f
or enhancing safety. -Modern collision avoidance systems use the transpon
der and mode C read outs to make your presence known to fast movers and all
ow the TCAS to calculate evasive maneuvers if needed. -My aircraft will d
efinitely be equipped with a transponder with Mode C.
Bob S.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:46, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Morning OC,
-
I think we may have had this discussion before, but I do not feel a transpo
nder is needed by everyone.
-
Never actually measured the amount of airspace where a transponder is requi
red, but I will bet a milk shake that the airspace where one is required ma
kes up way less the ten percent of the air space in the USA.- Sure, for t
hose of us who live and fly in the shadow of places like O'Hare Internation
al Airport, it is required equipment, but out in the boonies, it is just an
other toy for most.
-
As Always, It All Depends!
-
For just piddling around in the hinterlands it is cost and weight that can
be done without.
-
As for resale value,-ANY electronics you install will be the fastest depr
eciating component in the airplane!
-
Keep it simple and install nothing you do not need.
-
The Street Price for a good working Garmin 496 is now about 800 bucks. Two
years ago it would bring 2400.
-
Happy Skies,
-
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Afternoon Andrew,
That would be true if the fast mover happens to be an airliner or other
large aircraft that is properly equipped to do so, but very few GA airplanes
have that capability.
It is coming, but I feel that most Zenith 610 builders who intend to piddle
around VFR will not get substantial benefit from a transponder. If the
builder wishes to install one, more power to him, but I do not think the
degree of additional safety will be worth the trouble. Not sure how most Light
Sport Aircraft are flown, but low and slow and away from the major airways
are where I would be flying such an aircraft. I have quite a bit of
experience in a Legend Cub. It is equipped for IFR flight, though I have not yet
had occasion to file for such service, Since it is flown primarily in a high
density flight area, I encouraged the builder to install a transponder as
well as an IFR approvable GPS unit.
My Stearman has a transponder because it flies in an area where I think
having one is prudent. If I were piddling around out in the boonies, I would
have no radios at all. Who knows, I may even equip the Stearman for IFR
flight one of these days. Depends on how and where it is to be used
As I said in the message that started this string. It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/18/2011 11:58:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, <_BobsV35B(at)aol.com_
(mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) > wrote:
Good Morning Bob S.
And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder
supply traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast
movers?
Right now, all of it.
TCAS provides interrogation from the aircraft in which it is installed.
You can be in a mountain valley, and that fast moving airplane will see you,
present your information to him, and provide him a traffic advisory or
resolution advisory. You won't know about him, but he'll know about you.
More here:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system)
--
Andrew Zachar
_andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | 'Electric Connection |
Bob
I tried to email you from your web site bit it would not go though.
Thanks for the fast delivery of the 'Electric Connection
I ordered the book and CD combo. Does the CD ship separately?
I have not received the CD.
Let me know what you find out.
Thanks
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
That's fair, but on a regular basis, whether IFR or VFR, we see someone on
the TCAS box before ATC alerts us. Sometimes, they're too busy to give us
the advisory.
Having a transponder does not always just provide me access to airspace that
requires it. It also allows people to see and avoid me with something other
than their eyes.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of mid-air collisions don't happen
along "major airways," but rather in the vicinity of an airport, where many
types of aircraft convene.
It's a tool, sometimes operationally required. I'm just pointing out that
like landing/taxi/strobe lights, it is sometimes about helping other people
see YOU, even though they aren't required.
I'll be putting a mode C transponder in my RV-7, but I fully respect your
decision not to. Just making sure people think of the other side of the
transmit/recieve transaction.
-az
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, wrote:
> **
> Good Afternoon Andrew,
>
> That would be true if the fast mover happens to be an airliner or other
> large aircraft that is properly equipped to do so, but very few GA airplanes
> have that capability.
>
> It is coming, but I feel that most Zenith 610 builders who intend to piddle
> around VFR will not get substantial benefit from a transponder. If the
> builder wishes to install one, more power to him, but I do not think the
> degree of additional safety will be worth the trouble. Not sure how most
> Light Sport Aircraft are flown, but low and slow and away from the major
> airways are where I would be flying such an aircraft. I have quite a bit of
> experience in a Legend Cub. It is equipped for IFR flight, though I have not
> yet had occasion to file for such service, Since it is flown primarily in a
> high density flight area, I encouraged the builder to install a transponder
> as well as an IFR approvable GPS unit.
>
> My Stearman has a transponder because it flies in an area where I think
> having one is prudent. If I were piddling around out in the boonies, I would
> have no radios at all. Who knows, I may even equip the Stearman for IFR
> flight one of these days. Depends on how and where it is to be used
>
> As I said in the message that started this string. It All Depends!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2011 11:58:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com writes:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>
>> **
>> Good Morning Bob S.
>>
>> And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder
>> supply traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast
>> movers?
>>
>>
>>
> Right now, all of it.
>
> TCAS provides interrogation from the aircraft in which it is installed. You
> can be in a mountain valley, and that fast moving airplane will see you,
> present your information to him, and provide him a traffic advisory or
> resolution advisory. You won't know about him, but he'll know about you.
>
> More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system
>
> --
> Andrew Zachar
> andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
>
> *
>
> ist href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lists.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good afternoon Bob S.,
Not to belabor a point but your concept of major airports and traffic is n
ot necessarily 100% correct these days. I retired from a major airline and w
e flew into uncontrolled airports! VFR or IFR, it did not matter. So if yo
u fly your Cub into uncontrolled fields, you could find yourself eyeball to e
yeball with a rather large, fast object. No doubt, if you stay well off the
beaten path of most traffic, you will have less chance of colliding. But I
flew into uncontrolled mountain airports and smaller uncontrolled southeast
ern airports for a major. How much farther off the beaten track could one g
et? And often our approaches brought us quite low over bugsmasher airports n
earby. Many times, I wished TCAS traffic had an altitude readout but the tr
affic had no mode C. And the non transponder equipped aircraft never even s
howed up at all. As I said, my aircraft will have a transponder with mode C
.
Best regards,
Another Bob S.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2011, at 12:50, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Andrew,
>
> That would be true if the fast mover happens to be an airliner or other la
rge aircraft that is properly equipped to do so, but very few GA airplanes h
ave that capability.
>
> It is coming, but I feel that most Zenith 610 builders who intend to piddl
e around VFR will not get substantial benefit from a transponder. If the bui
lder wishes to install one, more power to him, but I do not think the degree
of additional safety will be worth the trouble. Not sure how most Light Spo
rt Aircraft are flown, but low and slow and away from the major airways are w
here I would be flying such an aircraft. I have quite a bit of experience i
n a Legend Cub. It is equipped for IFR flight, though I have not yet had occ
asion to file for such service, Since it is flown primarily in a high densit
y flight area, I encouraged the builder to install a transponder as well as a
n IFR approvable GPS unit.
>
> My Stearman has a transponder because it flies in an area where I think ha
ving one is prudent. If I were piddling around out in the boonies, I would h
ave no radios at all. Who knows, I may even equip the Stearman for IFR fligh
t one of these days. Depends on how and where it is to be used
>
> As I said in the message that started this string. It All Depends!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2011 11:58:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time, andrew.
d.zachar(at)gmail.com writes:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
> Good Morning Bob S.
>
> And in what percentage of the US airspace will your Mode C transponder sup
ply traffic information and collision avoidance guidance to those fast mover
s?
>
>
>
> Right now, all of it.
>
> TCAS provides interrogation from the aircraft in which it is installed. Yo
u can be in a mountain valley, and that fast moving airplane will see you, p
resent your information to him, and provide him a traffic advisory or resolu
tion advisory. You won't know about him, but he'll know about you.
>
> More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system
>
> --
> Andrew Zachar
> andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
>
>
> ist href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://w
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Actually anyone with a $400. (and up) traffic device such as the little
PCAS will be alerted to your presence if you have a transponder. A
collision with another light aircraft tends to be just as fatal as with
a big one. Many times I've avoided another light aircraft that obviously
did not see me. And many times I would not have seen the other guy
either if it wasn't for the PCAS insisting he was there. The PCAS is
passive but there are almost always overflying big guys with TCAS
triggering every other transponder within a couple of hundred miles. So
these things work even down low in the boonies and provide significant
safety improvement IMO. I rarely use my transponder for ATC purposes but
it is always on.
Ken
On 18/10/2011 3:11 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> Good afternoon Bob S.,
>
> Not to belabor a point but your concept of major airports and traffic is
> not necessarily 100% correct these days. I retired from a major airline
> and we flew into uncontrolled airports! VFR or IFR, it did not matter.
> So if you fly your Cub into uncontrolled fields, you could find yourself
> eyeball to eyeball with a rather large, fast object. No doubt, if you
> stay well off the beaten path of most traffic, you will have less chance
> of colliding. But I flew into uncontrolled mountain airports and smaller
> uncontrolled southeastern airports for a major. How much farther off the
> beaten track could one get? And often our approaches brought us quite
> low over bugsmasher airports nearby. Many times, I wished TCAS traffic
> had an altitude readout but the traffic had no mode C. And the non
> transponder equipped aircraft never even showed up at all. As I said, my
> aircraft will have a transponder with mode C.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Another Bob S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Evening Ken,
Well, it is certain that my opinion IS in the minority.
It so happens that I currently own and fly four airplanes and all of them
are equipped with Mode C transponders.
I see that there was "Another Bob S." that commented. I did not receive
his message though it is copied in your message. I also flew for a "major"
for 38 years. I think I am aware of where air carriers are likely to be
found.
The original comment was triggered by a pilot who is starting to build a
Zenith. Some of you seem to feel that having a transponder installed is
almost mandatory. I am not of that opinion.
Does not make me right, but it IS my opinion and I just wanted to let the
Zenith builder know that if he is primarily interested in flying low and
slow way out in the boonies, the odds of his needing a transponder are still
pretty slim. We lose more airplanes due to pilot error than to any other
cause. Those errors are made by thirty year airline pilots just like they are
made by student pilots. We cannot buy safety just by buying toys. My
contention is that the decision to equip an airplane with every bell and whistle
should be made based on where and how that aircraft is going to be
operated. Ya can't buy safety, ya gotta learn how to stay within your personal
and
your equipment's limitations.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman, Turbo Normalized Bonanza, Normally aspirated Bonanza, and a
Pacer Couple more in the bowels of the hangar that may be rebuilt someday.
In a message dated 10/18/2011 4:05:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
Actually anyone with a $400. (and up) traffic device such as the little
PCAS will be alerted to your presence if you have a transponder. A
collision with another light aircraft tends to be just as fatal as with
a big one. Many times I've avoided another light aircraft that obviously
did not see me. And many times I would not have seen the other guy
either if it wasn't for the PCAS insisting he was there. The PCAS is
passive but there are almost always overflying big guys with TCAS
triggering every other transponder within a couple of hundred miles. So
these things work even down low in the boonies and provide significant
safety improvement IMO. I rarely use my transponder for ATC purposes but
it is always on.
Ken
On 18/10/2011 3:11 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> Good afternoon Bob S.,
>
> Not to belabor a point but your concept of major airports and traffic is
> not necessarily 100% correct these days. I retired from a major airline
> and we flew into uncontrolled airports! VFR or IFR, it did not matter.
> So if you fly your Cub into uncontrolled fields, you could find yourself
> eyeball to eyeball with a rather large, fast object. No doubt, if you
> stay well off the beaten path of most traffic, you will have less chance
> of colliding. But I flew into uncontrolled mountain airports and smaller
> uncontrolled southeastern airports for a major. How much farther off the
> beaten track could one get? And often our approaches brought us quite
> low over bugsmasher airports nearby. Many times, I wished TCAS traffic
> had an altitude readout but the traffic had no mode C. And the non
> transponder equipped aircraft never even showed up at all. As I said, my
> aircraft will have a transponder with mode C.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Another Bob S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fat terminal size |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com> |
Anyone know the fat terminal lug size on the B and C S702-1 starter solenoid?
The drawing on their website shows the sizes of the small terminal but not the
big ones. I'm traveling so cannot go to the hanger to measure them myself.
Thanks.
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355474#355474
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fat terminal size |
5/16ths studs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bubblehead
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fat terminal size
Anyone know the fat terminal lug size on the B and C S702-1 starter
solenoid? The drawing on their website shows the sizes of the small
terminal but not the big ones. I'm traveling so cannot go to the hanger to
measure them myself. Thanks.
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355474#355474
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn A Riggs" <riggs_la(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
You are right, a transponder is only required in class A, B, and C airspace.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
Good Evening Ken,
Well, it is certain that my opinion IS in the minority.
It so happens that I currently own and fly four airplanes and all of them
are equipped with Mode C transponders.
I see that there was "Another Bob S." that commented. I did not receive his
message though it is copied in your message. I also flew for a "major" for
38 years. I think I am aware of where air carriers are likely to be found.
The original comment was triggered by a pilot who is starting to build a
Zenith. Some of you seem to feel that having a transponder installed is
almost mandatory. I am not of that opinion.
Does not make me right, but it IS my opinion and I just wanted to let the
Zenith builder know that if he is primarily interested in flying low and
slow way out in the boonies, the odds of his needing a transponder are still
pretty slim. We lose more airplanes due to pilot error than to any other
cause. Those errors are made by thirty year airline pilots just like they
are made by student pilots. We cannot buy safety just by buying toys. My
contention is that the decision to equip an airplane with every bell and
whistle should be made based on where and how that aircraft is going to be
operated. Ya can't buy safety, ya gotta learn how to stay within your
personal and your equipment's limitations.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman, Turbo Normalized Bonanza, Normally aspirated Bonanza, and a Pacer
Couple more in the bowels of the hangar that may be rebuilt someday.
In a message dated 10/18/2011 4:05:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
Actually anyone with a $400. (and up) traffic device such as the little
PCAS will be alerted to your presence if you have a transponder. A
collision with another light aircraft tends to be just as fatal as with
a big one. Many times I've avoided another light aircraft that obviously
did not see me. And many times I would not have seen the other guy
either if it wasn't for the PCAS insisting he was there. The PCAS is
passive but there are almost always overflying big guys with TCAS
triggering every other transponder within a couple of hundred miles. So
these things work even down low in the boonies and provide significant
safety improvement IMO. I rarely use my transponder for ATC purposes but
it is always on.
Ken
On 18/10/2011 3:11 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> Good afternoon Bob S.,
>
> Not to belabor a point but your concept of major airports and traffic is
> not necessarily 100% correct these days. I retired from a major airline
> and we flew into uncontrolled airports! VFR or IFR, it did not matter.
