AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ku
December 28, 2011 - January 21, 2012
first. BUT, there is power and utility in those options. If you use them to
your advantage, you can probably do more, better on the GRT compared to the Dynon.
The displays on the GRT don't have the "3D-y", "Windows-y" look to them.
BUT, I think I'm preferring that at this point. Doing a scan on the GRT looking
for something out of the ordinary is quicker and more accurate. I also like
the PFD layout and operation on the GRT better. It feels more "accurate"
and "believable" to me for some reason. I never quite "trust" what I'm seeing
on the Dynon for some reason and I don't know why. Maybe I just need more time
on the Dynon.
So, the Dynon has it for Installation and Configuation, but the GRT has it for
Operation and Presentation as far as I'm concerned. If I was building a new plane,
I think that I would probably go with the GRT. But its a close race. I
really like the Dynon system too.
I guess I'm saying if you're in the market for a full-featured EFIS system, give
GRT and Dynon both very close look before you make your selection. In my opinion,
it comes down to personal preferences in a few select areas on which way
to go. Both systems are top notch.
BTW, Dynon's autopilot add-on for the Skyview which I have in the RV-6 works well.
Its a good autopilot that does the job. The servos are the same as with
the TruTrak system. In the RV-8, I have the TruTrak Digiflight II VSGV system.
The TruTrak is a smoother, more accurate autopilot in my opinion, and I would
go that route again. But, it also costs quite a bit more than just adding
servos to the Dynon or GRT.
$.02
-
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...
RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer"
http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log
Status: 42+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
Howdy-
Re:
we decided to
>then let the starter do the work. The starter turned the engine over well,
>however, I was dismayed when my whole panel of avionics went dead. I of cou
>rse quit cranking and began troubleshooting. It didn't take long to find th
>at the fuseable link off the Batt Contactor (heading to the E-Bus) burned t
>hrough. I went ahead and bypassed the link with 16 AWG and was able to comp
>lete a successful first engine start.
I'm on the road at the moment (beautiful dowtown Bahrain...) and don't have the
relevant docs with me, but if Z-16 has the E bus fed through a diode down stream
from the battery contactor and / or through the E bus switch from upstream
of the battery contactor, and the diode were installed reverse biased.....
Without other explicit details, this and the idea about engine flail bringing a
grounded chunk of hardware into physical contact with an energized bit of the
E bus architecture are all I can think of.
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Skyview Airspeed Calibration... |
You could just cut the head off the pop rivet that Van's recommends and
stick that on with epoxy (or double sided tape to start with)?
Peter
On 28/12/2011 05:12, Matt Dralle wrote:
> At 07:39 PM 12/26/2011 Monday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>> Dear Listers,
>>
>> I've been flying the new 10" Dynon Skyview in the RV-6 for a few weeks now and
it seems like the airspeed is reading maybe 10mph fast. The GS always reads
10mph or more slower than the True airspeed, no matter which way I fly with
respect to the current wind. Looking through the configuration options on the
Skyview, I'm not seeing parameters to calibrate the airspeed. If the airspeed
were *slow* compared to the GS, I could envision making adjustments to the Pitot
tube to get it in better alignment with slipstream. But *fast* is a head
scratcher. If there's no electronic configuration parameters to adjust, what
do you do? Are there Pitot line "attenuators" like for RF in coax? ;-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> Listers,
>
> Thank you for all the great suggestions on resolving this airspeed issue! I
took a look at the static ports on the RV-6 today and found that they are done
using a flush head screw with a hole drilled in the center on either side of
the fuselage. They do *not* protrude from the side of the plane at all. They
are totally flush (see attached picture). Just for fun, I whipped up a couple
of quick test deals using a 3/16" washer and some electrical tape. I poked
a 1/16" hole in the center of the tape and then put the washer centered over the
static ports on both sides of the fuselage (see attached pictures). Then,
I went flying on this beautiful December 27 day in California!
>
> I didn't have time to do any real scientific multi-leg testing, but I was amazed
that the True Airspeed is now falling in a much more believable range compared
to the GPS-derived ground speed. On one cross-country leg, I had an exactly
90 degree crosswind component and the True Airspeed and GPS Ground Speed were
tracking exactly the same. Yahoo!
>
> Obviously I need to do some additional, more scientific measurements and probably
come up with a slightly more "permanent" washer arrangement, but the early
returns are very promising! :-)
>
> Thanks again for all the great feedback!
>
> Matt
>
>
> -
> 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...
>
> RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer"
> http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log
> Status: 42+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:48 PM 12/27/2011, you wrote:
>Picture #1 is the old system that approximates mine, though there are some
>additional C.B. switches and fuses in some lines. #2 is what I would like
>to go with. The DPST Master Switch would be replaced with a SPST 5 Amp C.B.
>switch and 16 would be a simple Master Switch connected to the battery
>relay. Any thoughts, suggestions, or warnings would be appreciated.
>Bill
Okay, the first thing I would do is put those two drawings
in the round-file. These are typical "how things work" illustrations
produced by individuals who are very good at what they do . . .
build engines . . . but are not cogent system integrators.
The drawings are not incorrect . . . but they fall far short
of the details and reasoning processes that should be
applied to the vetting of your electrical system.
Suggest you start with Figure Z-12 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z12M.pdf
. . . and see where it doesn't meet YOUR design goals
for how the electrical system should function.
If you have no particular wish for an operating feature that
is not addressed by Z-16, then you're good to go. If there
are questions, let's talk about them here on the List. The
externally regulated alternator can be replaced with the
internally regulated alternator depicted in the Rotax drawings.
The 18A PM alternator can replace the 20A standby alternator
depicted in Z-12. But the architecture shown in Z-12 is a
good starting point. I could do a new Z-figure that is seeded
from the Rotax drawing for dual alternators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dynon Skyview Airspeed Calibration... |
12/28/2011
Hello Matt, I think that you are on the right track. The correct approach is
to use a semi circular wedge either before or aft of the static port in
order to achieve the results required. Here is the sequence that I went
through with my two static ports (one on each side of the fuselage) in order
to lower my airspeed indicator airspeed indication before I was satisfied
with the results:
1) Taped over one side static port and test flew.
2) Removed the first tape, taped over the other side static port and test
flew.
3) Put wedges aft of both side static ports using double sided sticky tape
and test flew.
4) Removed wedge from one side static port and test flew.
5) Switched the single wedge from one side static port to the other side
static port and test flew.
6) Declared victory and installed the single wedge more permanently.
Note that my focus was on good airspeed indication at landing approach
airspeeds, not at cruise airspeeds. On a calm / no wind day a check between
my airspeed indicator airspeed and my GPS ground speed on landing approach
are very nearly identical. I see no significant altimeter change indication
with airspeed change.
The next time I am out at the airport (if I remember) I will take a photo or
two of the single aluminum wedge on one of my static ports and email it to
you.
Good luck.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
=====================================================
Listers,
Thank you for all the great suggestions on resolving this airspeed issue! I
took
a look at the static ports on the RV-6 today and found that they are done
using
a flush head screw with a hole drilled in the center on either side of the
fuselage. They do *not* protrude from the side of the plane at all. They
are
totally flush (see attached picture). Just for fun, I whipped up a couple
of quick test deals using a 3/16" washer and some electrical tape. I poked
a
1/16" hole in the center of the tape and then put the washer centered over
the
static ports on both sides of the fuselage (see attached pictures). Then, I
went flying on this beautiful December 27 day in California!
I didn't have time to do any real scientific multi-leg testing, but I was
amazed
that the True Airspeed is now falling in a much more believable range
compared
to the GPS-derived ground speed. On one cross-country leg, I had an exactly
90 degree crosswind component and the True Airspeed and GPS Ground Speed
were
tracking exactly the same. Yahoo!
Obviously I need to do some additional, more scientific measurements and
probably
come up with a slightly more "permanent" washer arrangement, but the early
returns are very promising! :-)
Thanks again for all the great feedback!
Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
I'm on the road at the moment (beautiful dowtown Bahrain...) and
don't have the relevant docs with me, but if Z-16 has the E bus fed
through a diode down stream from the battery contactor and / or
through the E bus switch from upstream of the battery contactor, and
the diode were installed reverse biased.....
Good call Glen. I did not pick up on the
fact that the fusible link in question was
in series with the ALTERNATE feed switch . . .
which should be OPEN for all but pre-flight
tests -OR- in-flight, alternator-out operations.
Combine this closed switch with a reversed
NORMAL feed path diode could account for the
severe overload of the link.
Dan, do your e-bus feed accessories work with
the alternate feed switch OFF? If not, check
the normal feed path diode for proper polarity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: "Robert L. Nucko
lls, III" =0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronic
s.com =0A>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 7:03 AM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroEl
ectric-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List m
essage posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>I'm on the road at the moment (beautiful dowtown Bahrain...
) and don't have the relevant docs with me, but if Z-16 has the E bus fed t
hrough a diode down stream from the battery contactor and / or through the
E bus switch from upstream of the battery contactor, and the diode were ins
talled reverse biased.....=0A>=0A>- Good call Glen. I did not pick up on
the=0A>- fact that the fusible link in question was=0A>- in series with
the ALTERNATE feed switch . . .=0A>- which should be OPEN for all but pr
e-flight=0A>- tests -OR- in-flight, alternator-out operations.=0A>=0A>-
Combine this closed switch with a reversed=0A>- NORMAL feed path diode c
ould account for the=0A>- severe overload of the link.=0A>=0A>- Dan, do
your e-bus feed accessories work with=0A>- the alternate feed switch OFF
? If not, check=0A>- the normal feed path diode for proper polarity.=0A>
=0A>No, the E-Bus switch must be ON in order for any of the accessories to
operate. I will take another look at the diode polarity as well. One of the
guys I am working with suggested I not turn on the E-Bus switch until Afte
r I start the engine. That could become a practice, yet it does go against
the grain of how things "should" work. Will get back with the info soon.-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=====0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> No, the E-Bus switch must be ON in order for any of the accessories to operate.
I will take another look at the diode polarity as well. One of the guys I am
working with suggested I not turn on the E-Bus switch until After I start the
engine.
The E-Bus should be energized with the E-Bus switch off and the master switch on.
If not, the diode is backwards.
Although it will not hurt anything to fly with the E-Bus switch turned on, it
is intended to be turned on only in the event that power is not available through
the diode.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361838#361838
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | 12v to 24v DC-DC converter circuit |
Before I go off and reinvent the wheel.... does anyone have a DC-DC
converter circuit design they can share with me? A off-the-shelf unit
would be fine too.
I have a small altimeter on my natively 12v aircraft that requires 28v (as
spec'ed) for internal lighting (two tiny bulbs) and a vibrator. It does
not specify a current draw, but it cant be very much given the usage.
Thanks in advance.
-James
Berkut/Race13
www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | 12v to 24v DC-DC converter circuit |
Have aloo0k for a LM2577 DC-DC step-up DC converter board on ebay
Best Regards
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of berkut13(at)berkut13.com
Sent: 28 December 2011 15:56
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12v to 24v DC-DC converter circuit
Before I go off and reinvent the wheel.... does anyone have a DC-DC
converter circuit design they can share with me? A off-the-shelf unit
would be fine too.
I have a small altimeter on my natively 12v aircraft that requires 28v (as
spec'ed) for internal lighting (two tiny bulbs) and a vibrator. It does not specify
a current draw, but it cant be very much given the usage.
Thanks in advance.
-James
Berkut/Race13
www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12v to 24v DC-DC converter circuit |
At 09:56 AM 12/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>Before I go off and reinvent the wheel.... does anyone have a DC-DC
>converter circuit design they can share with me? A off-the-shelf unit
>would be fine too.
>
>I have a small altimeter on my natively 12v aircraft that requires 28v (as
>spec'ed) for internal lighting (two tiny bulbs) and a vibrator. It does
>not specify a current draw, but it cant be very much given the usage.
There are perhaps hundreds of possibilities. One such
device is illustrated here:
http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/UEI15-120-Q12P-C/811-1868-5-ND/1980326
It's an ISOLATED output dc-dc converter rated for 9-36v input and
12v out at 1.3A.
You can wire this such that it's in series with the 14v input
giving you a total of 26v output.
CAUTION
As supplied, it MIGHT need a metallic enclosure + RF filters
to keep internal thrashings from radiating into other systems.
You'll want to survey the operation of your radios with this
device ON vs OFF and make sure it is not engaged in nepharious
behaviors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bnelson79(at)charter.net |
Bob,
Thanks for the response and the schematic. But as I look at it I pinked
out everything that my setup doesn't have and ended up with over half
the diagram pinked out. Your diagram does show me where and how the two
relays (contactors) fit into the system though and that is helpful.
I've also got the rotary ACS starter switch to work with rather then
just a simple switch or push button.
What makes the most sense is adding the battery relay (connected to
battery, master switch, power bus and starter relay) and having the
starter relay connected to battery relay, starter, internal alternator
20 amp capacitor to internal alternator, starter switch, and external
alternator 60 amp fuse to external alternator. Then schematic #2 that I
sent you seems to make the most sense to me.
Any other comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks again.
Bill
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:48 PM 12/27/2011, you wrote:
>> Picture #1 is the old system that approximates mine, though there are
>> some
>> additional C.B. switches and fuses in some lines. #2 is what I would
>> like
>> to go with. The DPST Master Switch would be replaced with a SPST 5
>> Amp C.B.