> So if you fly your Cub into uncontrolled fields, you could find yourself
> eyeball to eyeball with a rather large, fast object. No doubt, if you
> stay well off the beaten path of most traffic, you will have less chance
> of colliding. But I flew into uncontrolled mountain airports and smaller
> uncontrolled southeastern airports for a major. How much farther off the
> beaten track could one get? And often our approaches brought us quite
> low over bugsmasher airports nearby. Many times, I wished TCAS traffic
> had an altitude readout but the traffic had no mode C. And the non
> transponder equipped aircraft never even showed up at all. As I said, my
> aircraft will have a transponder with mode C.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Another Bob S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
I'm sure you are aware, but that's not the only airspace where a
transponder is required.
91.215 if interested in the details...
On 10/18/11 8:17 PM, Lynn A Riggs wrote:
>
> You are right, a transponder is only required in class A, B, and C
> airspace.
>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:51 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design
>
> Good Evening Ken,
>
> Well, it is certain that my opinion IS in the minority.
>
> It so happens that I currently own and fly four airplanes and all of
> them are equipped with Mode C transponders.
>
> I see that there was "Another Bob S." that commented. I did not
> receive his message though it is copied in your message. I also flew
> for a "major" for 38 years. I think I am aware of where air carriers
> are likely to be found.
>
> The original comment was triggered by a pilot who is starting to build
> a Zenith. Some of you seem to feel that having a transponder
> installed is almost mandatory. I am not of that opinion.
>
> Does not make me right, but it IS my opinion and I just wanted to let
> the Zenith builder know that if he is primarily interested in flying
> low and slow way out in the boonies, the odds of his needing a
> transponder are still pretty slim. We lose more airplanes due to pilot
> error than to any other cause. Those errors are made by thirty year
> airline pilots just like they are made by student pilots. We cannot
> buy safety just by buying toys. My contention is that the decision to
> equip an airplane with every bell and whistle should be made based on
> where and how that aircraft is going to be operated. Ya can't buy
> safety, ya gotta learn how to stay within your personal and your
> equipment's limitations.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> AKA
>
> Bob Siegfried
>
> Downers Grove, Illinois
>
> Stearman, Turbo Normalized Bonanza, Normally aspirated Bonanza, and a
> Pacer Couple more in the bowels of the hangar that may be rebuilt
> someday.
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2011 4:05:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
>
>
> Actually anyone with a $400. (and up) traffic device such as the
> little
> PCAS will be alerted to your presence if you have a transponder. A
> collision with another light aircraft tends to be just as fatal as
> with
> a big one. Many times I've avoided another light aircraft that
> obviously
> did not see me. And many times I would not have seen the other guy
> either if it wasn't for the PCAS insisting he was there. The PCAS is
> passive but there are almost always overflying big guys with TCAS
> triggering every other transponder within a couple of hundred
> miles. So
> these things work even down low in the boonies and provide
> significant
> safety improvement IMO. I rarely use my transponder for ATC
> purposes but
> it is always on.
> Ken
>
> On 18/10/2011 3:11 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> > Good afternoon Bob S.,
> >
> > Not to belabor a point but your concept of major airports and
> traffic is
> > not necessarily 100% correct these days. I retired from a major
> airline
> > and we flew into uncontrolled airports! VFR or IFR, it did not
> matter.
> > So if you fly your Cub into uncontrolled fields, you could find
> yourself
> > eyeball to eyeball with a rather large, fast object. No doubt, if you
> > stay well off the beaten path of most traffic, you will have less
> chance
> > of colliding. But I flew into uncontrolled mountain airports and
> smaller
> > uncontrolled southeastern airports for a major. How much farther
> off the
> > beaten track could one get? And often our approaches brought us quite
> > low over bugsmasher airports nearby. Many times, I wished TCAS
> traffic
> > had an altitude readout but the traffic had no mode C. And the non
> > transponder equipped aircraft never even showed up at all. As I
> said, my
> > aircraft will have a transponder with mode C.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Another Bob S.
> >
> >
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Electric Connection |
At 12:59 PM 10/18/2011, you wrote:
>Bob
>I tried to email you from your web site bit it would not go though.
>Thanks for the fast delivery of the 'Electric Connection
I've got a bug in the script that manages my
website email filter. Need to get that fixed too.
>I ordered the book and CD combo. Does the CD ship separately?
>I have not received the CD.
My bad. It should have been in the envelope
with the book. I'll get it out in the morning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Henderson" <robnrobinh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | 'Electric Connection |
Thanks Bob.
No worries,
Been lurking for years, now it's time to get to work on the electron
herding.
There is so much information in your book.
Thanks again
-Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 'Electric Connection
-->
At 12:59 PM 10/18/2011, you wrote:
>Bob
>I tried to email you from your web site bit it would not go though.
>Thanks for the fast delivery of the 'Electric Connection
I've got a bug in the script that manages my
website email filter. Need to get that fixed too.
>I ordered the book and CD combo. Does the CD ship separately?
>I have not received the CD.
My bad. It should have been in the envelope
with the book. I'll get it out in the morning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K Fohringer" <kfohringer(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 10/18/11 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fat terminal size |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalmansr(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks.
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355501#355501
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
10/19/2011
Hello Fellow EAB (Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft) Builders and Pilots,
Fair warning -- I have broken out my whip and am about to give a nearly dead
horse another (final?) whack.
The subject of whether or not to install a transponder in the aircraft that
you are currently building has been hashed over pretty thoroughly recently
from many aspects except for this one:
1) Suppose that you are flying around in (relatively remote) airspace that
does not require a transponder. Further suppose that you are a very safety
conscious individual and that you have you and your aircraft equipped with:
a) A GPS capable 406 ELT (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html),
b) A hand held portable radio,
c) A cell phone (both with well charged batteries),
d) And maybe even a PLB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon).
2) You are flying several thousand feet above ground when your engine
suffers an unrecoverable failure. As you glide down you take some comfort in
having each of the tools listed in 1 above available, but each of those
tools (and your ability to operate them) severally have failure modes during
and after contact with the earth's surface.
3) But you have one other very powerful tool available to notify ATC (even
if you are not in radio or ongoing flight following radar contact with them)
that you have both an emergency and your present location IF you have an
operable transponder on board and you squawk 7700.
4) Points have been raised about cost, weight, and obsolencence of avionics
systems in general. Modern, lightweight, solid state transponders that will
remain useable in the ATC system for the foreseeable future are available
for less than $2,000. Is that a good investment for you and your aircraft?
5) Please keep 3 and 4 above in mind, as well as the many other points that
have been made on this subject, as you consider whether or not to install a
transponder when you build your aircraft.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
The bigger question is not so much whether to install a transponder, but
whether to install mode A/C, UAT or Mode S-ES.
We are only 8 yrs, 2 mos from mandatory ADS-B out for all the same
airspace where Mode C is currently required. How long Mode C will remain
useful after that date is unknown, as is whether the feds against
aviation will extend the ADS-B deadline. Costs have come down on the
1090-ES Mode S transponders, with some in the $2000-2500 range. Since
many of us live/base under a Mode C veil now, lack of a transponder is
rather confining. Most of us on the other hand won't have a need to
reach the flight levels, so UAT may be a better option, but haven't seen
many units on the market, so far.
On 10/19/2011 7:29 AM, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 10/19/2011
>
> 3) But you have one other very powerful tool available to notify ATC
> (even if you are not in radio or ongoing flight following radar
> contact with them) that you have both an emergency and your present
> location IF you have an operable transponder on board and you squawk
> 7700.
>
> 4) Points have been raised about cost, weight, and obsolencence of
> avionics systems in general. Modern, lightweight, solid state
> transponders that will remain useable in the ATC system for the
> foreseeable future are available for less than $2,000. Is that a good
> investment for you and your aircraft?
>
> 5) Please keep 3 and 4 above in mind, as well as the many other points
> that have been made on this subject, as you consider whether or not to
> install a transponder when you build your aircraft.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and
> effort to gather and understand knowledge."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Morning OC,
Just to hit that poor horse one more time, have you never had ATC tell you
that radar has been lost? I find that at the altitudes I often fly, loss of
radar is common. I still say that it is up to we aviators to decide what
we need and how we operate. There is no other entity that will have our
best interests covered as well as we will.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/19/2011 9:33:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
10/19/2011
Hello Fellow EAB (Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft) Builders and
Pilots,
Fair warning -- I have broken out my whip and am about to give a nearly
dead
horse another (final?) whack.
The subject of whether or not to install a transponder in the aircraft
that
you are currently building has been hashed over pretty thoroughly recently
from many aspects except for this one:
1) Suppose that you are flying around in (relatively remote) airspace that
does not require a transponder. Further suppose that you are a very safety
conscious individual and that you have you and your aircraft equipped with:
a) A GPS capable 406 ELT
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html),
b) A hand held portable radio,
c) A cell phone (both with well charged batteries),
d) And maybe even a PLB
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon).
2) You are flying several thousand feet above ground when your engine
suffers an unrecoverable failure. As you glide down you take some comfort
in
having each of the tools listed in 1 above available, but each of those
tools (and your ability to operate them) severally have failure modes
during
and after contact with the earth's surface.
3) But you have one other very powerful tool available to notify ATC (even
if you are not in radio or ongoing flight following radar contact with
them)
that you have both an emergency and your present location IF you have an
operable transponder on board and you squawk 7700.
4) Points have been raised about cost, weight, and obsolencence of
avionics
systems in general. Modern, lightweight, solid state transponders that
will
remain useable in the ATC system for the foreseeable future are available
for less than $2,000. Is that a good investment for you and your aircraft?
5) Please keep 3 and 4 above in mind, as well as the many other points
that
have been made on this subject, as you consider whether or not to install
a
transponder when you build your aircraft.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tentative Zenith Electrical Design |
Good Point Well Made Kelly,
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 10/19/2011 9:53:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
kellym(at)aviating.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
The bigger question is not so much whether to install a transponder, but
whether to install mode A/C, UAT or Mode S-ES.
We are only 8 yrs, 2 mos from mandatory ADS-B out for all the same
airspace where Mode C is currently required. How long Mode C will remain
useful after that date is unknown, as is whether the feds against
aviation will extend the ADS-B deadline. Costs have come down on the
1090-ES Mode S transponders, with some in the $2000-2500 range. Since
many of us live/base under a Mode C veil now, lack of a transponder is
rather confining. Most of us on the other hand won't have a need to
reach the flight levels, so UAT may be a better option, but haven't seen
many units on the market, so far.
On 10/19/2011 7:29 AM, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 10/19/2011
>
> 3) But you have one other very powerful tool available to notify ATC
> (even if you are not in radio or ongoing flight following radar
> contact with them) that you have both an emergency and your present
> location IF you have an operable transponder on board and you squawk
> 7700.
>
> 4) Points have been raised about cost, weight, and obsolencence of
> avionics systems in general. Modern, lightweight, solid state
> transponders that will remain useable in the ATC system for the
> foreseeable future are available for less than $2,000. Is that a good
> investment for you and your aircraft?
>
> 5) Please keep 3 and 4 above in mind, as well as the many other points
> that have been made on this subject, as you consider whether or not to
> install a transponder when you build your aircraft.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and
> effort to gather and understand knowledge."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?= <theo.celis(at)telenet.be> |
Please note:
theo.celis(at)telenet.be
Thanks,
Th=E9o
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a line
when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and run it to
my audio panel. Other than EIs tone generator, is there an easy way to do this?
Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone when the input goes
low.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/GatedToneSource.gif
Joe Gores
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Jabiru Voltage Regulator Low Voltage Light |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I started my Jabiru 3300 for the first time a couple days ago. Here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0qe9uE1vQ
I found out that I need to reprogram my MGL EFIS, but also my LV indicator light
acted unexpectedly. I have the stock voltage regulator which has 6 leads. They
say to connect the green one to a LV light, which I did. A fuslink then a
22awg wire takes it back to the panel where I've got it wired to a red LED light
and grounded to the panel ground buss. I've got a reverse diode wired across
the LED also. My master switch is a 2-10, Off-Bat only-Bat+Alt. With the engine
off (no alternator), the LV light is brightly lit in both the Bat only and
Bat+Alt positions. With the engine running and the alternator offline, the light
is also brightly lit. So far so good.
But when I add the alternator, the light dims about halfway. I expected it to be
off. This was at high idle, 900 RPM. The EFIS showed a supply voltage of 12.8V
at this time. Would I expect to see the light go out at higher rpm? If not,
is there a way to make the dimmed light go out when the alternator is online,
and allow a bright light to come through when the alternator is offline?
My MGL Enigma EFIS has an alarm that can be set for LV, so the indicator light
is a backup. If I can't fix it, I'd just disconnect it, or wire it to the EFIS
for a general warning light that would come on for any alarm.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355651#355651
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru Voltage Regulator Low Voltage Light |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Dan,
I noticed in your video that when the motor finally fired up, the
plane's tail-end raised up.
I think you dodged a bullet THAT time, but next time you may not be so
lucky. A few hundred
more rpm on your initial start-up and I am convinced your plane would
have nosed over, wiping out your
prop and lots of other expensive parts...like your motor.
Your wheel chocks and rope to the tree do not address the forward
tipping tendency of a highly
revved engine.
I watched this exact same phenomenon a few days ago...also almost
tipping onto it's nose.
I highly suggest you consider securing the plane DOWN at the tail-end,
like using a steel stake or
VERY heavy weight.
That's just my opinion. Other guys can watch your plane tip forward
and make up their own
opinion.
Mike Welch
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:33 AM, messydeer wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I started my Jabiru 3300 for the first time a couple days ago. Here's
a link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0qe9uE1vQ
>
> I found out that I need to reprogram my MGL EFIS, but also my LV
indicator light acted unexpectedly. I have the stock voltage regulator
which has 6 leads. They say to connect the green one to a LV light,
which I did. A fuslink then a 22awg wire takes it back to the panel
where I've got it wired to a red LED light and grounded to the panel
ground buss. I've got a reverse diode wired across the LED also. My
master switch is a 2-10, Off-Bat only-Bat+Alt. With the engine off (no
alternator), the LV light is brightly lit in both the Bat only and
Bat+Alt positions. With the engine running and the alternator offline,
the light is also brightly lit. So far so good.
>
> But when I add the alternator, the light dims about halfway. I
expected it to be off. This was at high idle, 900 RPM. The EFIS showed a
supply voltage of 12.8V at this time. Would I expect to see the light go
out at higher rpm? If not, is there a way to make the dimmed light go
out when the alternator is online, and allow a bright light to come
through when the alternator is offline?
>
> My MGL Enigma EFIS has an alarm that can be set for LV, so the
indicator light is a backup. If I can't fix it, I'd just disconnect it,
or wire it to the EFIS for a general warning light that would come on
for any alarm.
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355651#355651
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
Joe, that's a circuit I might be interested in for another application,
but I don't see a power line? Can the tone be automatically shut off
after (say) 2 seconds?
Peter
On 21/10/2011 03:24, user9253 wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"
>
>
>> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a line
when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and run it to
my audio panel. Other than EIs tone generator, is there an easy way to do this?
> Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone when the input goes
low.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/GatedToneSource.gif
> Joe Gores
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
Peter,
I'm not Joe, he's much smarter than I am, but the "power line" you're looking
for is
inside the drawing labelled " ENABLE (Low= Tone) "
Mike W
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> Joe, that's a circuit I might be interested in for another application, but I
don't see a power line? Can the tone be automatically shut off after (say) 2
seconds?
>
> Peter
>
> On 21/10/2011 03:24, user9253 wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"
>>
>>
>>> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a line
when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and run it to
my audio panel. Other than EIs tone generator, is there an easy way to do this?
>> Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone when the input goes
low.
>> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/GatedToneSource.gif
>> Joe Gores
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Vcc is the supply line.
On 21 October 2011 17:29, Peter Pengilly wrote:
> peter(at)sportingaero.com>
>
> Joe, that's a circuit I might be interested in for another application, b
ut
> I don't see a power line? Can the tone be automatically shut off after (s
ay)
> 2 seconds?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 21/10/2011 03:24, user9253 wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"<fran4sew@banyanol.*
*
>> com >
>>
>>
>> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground
a
>>> line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and
run
>>> it to my audio panel. Other than EI=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s tone gener
ator, is there an easy way
>>> to do this?
>>>
>> Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone when the inp
ut
>> goes low.
>> https://lh4.googleusercontent.**com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/**
>> AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/**GatedToneSource.gif
>> Joe Gores
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/**viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
ums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
=====**===================
===========**=
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
I believe "ENABLE" is the ground and "Vcc" is 5VDC. When your clock goes
"low" it connects to ground and makes the circuit to activate the tone.
John Grosse
Michael Welch wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Welch
>
> Peter,
>
> I'm not Joe, he's much smarter than I am, but the "power line" you're looking
for is
> inside the drawing labelled " ENABLE (Low= Tone) "
>
> Mike W
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
I am not really smarter than Mike Welch. But I am better looking. :D
The 74LS368 is powered by 5vdc connected to pin 16 (labeled Vcc). As for automatically shutting off the tone after 2 seconds, another circuit is required for that. Perhaps something like this "One-Shot Tone Burst" circuit: http://www.eleccircuit.com/one-shot-timer-use-ic-ne555/
My favorite electronics book is "Engineer's Notebook" purchased in 1980. Although some of the ICs are no longer available. http://www.amazon.com/Forrest-Mims-Engineers-Notebook/dp/1878707035
The circuit that you use depends on the signal source, whether it is steady on
or a pulse. I agree with Bob N that a microprocessor will do everything. Its
circuit has the smallest parts count, will sense inputs and (if they meet certain
conditions) will output the desired signal for the required time period.
If one does not have a programmer, buying that will make the project more expensive.
And it will take LOTS of time to learn how to program. That cost of
time and money can be spread over several projects.
Joe
[/u]
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355667#355667
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
Thanks for that! If I were to put a pot in place of the 220 resistor
would I be able to adjust the volume? Also if I wanted to drive a 600
ohm load - ie an aircraft audio system - would I increase the value of
all the resistors by a factor of 75, or would that affect the frequency
of the output?
Is the actuated by the down going edge, or because there is a potential
difference between enable and Vcc? We used to call that ac or dc
coupled, not sure if that's the correct use of those terms?
Peter
On 21/10/2011 18:12, James Kilford wrote:
> Vcc is the supply line.
>
> On 21 October 2011 17:29, Peter Pengilly > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Joe, that's a circuit I might be interested in for another
> application, but I don't see a power line? Can the tone be
> automatically shut off after (say) 2 seconds?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 21/10/2011 03:24, user9253 wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "user9253">
>
>
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that
> will ground a line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to
> hook a chime to the line and run it to my audio panel.
> Other than EIs tone generator, is there an easy way to
> do this?
>
> Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone
> when the input goes low.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/GatedToneSource.gif
> Joe Gores
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> ric-List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
I've found the datasheet for the 74LS368 here
<http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheets/320/332263_DS.pdf>, looks
like they require only a 5v supply and input voltage, and so I guess
only output 5v also - not sure how that will drive my audio panel ...
Peter
On 21/10/2011 18:12, James Kilford wrote:
> Vcc is the supply line.
>
> On 21 October 2011 17:29, Peter Pengilly > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Joe, that's a circuit I might be interested in for another
> application, but I don't see a power line? Can the tone be
> automatically shut off after (say) 2 seconds?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 21/10/2011 03:24, user9253 wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "user9253">
>
>
> Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that
> will ground a line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to
> hook a chime to the line and run it to my audio panel.
> Other than EIs tone generator, is there an easy way to
> do this?
>
> Here is a circuit by Forrest M. Mims, III that makes a tone
> when the input goes low.
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-USAZBtVHo64/TqDWOf5qJcI/AAAAAAAAAcU/fBvHVErh8Bs/s439/GatedToneSource.gif
> Joe Gores
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355625#355625
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> ric-List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
John,
Got it!! Thanks for the explanation. Nice easy circuit.
Mike Welch
On Oct 21, 2011, at 1:10 PM, John Grosse wrote:
>
> I believe "ENABLE" is the ground and "Vcc" is 5VDC. When your clock goes "low"
it connects to ground and makes the circuit to activate the tone.
>
> John Grosse
>
>
> Michael Welch wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Welch
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I'm not Joe, he's much smarter than I am, but the "power line" you're looking
for is
>> inside the drawing labelled " ENABLE (Low= Tone) "
>>
>> Mike W
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
Joe,
Henry Waxman, (D) Ca is better looking than me!! See;
http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2011/05/rep-henry-waxman-scaring-seniors-again.html
hahahahaha
Mike
> I am not really smarter than Mike Welch. But I am better looking. :D
>
> Joe Gores
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Re: Gated Tone Source
I would not change the value of any component unless you intend to change the tone
frequency. The speaker could be replaced with a pot. And a capacitor between
the pot and the aircraft audio system will block DC. Bob's advice is needed
here.
Joe
> If I were to put a pot in place of the 220 resistor would I be able to adjust
the volume? Also if I wanted to drive a 600 ohm load - ie an aircraft audio system
- would I increase the value of all the resistors by a factor of 75
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355678#355678
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator wiring |
| From: | Dennis Ramsey <doramsey(at)gmail.com> |
I have a 24 volt 100 amp alternator that I am wiring up. I have 5
connections on the alternator. One is the B lead and I know what to do with
that. The other terminals seem straight forward until I look at the wiring
diagram options for the B&CLR3C-28 controller. The other terminals are
labelled F1, F2, GRD and Aux. On the B&C wiring diagram, my alterator is
not shown but they show a prestolite alternator that has terminals F1 and F2
with F1 getting wired to the field and F2 getting wired to either the engine
or alternator case as a ground. So I have a question about the grounding,
is my continental alternator like the prestolite....do I ground the F2
terminal and do I also ground the ground terminal?, and if so what is the
current basis I should use for ground wire sizing?. Its difficult for me
to see why these grounds are needed on an alternator that is bolted to the
engine with four substantial bolts... seems like the grounds could have been
wired up internally in their design but guess that was too much work for
them. By comparison my back up alternator which is a B&C SD-20 which has
no ground terminals at all. Now that makes sense. On the SD-20 there are
two field terminals that get pigtailed together. That just confused me
more. One alternator the two F connections get pigtailed and others have
one grounded and one connected to the field. I am sure this is logical to
someone but just not to me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EI clock chime |
| From: | Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> |
I have been trying to unsubscribe to the list. I follow the instructions by
hitting the execute button and it tells me that I don't need to take any
other action to unsubscribe. Nevertheless I keep receiving the emails.
Please unsubscribe me.
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM, user9253 wrote:
> >
>
> Re: Gated Tone Source
> I would not change the value of any component unless you intend to change
> the tone frequency. The speaker could be replaced with a pot. And a
> capacitor between the pot and the aircraft audio system will block DC.
> Bob's advice is needed here.
> Joe
>
> > If I were to put a pot in place of the 220 resistor would I be able to
> adjust the volume? Also if I wanted to drive a 600 ohm load - ie an aircraft
> audio system - would I increase the value of all the resistors by a factor
> of 75
>
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355678#355678
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shank" <WRShank(at)spoerrprecast.com> |
Bob, working on the two tone generator in the 'Connection, what is the
resistor that is between the two timers? Is it 220k ?
Bill Shank RV6
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EI clock chime
At 10:36 AM 10/18/2011, you wrote:
Bob and all, I have a EIectronics Intermational clock that will ground a
line when it reaches 0:00. I would like to hook a chime to the line and
run
it to my audio panel. Other than EI=12s tone generator, is there an easy
way
to do this?
"Easy" is difficult to quantify. How handy
are you with the soldering iron? In the
audio systems chapter of the 'Connection
I illustrated a variety of tone generators
that could be adapted to various functions
in the well appointed airplane.
What would you like to tone to sound like?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator wiring |
At 03:17 PM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
I have a 24 volt 100 amp alternator that I am wiring up. I have 5
connections on the alternator. One is the B lead and I know what to
do with that. The other terminals seem straight forward until I
look at the wiring diagram options for the B&CLR3C-28
controller. The other terminals are labelled F1, F2, GRD and
Aux. On the B&C wiring diagram, my alterator is not shown but they
show a prestolite alternator that has terminals F1 and F2 with F1
getting wired to the field and F2 getting wired to either the engine
or alternator case as a ground. So I have a question about the
grounding, is my continental alternator like the prestolite....do I
ground the F2 terminal and do I also ground the ground terminal?,
No, the alternator gets grounded through
it's mounting hardware. Ignore the Aux
terminal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator wiring |
> By comparison my back up alternator which is a B&C SD-20 which
> has no ground terminals at all. Now that makes sense. On the
> SD-20 there are two field terminals that get pigtailed
> together. That just confused me more.
They're redundant. Wiring to either or both will function.
> One alternator the two F connections get pigtailed and others
> have one grounded and one connected to the field. I am sure this
> is logical to someone but just not to me.
. . . it was B&C's choice to parallel the two
leads when the internal regulator was removed.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru Voltage Regulator Low Voltage Light |
At 09:33 AM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I started my Jabiru 3300 for the first time a couple days ago. Here's a link:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0qe9uE1vQ
>
>I found out that I need to reprogram my MGL EFIS, but also my LV
>indicator light acted unexpectedly. I have the stock voltage
>regulator which has 6 leads. They say to connect the green one to a
>LV light, which I did. A fuslink then a 22awg wire takes it back to
>the panel where I've got it wired to a red LED light and grounded to
>the panel ground buss. I've got a reverse diode wired across the LED
>also. My master switch is a 2-10, Off-Bat only-Bat+Alt. With the
>engine off (no alternator), the LV light is brightly lit in both the
>Bat only and Bat+Alt positions. With the engine running and the
>alternator offline, the light is also brightly lit. So far so good.
>
>But when I add the alternator, the light dims about halfway. I
>expected it to be off. This was at high idle, 900 RPM. The EFIS
>showed a supply voltage of 12.8V at this time. Would I expect to see
>the light go out at higher rpm? If not, is there a way to make the
>dimmed light go out when the alternator is online, and allow a
>bright light to come through when the alternator is offline?
>
>My MGL Enigma EFIS has an alarm that can be set for LV, so the
>indicator light is a backup. If I can't fix it, I'd just disconnect
>it, or wire it to the EFIS for a general warning light that would
>come on for any alarm.
As a general rule, warning lights built into
most regulators are NOT driven by true LV
warning systems. Suggest you ingnore the
lamp terminal and install a real LV warning
system . . . if your EFIS has an LV warning
then the one in the regulator is redundant.
Bob . . .
>--------
>Dan
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355651#355651
>
>
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru Voltage Regulator Low Voltage Light |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Mike and Bob.
Yes, I'll get downward pressure on the tail next time. I've driven a couple pieces
of ~1" pipe ~18" into the ground angled back and away from each other, about
2' apart. I'll tie a rope near the ground on one, loop it up 6" to go through
the bottom end of the tailcone, then back down to the other pipe. I'm tempted
also to put a 50# weight on the end. Right now, there's not much pressure on
the tailspring, maybe 20-30 lbs. The wheels being chocked also caused it to
nose over, but I think I'll keep them.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355719#355719
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru Voltage Regulator Low Voltage Light |
Hi Dan,
It's an excellent idea to hold the tail down better next time. Wheel chocks
and ropes straight back to trees
are a great way to keep the plane from rolling forward, but they do virtually nothing
to keep the propeller from
driving the nose into the dirt.
A 50# weight tied close to the tail will go a loooong way to keep the plane from
catastrophic disaster. The secure
steel pipes are an excellent idea, too......and also the minimum you should consider.
The pipes and the weight will
guarantee you will not have that situation reoccur. I'm glad to know you are
fixing things.
Mike Welch
On Oct 22, 2011, at 7:29 AM, messydeer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Mike and Bob.
>
> Yes, I'll get downward pressure on the tail next time. I've driven a couple pieces
of ~1" pipe ~18" into the ground angled back and away from each other, about
2' apart. I'll tie a rope near the ground on one, loop it up 6" to go through
the bottom end of the tailcone, then back down to the other pipe. I'm tempted
also to put a 50# weight on the end. Right now, there's not much pressure
on the tailspring, maybe 20-30 lbs. The wheels being chocked also caused it to
nose over, but I think I'll keep them.
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355719#355719
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Reduce PS voltage |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
I'm trying to reform the caps in an old unused Whelen strobe PS by using an independent
PS.
A Whelen tech suggested powering up the Whelen PS at 6vdc to see if it works. And
if it does, then power up to 12v
Whelen's white paper says use 9v for 15 min, then 12v.
Other people have reformed in steps, 6v, 9v, 12v.
How do I step down the voltage of my independent 13.5 PS?
The Whelen PS says it uses 7a. I tried using 4 'C' cells in series but the voltage
dropped to mV, so I'm deducing that I need an independent supply capable of
more amperage. At 6v, will I be trying to dissipate 7.5v x 7a = 42W? That's
a lot of heat if I just add a big honkin' resistor to the 13.5 v supply. Don't
know if there are resistors that big. I think there must be a more sophisticated
way to do this.
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355729#355729
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce PS voltage |
I think I used a 12 volt headlight bulb as a "resistor" when I did this
but too long ago to be sure. IIRC the average current is considerably
less than 7 amps. Suspect I would have paralleled a second bulb for the
intermediate voltage. I always keep a spare headlight bulb or two in
stock. Other things that you can play with include resistance
appliances. A 1500 watt kettle would be around 1500/120v = 12.5 ohms.
Two in parallel would be 6.25 ohms.