>> switch and 16 would be a simple Master Switch connected to the
>> battery
>> relay. Any thoughts, suggestions, or warnings would be appreciated.
>> Bill
>
> Okay, the first thing I would do is put those two drawings
> in the round-file. These are typical "how things work" illustrations
> produced by individuals who are very good at what they do . . .
> build engines . . . but are not cogent system integrators.
>
> The drawings are not incorrect . . . but they fall far short
> of the details and reasoning processes that should be
> applied to the vetting of your electrical system.
>
> Suggest you start with Figure Z-12 . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z12M.pdf
>
> . . . and see where it doesn't meet YOUR design goals
> for how the electrical system should function.
>
> If you have no particular wish for an operating feature that
> is not addressed by Z-16, then you're good to go. If there
> are questions, let's talk about them here on the List. The
> externally regulated alternator can be replaced with the
> internally regulated alternator depicted in the Rotax drawings.
> The 18A PM alternator can replace the 20A standby alternator
> depicted in Z-12. But the architecture shown in Z-12 is a
> good starting point. I could do a new Z-figure that is seeded
> from the Rotax drawing for dual alternators.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
Bob and Joe, thank you for pointing out both over loading ( I went back and
read note 12) and the fact that the E-bus should be working with the Alter
nate switch off. To tell the truth, I have not tried it that way (w/just th
e Master on). If it does not work I do see that would mean the diode betwee
n the two buses is in backwards. I did check the diode position on the Batt
Contactor and it IS installed the right way. I now have at the very least,
some changing of circuits over to the Main bus. Will report back on findin
gs after tomorrow.-=0ADan=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A
> From: user9253 <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics
.com =0A>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:25 AM=0A>Subject: AeroElectri
c-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List messag
e posted by: "user9253" =0A>=0A>=0A>> No, the E-Bus
switch must be ON in order for any of the accessories to operate. I will ta
ke another look at the diode polarity as well. One of the guys I am working
with suggested I not turn on the E-Bus switch until After I start the engi
ne.=0A>=0A>The E-Bus should be energized with the E-Bus switch off and the
master switch on.- If not, the diode is backwards.=0A>- Although it wil
l not hurt anything to fly with the E-Bus switch turned on, it is intended
to be turned on only in the event that power is not available through the d
iode.=0A>Joe=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Joe Gores=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this topi
c online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361838#
=========================0A
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=====0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
At 07:39 PM 12/28/2011, you wrote:
>Bob and Joe, thank you for pointing out both over loading ( I went
>back and read note 12) and the fact that the E-bus should be working
>with the Alternate switch off. To tell the truth, I have not tried
>it that way (w/just the Master on). If it does not work I do see
>that would mean the diode between the two buses is in backwards. I
>did check the diode position on the Batt Contactor and it IS
>installed the right way. I now have at the very least, some changing
>of circuits over to the Main bus. Will report back on findings after tomorrow.
Blowing a fusible link is a rather non-trivial
event. 22AWG wire is capable of considerable
more current than the legacy rating in wire
bundles of 5A would suggest.
It would be interesting to get a real current
measurement of all your goodies before you
start moving things. Clip an ammeter across
the alternate feed switch while the master
switch is off.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cdnch701builder <cdnch701(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Main Battery Contactor |
Hey Bob...
I'm looking at Z-12! Can you tell me the difference between the Battery Contactor(no
number)
on Z-12 and B&C's - S701-1? Are they the same... and Can the S701-1 be used
for the main
battery contactor?
Thanks
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Main Battery Contactor |
At 08:32 PM 12/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hey Bob...
>
>I'm looking at Z-12! Can you tell me the difference between the
>Battery Contactor(no number)
>on Z-12 and B&C's - S701-1? Are they the same... and Can the
>S701-1 be used for the main
>battery contactor?
The S701-1 and variants are offered as continuous
duty contactors suitable for use as a battery master,
cross-feed, or other service that does not require
SWITCHING of heavy loads. I.e, the contactor will
provide a useful service life CARRYING large loads
(100+ amps) after the contacts are closed and stable.
S702-1 style contactors are intermittent duty devices
quite unsuited to tasks outlined above but optimized
to manage the large switching loads associated with
starter and landing gear pump motors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Main Battery Contactor |
At 08:32 PM 12/28/2011, you wrote:
>
>Hey Bob...
>
>I'm looking at Z-12! Can you tell me the difference between the
>Battery Contactor(no number)
>on Z-12 and B&C's - S701-1? Are they the same... and Can the
>S701-1 be used for the main
>battery contactor?
Why z-12 and not Z-13/8? What kind of airplane
are you building and how do you intend to use it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
Just got back from the airport and found the following:=0A1.I took the amme
ter reading across the Alternate switch (with the Master switch off). I was
reading at 5.2 A with everything on and that was without keying the mic fo
r transmission. I assume that would bump it up even more (didn't get a chan
ce to try that).-=0A2. The Diode between the two buses WAS backwards. I c
hanged it and now my panel lights up when the Master switch is on. Would th
is have had any bearing on why my fuseable link burned or do you think I ne
ed to move some things to the Main bus? The components I have on the E-bus
are as follows:=0ADynon D100, Garmin 396, EIS (engine monitor), SL40 radio,
Transponder, LED Becon and tail position light, Intercom, HZ Stab trim ser
vo. I don't have wing tip position/Nav lights yet but can probably put them
on the main bus along with the other lights when I get them. The other thi
ng I was toying with is moving the D-100 and the 396 over as they both have
back-up batteries Thoughts or suggestions welcome.=0AThanks,=0ADan=0A=0A
=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
=0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0A
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:54 PM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-Li
st: Re: First Engine Start Problem=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List message po
sted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A>=0A>A
t 07:39 PM 12/28/2011, you wrote:=0A>> Bob and Joe, thank you for pointing
out both over loading ( I went back and read note 12) and the fact that the
E-bus should be working with the Alternate switch off. To tell the truth,
I have not tried it that way (w/just the Master on). If it does not work I
do see that would mean the diode between the two buses is in backwards. I d
id check the diode position on the Batt Contactor and it IS installed the r
ight way. I now have at the very least, some changing of circuits over to t
he Main bus. Will report back on findings after tomorrow.=0A>=0A>- Blowi
ng a fusible link is a rather non-trivial=0A>- event. 22AWG wire is capa
ble of considerable=0A>- more current than the legacy rating in wire=0A>
- bundles of 5A would suggest.=0A>=0A>- It would be interesting to ge
t a real current=0A>- measurement of all your goodies before you=0A>-
start moving things. Clip an ammeter across=0A>- the alternate feed swi
tch while the master=0A>- switch is off.=0A>=0A>=0A>- Bob . . . =0A>
================0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
The diode being backwards was the reason the fusible link burned open. Part of
the starter current was going through the E-Bus circuit. There is a saying that
electricity takes the path of least resistance. Even though there is a big
fat wire going from the battery to the starter, that path is not the least resistance
for ALL of the current. Some of the current will find it easier to
take parallel paths. An analogy is highway traffic. Most cars will take the
multi-lane expressway. But when traffic is very heavy and slows down, some cars
will take side streets. For them it is the path of least resistance.
Your lighting circuit could be moved to the main bus. The E-Bus should handle
5 amps OK. The additional 2 amps while transmitting is of short duration and
should not burn open the fusible link. I will not be offended if Bob or anyone
corrects me.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361963#361963
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
At 09:45 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote:
The diode being backwards was the reason the fusible link burned
open. Part of the starter current was going through the E-Bus
circuit. There is a saying that electricity takes the path of least
resistance. Even though there is a big fat wire going from the
battery to the starter, that path is not the least resistance for ALL
of the current. Some of the current will find it easier to take
parallel paths. An analogy is highway traffic. Most cars will take
the multi-lane expressway. But when traffic is very heavy and slows
down, some cars will take side streets. For them it is the path of
least resistance.
Your lighting circuit could be moved to the main bus. The E-Bus
should handle 5 amps OK. The additional 2 amps while transmitting is
of short duration and should not burn open the fusible link. I will
not be offended if Bob or anyone corrects me.
You are right on my friend. I will remind
readers that the e-bus (while once erroneously
called an "essential bus") was crafted
for the purpose of keeping an alternator-
out event from becoming an emergency. Hence,
it was re-named the Endurance Bus.
Successful and worry free application of
the e-bus is dependent upon TWO things.
(1) Knowing the minimum amount of energy
stored in the battery and (2) knowing how
many hours of flight are possible while
being a good student of Energy Economics.
One of my most cherished teachers, Thomas
Sowell told me that economics is the study
of scarce resources for which there are
multiple uses. In this case, the scarce
resource is watt-seconds of electrical
energy available to run JUST the electro-
whizzies most useful or en route operations.
Once you have the airport of intended destination
in sight, the scarcity of watt-seconds
disappears.
My personal design goal for sizing and
powering the e-bus is to have more hours
of en-route ops available from the electro-
whizzies than I have fuel aboard. Everybody
plans for there to be enough fuel for the
mission leg . . . it seems that having
a properly crafted e-bus is a good move
for making a dead alternator a maintenance
event as opposed to an emergency. Some
years ago at Oshkosh, I suggested in one
of my forums that system reliability is
achieved when you can deal with any single
failure without breaking a sweat.
Since the people who own the airplanes
I rent would not let me re-arrange their
bus structures, my personal e-bus is powered
by alkaline cells.
http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly
Whether I'm flying a J-3 or an A-36, I
can confidently get where I want to go
on an exceedingly austere budget of
self contained watt-seconds.
I recommend that the builder craft a
Plan-B for alternator out-ops that includes
periodic capacity checks to make sure that
their battery's current state will carry
e-bus loads for the duration of their
personal design goals. Whether that's 1 hour
or duration of fuel aboard is your decision.
But knowing WHAT it is an maintaining it
is essential to the no-sweat management
of an alternator-out event.
You can obviously have more than necessary
goodies on the e-bus . . . as long as they
have ON-OFF switches. The goal is to have
a plan for load-shedding in place that
re-configures energy consumption to meet
electrical endurance design goals.
Over the years I've studied many "Dark-n-
Stormy Night" stories and deduced that most
if not all would never have been written
had the pilot/author had (1) understanding
and (2) an artfully crafted and maintained
Plan-B.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
At 08:33 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote:
>Just got back from the airport and found the following:
>1.I took the ammeter reading across the Alternate switch (with the
>Master switch off). I was reading at 5.2 A with everything on and
>that was without keying the mic for transmission. I assume that
>would bump it up even more (didn't get a chance to try that).
Okay, how does 5.2A fit into your Plan-B?
>2. The Diode between the two buses WAS backwards. I changed it and
>now my panel lights up when the Master switch is on. Would this have
>had any bearing on why my fuseable link burned or do you think I
>need to move some things to the Main bus? The components I have on
>the E-bus are as follows:
>Dynon D100, Garmin 396, EIS (engine monitor), SL40 radio,
>Transponder, LED Becon and tail position light, Intercom, HZ Stab
>trim servo. I don't have wing tip position/Nav lights yet but can
>probably put them on the main bus along with the other lights when I
>get them. The other thing I was toying with is moving the D-100 and
>the 396 over as they both have back-up batteries Thoughts or
>suggestions welcome.
See my earlier posting about Plan-B. You don't necessarily
need to move anything. But you SHOULD have a check-list
driven plan of action for responding to a low-voltage warning
light. 5.2A may not be the Plan-B number. The lower you
can make it, the more secure you are in dealing with an
alternator failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
Dan;
While the reversed diode is definitely the cause of the fused fusible link
(in combination with having the alternate feed switch on) and installing the
diode correctly will prevent the link failing in the future, (your loads are
well within what the link will handle) this might also be an indication that
there is a higher than desirable resistance in the "fat wire" circuit.
Normally the resistance of the large wires and their connections is very
very low and they should present the most attractive path for the starter
current. However if one of the connections in this circuit is displaying
relatively high resistance due to being loose or dirty or???? Then the
parallel path through the miswired e-buss circuit might become more
attractive and draw an unusually larger percentage of the starter current
aggravating the scenario explained by Joe. It might be worth a simple
voltage drop test across the fat wire circuit components while cranking to
see if there are any joints or portions of that circuit displaying higher
than normal resistance. If wired precisely per Z-16 then the likely source
for the high resistance, if it exists, would be one of the connections to
the battery contactor or the contactor itself. The other possibility of
course is that if you tried to crank the engine with the reversed diode, the
alternate feed "on" and the master switch "off" then full cranking current
was attempting to pass through your fusible link and "poof". Correctly
installing the diode absolutely cures this possibility as well.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 10:46 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem
>
>
> The diode being backwards was the reason the fusible link burned open.
Part of the
> starter current was going through the E-Bus circuit. There is a saying
that electricity
> takes the path of least resistance. Even though there is a big fat wire
going from the
> battery to the starter, that path is not the least resistance for ALL of
the current.
> Some of the current will find it easier to take parallel paths. An
analogy is highway
> traffic. Most cars will take the multi-lane expressway. But when traffic
is very heavy
> and slows down, some cars will take side streets. For them it is the path
of least
> resistance.