Ken
On 22/10/2011 11:58 AM, jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "jonlaury"
>
> I'm trying to reform the caps in an old unused Whelen strobe PS by
> using an independent PS. A Whelen tech suggested powering up the
> Whelen PS at 6vdc to see if it works. And if it does, then power up
> to 12v Whelen's white paper says use 9v for 15 min, then 12v.
>
> Other people have reformed in steps, 6v, 9v, 12v.
>
> How do I step down the voltage of my independent 13.5 PS?
>
> The Whelen PS says it uses 7a. I tried using 4 'C' cells in series
> but the voltage dropped to mV, so I'm deducing that I need an
> independent supply capable of more amperage. At 6v, will I be trying
> to dissipate 7.5v x 7a = 42W? That's a lot of heat if I just add a
> big honkin' resistor to the 13.5 v supply. Don't know if there are
> resistors that big. I think there must be a more sophisticated way
> to do this.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery charger |
Hi Bob=0AI went to WalMart but none of the chargers had model #s- Any oth
er description ? I have a battery tender now , does the Schumacher unit off
er more options?=0A=0AJim=0A=0A-=0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0AS
panish Fork UT U77=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Rober
t L. Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list
@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:55 AM=0ASubject: Re: Ae
roElectric-List: battery charger=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Robert L. 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 chargers 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 t
hink you're remembering the Schumacher=0A- model 1562.=0A=0A=0A=0A- Bo
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce PS voltage |
Good ideas, but your calculations for a 1500 watt kettle are wrong. You have calculated
the current consumption (Current=Watts/Voltage). To calculate ohms
use: watts = (voltage * voltage) /
resistance or more specifically resistance = (voltage * voltage) / watts. Or in
this case (120*120)/1500 = 9.6 ohms. It is probably somewhat less than this
since it won't heat to the normal
operating temperature and the resistance goes up as it heats.
Dick Tasker
Ken wrote:
>
> I think I used a 12 volt headlight bulb as a "resistor" when I did this
> but too long ago to be sure. IIRC the average current is considerably less than
7 amps. Suspect I would have paralleled a second bulb for the
> intermediate voltage. I always keep a spare headlight bulb or two in stock. Other
things that you can play with include resistance appliances. A 1500 watt
kettle would be around 1500/120v = 12.5
> ohms. Two in parallel would be 6.25 ohms.
> Ken
>
> On 22/10/2011 11:58 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>> "jonlaury"
>>
>> I'm trying to reform the caps in an old unused Whelen strobe PS by
>> using an independent PS. A Whelen tech suggested powering up the
>> Whelen PS at 6vdc to see if it works. And if it does, then power up
>> to 12v Whelen's white paper says use 9v for 15 min, then 12v.
>>
>> Other people have reformed in steps, 6v, 9v, 12v.
>>
>> How do I step down the voltage of my independent 13.5 PS?
>>
>> The Whelen PS says it uses 7a. I tried using 4 'C' cells in series
>> but the voltage dropped to mV, so I'm deducing that I need an
>> independent supply capable of more amperage. At 6v, will I be trying
>> to dissipate 7.5v x 7a = 42W? That's a lot of heat if I just add a
>> big honkin' resistor to the 13.5 v supply. Don't know if there are
>> resistors that big. I think there must be a more sophisticated way
>> to do this.
>>
>> Thanks, John
>>
>>
>
>
--
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: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce PS voltage |
Yes thanks - I should read before sending.
1500 watts/120volts = 12.5 AMPS
120volts/12.5 amps=9.6 ohms
Ken
On 22/10/2011 8:08 PM, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>
> Good ideas, but your calculations for a 1500 watt kettle are wrong. You
> have calculated the current consumption (Current=Watts/Voltage). To
> calculate ohms use: watts = (voltage * voltage) / resistance or more
> specifically resistance = (voltage * voltage) / watts. Or in this case
> (120*120)/1500 = 9.6 ohms. It is probably somewhat less than this since
> it won't heat to the normal operating temperature and the resistance
> goes up as it heats.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Ken wrote:
>>
>> I think I used a 12 volt headlight bulb as a "resistor" when I did this
>> but too long ago to be sure. IIRC the average current is considerably
>> less than 7 amps. Suspect I would have paralleled a second bulb for the
>> intermediate voltage. I always keep a spare headlight bulb or two in
>> stock. Other things that you can play with include resistance
>> appliances. A 1500 watt kettle would be around 1500/120v = 12.5 ohms.
>> Two in parallel would be 6.25 ohms.
>> Ken
>>
>> On 22/10/2011 11:58 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>>> "jonlaury"
>>>
>>> I'm trying to reform the caps in an old unused Whelen strobe PS by
>>> using an independent PS. A Whelen tech suggested powering up the
>>> Whelen PS at 6vdc to see if it works. And if it does, then power up
>>> to 12v Whelen's white paper says use 9v for 15 min, then 12v.
>>>
>>> Other people have reformed in steps, 6v, 9v, 12v.
>>>
>>> How do I step down the voltage of my independent 13.5 PS?
>>>
>>> The Whelen PS says it uses 7a. I tried using 4 'C' cells in series
>>> but the voltage dropped to mV, so I'm deducing that I need an
>>> independent supply capable of more amperage. At 6v, will I be trying
>>> to dissipate 7.5v x 7a = 42W? That's a lot of heat if I just add a
>>> big honkin' resistor to the 13.5 v supply. Don't know if there are
>>> resistors that big. I think there must be a more sophisticated way
>>> to do this.
>>>
>>> Thanks, John
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery charger |
At 04:12 PM 10/22/2011, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>I went to WalMart but none of the chargers had model #s Any other
>description ? I have a battery tender now , does the Schumacher unit
>offer more options?
Schumacher has a very wide range of chargers but
I think by now, all offerings will include automatic
top-off and maintenance modes. What size charger are
you interested in? The 1562 is about a 1.6A machine and
looks like this and costs about $20.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z16 schematic 5 amp CB is popping. please help. |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
I have wired my 701 as per Z16 schematic for the Rotax. Up until now, as I have
needed power to test the panel I have put my S700-2-10 switch in the middle battery
position and then turned on the main switch for power to the main bus.
Nothing remarkable happened. All was well. Now I am ready to start my Rotax 912ul
for the first time. I put my S700 switch up to the full on battery/alternator
position. OK so far. Now I flip on the main power switch as before to power
the main bus but this time the 5 amp circuit breaker pops within about a second.
This has happened every time I have tried it. I spent several hours yesterday
checking the connections to the S10, the S704 Alternater OV disconnect,
rectifier and capacitor. They seem to be correct. Any serious rework would need
the panel opened up. I'm talking Can Opener
Any thoughts on what wiring mistake could cause the circuit breaker to pop?
I understand what a difficult question this is to answer based on the info I have
given. However, I'm hoping this could be an obvious no brainer fix to you experts.
Possibly a common error for electrical idiots. Please phrase any advice
as you would for a 5 year old.
Secondly. What is the downside of removing the S704 Alternator OV disconnect entirely..Geoff
--------
Dual controls. Dynon 180. Icom 210 Garmin 296. Becker transponder. Sigtronics intercom.
Electric flaperons.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355861#355861
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 schematic 5 amp CB is popping. please help. |
At 09:01 AM 10/24/2011, you wrote:
>
>I have wired my 701 as per Z16 schematic for the
>Rotax. Up until now, as I have needed power to
>test the panel I have put my S700-2-10 switch in
>the middle battery position and then turned on
>the main switch for power to the main bus.
What 'main switch'?
>Nothing remarkable happened. All was well. Now I
>am ready to start my Rotax 912ul for the first
>time. I put my S700 switch up to the full on battery/alternator position.
That doesn't need to happen until after the
engine is started.
>OK so far. Now I flip on the main power switch
>as before to power the main bus but this time
>the 5 amp circuit breaker pops within about a
>second. This has happened every time I have
>tried it. I spent several hours yesterday
>checking the connections to the S10, the S704
>Alternater OV disconnect, rectifier and
>capacitor. They seem to be correct. Any serious
>rework would need the panel opened up. I'm talking Can Opener
If the engine is not yet running, then the system
power is supplied by the battery at some value below
13.0 volts.
I seems that the ov protection is tripping as some
level of voltage much lower than it's design point
of 16.4.
>Any thoughts on what wiring mistake could cause the circuit breaker to pop?
>I understand what a difficult question this is
>to answer based on the info I have given.
>However, I'm hoping this could be an obvious
>no brainer fix to you experts. Possibly a
>common error for electrical idiots. Please
>phrase any advice as you would for a 5 year old.
I'm having trouble visualizing the switches
you describe. Are you wired per Z-16 with no
additional switches?
>Secondly. What is the downside of removing the
>S704 Alternator OV disconnect entirely..Geoff
No OV protection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder antennas |
Now that I'm finally finished with construction, and in the
process of getting the instruments and engine installed, I
decided yesterday to collect all the little bags of pieces and
parts that I've acquired over the years to see what I have, and
what I may need.
In the process, I found that I have two transponder antennas.
Apparently, one I got from RST when I bought the antenna set for
my Long EZ from him, and the other came with the Microair
transponder. They are slightly different, and is there any
reason to believe that one is better than the other?
Jim Weir's (at least I THINK RST supplied it. It's been too many
years ago! ) is simply a straight aluminum rod, threaded on
one end. It comes with tab type connectors and grommets (to
isolate it from the ground plane) that mount between the nuts for
the wires to attach.
The other one was made by TED Manufacturing of Kansas for
Microair, looks more "professional" and already terminates in a
BNC connector. The other end has a ball tip, and although not
magnetic appears too hard and shiny to made of aluminum. I
believe it is stainless steel. The antenna is solidly mounted
through the center of the BNC connector, isolated from the
outside by a plastic sleeve.
The Microair unit did not come with a ground plane (I guess they
assume I have a metal aircraft), but the RST unit did. So, I'll
be using the RST ground plane plate (it's a 5-1/2 inch diameter
octagon) with either one.
They are both EXACTLY the same length (tip to connector), So, the
questions...
In identical location installations, which one might prove to be
better as a transpoder antenna in a Long EZ? Does the ball tip
do anything other than not poking out an eye? Is the stainless a
worse application for the antenna than the aluminum one? Is the
"professionally" manufactured unit with the antenna mounted
directly to, but isolated from, the BNC connector a more robust
mounting.
Or doesn't it make any difference (since many of you simply use a
bolt)?
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
www.agelesswings.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antennas |
Now that I'm finally finished with construction, and in the process
of getting the instruments and engine installed, I decided yesterday
to collect all the little bags of pieces and parts that I've acquired
over the years to see what I have, and what I may need.
In the process, I found that I have two transponder
antennas. Apparently, one I got from RST when I bought the antenna
set for my Long EZ from him, and the other came with the Microair
transponder. They are slightly different, and is there any reason to
believe that one is better than the other?
Depends on what you call "better". From a performance perspective,
there is probably no observable difference.
Jim Weir's (at least I THINK RST supplied it. It's been too many
years ago! ) is simply a straight aluminum rod, threaded on one
end. It comes with tab type connectors and grommets (to isolate it
from the ground plane) that mount between the nuts for the wires to attach.
The other one was made by TED Manufacturing of Kansas for Microair,
looks more "professional" and already terminates in a BNC
connector. The other end has a ball tip, and although not magnetic
appears too hard and shiny to made of aluminum. I believe it is
stainless steel. The antenna is solidly mounted through the center
of the BNC connector, isolated from the outside by a plastic sleeve.
The Microair unit did not come with a ground plane (I guess they
assume I have a metal aircraft), but the RST unit did. So, I'll be
using the RST ground plane plate (it's a 5-1/2 inch diameter octagon)
with either one.
They are both EXACTLY the same length (tip to connector), So, the questions...
In identical location installations, which one might prove to be
better as a transpoder antenna in a Long EZ? Does the ball tip do
anything other than not poking out an eye? Is the stainless a worse
application for the antenna than the aluminum one? Is the
"professionally" manufactured unit with the antenna mounted directly
to, but isolated from, the BNC connector a more robust mounting.
Or doesn't it make any difference (since many of you simply use a bolt)?
Your plastic airplane drives a requirement for
adding a ground plane under the antenna. Whether
you fabricate one or use the RST part makes no
difference. The TED product is probably more robust
and makes a cleaner interface with the feed line.
So a plan to pick the best of parts from two
antennas in search of the most elegant solution
is sound.
Could you photograph the RST product and post
the picture to the list?
I searched the 'net for a picture and/or references
to the RST transponder antenna and stumbled across this
entry by Jim Wier:
I'm starting my Oshkosh forum writing and I need to know if anybody has a spare
commercial transponder antenna -- the kind with a BNC connector on
one end and a
little chrome BB on the other end, mounts in a single hole. I had
three or four
of them and have given them away over the years to folks that needed one.
Beg, borrow, steal, or buy. Your choice. Happy to reciprocate some day when
YOU need something. I'll be happy to send a SASbox if that is your preference.
Jim
It does give one pause to wonder why he wasn't installing
one of his own antennas . . . or it may well be that
the antenna you have didn't come from RST. In any
case, I'd like to see it . . . or if you have no
plans to use it, might I have it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antennas |
Since there is functionally no difference between the two
antennas, sure, you can have the "RST" unit, Bob...I'll use the
TED antenna (it looks more professional!)...and fabricate a new
ground plane plate for it.
Now you've got me wondering. If it was not from RST, then I have
no idea where else I would have got that aluminum antenna
from...it was on a shelf at my hangar with the parts that I did
get from RST that I didn't use (nav antenna and some BNC
connectors and cable)...and the octagon ground plane was with
it. BTW...now that I've had it in my hand, the grommet is fiber,
not rubber.
I'll send the ground plane along with it...where do you want me
to send them?
Here's two pictures of the front and back of it that I just took
a few minutes ago (I assembled it...the small parts all came in a
small plastic bag...the ground plane was separate):
What do you plan to do with it?
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 10/25/2011 1:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Now that I'm finally finished with construction, and in the
> process of getting the instruments and engine installed, I
> decided yesterday to collect all the little bags of pieces and
> parts that I've acquired over the years to see what I have, and
> what I may need.
>
> In the process, I found that I have two transponder antennas.
> Apparently, one I got from RST when I bought the antenna set
> for my Long EZ from him, and the other came with the Microair
> transponder. They are slightly different, and is there any
> reason to believe that one is better than the other?
>
> Depends on what you call "better". From a performance
> perspective,
> there is probably no observable difference.
>
> Jim Weir's (at least I THINK RST supplied it. It's been too
> many years ago! ) is simply a straight aluminum rod,
> threaded on one end. It comes with tab type connectors and
> grommets (to isolate it from the ground plane) that mount
> between the nuts for the wires to attach.
>
> The other one was made by TED Manufacturing of Kansas for
> Microair, looks more "professional" and already terminates in a
> BNC connector. The other end has a ball tip, and although not
> magnetic appears too hard and shiny to made of aluminum. I
> believe it is stainless steel. The antenna is solidly mounted
> through the center of the BNC connector, isolated from the
> outside by a plastic sleeve.
>
> The Microair unit did not come with a ground plane (I guess
> they assume I have a metal aircraft), but the RST unit did.
> So, I'll be using the RST ground plane plate (it's a 5-1/2 inch
> diameter octagon) with either one.
>
> They are both EXACTLY the same length (tip to connector), So,
> the questions...
>
> In identical location installations, which one might prove to
> be better as a transpoder antenna in a Long EZ? Does the ball
> tip do anything other than not poking out an eye? Is the
> stainless a worse application for the antenna than the aluminum
> one? Is the "professionally" manufactured unit with the
> antenna mounted directly to, but isolated from, the BNC
> connector a more robust mounting.
>
> Or doesn't it make any difference (since many of you simply use
> a bolt)?
>
> Your plastic airplane drives a requirement for
> adding a ground plane under the antenna. Whether
> you fabricate one or use the RST part makes no
> difference. The TED product is probably more robust
> and makes a cleaner interface with the feed line.
> So a plan to pick the best of parts from two
> antennas in search of the most elegant solution
> is sound.
>
> Could you photograph the RST product and post
> the picture to the list?
>
> I searched the 'net for a picture and/or references
> to the RST transponder antenna and stumbled across this
> entry by Jim Wier:
>
> *I'm starting my Oshkosh forum writing and I need to know if
> anybody has a spare
> commercial transponder antenna -- the kind with a BNC connector
> on one end and a
> little chrome BB on the other end, mounts in a single hole. I
> had three or four
> of them and have given them away over the years to folks that
> needed one.
>
> Beg, borrow, steal, or buy. Your choice. Happy to reciprocate
> some day when
> YOU need something. I'll be happy to send a SASbox if that is
> your preference.
>
> Jim
>
> * It does give one pause to wonder why he wasn't installing
> one of his own antennas . . . or it may well be that
> the antenna you have didn't come from RST. In any
> case, I'd like to see it . . . or if you have no
> plans to use it, might I have it?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antennas |
At 01:37 PM 10/25/2011, you wrote:
Since there is functionally no difference between the two antennas,
sure, you can have the "RST" unit, Bob...I'll use the TED antenna (it
looks more professional!)...and fabricate a new ground plane plate for it.
Actually, the pictures will suffice.
Now you've got me wondering. If it was not from RST, then I have no
idea where else I would have got that aluminum antenna from...it was
on a shelf at my hangar with the parts that I did get from RST that I
didn't use (nav antenna and some BNC connectors and cable)...and the
octagon ground plane was with it. BTW...now that I've had it in my
hand, the grommet is fiber, not rubber.
Yeah, that makes sense. It needs to be mechanically
rigid.
I'll send the ground plane along with it...where do you want me to send them?
Here's two pictures of the front and back of it that I just took a
few minutes ago (I assembled it...the small parts all came in a small
plastic bag...the ground plane was separate):
I published a similar configuration in the 'Connection way
back when. It would be interesting to know who made it.
In any case, the pictures are great. I'll probably add them
to the photo album on the website.
What do you plan to do with it?
I would have photographed it and then put it into the collection
of curiosities . . . but I have plenty of those laying around!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antennas |
> Since there is functionally no difference between the two
> antennas, sure, you can have the "RST" unit, Bob...I'll use the
> TED antenna (it looks more professional!)...and fabricate a new
> ground plane plate for it.
>
> Actually, the pictures will suffice.
Well, then...if anyone else here wants it, just drop me a line.
Just pay for the postage...I am talking about the one in the
pictures, not the TED unit, which I will be using.
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems |
A few weeks ago I was called to task for some
demonstrably sloppy data gathering when we were
discussing inrush limiting on incandescent lamps
used in wig-wag recognition systems. The plot I'd
published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
. . . was properly identified as somewhat 'fuzzy' and
not properly supportive of some estimates of the cold
start inrush values. I ran across my little po' boy's
solid state switch yesterday so I drug it to the bench
and set up the following experiment:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Picture.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Schematic.jpg
I ran some data plots with a 1 ohm resistor-load in place
of the lamp. Here we observe the expected current flow
plotted at scan speeds that will display 3-4 wig-wag cycles.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_250mS.jpg
Then I zoomed in on an exemplar ON transition . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_50uS.jpg
. . . and we see that the 'probe' connection is a tad
bit over-damped as indicated by the rounding at the upper
corner of the rise.
I then replaced the load resistor with a 55w halogen
head lamp bulb and produced this plot of wig-wag
currents:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W%20WIGWAG.jpg
Here we see the effects of lamp temperature on the inrush
and running currents. At turn on, the lamp was cool enough
to produce about a 9A spike. The measured current just
before turn-off was on the order of 5A.
Inrush current from a cold start is determined by total
loop resistance of the wiring, battery source impedance,
and lamp cold resistance. The lamp has a measured cold
resistance of 145 milliohms. If driven by a zero-ohms
source at 12v, the theoretical inrush would be
12/.134 = 83 amps. The slow sweep peek at a cold start
in this test setup yielded the following trace:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W_COLD-START_1mS.jpg
Here we see a measured inrush on the order of 42 amps.
This suggests that wiring and battery resistances added
another 140 milliohms or so to the loop resistance.
Zooming in for a closer peek at the cold start . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_50uS.jpg
we see the same 42A displayed value for peak current.
Further, there is still more rounding of the plot as
compared with the almost purely resistive plot cited
above.
Exploration of lamp behavior during turn-on could not
be conducted with a mechanical switch or relay. Contact
bounce during turn-on would badly contaminate the data.
The solid state switch driven by a function generator
suffers no such shortcomings.
The closer look confirms that my original suppositions
for inrush on the trashy trace were correct. The earlier
plot was made with longer wires than for this experiment
hence we saw a 32A cold start inrush as opposed to 42A
in this case. It also confirms that the dynamics for rate of
rise and peak currents are limited by system wiring
(resistance and inductance) and there were no erroneous
observations limited by oscilloscope sample rates.
This experiment supports my original assertions that
turn-on transitions during wig-wag operations are a small
fraction (about 25%) of the initial cold-start value.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill S" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | RAC RP3 LED Indicators |
Can two or more rp3 indicators be paralleled to one POS 5 or
POS12 position sensor? Thanks Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems |
Bob,
Your further investigation of the halogen 55W inrush current is enlightening
and hints at why the early failures.
I am ignorant concerning "modern" filaments used in these brighter lamps.
A start-up of 42 amps seems high for a design that nominally floats at 4 - 5
amps. I am wondering what that inrush thump does to a captured spring
round, mechanical filament. There must a some mechanical jolting going on
for those few msecs.
When I observed the filament under a 6X magnifier, the filament windings
appeared to have little spacing between turns. You could observe some
spacing but, it was the same or less than the diameter of the filament wire.
Possibly they have an alloy now that does not expand much from heat and
magnetics of a huge initial inrush of current.
David
___________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:30 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems
>
>
> A few weeks ago I was called to task for some
> demonstrably sloppy data gathering when we were
> discussing inrush limiting on incandescent lamps
> used in wig-wag recognition systems. The plot I'd
> published at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
>
> . . . was properly identified as somewhat 'fuzzy' and
> not properly supportive of some estimates of the cold
> start inrush values. I ran across my little po' boy's
> solid state switch yesterday so I drug it to the bench
> and set up the following experiment:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Picture.jpg
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Schematic.jpg
>
> I ran some data plots with a 1 ohm resistor-load in place
> of the lamp. Here we observe the expected current flow
> plotted at scan speeds that will display 3-4 wig-wag cycles.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_250mS.jpg
>
> Then I zoomed in on an exemplar ON transition . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_50uS.jpg
>
> . . . and we see that the 'probe' connection is a tad
> bit over-damped as indicated by the rounding at the upper
> corner of the rise.
>
> I then replaced the load resistor with a 55w halogen
> head lamp bulb and produced this plot of wig-wag
> currents:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W%20WIGWAG.jpg
>
> Here we see the effects of lamp temperature on the inrush
> and running currents. At turn on, the lamp was cool enough
> to produce about a 9A spike. The measured current just
> before turn-off was on the order of 5A.
>
> Inrush current from a cold start is determined by total
> loop resistance of the wiring, battery source impedance,
> and lamp cold resistance. The lamp has a measured cold
> resistance of 145 milliohms. If driven by a zero-ohms
> source at 12v, the theoretical inrush would be
> 12/.134 = 83 amps. The slow sweep peek at a cold start
> in this test setup yielded the following trace:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W_COLD-START_1mS.jpg
>
> Here we see a measured inrush on the order of 42 amps.
> This suggests that wiring and battery resistances added
> another 140 milliohms or so to the loop resistance.
>
> Zooming in for a closer peek at the cold start . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_50uS.jpg
>
> we see the same 42A displayed value for peak current.
> Further, there is still more rounding of the plot as
> compared with the almost purely resistive plot cited
> above.
>
> Exploration of lamp behavior during turn-on could not
> be conducted with a mechanical switch or relay. Contact
> bounce during turn-on would badly contaminate the data.
> The solid state switch driven by a function generator
> suffers no such shortcomings.
>
> The closer look confirms that my original suppositions
> for inrush on the trashy trace were correct. The earlier
> plot was made with longer wires than for this experiment
> hence we saw a 32A cold start inrush as opposed to 42A
> in this case. It also confirms that the dynamics for rate of
> rise and peak currents are limited by system wiring
> (resistance and inductance) and there were no erroneous
> observations limited by oscilloscope sample rates.
>
> This experiment supports my original assertions that
> turn-on transitions during wig-wag operations are a small
> fraction (about 25%) of the initial cold-start value.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Altitude Encoder Pin Outs |
I recently purchased a used II Morrow Apollo Altitude Encoder, model
#428-2003. I haven't been able to find a diagram/description of the 15 pin
connector on the back. Does anyone have a description, or are these
standard pinouts?
Thanks,
Jerry Folkerts
SR #093
www.mykitlog.com/jfolkerts/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RAC RP3 LED Indicators |
At 11:04 AM 10/26/2011, you wrote:
> Can two or more rp3 indicators be paralleled to one POS
> 5 or POS12 position sensor? Thanks Doc
Not enough data to offer considered advice.
Do these indicators have built in resistors?
If so, they're designed to work on some voltage
higher than the threshold voltage of the LED.
In this case, they can probably be paralleled.
If no internal resistors, then they're current
operated devices and need to be wired in series.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems |
At 11:22 AM 10/26/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Your further investigation of the halogen 55W inrush current is
>enlightening and hints at why the early failures.
>I am ignorant concerning "modern" filaments used in these brighter lamps.
I'm not sure there's much difference in modern vs.
legacy tungsten filaments. Both lamps us the same
material. The major differences are the surrounding
gasses within the glass envelope that permit operation
at higher temperatures.
>A start-up of 42 amps seems high for a design that nominally floats
>at 4 - 5 amps. I am wondering what that inrush thump does to a
>captured spring round, mechanical filament. There must a some
>mechanical jolting going on for those few msecs.
If you wired your landing light system with say,
10AWG wire, you could get more than a 10X increase
of inrush vs. running current. Yes, the thermal stresses
during cold-start turn on are impressive. Power
dissipated in the exemplar filament at cold start . . .
W = R x I^2
.145 x 42 x 42 is 255 watts
if you wired with short runs of fat wire
that produced an 82A inrush we get
.145 x 82 x 82 = 974 watts.
Of course this tapers off rapidly. Referring
to the 'fuzzy' plot
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
We see that it takes about 100 milliseconds
for the max inrush value to fall to normal
operating levels. But for the first 20 milliseconds
or so, that little chunk of tungsten is being
bullied rather severely.
>When I observed the filament under a 6X magnifier, the filament
>windings appeared to have little spacing between turns. You could
>observe some spacing but, it was the same or less than the diameter
>of the filament wire.
>
>Possibly they have an alloy now that does not expand much from heat
>and magnetics of a huge initial inrush of current.
I think it's mostly a rate of temperature rise combined
with the manner in which conductors burn in two.
If you hang a length of wire out in space and hit
it with a current expected to burn it in two, it
will open up close to the center of the span.
This is because resistance goes up with temperature
and material at the center of the span gets energy
pumped into it both locally and from both sides. I.e.
temperature AND resistance goes up fastest in the
middle thus making it the most likely point to reach
destructive temperatures.
Evaporation of filament material causes localized
increase in resistance. This aggravates the rate
of rise for temperature during the inrush transient
and causes failure to happen in the filament's weakest
location.
I believe there are two forces at work in the failure
of lamps. Vibration while cold and d-temp/d-seconds
rate during inrush. Keep-warm offers some mitigation
of both effects . . . inrush limiting can only
mitigate turn-on transients.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems |
At 11:22 AM 10/26/2011, you wrote:
>
>A start-up of 42 amps seems high for a design that nominally floats
>at 4 - 5 amps. I am wondering what that inrush thump does to a
>captured spring round, mechanical filament. There must a some
>mechanical jolting going on for those few msecs.
I went back and got this plot
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W_COLD-START_25mS.jpg
This shows that current draw for lamp under examination
in this test configuration goes from 44A down to 10A in
about 37 mS. It probably takes another 150-200 mS to
settle out on the steady state current measured at 5.2 amps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Portable Bench Test Battery |
As I was putting the morning's experiment tools away
it occurred to me that many of you might find value
in this tool.
If you're pulling a battery out of your airplane because
it no longer meets design goals for battery-only operations,
it may well have lots of life in a work-bench based role.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Bench-Test_Battery.jpg
This particular battery was brand new about 10 years ago
and placed into service as an instrumentation battery
for stuff I was doing at Beech.
Haven't cap-checked it lately but it still load tests
at over 300 Amps for 15 seconds. Here you see how I bonded
a breaker-switch on the top along with a 3/4" spaced
banana jack set with JB-Weld. A handle was added by running
three strands of 2" wide glass-reenforced strapping tape
from side to side . . . bunching it up in the 'grip' area
and wrapping with tape.
This tool has seen service in many situations where I
needed some 12-Volt snort with considerable load handling
ability and/or capacity. Your choice of connectors and switch
are optional as well as size of protection. If you use a
generic switch, stick an in-line fuse holder in the wiring.
You can select a plug in fuse from 3 to 30 amps . . .
appropriate to the task at hand.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Portable Bench Test Battery |
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Test_Equipment/Bench-Test_Battery.jpg
This particular battery was brand new about 10 years ago
and placed into service as an instrumentation battery
for stuff I was doing at Beech.