> Your lighting circuit could be moved to the main bus. The E-Bus should
handle 5
> amps OK. The additional 2 amps while transmitting is of short duration
and should
> not burn open the fusible link. I will not be offended if Bob or anyone
corrects me.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361963#361963
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio out for Aera 560 GPS? |
| From: | Don Ingalls <dhi(at)us.ibm.com> |
I'm looking for a sanity check on wiring a Garmin Aera 560 into my panel.
My main objective is to get the GPS alerts to my headset.
The Garmin documentation for the aviation bare wire mount was not helpful
and essentially just says the audio out is: White (Audio Right), Brown
(Audio Left) and Green (Audio Common) . Reference
http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/aera500_PilotsGuide.pdf page 140 of the
manual.
Writing and calling Garmin did not prove fruitful as they say the audio
out is for a "Marine Sounder" and that I should use the Audio Out stereo
out on the side and not these three wires for proper XM music quality. I
could find no other documentation. I also have a Sigtronics SPA-4S so in
my quest for information I called them. The person at Sigtronics was
very helpful and the summary of his advice was this:
Connect a 220 ohm 0.25 W resistor to the audio right, another to audio
left and then connect the other ends of the resistor together and splice
into the J1 connector, Blue wire from radio headphone audio.
This should give the proper priority to the GPS audio warnings (Terrain,
Airspace, etc.). Adjust the resistor down if needed to increase GPS
volume but this will also decrease volume from the radio.
Reference diagram at
http://www.sigtronics.com/pdf/air_pdf/SPA-4S_King_KY-97A_Inst.pdf
So, my questions are;
Does this strategy and resistor value sound right to convert this to a
mono output?
I'm assuming I still connect the Audio common, green wire of the GPS to
ground, correct?
If I want XM radio, then I would plug into the audio out stereo port on
the side of the GPS to the Music Input jack that is wired into intercom.
Correct?
Any additional guidance or advice would be greatly appreciated!
Don Ingalls
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flashing landing lights. |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
are there any bad effects to my elect. system if i install 2 small halide
''landing lights'' of 55 watts each and wire in 2 automotive flashers so i
can use them flashing in the pattern for traffic avoidance..i have a jab
3300.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | flashing landing lights. |
No, no adverse effects, but it's more effective if you use one flasher which
alternates the lights rather than two flashers which would have the lights
completely random.
Suitable flashers are readily available from automotive parts stores and are
typically used for such things as the alternating lights on school buses.
"Wigwag" flashers are also available from any number of aviation sources. Go
to the archives and search "wigwag" for several discussions on the topic.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob noffs
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: flashing landing lights.
are there any bad effects to my elect. system if i install 2 small halide
''landing lights'' of 55 watts each and wire in 2 automotive flashers so i
can use them flashing in the pattern for traffic avoidance..i have a jab
3300.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
I would like to thank all who responded to the issue at hand. I learned many
things here, most importantly, how my electrical system is designed to work
along with howI need to work. In the world of reading schematics and
interpreting how they are to be used...I am STILL learning. My assumptions
believing the E-switch was to be on sifted back to when I was flying the rented
172 and of course, there IS a switch that needed to be on for the radios,
intercom, Etc... So much for the ASSuming.
I was quite surprised when I found my diode in backwards as I am usually quite
anal when building circuits, yet, I am now actually glad it happened in this
manner as I would have been utilizing my system incorrectly. Thank you Joe for
bringing up the possibility of the reversed diode...Spot On Sir.
And Thanks again to Bob N. for pointing my brain cell (the one that is still
working) to the possible overloading as well as taking a better look at what my
Plan_B needs to look like. I will most likely move any lights over to the Main,
but more importantly take a close look at how much time a given instrument (as
well as combined gizmos) should take me. I will most likely leave my D-100, GPS
and the radio where they sit. knowing I can turn one or two off to get my butt
to the safety line will always be there.
I Wish everyone a Happy New Year!
Dan
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Fri, December 30, 2011 9:26:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem
At 08:33 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote:
> Just got back from the airport and found the following:
> 1.I took the ammeter reading across the Alternate switch (with the Master
>switch off). I was reading at 5.2 A with everything on and that was without
>keying the mic for transmission. I assume that would bump it up even more
>(didn't get a chance to try that).
Okay, how does 5.2A fit into your Plan-B?
> 2. The Diode between the two buses WAS backwards. I changed it and now my panel
>lights up when the Master switch is on. Would this have had any bearing on why
>my fuseable link burned or do you think I need to move some things to the Main
>bus? The components I have on the E-bus are as follows:
> Dynon D100, Garmin 396, EIS (engine monitor), SL40 radio, Transponder, LED
>Becon and tail position light, Intercom, HZ Stab trim servo. I don't have wing
>tip position/Nav lights yet but can probably put them on the main bus along with
>the other lights when I get them. The other thing I was toying with is moving
>the D-100 and the 396 over as they both have back-up batteries Thoughts or
>suggestions welcome.
See my earlier posting about Plan-B. You don't necessarily
need to move anything. But you SHOULD have a check-list
driven plan of action for responding to a low-voltage warning
light. 5.2A may not be the Plan-B number. The lower you
can make it, the more secure you are in dealing with an
alternator failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flashing landing lights. |
I'm using two 55 watt 'halide' (one on each landing gear) and using heav
y duty truck flashers seem to work OK. EE
---------- Original Message ----------
From: bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: flashing landing lights.
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:05:28 -0600
are there any bad effects to my elect. system if i install 2 small halid
e ''landing lights'' of 55 watts each and wire in 2 automotive flashers
so i can use��them flashing in the pattern for traffic avo
idance..i have a jab 3300.�
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net> |
What are thoughts on creating the electrical wiring harness? I've
attached the embrionic schematic (lot's of final design, editing and
cleanup to do) just to convey the simplicity of my Zenith CH750
electrical system.
Specifically, should I:
1.. mock-up (chalk) an outline of the plane, run the requisite wires,
label and bundle them (using expandable sleeving or spiral wrap)? ie.
complete an entire harness....
2.. or, just run wires one at a time and tie wrap and sheath with an
expandable sleeve or spiral wrap them once all of the circuits are wired
and tested?
3.. what's best to use in as far as a spiral wrap or expandable
sleeve? I've heard the term "snakeskin" used....
Much of the drawing/design/symbols in the attached was gleaned from the
AeroElectric Connection....
Regards,
Dan Sherburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> The guys that were working with me asked me why that link was there...I did not
have a good answer for them. . . .So...I am now reluctant to put another fuseable
link in place . . .
Without a fusible link and in the event of a short circuit or heavy overload, the
full length of the circuit wire could become red hot or even white hot. Think
of a fusible link as a robust, slow blowing, fuse. Having a fusible link
will ensure that heat and smoke from a circuit fault will occur at a known safe
location rather than at a random location in the wire harness.
The diode might have been conducting more current than it was designed to carry.
A simple test will confirm that it is still blocking reverse current. With
the master switch off and the E-Bus switch on, the main bus should not be energized
and anything connected to it should not be powered.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362053#362053
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
Now that I know why and how the fuseable link burned, I will be replacing it. I
have already called my buddies and gave them the answer I was (at the time)
unsure about. Joe, I'm glad you addressed the integrity of the diode. It
re-affirmed my thoughts as well and I have already decided to replace it (cheap
insurance).
Thanks again for the assistance.
Dan
________________________________
From: user9253 <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com>
Sent: Fri, December 30, 2011 5:48:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem
> The guys that were working with me asked me why that link was there...I did not
>have a good answer for them. . . .So...I am now reluctant to put another
>fuseable link in place . . .
Without a fusible link and in the event of a short circuit or heavy overload,
the full length of the circuit wire could become red hot or even white hot.
Think of a fusible link as a robust, slow blowing, fuse. Having a fusible link
will ensure that heat and smoke from a circuit fault will occur at a known safe
location rather than at a random location in the wire harness.
The diode might have been conducting more current than it was designed to
carry. A simple test will confirm that it is still blocking reverse current.
With the master switch off and the E-Bus switch on, the main bus should not be
energized and anything connected to it should not be powered.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362053#362053
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
In my case I ran the wires one at a time, building a bundle with wrapping th
read ties as necessary to keep the wires parallel. I doubt you would save an
y time by trying to make a separate harness like the production companies us
e, unless you are going to start producing them.
On Dec 30, 2011, at 19:16, "Dan Sherburn" wrote:
> What are thoughts on creating the electrical wiring harness? I've attached
the embrionic schematic (lot's of final design, editing and cleanup to do) j
ust to convey the simplicity of my Zenith CH750 electrical system.
> Specifically, should I:
> mock-up (chalk) an outline of the plane, run the requisite wires, label a
nd bundle them (using expandable sleeving or spiral wrap)? ie. complete an e
ntire harness....
> or, just run wires one at a time and tie wrap and sheath with an expandabl
e sleeve or spiral wrap them once all of the circuits are wired and tested?
> what's best to use in as far as a spiral wrap or expandable sleeve? I've h
eard the term "snakeskin" used....
> Much of the drawing/design/symbols in the attached was gleaned from the Ae
roElectric Connection....
>
> Regards,
> Dan Sherburn
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
At 06:48 PM 12/30/2011, you wrote:
> The guys that were working with me asked me why that link was
there...I did not have a good answer for them. . . .So...I > am now
reluctant to put another fuseable link in place . . .
Without a fusible link and in the event of a short circuit or heavy
overload, the full length of the circuit wire could become red hot
or even white hot. Think of a fusible link as a robust, slow
blowing, fuse. Having a fusible link will ensure that heat and smoke
from a circuit fault will occur at a known safe location rather than
at a random location in the wire harness.
Which is the function of all protective devices for wire.
Fuses are very fast comparted to circuit breakers.
Circuit breakers are very fast compared to 'current limiters'
which are manufactured versions of fusible links. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Note that an ANL35 will carry 80 amps indefinitely at
room temperature. Say what???? A 35 amp fuse needs to
be operated at no more than 75% of rating to avoid long
term weakening of the fusible element. The difference in
these two devices is their application. A line fault where
a fuse is wired upstream of a breaker will probably open a
fuse several times the size of the breaker. Current limiters
(and fusible links) are used upstream of both fuses and
breakers in cars and airplanes. They have VERY long time
constants compared to the downstream devices . . . yet they
provide the same 'weak link in chain' that guarantees a
predictable failure. The provide an orderly failure
location for a faulted feeder that is robust enough not to
compromise the performance of downstream protection.
This is exactly what YOUR fusible link did. Had it not been
installed, you would have probably overheated if not smoked
the protected wire . . . possibly damaging other wires in
the bundle.
If you wanted to put a 20A, in-line fuse holder in its
place, that would be fine too as long as you don't have
BREAKERS downstream.
I'm working an accident case right now that involved
poor choice and placement of fuses and breakers combined
with an architecture that offered several single points
of failure for all ignition to the engine . . . not good.
We'll discuss it in detail once the dust settles on
the legal tug-of-war.
The lesson here is that the 'rating' of a fuse, breaker,
limiter, or link is only roughly tied to performance.
Until you trade of TIME to OPERATE values, you don't know
the whole story.
The diode might have been conducting more current than it was
designed to carry. A simple test will confirm that it is still
blocking reverse current. With the master switch off and the E-Bus
switch on, the main bus should not be energized and anything
connected to it should not be powered.
Replacing it is a good idea. It's easier to simply
install a new one than it is to test the old one for
changes in performance due to the fault condition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
1. Seems like more work than necessary. Getting all the physical
position relationships seem tough. Remember not all the wires have the same
end point locations.
2. This is what I did and worked quite well. Just remember to add a
little extra for service loops and to give you some flexibility when you go
back to start tying up your bundles and installing adel clamps to hold them
in place. I used nylon tie wraps with large open loops so that it would
hold the bundles in their relative position and it was easy to insert
additional wire. When I was done, I came back with lacing and tied the
bundles and cut the tie wraps. Then I installed a few adel clamps to keep
the bundles secured.
bob
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sherburn
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 7:17 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Harness
What are thoughts on creating the electrical wiring harness? I've attached
the embrionic schematic (lot's of final design, editing and cleanup to do)
just to convey the simplicity of my Zenith CH750 electrical system.
Specifically, should I:
1. mock-up (chalk) an outline of the plane, run the requisite wires,
label and bundle them (using expandable sleeving or spiral wrap)? ie.
complete an entire harness....
2. or, just run wires one at a time and tie wrap and sheath with an
expandable sleeve or spiral wrap them once all of the circuits are wired and
tested?
3. what's best to use in as far as a spiral wrap or expandable sleeve?
I've heard the term "snakeskin" used....
Much of the drawing/design/symbols in the attached was gleaned from the
AeroElectric Connection....
Regards,
Dan Sherburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Hi Dan,
I find drawing different views helps. You already have a schematic, a
location drawing could be useful to allow you to site the components and
figure out where the wires will run. You will likely place the starter
and master solenoids close together, so it will also give you a feel for
how long each wire will be. Draw what the bus bars will look like (will
you use a fuse block?), to give yourself an idea of the lay out.
I start by mounting the fuse blocks/buses/breakers and start running
wires. It always takes more wire than you think once it is tied down, so
do that as you go - very frustrating to cut a wire too short! I have
used expandable sleeve, but don't really like spiral wrap unless anti
chafe protection is needed. If using expandable sleeve you may have to
start feeding wires from the beginning as it may not be possible to feed
it over any spurs. If you don't use a sleeve you could use spring clips
to hold things in place until everything is run and then tie up with
lacing cord.