Haven't cap-checked it lately but it still load tests
at over 300 Amps for 15 seconds.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention. This battery has been used
to start numerous cars given the exposed jumper-cable-
friendly posts.
When not in use, it sets on a Battery Tender.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z16 voltage concern |
Robert,
I used your Z16 drawing in my Rotax 912 powered Zenith aircraft when I built
it three yours ago. It works great except for a low voltage problem from the
get-go whenever the main power distribution bus is on without turning on the
endurance bus.
With the main bus only, I get about 12.5 volts on instruments attached to
the endurance bus. With both buses set to "on" I get about 13.5 volts
coming to these instruments. Of course this varies somewhat depending on
whether the motor is on, with RPM, and with the state of battery charge, but
the difference remains depending upon whether the endurance bus is on or
off. Some of my instruments are sensitive to voltage so I have to leave the
endurance buss on at all times. I have changes batteries and the Rotax
voltage regulator but this situation remains.
Is this normal or is there a problem that needs to be addressed? If there is
a problem, can you suggest a fix?
Thank you for your help,
Les
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
At 03:59 PM 10/26/2011, you wrote:
Robert,
I used your Z16 drawing in my Rotax 912 powered Zenith aircraft when
I built it three yours ago. It works great except for a low voltage
problem from the get-go whenever the main power distribution bus is
on without turning on the endurance bus.
With the main bus only, I get about 12.5 volts on instruments
attached to the endurance bus. With both buses set to "on" I get
about 13.5 volts coming to these instruments. Of course this varies
somewhat depending on whether the motor is on, with RPM, and with the
state of battery charge, but the difference remains depending upon
whether the endurance bus is on or off. Some of my instruments are
sensitive to voltage so I have to leave the endurance buss on at all
times. I have changes batteries and the Rotax voltage regulator but
this situation remains.
Is this normal or is there a problem that needs to be addressed? If
there is a problem, can you suggest a fix?
Thank you for your help,
Have you conducted a load analysis? What's the
expected load on the alternator with everything
turned on? Does your engine have the external
belt driven alternator . . . or just the built
in? Since you referenced Z16, I presume it's
the built in alternator.
The built-in alternator is good for about 18A total. If
the battery is not fully charged, it can soak up
a large proportion of that 18A.
You need to put a good charger/maintainer on the
battery and make sure it is topped off. Start
the engine and turn off every accessory with
a switch.
You can't get full output out of the alternator
except at cruise:
Emacs!
This data plot is a real 'hedge' on reality. First
a 5% tolerance. Next good at 20C. Finally, output
at these loads may be as low as 13.5 volts. In other
words, high enough to keep you from discharging
the battery but not enough to charge it either.
Hence, that excursion above 20A is a bit
of whimsy seldom realized in real world utility.
In your case, we first need to see if the alternator
WILL charge a battery at 14.2 or a tad better if
all the system loads are minimized if not OFF>
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Z16 voltage concern |
Hello Les,
The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the Endurance bus;
the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you with the lower voltage
at the Endurance bus. When you put the alternate feed on to the Endurance
bus you 'boost' boost the voltage because there is no diode in the alternate
path. If you use a Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode between the
Main and Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better as the
forward voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a normal diode,
but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on the Endurance bus.
Jay
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les
Goldner
Sent: 26 October 2011 10:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z16 voltage concern
Robert,
I used your Z16 drawing in my Rotax 912 powered Zenith aircraft when I built
it three yours ago. It works great except for a low voltage problem from the
get-go whenever the main power distribution bus is on without turning on the
endurance bus.
With the main bus only, I get about 12.5 volts on instruments attached to
the endurance bus. With both buses set to "on" I get about 13.5 volts
coming to these instruments. Of course this varies somewhat depending on
whether the motor is on, with RPM, and with the state of battery charge, but
the difference remains depending upon whether the endurance bus is on or
off. Some of my instruments are sensitive to voltage so I have to leave the
endurance buss on at all times. I have changes batteries and the Rotax
voltage regulator but this situation remains.
Is this normal or is there a problem that needs to be addressed? If there is
a problem, can you suggest a fix?
Thank you for your help,
Les
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Z16 voltage concern |
At 01:41 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>Hello Les,
>
>
>The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the
>Endurance bus; the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you
>with the lower voltage at the Endurance bus. When you put the
>alternate feed on to the Endurance bus you 'boost' boost the voltage
>because there is no diode in the alternate path. If you use a
>Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode between the Main and
>Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better as the
>forward voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a
>normal diode, but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on
>the Endurance bus.
>
>Jay
My face is red. I should also have asked where you
measured the system voltage. If measured on the e-bus
in normal ops mode, the voltage will be a bit lower than
the main bus . . . which doesn't matter.
Recall that when the alternator is running and carrying
all operating loads, the target voltage for the battery
and main bus is 14.2 to 14.6 volts. This is the nominal
supply necessary to top off your battery after an engine
start.
The e-bus, being fed through the diode WILL be down around
13.5 to 13.8 which is okay. Recall also that while a
battery CHARGES at 14.2 to 14.6, it DELIVERS energy
at 12.5 volts and BELOW . . . when it gets down to 10.5
volts, the battery is used up.
If your e-bus accessories are chosen for their usefulness
as aids to battery-only ops, then they're EXPECTED to
perform over the battery only voltage range of 10.5 to
12.5 volts. Hence a normal e-bus voltage of 13.5 presents no
issues of concern.
If your low voltage warning is built into an accessory
attached to the e-bus, then it needs to trigger at
some level which accommodates the diode drop. 12.8
volts is about right. If it is not user adjustable,
then perhaps it should be disabled and a separate,
standalone, LV warning set for 13.0 volts be driven
from the MAIN bus.
Finally, if push comes to shove, there's no sin in
leaving the e-bus alternate feed switch closed during
normal operations. The diode is there to prevent back-
feeding the main bus should you find it necessary to
revert to battery only operations.
Sorry for the fire-drill.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Incandescent lamps in Wig-Wag systems (OOPS) |
A sharp eyed reader pointed out that I cited the wrong
plot for a close look at inrush on the 55w lamp. The corrected
citation has been substituted in the mini-essay below:
At 10:30 AM 10/26/2011, you wrote:
A few weeks ago I was called to task for some
demonstrably sloppy data gathering when we were
discussing inrush limiting on incandescent lamps
used in wig-wag recognition systems. The plot I'd
published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
. . . was properly identified as somewhat 'fuzzy' and
not properly supportive of some estimates of the cold
start inrush values. I ran across my little po' boy's
solid state switch yesterday so I drug it to the bench
and set up the following experiment:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Picture.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Test_Set-Up_Schematic.jpg
I ran some data plots with a 1 ohm resistor-load in place
of the lamp. Here we observe the expected current flow
plotted at scan speeds that will display 3-4 wig-wag cycles.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_250mS.jpg
Then I zoomed in on an exemplar ON transition . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/1-OHM_50uS.jpg
. . . and we see that the 'probe' connection is a tad
bit over-damped as indicated by the rounding at the upper
corner of the rise.
I then replaced the load resistor with a 55w halogen
head lamp bulb and produced this plot of wig-wag
currents:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W%20WIGWAG.jpg
Here we see the effects of lamp temperature on the inrush
and running currents. At turn on, the lamp was cool enough
to produce about a 9A spike. The measured current just
before turn-off was on the order of 5A.
Inrush current from a cold start is determined by total
loop resistance of the wiring, battery source impedance,
and lamp cold resistance. The lamp has a measured cold
resistance of 145 milliohms. If driven by a zero-ohms
source at 12v, the theoretical inrush would be
12/.134 = 83 amps. A slow sweep (1 mS/Div) peek at a
cold start in this test setup yielded the following trace:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W_COLD-START_1mS.jpg
Here we see a measured inrush on the order of 42 amps.
This suggests that wiring and battery resistances added
another 140 milliohms or so to the loop resistance.
Zooming in for a closer peek at the cold start . . .
(Corrected image citation)
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/55W_COLD-START_50uS.jpg
we see the same 42A displayed value for peak current.
Further, there is still more rounding of the plot as
compared with the almost purely resistive plot cited
above.
Exploration of lamp behavior during turn-on could not
be conducted with a mechanical switch or relay. Contact
bounce during turn-on would badly contaminate the data.
The solid state switch driven by a function generator
suffers no such shortcomings.
The closer look confirms that my original suppositions
for inrush on the trashy trace were correct. The earlier
plot was made with longer wires than for this experiment
hence we saw a 32A cold start inrush as opposed to 42A
in this case. It also confirms that the dynamics for rate of
rise and peak currents are limited by system wiring
(resistance and inductance) and there were no erroneous
observations limited by oscilloscope sample rates.
This experiment supports my original assertions that
turn-on transitions during wig-wag operations are a small
fraction (about 25%) of the initial cold-start value.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my voltage
back up close to normal?
Thanks,
Sam
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 01:41 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Hello Les,
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the
>> Endurance bus; the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you
>> with the lower voltage at the Endurance bus. When you put the
>> alternate feed on to the Endurance bus you 'boost' boost the voltage
>> because there is no diode in the alternate path. If you use a
>> Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode between the Main and
>> Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better as the forward
>> voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a normal diode,
>> but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on the Endurance bus.
>>
>> Jay
>
> My face is red. I should also have asked where you
> measured the system voltage. If measured on the e-bus
> in normal ops mode, the voltage will be a bit lower than
> the main bus . . . which doesn't matter.
>
> Recall that when the alternator is running and carrying
> all operating loads, the target voltage for the battery
> and main bus is 14.2 to 14.6 volts. This is the nominal
> supply necessary to top off your battery after an engine
> start.
>
> The e-bus, being fed through the diode WILL be down around
> 13.5 to 13.8 which is okay. Recall also that while a
> battery CHARGES at 14.2 to 14.6, it DELIVERS energy
> at 12.5 volts and BELOW . . . when it gets down to 10.5
> volts, the battery is used up.
>
> If your e-bus accessories are chosen for their usefulness
> as aids to battery-only ops, then they're EXPECTED to
> perform over the battery only voltage range of 10.5 to
> 12.5 volts. Hence a normal e-bus voltage of 13.5 presents no
> issues of concern.
>
> If your low voltage warning is built into an accessory
> attached to the e-bus, then it needs to trigger at
> some level which accommodates the diode drop. 12.8
> volts is about right. If it is not user adjustable,
> then perhaps it should be disabled and a separate,
> standalone, LV warning set for 13.0 volts be driven
> from the MAIN bus.
>
> Finally, if push comes to shove, there's no sin in
> leaving the e-bus alternate feed switch closed during
> normal operations. The diode is there to prevent back-
> feeding the main bus should you find it necessary to
> revert to battery only operations.
>
> Sorry for the fire-drill.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Bob sells a nice package on the aeroelectric connection website. I
installed his system and subsequently cooked the diode due to improper
insulation in my mounting, and I was able to find the diode itself
online separately for a few dollars. I would recommend Bob's package
since it has the circuit board and mounting hardware ready to go.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Sam Marlow wrote:
>
>
> Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my voltage back
> up close to normal?
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:41 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Les,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the Endurance
>>> bus; the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you with the lower
>>> voltage at the Endurance bus. When you put the alternate feed on to the
>>> Endurance bus you 'boost' boost the voltage because there is no diode in the
>>> alternate path. If you use a Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode
>>> between the Main and Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better
>>> as the forward voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a normal
>>> diode, but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on the Endurance
>>> bus.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>> My face is red. I should also have asked where you
>> measured the system voltage. If measured on the e-bus
>> in normal ops mode, the voltage will be a bit lower than
>> the main bus . . . which doesn't matter.
>>
>> Recall that when the alternator is running and carrying
>> all operating loads, the target voltage for the battery
>> and main bus is 14.2 to 14.6 volts. This is the nominal
>> supply necessary to top off your battery after an engine
>> start.
>>
>> The e-bus, being fed through the diode WILL be down around
>> 13.5 to 13.8 which is okay. Recall also that while a
>> battery CHARGES at 14.2 to 14.6, it DELIVERS energy
>> at 12.5 volts and BELOW . . . when it gets down to 10.5
>> volts, the battery is used up.
>>
>> If your e-bus accessories are chosen for their usefulness
>> as aids to battery-only ops, then they're EXPECTED to
>> perform over the battery only voltage range of 10.5 to
>> 12.5 volts. Hence a normal e-bus voltage of 13.5 presents no
>> issues of concern.
>>
>> If your low voltage warning is built into an accessory
>> attached to the e-bus, then it needs to trigger at
>> some level which accommodates the diode drop. 12.8
>> volts is about right. If it is not user adjustable,
>> then perhaps it should be disabled and a separate,
>> standalone, LV warning set for 13.0 volts be driven
>> from the MAIN bus.
>>
>> Finally, if push comes to shove, there's no sin in
>> leaving the e-bus alternate feed switch closed during
>> normal operations. The diode is there to prevent back-
>> feeding the main bus should you find it necessary to
>> revert to battery only operations.
>>
>> Sorry for the fire-drill.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
At 08:53 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my
>voltage back up close to normal?
>Thanks,
Why are you worried about it? Given the physics of
how the system is designed, 13.5 IS normal.
The standard rectifier bridge will give you a drop
of about .7 volts for a 10A e-bus load. The Schottky
device will drop that to about .5 volts. Not a
great difference.
The acid test is to operate your airplane for a time
with the e-bus alt feed switch open, and then for
a time with it closed. Were it not for a reading on
a display, would you know the difference?
Know that bus isolation diodes are used on large
aircraft. While these are usually 28 volt systems
were the diode drop represents a smaller percentage
of loss . . . the drop is noted, evaluated and found
insignificant to normal operations of devices down-
stream of the diode.
I suggest that such is the case here as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
I'm aware of the Schottkey diode board but that's not a bridge. I need two sources
in to feed my aux buss, so no switching is required. I have this setup now,
but it drops the voltage to the 12v range, with the Radio Shack bridge setup.
---- Jared Yates wrote:
============
Bob sells a nice package on the aeroelectric connection website. I
installed his system and subsequently cooked the diode due to improper
insulation in my mounting, and I was able to find the diode itself
online separately for a few dollars. I would recommend Bob's package
since it has the circuit board and mounting hardware ready to go.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Sam Marlow wrote:
>
>
> Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my voltage back
> up close to normal?
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:41 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Les,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the Endurance
>>> bus; the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you with the lower
>>> voltage at the Endurance bus. When you put the alternate feed on to the
>>> Endurance bus you 'boost' boost the voltage because there is no diode in the
>>> alternate path. If you use a Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode
>>> between the Main and Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better
>>> as the forward voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a normal
>>> diode, but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on the Endurance
>>> bus.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>> My face is red. I should also have asked where you
>> measured the system voltage. If measured on the e-bus
>> in normal ops mode, the voltage will be a bit lower than
>> the main bus . . . which doesn't matter.
>>
>> Recall that when the alternator is running and carrying
>> all operating loads, the target voltage for the battery
>> and main bus is 14.2 to 14.6 volts. This is the nominal
>> supply necessary to top off your battery after an engine
>> start.
>>
>> The e-bus, being fed through the diode WILL be down around
>> 13.5 to 13.8 which is okay. Recall also that while a
>> battery CHARGES at 14.2 to 14.6, it DELIVERS energy
>> at 12.5 volts and BELOW . . . when it gets down to 10.5
>> volts, the battery is used up.
>>
>> If your e-bus accessories are chosen for their usefulness
>> as aids to battery-only ops, then they're EXPECTED to
>> perform over the battery only voltage range of 10.5 to
>> 12.5 volts. Hence a normal e-bus voltage of 13.5 presents no
>> issues of concern.
>>
>> If your low voltage warning is built into an accessory
>> attached to the e-bus, then it needs to trigger at
>> some level which accommodates the diode drop. 12.8
>> volts is about right. If it is not user adjustable,
>> then perhaps it should be disabled and a separate,
>> standalone, LV warning set for 13.0 volts be driven
>> from the MAIN bus.
>>
>> Finally, if push comes to shove, there's no sin in
>> leaving the e-bus alternate feed switch closed during
>> normal operations. The diode is there to prevent back-
>> feeding the main bus should you find it necessary to
>> revert to battery only operations.
>>
>> Sorry for the fire-drill.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
Your right Bob, I just wanted see normal, or as close to normal, as possible. It's
a good dignastic tool. Is it possible to construct my own bridge using Schottkey
diode's, or is that silly?
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
============
At 08:53 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my
>voltage back up close to normal?
>Thanks,
Why are you worried about it? Given the physics of
how the system is designed, 13.5 IS normal.
The standard rectifier bridge will give you a drop
of about .7 volts for a 10A e-bus load. The Schottky
device will drop that to about .5 volts. Not a
great difference.
The acid test is to operate your airplane for a time
with the e-bus alt feed switch open, and then for
a time with it closed. Were it not for a reading on
a display, would you know the difference?
Know that bus isolation diodes are used on large
aircraft. While these are usually 28 volt systems
were the diode drop represents a smaller percentage
of loss . . . the drop is noted, evaluated and found
insignificant to normal operations of devices down-
stream of the diode.
I suggest that such is the case here as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Z16 voltage concern |
I could tell you where to find it in South Africa! :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HH Enterprises
Aircraft assembly, repair, wiring and avionics
Flight instruction
General and Electrical Engineering services
(NHD Elec Eng, BTech Elec Eng, GDE ELec Eng)
Great dinner parties and conversation
General adventuring, climbing, kayaking and living
Blog: www.rawhyde.wordpress.com
Cel: 083300 8675
Email: jay(at)horriblehyde.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: 27 October 2011 03:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z16 voltage concern
Just wondered where I could find a Schottkey bridge to bring my voltage
back up close to normal?
Thanks,
Sam
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 01:41 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Hello Les,
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem comes from the diode between the Main Bus and the
>> Endurance bus; the forward voltage drop across this diode leaves you
>> with the lower voltage at the Endurance bus. When you put the
>> alternate feed on to the Endurance bus you 'boost' boost the voltage
>> because there is no diode in the alternate path. If you use a
>> Schottkey diode instead of a normal diode between the Main and
>> Endurance bus the Endurance bus voltage will be better as the forward
>> voltage drop across a Schottkey is less than that of a normal diode,
>> but you will always have a slightly lower voltage on the Endurance bus.
>>
>> Jay
>
> My face is red. I should also have asked where you
> measured the system voltage. If measured on the e-bus
> in normal ops mode, the voltage will be a bit lower than
> the main bus . . . which doesn't matter.
>
> Recall that when the alternator is running and carrying
> all operating loads, the target voltage for the battery
> and main bus is 14.2 to 14.6 volts. This is the nominal
> supply necessary to top off your battery after an engine
> start.
>
> The e-bus, being fed through the diode WILL be down around
> 13.5 to 13.8 which is okay. Recall also that while a
> battery CHARGES at 14.2 to 14.6, it DELIVERS energy
> at 12.5 volts and BELOW . . . when it gets down to 10.5
> volts, the battery is used up.
>
> If your e-bus accessories are chosen for their usefulness
> as aids to battery-only ops, then they're EXPECTED to
> perform over the battery only voltage range of 10.5 to
> 12.5 volts. Hence a normal e-bus voltage of 13.5 presents no
> issues of concern.
>
> If your low voltage warning is built into an accessory
> attached to the e-bus, then it needs to trigger at
> some level which accommodates the diode drop. 12.8
> volts is about right. If it is not user adjustable,
> then perhaps it should be disabled and a separate,
> standalone, LV warning set for 13.0 volts be driven
> from the MAIN bus.
>
> Finally, if push comes to shove, there's no sin in
> leaving the e-bus alternate feed switch closed during
> normal operations. The diode is there to prevent back-
> feeding the main bus should you find it necessary to
> revert to battery only operations.
>
> Sorry for the fire-drill.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> Is it possible to construct my own bridge using Schottkey diode's, or is that
silly?
The advantage of using a diode bridge with mounting hole in the center is its mechanical
robustness. Two discrete diodes will function electrically just as
well, as long as they are mounted securely for mechanical strength and heat dissipation.
If it is desired to boost the voltage output from the Rotax regulator from 13.5
to 14, a Schottky diode could be put in series with the wire going to the regulator
"C" terminal (arrow pointing towards the regulator). I have not actually
done that but it should work.
My Rotax voltage regulator puts out 13.6 volts. That might not be enough to
top off a discharged battery, but the engine starts so quickly that it does not
get run down much. I connect a battery maintainer when not flying. Everything
works fine so I have not tried to boost the regulator voltage.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356109#356109
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
At 11:00 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>
>Your right Bob, I just wanted see normal, or as close to normal, as
>possible. It's a good dignastic tool. Is it possible to construct my
>own bridge using Schottkey diode's, or is that silly?
Not at all. I selected the single hole, potted 'brick'
of plastic with 4 diodes for it's simplicity of mounting,
no insulation needed, and fast-on tabs. In most applications
we used only one of the four diodes . . . the other three
were not 'in the way' of successful exploitation of other
features for the device.
If you only need one diode, then there's a host of
offerings from the electronics suppliers. There are
a number of dual Shottky devices that feature two
diodes in the single package. Here's one example:
http://tinyurl.com/4x87a6s
This particular device does need to be insulated
from its heat-sinking surface like so . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9001
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z16 voltage concern |
Thanks!
---- user9253 wrote:
============
> Is it possible to construct my own bridge using Schottkey diode's, or is that
silly?
The advantage of using a diode bridge with mounting hole in the center is its mechanical
robustness. Two discrete diodes will function electrically just as
well, as long as they are mounted securely for mechanical strength and heat dissipation.
If it is desired to boost the voltage output from the Rotax regulator from 13.5
to 14, a Schottky diode could be put in series with the wire going to the regulator
"C" terminal (arrow pointing towards the regulator). I have not actually
done that but it should work.
My Rotax voltage regulator puts out 13.6 volts. That might not be enough to
top off a discharged battery, but the engine starts so quickly that it does not
get run down much. I connect a battery maintainer when not flying. Everything
works fine so I have not tried to boost the regulator voltage.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356109#356109
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
A few weeks ago there was some discussion on the List about
noises from some AeroLed products. I cruised their website and
promised to inquire into the marketing philosophy for their
lighting products.
I had some good conversation with one of the principals,
a Mr. Nate Calvin. These guys are not the new kids on the
block. They've delivered product to some very sophisticated
customers who would demand careful scrutiny of mechanical
and electrical characteristics. Nate tells me that all
their product meets or exceeds DO-160 requirements for
conducted noise in small aircraft.
I'll remind readers that passing all the tests does not
mean ZERO noise emissions . . . only that they are below
the industry approved limits for this an all other electronics
offered to the type certificated aircraft market.
He recalled one case where an observed noise problem
turned out to be a design problem with an intercom
that was not fully vetted for living in the DO-160
world of light aircraft.
Bottom line is that AeroLed products are very low
risk for contributing to a noise issue. When they
are identified as an observable noise source, the
investigator should consider poor design of the victim
system and/or some form of installation error first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
A canopy-open indicator light does not help much to remind the pilot to latch the
canopy. The pilot will become accustomed to seeing that light on while she
taxies, trying to keep cool with the canopy open. What is needed is an audio
and visual alarm that ONLY activates if the canopy is not latched for takeoff.
I thought about using a microprocessor but am not proficient at programming.
Then I found this LM2907 "RPM Speed Switch". Although it requires a few resistors
and capacitors, all of the active components are contained in one 8-pin
IC.
Here is a proposed circuit: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fI7pwRbufgI/Tqm5F18UY5I/AAAAAAAAAcw/QWs0GHx4q1I/s800/Canopy%252520Alarm.gif
And here is the datasheet for the LM2907: http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM2907.pdf
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356119#356119
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/canopy_alarm_272.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi!
I haven't yet bought any communication devices for my Sonex. I plan to get a COM
radio, intercom, a couple headsets, and a couple PTT switches. I've got an MGL
Enigma EFIS that can transmit audio warnings that I'd like to wire into the
system. I'd also like to wire in an external audio device, like my cell phone
which has an MP3 player and maybe an AM/FM radio or tablet computer. I think
I'll pass on the DVD player.
My goal is to get something that's dependable and affordable with an eye towards
upgrading. Suggestions on what to get and how to wire these guys would be helpful.
Thanks :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356135#356135
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
Dan,
I sure do like Icom products! An Icom IC210 would make a great com radio(or
even an IC200). It's super easy to hard-wire an intercom to,
which is what I did, or if I'm not mistaken, the IC210 may even have a built-in
intercom (2 place).
I needed the rubber "knob condoms" on my older IC200, (they dried out and cracked
off) and when I told the parts
guy what I needed he just sent them to me for FREE!!! They even paid for the shipping.
I like Icom.
Mike Welch
> Suggestions on what to get and how to wire these guys would be helpful.
>
> Thanks :-)
>
> --------
> Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
Dan,
Like this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Avionics-Icom-ICA210-IC-A210-VHF-Communication-Radio-/330614367526?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&vxp=mtr&hash=item4cfa26e526#ht_500wt_754
I see I messed up the model #. It was supposed to be IC "A"210. It's been
many months since I was working with the radios.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Interesting stuff there Bob.
On 27 October 2011 21:47, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> A few weeks ago there was some discussion on the List about
> noises from some AeroLed products. I cruised their website and
> promised to inquire into the marketing philosophy for their
> lighting products.
>
> I had some good conversation with one of the principals,
> a Mr. Nate Calvin. These guys are not the new kids on the
> block. They've delivered product to some very sophisticated
> customers who would demand careful scrutiny of mechanical
> and electrical characteristics. Nate tells me that all
> their product meets or exceeds DO-160 requirements for
> conducted noise in small aircraft.
>
> I'll remind readers that passing all the tests does not
> mean ZERO noise emissions . . . only that they are below
> the industry approved limits for this an all other electronics
> offered to the type certificated aircraft market.
>
> He recalled one case where an observed noise problem
> turned out to be a design problem with an intercom
> that was not fully vetted for living in the DO-160
> world of light aircraft.
>
> Bottom line is that AeroLed products are very low
> risk for contributing to a noise issue. When they
> are identified as an observable noise source, the
> investigator should consider poor design of the victim
> system and/or some form of installation error first.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Mike.
I've heard ICOM makes quality stuff. But it's a bit big, both in price and size.
I just realized MGL has an intercom in their V10 radio. They're also releasing
soon their newer version, the V6. Reports say these intercoms actually work
well, as opposed to earlier combo units of a different technology from other
manufacturers. They'll be around $1000.
If I go this route, it also simplifies things. Just connect the wires according
to their diagrams. I got a little experience making a Dsub harness a few months
ago, so I should be set.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356155#356155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
Dan,=0A=0AI was going to suggest sticking with MGL, but it looks like you'v
e already "seen the light."=0A=0A=0APersonally, I'd go with the V6.- It's
smaller than the V10 (2.25" vs. 3.125") and has more options, with remote
head and such.- Either one will let you tune the radio from the EFIS, but
I believe that the V6 allows even more control, using MGL's proprietary pr
otocol (rather than SL30 or SL40 protocols).- The trick there may be in h
ow to get the Enigma, with it's limited interface (screen size, number of b
uttons, and lack of knobs), to properly drive a complete radio.=0A=0A=0AUnf
ortunately, I already have a V10 and a 3.125" hole shoehorned into my panel
for it.=0A=0AKeep in mind that MGL is about to release a transponder, if y
ou are planning to install one of those.- Also, they sell harnesses for e
ach of their units.- I think the V10-to-Enigma harness cost me $165.- T
hey're made by FasTrack (sp?) and appear to be good quality - certainly far
better than anything I could do, myself.- As a bonus, the ready-made har
nesses will allow you to hear all the audible warnings produced by your EFI
S.=0A=0AGood luck!=0A=0A-=0ADoug Ilg=0AGrumman Tiger N74818, College Park
-Airport (KCGS), Maryland=0AChallenger II LSS LW (N641LG-reserved)--
kit underway at Laurel Suburban (W18)=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________
________________=0A>From: messydeer <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>=0A>=0A>--> AeroEl
ectric-List message posted by: "messydeer" =0A>=0A>Tha
nks, Mike.=0A>=0A>I've heard ICOM makes quality stuff. But it's a bit big,
both in price and size. I just realized MGL has an intercom in their V10 ra
dio. They're also releasing soon their newer version, the V6. Reports say t
hese intercoms actually work well, as opposed to earlier combo units of a d
ifferent technology from other manufacturers. They'll be around $1000.=0A>
=0A>If I go this route, it also simplifies things. Just connect the wires a
ccording to their diagrams. I got a little experience making a Dsub harness
a few months ago, so I should be set.=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
Joe,
This looks like a good circuit, to minimize an important risk.
My concern is the connection between the circuit and the canopy latch
switch. Perhaps that would be subject to external influences ?
Bob, could you comment ? What might be the best change to make this
DO-160 compliant ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Subject: Canopy Switch From: "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
> A canopy-open indicator light does not help much to remind
> the pilot to latch
> the canopy. The pilot will become accustomed to seeing that light on while
> she taxies, trying to keep cool with the canopy open. What is needed is an
> audio and visual alarm that ONLY activates if the canopy is not latched for
> takeoff.
> I thought about using a microprocessor but am not proficient at programming.