Hope this helps, Peter
BTW, I'm not sure your alternator output will be very useful wired in as
shown - perhaps it should go to the main bus or battery contactor?
On 31/12/2011 00:16, Dan Sherburn wrote:
> What are thoughts on creating the electrical wiring harness? I've
> attached the embrionic schematic (lot's of final design, editing and
> cleanup to do) just to convey the simplicity of my Zenith CH750
> electrical system.
> Specifically, should I:
>
> 1. mock-up (chalk) an outline of the plane, run the requisite wires,
> label and bundle them (using expandable sleeving or spiral wrap)?
> ie. complete an entire harness....
> 2. or, just run wires one at a time and tie wrap and sheath with an
> expandable sleeve or spiral wrap them once all of the circuits are
> wired and tested?
> 3. what's best to use in as far as a spiral wrap or expandable
> sleeve? I've heard the term "snakeskin" used....
>
> Much of the drawing/design/symbols in the attached was gleaned from
> the AeroElectric Connection....
> Regards,
> Dan Sherburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Skyview Airspeed Calibration... |
12/31/2011
Hello Matt, Attached are pictures of the two static ports on the foward
fuselage sides of my KIS TR-1:
0599 is the plain static port on the right side of the fuselage.
0602 is the same basic static port on the left side of the fuselage, but
with a self made aluminum wedge installed on it.
Since the wedge is installed aft of the opening in the static port it has
the effect of slightly increasing the static pressure that this port is
sensing and sending to the rest of the static portion of the pitot static
system. This slight increase in static pressure, in the airspeed indicator,
balances out or reduces the effective force being applied to the indicator
by the air pressure coming in from the pitot tube. The result is that the
airspeed indicator indicates a slightly lower airspeed than it would without
the wedge.
A wedge applied before the static port opening would have the opposite
effect.
Plan on doing a lot of test flying to get your wedge(s) fine tuned to
accomplish what you want in the way of airspeed reading without
significantly adversely affecting your altimeter readings.
My thinking is that it is more important to have the airspeed reading what
it should be in the approach speed arena rather than the cruise speed arena.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: "Robert L. Nucko
lls, III" =0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronic
s.com =0A>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 8:14 PM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElect
ric-List: Re: First Engine Start Problem=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List mess
age posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A
>-This is exactly what YOUR fusible link did. Had it not been=0A>- inst
alled, you would have probably overheated if not smoked=0A>- the protecte
d wire . . . possibly damaging other wires in=0A>- the bundle.-=0A>Whic
h is something that concerns me due to my knee jerk reaction of sticking an
18 Ga wire in and starting my engine 3 times that day. The total time I ra
n the engine between the three starts was about 10 min. -My thinking that
the running of the engine may not have been so bad but the starts- put s
train on the circuit with that diode reversed. I will certainly inspect tha
t complete circuit looking for any sign of where the wire got too hot. I al
so have a concern for the wires up stream of the main bus going to the swit
ch. The 5A circuit breaker did not fail, but I will check that fuse link as
well. Is there anything else I might be missing that needs a look?=0A>Than
ks again,=0A>Dan=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>==
=============0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Skyview Airspeed Calibration... |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I just did all this on my plane, the GRT equipment has a calibration utility built
in that makes it a snap. Just fly the heading displayed and push a button
for a given airspeed. Very simple &easy.
I would imagine the Dynon has something similar.
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:00 AM, wrote:
> 12/31/2011
>
> Hello Matt, Attached are pictures of the two static ports on the foward fuselage
sides of my KIS TR-1:
>
> 0599 is the plain static port on the right side of the fuselage.
>
> 0602 is the same basic static port on the left side of the fuselage, but with
a self made aluminum wedge installed on it.
>
> Since the wedge is installed aft of the opening in the static port it has the
effect of slightly increasing the static pressure that this port is sensing and
sending to the rest of the static portion of the pitot static system. This
slight increase in static pressure, in the airspeed indicator, balances out or
reduces the effective force being applied to the indicator by the air pressure
coming in from the pitot tube. The result is that the airspeed indicator indicates
a slightly lower airspeed than it would without the wedge.
>
> A wedge applied before the static port opening would have the opposite effect.
>
> Plan on doing a lot of test flying to get your wedge(s) fine tuned to accomplish
what you want in the way of airspeed reading without significantly adversely
affecting your altimeter readings.
>
> My thinking is that it is more important to have the airspeed reading what it
should be in the approach speed arena rather than the cruise speed arena.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to gather
and understand knowledge."
> <100_0599.jpg>
> <100_0602.jpg>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Peter,
Oops....you are correct on the alternator wire. The drawing should have
had the output wire of the alternator going to the other side of the
starter contactor. Thanks for the catch!
In as far as wiring, I'm thinking you are correct, in as far as the
bundle. I'm using a fuse block as the buss and will start running
device wires individually from there and then bundle.
As Bob suggests in his book, I'm creating a "wire-book" that has
component location drawings, as well as detailed connection drawings I
get from manufacturers (like the strobe/
position lights). Thanks again for the note.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Harness
Hi Dan,
I find drawing different views helps. You already have a schematic, a
location drawing could be useful to allow you to site the components and
figure out where the wires will run. You will likely place the starter
and master solenoids close together, so it will also give you a feel for
how long each wire will be. Draw what the bus bars will look like (will
you use a fuse block?), to give yourself an idea of the lay out.
I start by mounting the fuse blocks/buses/breakers and start running
wires. It always takes more wire than you think once it is tied down, so
do that as you go - very frustrating to cut a wire too short! I have
used expandable sleeve, but don't really like spiral wrap unless anti
chafe protection is needed. If using expandable sleeve you may have to
start feeding wires from the beginning as it may not be possible to feed
it over any spurs. If you don't use a sleeve you could use spring clips
to hold things in place until everything is run and then tie up with
lacing cord.
Hope this helps, Peter
BTW, I'm not sure your alternator output will be very useful wired in
as shown - perhaps it should go to the main bus or battery contactor?
On 31/12/2011 00:16, Dan Sherburn wrote:
What are thoughts on creating the electrical wiring harness? I've
attached the embrionic schematic (lot's of final design, editing and
cleanup to do) just to convey the simplicity of my Zenith CH750
electrical system.
Specifically, should I:
1.. mock-up (chalk) an outline of the plane, run the requisite
wires, label and bundle them (using expandable sleeving or spiral wrap)?
ie. complete an entire harness....
2.. or, just run wires one at a time and tie wrap and sheath with
an expandable sleeve or spiral wrap them once all of the circuits are
wired and tested?
3.. what's best to use in as far as a spiral wrap or expandable
sleeve? I've heard the term "snakeskin" used....
Much of the drawing/design/symbols in the attached was gleaned from
the AeroElectric Connection....
Regards,
Dan Sherburn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KX155/165 Crimp Contacts |
| From: | David Jensen <crackberry123(at)gmail.com> |
Hello!
Does anyone know the actual part number of the contacts used for the KX155
connectors? I know they're AMP or Molex, but not the manufacturer part
number....want to avoid paying the exorbitant prices when buying them thru
avionics channels.
Appreciate any info! Want to stock up.
Thanks David
--
Thanks!
David Jensen
djensen(at)ieee.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | charging a battery assistance |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
List members,
I'm restoring a Honda CL125 Scrambler, and I have a dilemma. It has a brand
new 6 volt
battery, but it's very low, and I need to recharge it. I have a regular 12V car
battery charger,
and a 12V Float Charger, neither of which is appropriate to charge a little 6V
dinky M/C battery.
Is there a way I can charge this little 6V battery with a home-made modification
to that
Float Charger, or could I use one of those "Wall Chargers"? I've got tons of them
from
ALL kinds of electric goodies over the years (I bet I have about 30 of them in
all kinds of outputs).
The Float Charger says "INPUT 120VAC 14W---OUTPUT 15VAC 600mA, and it has
some sort of little rectangular box inline in the battery cable to the leads.
I realize this isn't directly airplane related, but maybe the electric pointers
and theory will be
helpful to many list members, like me.
Thanks for your help!!
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX155/165 Crimp Contacts |
Sure...and the extractor too:
http://www.berkut13.com/extractor.htm
From: David Jensen
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:41 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX155/165 Crimp Contacts
Hello!
Does anyone know the actual part number of the contacts used for the
KX155 connectors? I know they're AMP or Molex, but not the manufacturer
part number....want to avoid paying the exorbitant prices when buying
them thru avionics channels.
Appreciate any info! Want to stock up.
Thanks David
--
Thanks!
David Jensen
djensen(at)ieee.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | charging a battery assistance |
Mike -
Schumacher's 1562A will fit your need.
http://www.amazon.com/Schumacher-SEM-1562A-Speed-Charge-Maintainer/dp/B0009I
BJAS
Neal
-----Original Message-----
List members,
I'm restoring a Honda CL125 Scrambler, and I have a dilemma. It has a
brand new 6 volt
battery, but it's very low, and I need to recharge it. I have a regular 12V
car battery charger,
and a 12V Float Charger, neither of which is appropriate to charge a little
6V dinky M/C battery.
Is there a way I can charge this little 6V battery with a home-made
modification to that
Float Charger, or could I use one of those "Wall Chargers"? I've got tons
of them from
ALL kinds of electric goodies over the years (I bet I have about 30 of them
in all kinds of outputs).
The Float Charger says "INPUT 120VAC 14W---OUTPUT 15VAC 600mA, and it has
some sort of little rectangular box inline in the battery cable to the
leads.
I realize this isn't directly airplane related, but maybe the electric
pointers and theory will be
helpful to many list members, like me.
Thanks for your help!!
Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: charging a battery assistance |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
When faced with a similar situation, I use a resistance connected in series with
my (old technology) charger to limit the charging current; especially initially
with a dead small battery. I use an old automotive ceramic ignition resistor
to limit current, but paralled incandescent light bulbs could also be used.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362186#362186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: charging a battery assistance |
Limiting the current is key of course. But, if you are going to risk this
method of charging, you must stand by to stop the charging at the limit of a
6 v. battery. Otherwise, even thou current limited, it will just keep
charging up to the voltage this 12 v. charger would normally put out. The
poor 6 v. battery would be gassed out of existence and probably do some type
of internal "melt down". Just have a good volt meter standing by and test
the battery every 15 min. or less and kill the charge when it gets to about
6.8 volts, or 7 volts max.
____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: charging a battery assistance
>
>
> When faced with a similar situation, I use a resistance connected in
> series with my (old technology) charger to limit the charging current;
> especially initially with a dead small battery. I use an old automotive
> ceramic ignition resistor to limit current, but paralled incandescent
> light bulbs could also be used.
>
> --------
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362186#362186
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: charging a battery assistance |
Thanks guys for the replies. I found a Shumacher 1562A I was going to buy at
a good price.
But before I committed to buy it, I thought I'd let the battery sit overnight,
and see if it would
recharge itself.
Today is had enough plenty of power to allow me to kickstart the bike.
I would prefer not to buy another charger unless I REALLY have to. I have one
Sears big unit
and 3 Harbor Freight battery tenders/maintainers (for rarely used equipment).
At this point, I think I have enough info & help, thanks to you guys. I should
be
in good shape....unless I leave the key on again. If I do, I'll buy the Schumacher!
Mike Welch
On Jan 1, 2012, at 6:30 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
>
> Limiting the current is key of course. But, if you are going to risk this method
of charging, you must stand by to stop the charging at the limit of a 6 v.
battery. Otherwise, even thou current limited, it will just keep charging up
to the voltage this 12 v. charger would normally put out. The poor 6 v. battery
would be gassed out of existence and probably do some type of internal "melt
down". Just have a good volt meter standing by and test the battery every
15 min. or less and kill the charge when it gets to about 6.8 volts, or 7 volts
max.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 11:50 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: charging a battery assistance
>
>
>>
>> When faced with a similar situation, I use a resistance connected in series
with my (old technology) charger to limit the charging current; especially initially
with a dead small battery. I use an old automotive ceramic ignition resistor
to limit current, but paralled incandescent light bulbs could also be used.
>>
>> --------
>> Jerry King
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362186#362186
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dougshep(at)netzero.com" <dougshep(at)NetZero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio out for Aera 560 GPS? |
I also am interfacing a panel mount 560 with my avionics (PMS6000B audio panel).
I use their bare wires cable 010-11385-03.
Your questions:
Does this strategy and resistor value sound right to convert this to a mono
output?
Yes. I contacted Garmin (phone 1-866 739-5687). They told me "The Audio Left
and Right outputs on the bare wires cable 010-11385-03, outputs both Aviation
Alerts and XM Radio. To connect to a mono audio panel, they suggest using either
two 100 or 120 ohm resistors, each in series with the audio outputs, then
connecting them together to an audio panel input. " I tried this on the bench
and it worked OK.
I'm assuming I still connect the Audio common, green wire of the GPS to ground,
correct?
Yes. This is their common, or return, lead.
If I want XM radio, then I would plug into the audio out stereo port on the
side of the GPS to the Music Input jack that is wired into intercom. Correct?
The 010-11385-03 cable has all the necessary connections, except antennas, to interface
to other avionics equipment.
This includes the AERAs RS-232 output, and its power input. Also note, the Left
and Right audio outputs have an 8 ohm source impedance.
Doug Shepard, RV-9A, Avionics wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: charging a battery assistance |
I'd try asking a few neighbors about their battery chargers. I've got
one that's only about 20 years old that has a 6 volt setting. (You'd
still have to monitor it when using one of those older chargers, but at
least you wouldn't be feeding it 16-18 volts as it comes up to full charge.
On 01/01/2012 06:30 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> Limiting the current is key of course. But, if you are going to risk
> this method of charging, you must stand by to stop the charging at the
> limit of a 6 v. battery. Otherwise, even thou current limited, it
> will just keep charging up to the voltage this 12 v. charger would
> normally put out. The poor 6 v. battery would be gassed out of
> existence and probably do some type of internal "melt down". Just
> have a good volt meter standing by and test the battery every 15 min.
> or less and kill the charge when it gets to about 6.8 volts, or 7
> volts max.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 11:50 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: charging a battery assistance
>
>
>>
>>
>> When faced with a similar situation, I use a resistance connected in
>> series with my (old technology) charger to limit the charging
>> current; especially initially with a dead small battery. I use an
>> old automotive ceramic ignition resistor to limit current, but
>> paralled incandescent light bulbs could also be used.
>>
>> --------
>> Jerry King
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work? |
How do capacitive fuel sensors work?
Can someone give me the general theory of operation, what type of signal
does the transducer produce? Why do I want one? Etc?
TIA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Kinninger <jimk(at)hdiss.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Dan,
I am just starting my wiring diagram on a Tundra w/ IO-360. I have
decided to follow Bob's suggestion to use the Z-12 schematic (dual
alternators, single battery) and I'm assembling the various parts. While
I have worked on the wiring of two Glastars I have never done anything
like this and I am looking to our group for ideas. I have Bob's book and
continue to study it. His statement about the difference between a
'Schematic' drawing and a 'mechanical' drawing has really hit home. Just
knowing which components belong in the engine compartment (contactors,
shunts, current limiters, ??) and which to mount on the cockpit side of
the firewall and then which to mount on the panel itself would be a
great start on doing a mechanical drawing. These thoughts may seem vary
'logical' to those with experience but no so to this novice.
Anyway, I sure appreciate your questions and the answers that have come
forth. Since I could not find your schematic on the list I look forward
to you sending it direct. I will begin to check the archives for topics
on this.
Jim Kinninger
jimk(at)hdiss.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work? |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
http://www.discovercircuits.com/PDF-FILES/capgage.pdf
A capacitor is constructed of two parallel conductors insulated from each other.
The amount of capacitance is related to the distance between the conductors
and the type of insulation. The insulation between the conductors of a capacitance
fuel level probe consists of air and/or fuel. As the fuel lever changes,
so does the capacitance. The capacitance is part of an oscillator circuit.
As the capacitance changes, so does the oscillator frequency. The frequency
is converted to a voltage that is displayed with a fuel gauge.
The advantage of a capacitance type fuel level probe is that there are no moving
parts. The disadvantage is that the gauge must be calibrated each time that
the type of fuel is changed because unleaded fuel and leaded fuel and gasohol
each have different insulating properties. When the fuel tank is almost full,
the capacitance fuel gauge will display different levels depending on the
type of fuel in the tank. When the tank is almost empty, the fuel gauge will
be more accurate because air is now the insulating medium and the probe does not
know or care what type of fuel used to be in the tank.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362211#362211
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work? |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
You just make a capacitor where the gap between the two plates of the cap
(or the gap between a central wire and an outer tube, or whatever the
geometry of the cap is) is open to the gasoline in the tank. The gasoline
serves as the electrolyte in the capacitor. If the cap. is completely
submerged, then the gap between the 2 parts of the cap is completely full
of electrolyte and the capacitance of the the thing is maximized. As the
gasoline level drops, the portion of the gap that is filled with fuel , and
hence has elevated capacitance, decreases. So the overall capacitance of
the capacitor changes with fuel level.
So you put this cap. into a circuit that allows you to measure the
capacitance. The easiest way is to make an oscillator circuit and measure
the frequency of the oscillator. The frequency of the oscillator will
change with the fuel level.
The problem is that it's hard to make a cap. whose capacitance varies a lot
with the presence or absence of the gas. The variation in capacitance is
usually in the range of a few hundred picofarads - not much. So the
circuit that measures the capacitance has to be right there at the
capacitor because if it was 10 feet away, the wires going to the cap would
have way more capacitance than the capacitor itself. (I understand they
actually made this mistake on the A-10 fuel systems. Made them very flaky
and failure prone.)
I have the Princeton capacitive fuel sensors in my 6A and wish that I
didn't. (They're the tube with central wire type of design) They show
full until you get down to the last 5 or 6 gallons of gas. So if I see
them "off the peg" much at all it means I have very little fuel left.
Fortunately my fuel flow integrator in the VM-1000 engine monitor I have is
accurate. Also, I understand they get badly confused if any water gets
into them. If I were to change from 100LL to auto gas they would have to
be recalibrated because autogas has significantly different electrolyte
properties. (Recalibrating is doable but kind of a pain since you have to
drain the tank.) If I had it to do over, I'd use the ancient float with
potentiometer style of fuel level transducer.
The Princeton probes sold by Aircraft spruce were designed by a guy named
Todd who actually works for Grand Rapids, or at least did the last time I
talked to him. Well, I inferred that he designed them. I'm guessing he did
that before he joined (or formed?) GRT and still performs as "Princeton" on
the side. - just a theory on my part, having been in the electronics
business.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> JLuckey(at)pacbell.net>
>
>
> How do capacitive fuel sensors work?
>
> Can someone give me the general theory of operation, what type of signal
> does the transducer produce? Why do I want one? Etc?
>
> TIA
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, user9253 wrote:
> unleaded fuel and leaded fuel and gasohol each have different insulating properties
I can understand ethanol, being polar, having a quite different dielectric constant.
It seems unlikely that adding a very small amount of non-conducting tetra
ethyl lead to gasoline would change the dielectric properties. Do you have
a reference?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg elaborated on his
experience with Princeton probes.
But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My fuel bays
in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition to the whole
tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of accurate measurement
impossible over the tank range when using a linear type (float) sensor.
I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty and full points.
Available in 0-5v output and various resistance output so you can use them
with your existing gauge.
http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world experience with
this product, . YMMV.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362237#362237
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX155/165 Crimp Contacts |
At 12:41 PM 12/31/2011, you wrote:
>Hello!
>
>Does anyone know the actual part number of the contacts used for the
>KX155 connectors? I know they're AMP or Molex, but not the
>manufacturer part number....want to avoid paying the exorbitant
>prices when buying them thru avionics channels.
>
>Appreciate any info! Want to stock up.
This style connector was very popular from the
time that etched circuit boards became commonplace
and up until about 20 years ago. The really cool thing
about this connector technology was the ability to
fabricate the male portion of the wiring mate-up
right onto the etched circuit board. This often
added a demand for special treatment of the male
"pins" to have them gold plated for resistance to
corrosion.
AMP, Molex, Cinch, and dozens of others rose to the
opportunity and offered mating female connectors
in a variety of pitches . . . but 0.156" spacing
was popular. This technology is still used in computers
as many of the accessory boards we plug into a
mother board have card edge connectors but they tend
to be much finer pitch.
This configuration of connector fell out of favor for airframe
harnesses due to the lack of environmental robustness.
No new radios have been built with this style harness
connector in quite some time.
As one might expect, most if no all producers of this
connector have discontinued manufacturing new parts. Due
to past popularity, there are still many parts of the style
in new-old-stock inventories but specific parts are becoming
more difficult to find every year.
The pins are much easier to find than some sizes of
housing. The pins you're looking for are Molex 4366 series
p/n 08-05-0302 20-18AWG pins with gold flash.
http://tinyurl.com/6nkcv5n
Mouser still seems to have these on hand in some
quantity.
http://tinyurl.com/6sfazya
For individuals looking for a work-around to replace one of
these connectors (many popular radios using 156 card edge
connectors are still in service) consider this or some
similar work around.
http://tinyurl.com/6s949t3
http://tinyurl.com/7zqx4r6
http://tinyurl.com/6towcwh
156 pitch connectors in various sizes and styles are readily
available as new-old-stock and can often be adapted to
your task of keeping a serviceable radio airworthy.
For a general posting of data on the Molex/Waldom series
of connectors see:
http://tinyurl.com/7t6jjsc
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
Are they reliable and relatively accurate?
David
user9253 wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"
>
> http://www.discovercircuits.com/PDF-FILES/capgage.pdf
> A capacitor is constructed of two parallel conductors insulated from each other.
The amount of capacitance is related to the distance between the conductors
and the type of insulation. The insulation between the conductors of a capacitance
fuel level probe consists of air and/or fuel. As the fuel lever changes,
so does the capacitance. The capacitance is part of an oscillator circuit.
As the capacitance changes, so does the oscillator frequency. The frequency
is converted to a voltage that is displayed with a fuel gauge.
> The advantage of a capacitance type fuel level probe is that there are no
moving parts. The disadvantage is that the gauge must be calibrated each time
that the type of fuel is changed because unleaded fuel and leaded fuel and gasohol
each have different insulating properties. When the fuel tank is almost
full, the capacitance fuel gauge will display different levels depending on the
type of fuel in the tank. When the tank is almost empty, the fuel gauge will
be more accurate because air is now the insulating medium and the probe does
not know or care what type of fuel used to be in the tank.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Corner <jcorner(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: KX155/165 Crimp Contacts |
On 2012-01-02, at 10:31 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 12:41 PM 12/31/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Does anyone know the actual part number of the contacts used for the
KX155 connectors? I know they're AMP or Molex, but not the manufacturer
part number....want to avoid paying the exorbitant prices when buying
them thru avionics channels.
>>
>> Appreciate any info! Want to stock up.
>
> This style connector was very popular from the
> time that etched circuit boards became commonplace
> and up until about 20 years ago. The really cool thing
> about this connector technology was the ability to
> fabricate the male portion of the wiring mate-up
> right onto the etched circuit board. This often
> added a demand for special treatment of the male
> "pins" to have them gold plated for resistance to
> corrosion.
>
> AMP, Molex, Cinch, and dozens of others rose to the
> opportunity and offered mating female connectors
> in a variety of pitches . . . but 0.156" spacing
> was popular. This technology is still used in computers
> as many of the accessory boards we plug into a
> mother board have card edge connectors but they tend
> to be much finer pitch.
>
> This configuration of connector fell out of favor for airframe
> harnesses due to the lack of environmental robustness.
> No new radios have been built with this style harness
> connector in quite some time.
>
> As one might expect, most if no all producers of this
> connector have discontinued manufacturing new parts. Due
> to past popularity, there are still many parts of the style
> in new-old-stock inventories but specific parts are becoming
> more difficult to find every year.
>
> The pins are much easier to find than some sizes of
> housing. The pins you're looking for are Molex 4366 series
> p/n 08-05-0302 20-18AWG pins with gold flash.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6nkcv5n
>
> Mouser still seems to have these on hand in some
> quantity.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6sfazya
>
> For individuals looking for a work-around to replace one of
> these connectors (many popular radios using 156 card edge
> connectors are still in service) consider this or some
> similar work around.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6s949t3
> http://tinyurl.com/7zqx4r6
> http://tinyurl.com/6towcwh
>
> 156 pitch connectors in various sizes and styles are readily
> available as new-old-stock and can often be adapted to
> your task of keeping a serviceable radio airworthy.
>
> For a general posting of data on the Molex/Waldom series
> of connectors see:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7t6jjsc
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
Wow. That site refuses to allow me a connection, even to their home page.
David M.
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg elaborated on his
experience with Princeton probes.
>
> But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
> Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My fuel bays
in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition to the whole
tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of accurate measurement
impossible over the tank range when using a linear type (float) sensor.
> I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
> They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty and full
points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance output so you can use
them with your existing gauge.
>
> http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
> Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world experience with
this product, . YMMV.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362237#362237
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
At 10:41 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg
elaborated on his experience with Princeton probes.
But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My
fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in
addition to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any
kind of accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when
using a linear type (float) sensor.
I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty
and full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance
output so you can use them with your existing gauge.
http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
experience with this product, . YMMV.
Capacitively sensed liquid level measurement
has been around for a very long time. This patent
dated in 1937 speaks to liquid level control by
exploiting the variability of capacitance due to
presence or absence of liquid between two plates:
http://tinyurl.com/8xqfqlo
This fuel level meter patent dated 1945 goes to the
idea of calibrating a pointer on an instrument to show
liquid level in the fuel tanks
http://tinyurl.com/6qwfdyr
This idea patented in 1952 speaks to the technique
of tailoring a probe to compensate for tank shape
with the idea of providing a change in capacitance
that is linear and proportional to useable volume
of liquid in the tank.
http://tinyurl.com/6ogp4ve
This one patented in 1965 was aimed at the automotive
market. Too bad it didn't catch on. The float style
gauge in my 2002 Kia is no better than the one in
my 1941 Pontiac.
http://tinyurl.com/86mseoz
This 1973 patent speaks to one of dozens of techniques
for resolving differences in small changes of capacity
into corresponding changes of current to some panel
mounted indicator.
http://tinyurl.com/73dgo2n
The first time I saw a delta-C fuel gaging system was
on the B-52 and 1962. I didn't work that system
but knew fellow techs who did. Got to peek inside
one of the black boxes in the lab . . . lots of vacuum
tubes.