> Then I found this LM2907 "RPM Speed Switch". Although it requires a few
> resistors and capacitors, all of the active components are contained in one
> 8-pin IC. Here is a proposed circuit:
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fI7pwRbufgI/Tqm5F18UY5I/AAAAAAAAAcw/QWs0GHx4q1I/s800/Canopy%252520Alarm.gif
> And here is the datasheet for the LM2907:
> http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM2907.pdf
>
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Doug :-)
Radio
Here's what the V6 shows as being different from the V10, copied from their feature
list:
Stereo music input with automatic fade down on intercom activity.
Two auxilary audio inputs, mono, for mobile phone and EFIS annunciator
V6 frequency list editor: (Windows, any 32 bit version)
This small program allows you to download and upload frequency lists to and from
the V6 tranceiver. You can edit these lists and maintain several different lists
if you like.
V10 is mono, although its manual mentions stereo. I read one of Rainer's posts
on VAF saying it's mono, which makes sense if I read their pinouts correctly.
V10 is on the left, V6 on the right below.
If the only difference between the units are the few extra features listed and
its size, I may look at getting a used V10 from someone upgrading. I'd have space
for either.
Transponder
The transponder development is only now starting in ernest (pretty much a paper
project up to now with the exception of some hardware we showed at Oshkosh).
We had to get the V6 radio out of the way first - and that has now been done.
Above is a quote from Rainier 2 days ago. I also read they're looking at $1300,
but would like to get it lower. I have an old TDR-950 transponder that I bought
several months ago for ~$300 and have made up a harness to connect to my Enigma.
For the price difference, I'll prolly stick with my used unit. I don't need
a transponder to fly locally, so I may wait to install it at a later point,
which would also allow me time to come up with money for the T6.[/b]
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356180#356180
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/v6_and_v10_pin_outs_537.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry <jlatimer1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Design |
FWIW, I just installed a Flightline FL-760 and am very happy with it. I replaced
a Microair that was giving me problems. The FL-760 has an integrated VOX intercom
and an auxiliary input.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | microphone and headset jack insulating washers |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I just drilled a 3/8" hole for my headset jack in my aluminum panel of my aluminum
airframe. The threaded barrel fits through just fine. I then grabbed the pair
of insulating washers I'd gotten from B and C. The shoulder washer has an
ID of ~3/8", so it slips over the jack just fine. Then I realized that to insulate
the jack from the airframe, the hole looks like it needs to be 1/2" for the
shoulder part of the washer to fit through the hole.
I thought I'd read that only a 3/8" hole is required. But if that's the case, there's
no room for a washer and the outside of the jack would touch the metal,
grounding it to the airframe.
I also read that some folks have not bothered with isolating washers and there
hasn't been any problems with ground loops.
So if I'm going to use the insulating washers I'll have to see if I've now got
enough room for 1/2" holes and drill to that size.
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356187#356187
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
At 08:36 AM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
Joe,
This looks like a good circuit, to minimize an important risk.
My concern is the connection between the circuit and the canopy latch
switch. Perhaps that would be subject to external influences ?
Bob, could you comment ? What might be the best change to make this
DO-160 compliant ?
An astute observation my friend. Let
me noodle on this a bit . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: microphone and headset jack insulating washers |
At 10:48 AM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>I just drilled a 3/8" hole for my headset jack in my aluminum panel
>of my aluminum airframe. The threaded barrel fits through just fine.
>I then grabbed the pair of insulating washers I'd gotten from B and
>C. The shoulder washer has an ID of ~3/8", so it slips over the jack
>just fine. Then I realized that to insulate the jack from the
>airframe, the hole looks like it needs to be 1/2" for the shoulder
>part of the washer to fit through the hole.
Yep . . . that's how they work.
>I thought I'd read that only a 3/8" hole is required. But if that's
>the case, there's no room for a washer and the outside of the jack
>would touch the metal, grounding it to the airframe.
>
>I also read that some folks have not bothered with isolating washers
>and there hasn't been any problems with ground loops.
Your choice. The risks are low but not zero. Good
craftsmanship calls for the washers but tens of
thousands of Cessnas were built with the jacks
grounded to the airframe. Of course, nobody has
documented how many of those airplanes suffered
some form of ground loop noise that was either
inaudible over cabin noise or simply accepted
by the owner operator as "the way things are".
You can leave them off and conduct your own
experiment.
>So if I'm going to use the insulating washers I'll have to see if
>I've now got enough room for 1/2" holes and drill to that size.
Are your clearances that tight? The O.D. on the
washers is something like 3/4". If you can use
the washers without trimming their edges for
clearance, then you probably have edge margins
for a 1/2" hole . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
Jeff, Bob N, Joe, everyone else,
If someone isn't crazy about the mechanical "open/closed switch" in the circuit,
would it
be a better (as in more robust) idea to have an optical switch? A simple tab on
the canopy,
properly positioned, could open/close an optical switch as needed.
Just wondering.......
Mike Welch
On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 08:36 AM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> This looks like a good circuit, to minimize an important risk.
>
> My concern is the connection between the circuit and the canopy latch
> switch. Perhaps that would be subject to external influences ?
>
> Bob, could you comment ? What might be the best change to make this
> DO-160 compliant ?
>
> An astute observation my friend. Let
> me noodle on this a bit . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Perhaps it would be better to connect the canopy switch to pin 7. I think the
output will be disabled when pin 7 in grounded. Is that correct?
To Mike W., most any type of switch can be used. The switch is less likely to
fail than the pilot's memory. :-)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356207#356207
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: microphone and headset jack insulating washers |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
Looks like I'll have the space and will drill them out to 1/2".
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356212#356212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
At 12:00 PM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Jeff, Bob N, Joe, everyone else,
>
> If someone isn't crazy about the mechanical "open/closed switch"
> in the circuit, would it
>be a better (as in more robust) idea to have an optical switch? A
>simple tab on the canopy,
>properly positioned, could open/close an optical switch as needed.
>
> Just wondering.......
Another option is a reed-switch operated by a magnet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ZTRON LABS ZL-BP4/8 |
10/28/2011
Hello Bob Nuckolls, I am interested in your reaction to this product:
http://www.ztronlabs.com/products/bp8/brochure.pdf
Thank you,
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
Has anyone looked into these? Could they achieve a gas tight connection?
----- Original Message -----
From: Curt Browning
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:27 PM
Subject: new stuff
Unless Im the only one that has been livin in a lead cave recently
there's some new and easier connectors out there..... What ?!?!?? No
$100 pliers required????
http://www.posi-lock.com/index.html
--
Curt Browning
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ZTRON LABS ZL-BP4/8 |
At 04:30 PM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>10/28/2011
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, I am interested in your reaction to this product:
>
>http://www.ztronlabs.com/products/bp8/brochure.pdf
I have no doubt that they perform as
advertised. But unlike the legacy breaker/
fuse + switch combinations, the features
give rise to new questions.
First, what deficiencies in the design,
installation, maintenance and cost of ownership
for breaker/fuse+switch are eliminated or at
least mitigated by the new product? In
other words, are there demonstrable, compelling
performance gains for adopting this product?
Are they more reliable? In other words, has
history offered cases where the B/F+S combination
has failed to perform it's intended task?
Are the new devices less likely to repeat any
such events assuming they exist? Their
parts-count is higher . . . and certainly part
vulnerable to external stimulus for which
DO-160 was crafted to explore.
If not a reliability trade-off, then are
they less expensive to own, operate and
service? $190 for eight controlled positions
works out to nearly $25 per position. Certainly
competitive with B+S but not with F+S
configurations.
Convenience? Hmmm . . . you cut a big
hole in the panel to mount a big electro-
whizzy that shares form, fit and function
with no other product like it. Suppose
you only need 6 of the positions . . . or
need 9? These controls do not offer the
flexibility of multi-function toggles
with spring loading and progressive
transfers.
Unlike the toggle with immediately recognizable
position, these devices use lights. Are
they sunlight viewable?
This device is not a drop-in replacement
for all protected and controlled circuits
in the airplane . . so your almost sure
to have alternative hardware tucked away
on the panel anyhow.
Then there is the question as to how well
the designers understand the legacy aircraft
environment. Maybe they didn't do DO-160
verification but were they cognizant of the
design tools and processes that go to passing
a DO-160 verification?
Everyone needs to make up their own mind
as to what features of reliability, convenience,
cost and STYLE goes to meeting personal
design goals on their project. I'll suggest
that there are few technical and even fewer
economic incentives for adapting such a
product to an OBAM aircraft. But when it
comes to style, there's no accounting for
taste.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: new stuff |
At 06:52 PM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>Has anyone looked into these? Could they achieve a gas tight connection?
Sure. Look at the list of patents at the
bottom of the home page. You can browse these
at freepatentsonline.com
These are the real deal. But they are not simple
nor will they be cheap. Probably quite attractive
to conducting some field repair/modification task
but certainly not cost or space effective in the
production environment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ZTRON LABS ZL-BP4/8 |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
A fuse holder costs much less and models are available to hold up to 20 fuses.
http://www.amazon.com/Bussman-holder-Truck-electrical-application/dp/B0026BK6GY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1313369427&sr=8-10
I have had trouble operating capacitance type switches when my fingers are cold
and dry or when wearing gloves. If one of those 8 switches goes bad, the whole
unit will have to be removed for repair or replacement. If the company goes
out of business, it will be a challenge to fill the hole in the panel with some
type of replacement. An aircraft builder has the skills to replace a fuse
or switch, but might not be able to repair electronic switches. There are nice
looking discrete illuminated switches available.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356263#356263
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RG Batteries: I learned something last night |
That bench test battery I featured in a posting
a few days ago had not be cap-checked in several years.
The thing is over ten years old and has yielded a
great return on investment.
I did a load test on this battery about a week ago.
It dumped about 300A for 15 seconds at the 70F mark
on the load meter. A value that is less than 1/2 the
as-new capability.
Just for grins, I pulled out the CBAII battery tester.
The bench battery had been on a maintainer for a couple days.
I did a 6A discharge test. The value I use as exemplary
of most of my instrumentation experiments. The battery
delivered 24+ a.h. of useful energy! Going to the
factory data on this battery we see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/33AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
The factory says a 6.6A load will deplete this battery
in about 4 hours . . . or 24+ a.h.
In years past, my teachers modeled the battery as a large
array of cells connected in a series-parallel configuration
with EACH cell offering some finite energy value combined
with it's own source impedance. If you loose 1/2 the cell
in the full-up array, energy drops by 1/2 but source impedance
doubles.
This experiment last night showed that while the source
impedance for the battery had doubled (1/2 the cranking
snort), the total energy available was still almost as-new!
This means that the gazillion itty-bitty cell analogy is not
quite accurate. Those cells can experience a rise in
source impedance while still offering their original
energy capability.
This battery as-new will deliver 9V at over 800A for
15 seconds. This suggests a source impedance of
(12-9)/800 = .004 ohms. It now produces about 300A
so the new source impedance is (12-9)/300 = .010
ohms.
So while the impedance has doubled, the available
energy at 6A loading has been barely affected . . . if
at all. A rise from .004 to .010 ohms source impedance
has little influence on a test load of (12/6)= 2 Ohms.
This argues with any analogy that suggests a "dead"
micro-cell in a battery becomes totally disconnected
from the array. It suggests that individual cells
can demonstrate an ability to store and regurgitate
energy while experiencing an independent and unrelated
rise in source impedance.
This discovery suggests that it is possible for a
battery to meet battery-only-ops requirements while
demonstrating reduced cranking performance. This ol'
dog is still learning . . . and my grey haired bench
test battery is still in service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I like some of the accessory connectors like the auto-fuse adapter.
They look nice, but for semi-reusable, manually applied connectors, can they really
be better than a regular wirenut? Wirenuts have fallen out of fashion, but
they are extremely reliable and have their own strain relief. Some come pre-gooped
for water-tightness.
I have been looking into replacing my products' Fastons and crimp terminals with
cage clamps and am especially interested in the lever-operated cage clamps.
Ultra-reliable and simple to use.
In this post-fiberoptic world, maybe NO connectors are the best way to go for data.
Vehicles just put data on the powerlines, and various wireless protocols
are taking the place of a whole lot of wire in advanced designs. Hey, NO connectors!
Would you trust your elevator trim to Bluetooth or Zig-Bee? I am starting to think
this is the way it's going.
--------
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=356265#356265
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Switch |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Canopy Switch
-->
At 12:00 PM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>Jeff, Bob N, Joe, everyone else,
>
> If someone isn't crazy about the mechanical "open/closed switch"
> in the circuit, would it
>be a better (as in more robust) idea to have an optical switch? A
>simple tab on the canopy, properly positioned, could open/close an
>optical switch as needed.
>
> Just wondering.......
Another option is a reed-switch operated by a magnet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG Batteries: I learned something last night |
I can report results that seem similar. For a new 9AH dekka vrla battery
discharged at 6 amps (2 ohm resistance) I measure 56 minutes to 11.00
volts or 5.6 AH.
For a 6+ year old but 5 years in service identical battery (420 flight
hours) that has never been deep discharged or been on a maintainer, I
measure 52 minutes to 11.00 volts or 5.2 AH again at 6 amps discharge
rate. All tests were done with the battery stabilized at a 66*F basement
room temperature for several days after top up with a Schumaker 1162.
I don't have an easy way to compare the cranking capabilities other than
last winter the two paralleled batts in my Z-14 system seemed to crank a
bit slower than normal. It cranked fine all summer but I have just
replaced the oldest battery anyway. Hasn't been much colder than
freezing yet to compare this winter. I too am surprised that the old
battery delivered 93% of the capacity of the newer one at a 6 amp
discharge rate.
I'll attempt to compare the current flow from each battery while
cranking (clamp on dc ammeter) the next time I fly. (I have the
automatic parallel option during cranking). Should give an indication of
how another 4 year in service batt compares to the new one for cranking.
Ken
On 29/10/2011 11:25 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> That bench test battery I featured in a posting
> a few days ago had not be cap-checked in several years.
> The thing is over ten years old and has yielded a
> great return on investment.
>
> I did a load test on this battery about a week ago.
> It dumped about 300A for 15 seconds at the 70F mark
> on the load meter. A value that is less than 1/2 the
> as-new capability.
>
> Just for grins, I pulled out the CBAII battery tester.
> The bench battery had been on a maintainer for a couple days.
>
> I did a 6A discharge test. The value I use as exemplary
> of most of my instrumentation experiments. The battery
> delivered 24+ a.h. of useful energy! Going to the
> factory data on this battery we see:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/33AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
>
>
> The factory says a 6.6A load will deplete this battery
> in about 4 hours . . . or 24+ a.h.
>
> In years past, my teachers modeled the battery as a large
> array of cells connected in a series-parallel configuration
> with EACH cell offering some finite energy value combined
> with it's own source impedance. If you loose 1/2 the cell
October 06, 2011 - October 30, 2011
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-kr