Here's an exemplar schematic for a system several
generations newer than the one in 1960's B-52. These
are hand-built, and a gazillion parts most of
which can affect stability and accuracy of the gaging
system. This configuration went into production in the
early 1980's.
http://tinyurl.com/7hbwkr6
http://tinyurl.com/6mpgdeo
The very last new design study I did for Hawker-Beech was
to explore ways to replace the schematics above. This
prompted a study that continues to this day . . . that has
poor likelihood of finding its way onto an HBC aircraft.
Nonetheless, I can report to you that it takes less than
3% of the parts count to craft a capacitance fuel
gaging system that uses simple, non-compensated capacity
probes. It can be calibrated to the volume vs. shape variances
in software. The system can include a reference probe in
the bottom of the tank that allows the system to measure
dielectric properties of the current load of fuel that
varies with mix and temperature. The best thing is that
there are less than 5 components that have a strong
influence on calibration drifts with temperature and
time.
The project is on a back burner but the client hasn't
abandoned the program . . . if and when the aviation
community climbs out of the crapper, I'm hoping that
we can spool this effort up again.
In any case, know that most of what's being offered
today has roots that go back many decades. Do a search of
http://freepatentsonline.com and you'll find a wealth of
history along with examples that range from rather practical
to bizarre in terms of performance. But devices as
simple as a $1 PIC micro-controller . . . fitted with
well crafted software can do a very good job of
telling you how much fuel is in the tank. Further,
cost of manufacturing is a tiny fraction of that
invested in systems flying on virtually all GA aircraft
today.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Composite aircraft grounding systems. |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
For Bob Nuckolls (or anyone else with knowledge of composite aircraft grounding
systems),
I have recently bought your book, 'The AeroElectric Connection' (12th Edition)
and have also looked at all the FAQ documents and archive posts such as 'Airframe
Grounding' etc. Very, very interesting reading.
I'm starting the electrical system on a Rutan Long-EZ project (all composite as
you will already know). The original builder had built in one copper 1/2 inch
ID tube from front to back and I'm contemplating using it for possibly two purposes,
a) a main earth rail. b) a conduit to carry the main power cable to the
starter. The battery is in the nose and the distance from battery to starter
(B&C light weight) is 14 ft (4.3 metre). Cable suppliers in the U.K. shows #4
as being suitable for starters but B&C responded to my question saying for a
Long-EZ use #2, presumably for voltage drop reasons.
I've settled on the Z-12 setup with a automotive alternator and B&C LR-3 controller
as primary power with a B&C SD-8 system for secondary power. I would like
to seek valued opinions on the following:
Questions:
1. Would having a main power cable inside a copper ground tube generate unforseen
problems (besides lots of sparks if shorted out!).
2. Can I use welding cable instead of the very heavy and very expensive #2 Tefzel
coated aviation cable (circa $15 per foot in the U.K.)
3. Should the Starter solenoid be close to the battery or on the firewall (live
power in the cable only at starting or all the time)
My main concern and objective at the moment is to establish a suitable and reliable
earthing system before moving on to other matters.
Bob, many thanks for your excellent book and resources.
Regards
Mike Dunlop (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362258#362258
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
At 12:02 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
Dan,
I am just starting my wiring diagram on a Tundra w/ IO-360. I have
decided to follow Bob's suggestion to use the Z-12 schematic (dual
alternators, single battery) and I'm assembling the various parts.
While I have worked on the wiring of two Glastars I have never done
anything like this and I am looking to our group for ideas. I have
Bob's book and continue to study it. His statement about the
difference between a 'Schematic' drawing and a 'mechanical' drawing
has really hit home. Just knowing which components belong in the
engine compartment (contactors, shunts, current limiters, ??) and
which to mount on the cockpit side of the firewall and then which to
mount on the panel itself would be a great start on doing a
mechanical drawing. These thoughts may seem vary 'logical' to those
with experience but no so to this novice.
Anyway, I sure appreciate your questions and the answers that have
come forth. Since I could not find your schematic on the list I look
forward to you sending it direct. I will begin to check the archives
for topics on this.
Jim Kinninger
Consider this also:
I don't think I've written about this before but
it was offered in most if not all of my weekend
seminars.
One problem with crafting bundles 'in place' is
getting the first few wires to hold the shape and
routing in the airplane. Lay out your complex bundle
pathways by laying down supporting guide-wires fabricated from
10AWG single strand copper from Home Depot or similar
supplier. Support the guide-wire on small plastic clamps
using the same holes that will ultimately mount the
final compliment of support clamps.
Build your bundles onto these guide wires using tye-wraps
to bring it all together. Cut of the older wraps as new ones
are added. When you're all done, it's a simple matter to
put the final set of wraps or ties on the bundle after
you've cut the guide-wire from the bundle interior. The
temporary support clamps for the guide-wire are replaced
with the real clamps using the same mounting holes.
Building on top of a guide-wire "skeleton" can go a
long way to having your finished wire bundles look like
they came off a well crafted form board.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
You're not along
Dick
In a message dated 1/2/2012 12:53:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ainut(at)knology.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David
Wow. That site refuses to allow me a connection, even to their home page.
David M.
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
"jonlaury"
>
> The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg elaborated
on his experience with Princeton probes.
>
> But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
> Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My
fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition
to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of
accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when using a linear type
(float) sensor.
> I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
> They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty and
full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance output so you
can use them with your existing gauge.
>
> http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
> Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
experience with this product, . YMMV.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362237#362237
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had
morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent
being murdered in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking
it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Composite aircraft grounding systems. |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Mike
I'm building a composite Europa. There's a builder in Canada that put Eric Jones
copper clad wire:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm
inside a copper pipe as you suggest. I don't think he's flying yet, but here are
a few pics:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=78200
I think the yellow with green is heat shrink he added.
The aluminium wire is expensive but will save you some weight. It is not very flexable and fatugues more easily than thin stranded copper. If you need to make hard turns, best use welding cable for that area? I looked into welding cable and www.mcmaster is one resource. The #2 CCA is thicker in diameter compared to Tefzel, but has approx the same resistance.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362262#362262
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Headset microphone level reducer |
Hi All
I have two dissimilar headsets that have very different microphone output levels.
The one headset is an oldish basic Avcomm model, and the other is a new child-sized
one. My MGL radio/intercom doesn't have the ability to reduce the volume
of the new headset adequately.
I've never worked with electret microphones before, so am not sure how to build
a signal reducer. I have noticed that they are polarity sensitive, which leads
me to expect some phantom power is required...?
I need to reduce the volume by about 15dB (according to the MGL radio) to match
the Avcomm. Ideally, I'd like to be able to build a passive circuit that I can
squeeze into the headset itself, rather than an interface box or off-the-shelf
device. This will allow me to use the new headset in other aircraft as the
Avcomm's seem to play nicely with other major brands.
If anyone has some insight, I'd be most appreciative!
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
The boat people deal with crazy shaped tanks. Here is one example
that uses a low tech float/resistor and a smart meter head.
http://www.cruzpro.com/products.html#HEADINGE
PaulW
=====
>At 10:41 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg
>elaborated on his experience with Princeton probes.
>
>But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
>Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks.
>My fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width,
>in addition to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making
>any kind of accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when
>using a linear type (float) sensor.
>I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
>They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty
>and full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance
>output so you can use them with your existing gauge.
>
>http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
>Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
>experience with this product, . YMMV.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Composite aircraft grounding systems. |
M: Bob,
I've just joined the AeroElectric-List and will post the following
when the acount is activated...
I have recently bought your book, 'The AeroElectric Connection' (12th
Edition) and have also looked at all the FAQ documents and archive
posts such as 'Airframe Grounding' etc. Very, very interesting reading.
Thank you.
I'm starting the electrical system on a Rutan Long-EZ project (all
composite as you will already know). The original builder had built
in one copper 1/2 inch ID tube from front to back and I'm
contemplating using it for possibly two purposes, a) a main earth
rail. b) a conduit to carry the main power cable to the starter. The
battery is in the nose and the distance from battery to starter (B&C
light weight) is 14 ft (4.3 metre). Cable suppliers in the U.K. shows
#4 as being suitable for starters but B&C responded to my question
saying for a Long-EZ use #2, presumably for voltage drop reasons.
Correct.
I've settled on the Z-12 setup with a automotive alternator and B&C
LR-3 controler as primary power with a B&C SD-8 system for secondary
power. I would like to seek your valued opinion on the following:
Then you don't want Z-12 but Z-13/8.
Questions:
1. Would having a main power cable inside a copper ground tube
generate unforseen problems.
No, But you do want to craft your tube-to-wiring connections
by soldering copper wrap-around flag terminals to the copper tube.
2. Can I use welding cable instead of the very heavy and expensive #2
Tefzel coated aviation cable (circa $15 per foot in the U.K.)
Absolutely. In fact I prefer it.
3. Should the Starter solinoid be close to the battery or on the
firewall (live power in the cable only at starting or all the time)
Close to the starter. Then use the same feeder
to bring b-lead power up front from the main alternator.
But a current limiter in the b-lead connecting right
were it attaches to the hot-side of the starter contactor
on the firewall.
My main concern and objective at the moment is to establish a
suitable earthing system before moving on to other matters. I could
go on asking questions like this all day but I'm sure you have other
things to do and I need to concentrate on getting this bit sorted first.
The conduit ground system is fine.
Many thanks for your excellent book and resources.
I'm pleased that you find it a good value . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
The Centroid Products site works perfectly for me by following the link
provided by John.
Here is the link he provided again in case this works better for someone
than the original.
http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
and here is their home page if this helps.
http://www.centroidproducts.com
Good luck
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RGent1224(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do
they work?
You're not along
Dick
In a message dated 1/2/2012 12:53:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ainut(at)knology.net writes:
Wow. That site refuses to allow me a connection, even to their home page.
David M.
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg elaborated
on his experience with Princeton probes.
>
> But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
> Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My fuel
bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition to
the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of accurate
measurement impossible over the tank range when using a linear type (float)
sensor.
> I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
> They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty and
full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance output so you
can use them with your existing gauge.
>
> http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
> Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world experience
with this product, . YMMV.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362237#362237
>
>
>
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had
morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent
being murdered in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking
Use ilities ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List
Contribution Web Site p;
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset microphone level reducer |
At 12:29 PM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
Hi All
I have two dissimilar headsets that have very different microphone
output levels. The one headset is an oldish basic Avcomm model, and
the other is a new child-sized one. My MGL radio/intercom doesn't
have the ability to reduce the volume of the new headset adequately.
I've never worked with electret microphones before, so am not sure
how to build a signal reducer. I have noticed that they are polarity
sensitive, which leads me to expect some phantom power is required...?
Are both microphones intended for interface to an aviation
transmitter/intercom inputs? 15 db is a BIG difference.
I need to reduce the volume by about 15dB (according to the MGL
radio) to match the Avcomm. Ideally, I'd like to be able to build a
passive circuit that I can squeeze into the headset itself, rather
than an interface box or off-the-shelf device. This will allow me to
use the new headset in other aircraft as the Avcomm's seem to play
nicely with other major brands.
An aviation microphone, is powered by a bias current
applied to a combination of ELECTRONICS as an amplifier
and the electret microphone element.
If anyone has some insight, I'd be most appreciative!
The goal is to reduce magnitude of signal voltage
without materially upsetting the DC power that is
supplied to the microphone's electronics. I would
suggest a resisteor in series with say a 100uF/10v
capacitor tied right across the microphone's signal/
power wires. We know that the microphone's AC output
impedance is some finite value. Let's assume 1000 ohms.
Okay, you're wanting to attenuate the AC signal by
about 2/3. So the resistor in series with the capacitor
will be 500 ohms or less. This is just an guess/example
and but it's in the ballpark. You can fiddle with the
value of the fixed resistor until the two microphones
demonstrate near equal performance.
Having a capacitor in series with the resistor will
keep the AC load resistor from also affecting the
DC power that comes out of the radio or intercom to
power the microphone.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Sherburn" <dsherburn(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Great idea on how to construct the wire harnes.....Thanks for the
information!
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Harness
>
>
> At 12:02 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
> Dan,
> I am just starting my wiring diagram on a Tundra w/ IO-360. I have decided
> to follow Bob's suggestion to use the Z-12 schematic (dual alternators,
> single battery) and I'm assembling the various parts. While I have worked
> on the wiring of two Glastars I have never done anything like this and I
> am looking to our group for ideas. I have Bob's book and continue to study
> it. His statement about the difference between a 'Schematic' drawing and a
> 'mechanical' drawing has really hit home. Just knowing which components
> belong in the engine compartment (contactors, shunts, current limiters,
> ??) and which to mount on the cockpit side of the firewall and then which
> to mount on the panel itself would be a great start on doing a mechanical
> drawing. These thoughts may seem vary 'logical' to those with experience
> but no so to this novice.
> Anyway, I sure appreciate your questions and the answers that have come
> forth. Since I could not find your schematic on the list I look forward to
> you sending it direct. I will begin to check the archives for topics on
> this.
> Jim Kinninger
>
> Consider this also:
>
> I don't think I've written about this before but
> it was offered in most if not all of my weekend
> seminars.
>
> One problem with crafting bundles 'in place' is
> getting the first few wires to hold the shape and
> routing in the airplane. Lay out your complex bundle
> pathways by laying down supporting guide-wires fabricated from
> 10AWG single strand copper from Home Depot or similar
> supplier. Support the guide-wire on small plastic clamps
> using the same holes that will ultimately mount the
> final compliment of support clamps.
>
> Build your bundles onto these guide wires using tye-wraps
> to bring it all together. Cut of the older wraps as new ones
> are added. When you're all done, it's a simple matter to
> put the final set of wraps or ties on the bundle after
> you've cut the guide-wire from the bundle interior. The
> temporary support clamps for the guide-wire are replaced
> with the real clamps using the same mounting holes.
>
> Building on top of a guide-wire "skeleton" can go a
> long way to having your finished wire bundles look like
> they came off a well crafted form board.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I've been using a Westach cap sender in a plastic fuel tank for the last 6
years.
http://www.westach.com/
It has low and high pots on the top of the sender and, once set, seems to
work consistently from fill to fill. I changed out tanks during an extended
annual three years ago (old ones were yellowed and had bottom taps that I
didn't trust) and I had to shorten the probe a tad, but well within
Westach's specs. Adjusted the pots for the new length and flew on.
Because of the height of the body of the sender unit they aren't easily
utilized in a wing tank, but for a fuselage or header tank where you have
~1" of space above the tank top they would be fine. Sorry I have no info on
how well they would deal with another vendor's gauge, but a sample of their
instruction sheet is here.
http://www.westach.com/instructions/395-240OHM-P1.jpg
Rick Girard
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Bob McCallum
wrote:
> ** ** **
>
> *The Centroid Products site works perfectly for me by following the link
> provided by John.*
>
> * *
>
> *Here is the link he provided again in case this works better for someone
> than the original.*
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm*
>
> * *
>
> *and** here is their home page if this helps.*
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.centroidproducts.com*
>
> * *
>
> *Good luck*
>
> *Bob McC*
>
> * *
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *
> RGent1224(at)aol.com
> *Sent:* Monday, January 02, 2012 2:14 PM
> *To:* **aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com**
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How
> do they work?****
>
> ** **
>
> You're not along****
>
> Dick****
>
> ****
>
> In a message dated 1/2/2012 12:53:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> ainut(at)knology.net writes:****
>
>
> Wow. That site refuses to allow me a connection, even to their home page.
>
> David M.
>
>
> jonlaury wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"<
> jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
> >
> > The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg elaborated
> on his experience with **Princeton** probes.
> >
> > But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
> > Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My
> fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition
> to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of
> accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when using a linear
> type (float) sensor.
> > I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
> > They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty and
> full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance output so you
> can use them with your existing gauge.
> >
> > http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
> >
> > Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
> experience with this product, . YMMV.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362237#362237
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
>
> I liked ****America**** when it was free and it's people were responsible
> and had morals.
>
> Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent
> being murdered in Central and **South America**. Grow your own or Stop
> taking = Use ilities ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site p;
>
> **
> ******
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> * - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -*
>
> * - List Contribution Web Site -*
>
> * -Matt Dralle, List Admin.*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Radio Shack sels (or usedc to, anyway...) temporary velcro wire bundle tie straps.
Very, very convenient and reuseable.
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Composite aircraft grounding systems. |
Mike and the group:
Regarding the the placement of the starter solenoid there is, as usual,
more than one way to skin this cat. There are some trade-offs. Bob's
recommendation to put the solenoid back by the starter and use the one
big feed line for both the starter supply and Alternator B lead, which I
think is a good one for many people, eliminates an otherwise needed
additional wire (#8 in my case) for the alternator B lead running from
the alternator back to the bus and thus saves it's weight.
My LongEz was flying when purchased but I immediately grounded it and
spent ~4 years reworking it before putting it back in the air again.
It's been flying it since August '11. When I totally replaced the
electrical system in the my LongEz, I read the book, considered all the
options, posted lots of question on the forum and I ended up with the
planned location for the starter solenoid up front. Here's why:
My goal, in recognition that I was new to experimentals in general and
LongEzs in particular, was to stick pretty close to the plans and owners
manual authored by Burt unless they had been superseded by CPs, or a
perceived (and well reasoned) consensus on the yahoo group
canardaviators. With that in mind, I wanted all my initial flight
testing without a starter (even though it had one when I bought it) to
keep the CG as far forward as I could and keep it as light as possible.
I haven't yet installed the heavy feed or return cables back to the
firewall that will be required if I later reinstall the starter.
I did, keeping a future installation in mind, reserve space up front for
the starter solenoid and I kept the #8 firewall return (i.e. ground)
wire separate from the laced bundle going back to the firewall so that
it would be easy to replace it with welding wire (or CCA) later if required.
The two biggest reasons I went this route is that, when I am running
without the starter as I am now, I'm not carrying around the heavier
wire and it allowed me to protect the #8 B-wire with an ANL up near the
master relay and battery so that I didn't have an unprotected
high-current feed running from the master relay (or buss) all the way
back to the firewall. As I understand it (and Bob is the authority
here, not me) there is nothing wrong with having the unprotected feed
from the buss going all the way back to the firewall but I was more
comfortable not doing so. Another benefit was that I could keep all
this stuff together up in the nose (which is also where I moved the
regulator) rather than back on the firewall (which is already crowded
enough on a LongEz, esp. if you have electronic ignition as I do).
If and when I do re-install the starter, the downside for going the
route that I did is that I'll be carrying around a single extra #8 wire
running from back to front. That wasn't a problem for me given that
I'll also be adding two long lines of welding wire and a starter at that
time as well... A purest might reconfigure at that time to the
configuration Bob recommended to save the weight of the #8 wire. I won't.
btw: I recommend both the canardaviators forum and Central States
Association. There is a lot of good information out there on LongEzs
beyond the plans and CPs but it takes some digging to get to it.
In completing your LongEz be sure to be more concerned about "completion
drag" than "aerodynamic drag". Anything you do that hasn't already been
done before, and been well documented in the process, will cost you more
time (i.e. be a drag on getting your bird flying) than you imagine...
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07) and flying again (8/11!): N45FC O235 Longeze
Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
How about building the harness on a template. That way it can be built
outside the aircraft tested and inspected before instalation.
Regards
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Harness
>
>
> Radio Shack sels (or usedc to, anyway...) temporary velcro wire bundle tie
> straps. Very, very convenient and reuseable.
>
> Glen Matejcek
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Composite aircraft grounding systems. |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I sell lots of Copper-Clad Aluminum cable to 300 mph fuel dragster and racecar
builders, weird groups doing strange things where the weight is important. I even
sell the stuff to the companies building remote-controlled drones. Predator
drones and the more advance secret stuff...
Airbus and Boeing use similar CCA configurations.
I sell Super-2-CCA, Super-4-CCA, AWG-6-CCA (same dimensions as AWG-6 but CCA with
Tefzel insulation), and Super-CCA RG+142
See my website. CCA is 60% the weight of copper for the same conductivity.
If you have the battery on the firewall, you are okay. Otherwise, use CCA.
Also see Bob's most excellent article, http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
and on my website: http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires_files/Coppercables.pdf
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362332#362332
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Home Depot and Lowes have them
Dick
In a message dated 1/3/2012 8:37:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net writes:
temporary velcro wire bundle tie straps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
In a message dated 1/3/2012 8:37:11 A.M. Central Standard
Time, aerobubba(at)earthlink.net writes:
temporary velcro wire bundle tie straps
I have found that the hook and loop straps used by
many supermarkets to wrap leaf lettuce and other produce are great for
temporary bundle ties, and they are cheap. =98=BA
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
At 09:37 AM 1/3/2012, you wrote:
>
>How about building the harness on a template. That way it can be
>built outside the aircraft tested and inspected before instalation.
That IS how the 'big' guys do it. But they often build the proof
of concept harness in the airplane, take it out and build
a form-board to match it. Even with full 3-D CAD systems, it's
difficult to build a first-article that really fits the airplane
the way the craftsmen would like it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mark donahue" <markdonahue(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Diodes on soleniods |
I am building an RV 9, and wiring per Van's wiring diagram. The diagram
does not show diodes on the starter or master relay, but the accessories
catalog lists "protection" Diodes to be installed to protect the master and
starter switches for surge protection. Sounds like this is a good thing to
install. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Mark Donahue
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Headset microphone level reducer |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Bob!
That's exactly the kind of circuit I was looking for. I'll get back to you on it's
effectiveness.
The new child headset is supposedly an aviation one, and the destination is an
aviation MGL radio, so one would have hoped that there wouldn't be such a large
discrepancy in levels!
Thanks again
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
seems what this world[or at least me] needs is a gps driven directional
gyro. i know that most gps units have part of a compass rose displayed but
for the price of a mechanical one i would think a plain simple dg that
mounts in a conventional 3'' hole and is gps driven would be cheap and
popular.
or at least a program to drive a palm pilot, tapping off the gps of
another unit.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Bob (Noffs),=0A=0AMost GPS units made over the last 10 years, or so, have t
hat exact feature.- The difference being that they don't display on a sep
arate instrument.=0A=0AOf course, the likely reason that this hasn't been m
arketed as a replacement for the old DG is that it's not really the same as
a DG.- A DG shows heading, while a GPS only knows track (derived from su
ccessive positions).- Depending on wind conditions and your airspeed, tho
se two can differ by a considerable amount.=0A=0A-=0ADoug Ilg=0AGrumman T
iger N74818, College Park-Airport (KCGS), Maryland=0AChallenger II LSS LW
(N641LG-reserved)-- kit underway at Laurel Suburban (W18)=0Ado not arc
hive=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: bob no
ffs =0A>To: aeroelectric list =0A>Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 6:59 AM=0A>Subject: AeroElectri
c-List:=0A> =0A>=0A>seems what this world[or at least me] needs is a gps dr
iven directional gyro. i know that most gps units have part of a compass ro
se displayed but for the price of a mechanical one i would think a plain si
mple dg that mounts in a conventional 3'' hole and is gps driven would be c
heap and popular. =0A>- or at least a program to drive a palm pilot, tapp
ing off the gps of another unit.=0A>-- bob noffs=0A>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Good Morning Ken,
You said:
"Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the Aeroelectric
list, I would like to comment.
If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
with a legal compass heading.
Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed or
manually rotatable loop and compass.
No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is marginal,)
it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
Just sayin' nothin' else
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 10:01:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
Several degrees of error can become problematical for
things like an RNAV NDB approach.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Hmmm.... I thought we could substitute an ifr gps for adf in ndb approaches.
When you say compass, do you mean magnetically derived heading?
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:27, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Ken,
>
> You said:
> "Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
>
> While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the Aeroelectric l
ist, I would like to comment.
>
> If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an N
DB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined wi
th a legal compass heading.
>
> Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed o
r manually rotatable loop and compass.
>
> No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
>
> If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to' d
estination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice to
know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is marginal,) it
pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
>
> Just sayin' nothin' else
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 1/4/2012 10:01:16 A.M. Central Standard Time, klehman@a
lbedo.net writes:
> Several degrees of error can become problematical for
> things like an RNAV NDB approach.
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work? |
The sensors are in fact just two rings of metal like a sleeve one inside the
other. Fuel has a particular dielectric value so with increase in fuel
level the capacitance of the sleeves one to the other changes.
Why you would want one? There are several reasons. One is by varying the
shape of the rings you can make a sensor that will compensate for an odd
shape of tank. You can also wire more than one sensor in parallel to give
accurate readings on a tank that can hold a fair amount of fuel and still
have one end of the tank completely dry. For instance in an aircraft that
has considerable dihedral and wet wings.
Finally in all capacitive systems there is a calibration probe which has to
be installed at the bottom of the tank. Water has a completely different
dielectric constant from fuel so if any water gets into your tanks and even
partially submerges this probe a light will immediately alert you.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Luckey
Sent: January 2, 2012 1:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they work?
How do capacitive fuel sensors work?
Can someone give me the general theory of operation, what type of signal
does the transducer produce? Why do I want one? Etc?
TIA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
In other words, using a template or form board is a mass production
technique. Kind of the opposite of what we are doing in the OBAM world.
Conversely, it would seem reasonable to think we can do a superior job
with our hand built, single craftsman approach. Of course our amateur
skills may cancel out any skilled craftsman advantage.
Bill "reflecting on the joys of OBAM aircraft" Watson
>>
>> How about building the harness on a template. That way it can be
>> built outside the aircraft tested and inspected before instalation.
>
> That IS how the 'big' guys do it. But they often build the proof
> of concept harness in the airplane, take it out and build
> a form-board to match it. Even with full 3-D CAD systems, it's
> difficult to build a first-article that really fits the airplane
> the way the craftsmen would like it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Yes, what Bob said.
I'm thinking that track is better than heading. And if I recall
correctly, when many of those NDB approaches had GPS overlays a few
years ago, you didn't require an ADF (or the ability to fly a mag
heading), you just used a certified GPS to fly the NDB tracks. (do any
of those still exist - the ones I used to fly are all replaced by RNAV T
approaches)
I guess what you are getting at is that you'd like to avoid having to
install a DG by using a GPS driven instrument.
My glass panel gives me mag headings from the EFIS's AHRS system and
allows me to easily follow vectors. Otherwise, I don't have a whiskey
compass or vacuum driven heading instrument. The key question is what
happens with an electronics failure... well I have a GRT ADI instrument
with a GPS and an independent backup battery. It just gives me a
digital track readout along with turn coordinator function and a
quasi-horizon. I can't follow a mag heading but I can fly a track
pretty darn accurately.
Bill "not completely off-topic" Watson
On 1/4/2012 11:27 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Ken,
> You said:
> "Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an
> RNAV NDB approach."
> While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the
> Aeroelectric list, I would like to comment.
> If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting
> an NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF
> combined with a legal compass heading.
> Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a
> fixed or manually rotatable loop and compass.
> No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
> If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute
> the approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the
> 'go to' destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is
> always nice to know, (it helps us determine where to look when
> visibility is marginal,) it pales in importance to staying on track
> toward the airport.
> Just sayin' nothin' else
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> I
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hall Effect Current Sensor with Z13/8 |
| From: | "Bob Marshall" <marshall6916(at)sbcglobal.net> |
My RV6A is being built based on Z13/8 with dual Dynon EFIS and an SD-8 back up
alternator. Dynon has just updated its EFIS to allow installation of the GRT
CS-01 Hall Effect Current Sensor (in addition to the standard loadmeter shunt
at the alternator) and I was wondering what the consensus was as to where to place
it. I want to read total amps being used when the main alternator is off
line. So, my initial thought would be to place it on the main (#2 AWG) conductor
from the Battery to the Battery Contactor. This would give me total amps
with the Main Alternator on-line and total amps with the main off-line and the
SD8 on- line?
I could also place it exactly where the shunt is shown for the SD-8 and that would
just give me SD8 output?
Thanks for any thoughts on this.
Bob
--------
RV-6A construction resumed. Planning electrical and building wing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362405#362405
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/amp_he_rev_b_156.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Hi Bill, Bob
Actually we build both high volume and low volume harnesses at my company.
Almost all of the harnesses we build use a harness board. Non of the harness
drawings, of the thousands we build were developed with 3d cad, all were
done in 2d. Attached is a small harness drawing with a wire run list in pdf
format for everyone to look at. Qty 2, 4 x 8 sheets of plywood end to end
could simulate the fusalage of most planes. My intension is to give people
ideas that may help. I am not trying to sell anything.
the link is to my website and shows some pictures of completed harnesses.
http://www.advanceddesign.com/products_harnesscable.html
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Watson" <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Harness
>
>
> In other words, using a template or form board is a mass production
> technique. Kind of the opposite of what we are doing in the OBAM world.
>
> Conversely, it would seem reasonable to think we can do a superior job
> with our hand built, single craftsman approach. Of course our amateur
> skills may cancel out any skilled craftsman advantage.
>
> Bill "reflecting on the joys of OBAM aircraft" Watson
>>>
>>> How about building the harness on a template. That way it can be built
>>> outside the aircraft tested and inspected before instalation.
>>
>> That IS how the 'big' guys do it. But they often build the proof
>> of concept harness in the airplane, take it out and build
>> a form-board to match it. Even with full 3-D CAD systems, it's
>> difficult to build a first-article that really fits the airplane
>> the way the craftsmen would like it.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Good Morning Bill,
Just a little bit more off topic if I may.
The overlay program was instituted to get a lot of early use out of GPS
approaches. When you executed an overlay approach. all the guidance was
strictly via GPS. The only thing used from the ADF approach was the minima. Many
divisions of the FAA were strongly against the overlay program and the FAA
is now removing the overlays as fast as practical. Very few still exist.
In most cases, the new approach which replaces the overlay will have better
minima, bit not always.
To pat myself on the back just a bit, I do have some expertise on that
program. I was an early adopter and fought hard for the use of GPS In Lieu of
ADF and DME. With the help of Randy Kenagy and Phil Boyer of ALPA . We got
it done. I was contacted by a gentleman named Bob Wright who was in the
position within the FAA to get the job done. It took almost a year, but we did
get that permission and I am VERY proud of what we got done. If you get to
the correct FAA FED, things can work correctly
Happy Skies.
Old Bragging Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:39:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
Yes, what Bob said.
I'm thinking that track is better than heading. And if I recall
correctly, when many of those NDB approaches had GPS overlays a few years ago,
you
didn't require an ADF (or the ability to fly a mag heading), you just used a
certified GPS to fly the NDB tracks. (do any of those still exist - the
ones I used to fly are all replaced by RNAV T approaches)
I guess what you are getting at is that you'd like to avoid having to
install a DG by using a GPS driven instrument.
My glass panel gives me mag headings from the EFIS's AHRS system and
allows me to easily follow vectors. Otherwise, I don't have a whiskey compass
or vacuum driven heading instrument. The key question is what happens with
an electronics failure... well I have a GRT ADI instrument with a GPS and
an independent backup battery. It just gives me a digital track readout
along with turn coordinator function and a quasi-horizon. I can't follow a
mag heading but I can fly a track pretty darn accurately.
Bill "not completely off-topic" Watson
On 1/4/2012 11:27 AM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
Good Morning Ken,
You said:
"Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the AeroElectric
list, I would like to comment.
If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
with a legal compass heading.
Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed
or manually rotatable loop and compass.
No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is
marginal,) it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
Just sayin' nothin' else
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
I
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Yeah, until the 4G phones get installed.
bob noffs wrote:
> seems what this world[or at least me] needs is a gps driven
> directional gyro. i know that most gps units have part of a compass
> rose displayed but for the price of a mechanical one i would think a
> plain simple dg that mounts in a conventional 3'' hole and is gps
> driven would be cheap and popular.
> or at least a program to drive a palm pilot, tapping off the gps of
> another unit.
> bob noffs
> *
>
>
> *
--
Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself.
I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals.
Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered
in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Good Morning -- Is it Jared?
The GPS cannot be used in lieu of an ADF for an ADF approach.
It can be used for all other functions of the ADF, but not when the ADF is
the basis for the approach.
If there is a published overlay, then the overlay approach can be executed.
We tried to get permission to use it as you suggest, but the FEDs were
firm. They told us that all ADF approaches would either get an overlay or a
GPS approach that had better minima. While most have been handled that way,
many have not.
Does NOT make sense, but them's the rules.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS Incidentally, there are no longer any NDB approaches. They were all
converted to ADF.
In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:07:31 A.M. Central Standard Time,
email(at)jaredyates.com writes:
Hmmm.... I thought we could substitute an ifr gps for adf in ndb
approaches. When you say compass, do you mean magnetically derived heading?
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:27, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Good Morning Ken,
You said:
"Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the Aeroelectric
list, I would like to comment.
If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
with a legal compass heading.
Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed
or manually rotatable loop and compass.
No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is
marginal,) it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
Just sayin' nothin' else
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 10:01:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_klehman(at)albedo.net_ (mailto:klehman(at)albedo.net) writes:
Several degrees of error can become problematical for
things like an RNAV NDB approach.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Good Afternoon,
Just realized you asked a second question which I failed to address.
ADF approaches are based on having good magnetically derived heading
information. The approaches are not based on true courses as back when such
approaches were developed, there was no practical way to get other than a
magnetically derived heading in the airplane. When we use a Directional Gyro, we
set it by the magnetic compass. Many modern units use a flux gate compass,
but that is still magnetic. The DGs just provide stability that is
difficult to get using a pure magnetic compass.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:07:31 A.M. Central Standard Time,
email(at)jaredyates.com writes:
Hmmm.... I thought we could substitute an ifr gps for adf in ndb
approaches. When you say compass, do you mean magnetically derived heading?
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:27, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Good Morning Ken,
You said:
"Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the Aeroelectric
list, I would like to comment.
If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
with a legal compass heading.
Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed
or manually rotatable loop and compass.
No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is
marginal,) it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
Just sayin' nothin' else
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 10:01:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_klehman(at)albedo.net_ (mailto:klehman(at)albedo.net) writes:
Several degrees of error can become problematical for
things like an RNAV NDB approach.
D=========
(mip://0aa914f8/3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List")
D=========
(mip://0aa914f8/3D"http://forums.matronics.com")
D=========
(mip://0aa914f8/3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution")
D=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Well thanks Bob!
I for one fully exploited the overlay program. It allowed me to upgrade
my Maule panel with a G300XL and not include an ADF. I did my training
without ever having to learn to use and ADF and yet was able to take
great advantage of all the ADF/overlay approaches for both training and
travel.
Now they seem quaint with RNAV T approaches, WAAS, and a 2 axis AP.
Bill
> Good Morning Bill,
> Just a little bit more off topic if I may.
> The overlay program was instituted to get a lot of early use out of
> GPS approaches. When you executed an overlay approach. all the
> guidance was strictly via GPS. The only thing used from the ADF
> approach was the minima. Many divisions of the FAA were strongly
> against the overlay program and the FAA is now removing the overlays
> as fast as practical. Very few still exist. In most cases, the new
> approach which replaces the overlay will have better minima, bit not
> always.
> To pat myself on the back just a bit, I do have some expertise on that
> program. I was an early adopter and fought hard for the use of GPS In
> Lieu of ADF and DME. With the help of Randy Kenagy and Phil Boyer of
> ALPA . We got it done. I was contacted by a gentleman named Bob Wright
> who was in the position within the FAA to get the job done. It took
> almost a year, but we did get that permission and I am VERY proud of
> what we got done. If you get to the correct FAA FED, things can work
> correctly
> Happy Skies.
> Old Bragging Bob
> In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:39:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
>
> Yes, what Bob said.
>
> I'm thinking that track is better than heading. And if I recall
> correctly, when many of those NDB approaches had GPS overlays a
> few years ago, you didn't require an ADF (or the ability to fly a
> mag heading), you just used a certified GPS to fly the NDB
> tracks. (do any of those still exist - the ones I used to fly are
> all replaced by RNAV T approaches)
>
> I guess what you are getting at is that you'd like to avoid having
> to install a DG by using a GPS driven instrument.
>
> My glass panel gives me mag headings from the EFIS's AHRS system
> and allows me to easily follow vectors. Otherwise, I don't have a
> whiskey compass or vacuum driven heading instrument. The key
> question is what happens with an electronics failure... well I
> have a GRT ADI instrument with a GPS and an independent backup
> battery. It just gives me a digital track readout along with turn
> coordinator function and a quasi-horizon. I can't follow a mag
> heading but I can fly a track pretty darn accurately.
>
> Bill "not completely off-topic" Watson
>
> On 1/4/2012 11:27 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning Ken,
>> You said:
>> "Several degrees of error can become problematical for things
>> like an RNAV NDB approach."
>> While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the
>> AeroElectric list, I would like to comment.
>> If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of
>> shooting an NDB approach and the only method currently legal is
>> to use an ADF combined with a legal compass heading.
>> Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just
>> a fixed or manually rotatable loop and compass.
>> No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
>> If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to
>> execute the approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport
>> location as the 'go to' destination and fly the track to the
>> airport. While heading is always nice to know, (it helps us
>> determine where to look when visibility is marginal,) it pales in
>> importance to staying on track toward the airport.
>> Just sayin' nothin' else
>> **
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Good Afternoon Bill,
That GNC300XL is a very good box at a reasonable price. Garmin did
discontinue production about a year ago, but it is still supported and current
data base updates are available. I have one in my Stearman and am very happy
with it.
You can still shoot all of the LNAV approaches. Every WAAS approach I know
of has either an LNAV associated with it or there is a standalone LNAV to
the same runway. Those Advisory Only glide paths are fun to fly, but it is
my contention that the classic dive and drive technique will result in many
more safely completed approaches.
Check out the Advisory Only glide path on the N23 Rwy 7 approach. If
someone should happen to follow that glide path below the MDA, they will hit
solid rock prior to the runway threshold.
The 300XL should be good for several more years.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 1:53:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com writes:
Well thanks Bob!
I for one fully exploited the overlay program. It allowed me to upgrade
my Maule panel with a G300XL and not include an ADF. I did my training
without ever having to learn to use and ADF and yet was able to take great
advantage of all the ADF/overlay approaches for both training and travel.
Now they seem quaint with RNAV T approaches, WAAS, and a 2 axis AP.
Bill
Good Morning Bill,
Just a little bit more off topic if I may.
The overlay program was instituted to get a lot of early use out of GPS
approaches. When you executed an overlay approach. all the guidance was
strictly via GPS. The only thing used from the ADF approach was the minima.
Many divisions of the FAA were strongly against the overlay program and the
FAA is now removing the overlays as fast as practical. Very few still exist.
In most cases, the new approach which replaces the overlay will have better
minima, bit not always.
To pat myself on the back just a bit, I do have some expertise on that
program. I was an early adopter and fought hard for the use of GPS In Lieu of
ADF and DME. With the help of Randy Kenagy and Phil Boyer of ALPA . We got
it done. I was contacted by a gentleman named Bob Wright who was in the
position within the FAA to get the job done. It took almost a year, but we did
get that permission and I am VERY proud of what we got done. If you get to
the correct FAA FED, things can work correctly
Happy Skies.
Old Bragging Bob
In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:39:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com_ (mailto:Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com) writes:
Yes, what Bob said.
I'm thinking that track is better than heading. And if I recall
correctly, when many of those NDB approaches had GPS overlays a few years ago,
you
didn't require an ADF (or the ability to fly a mag heading), you just used a
certified GPS to fly the NDB tracks. (do any of those still exist - the
ones I used to fly are all replaced by RNAV T approaches)
I guess what you are getting at is that you'd like to avoid having to
install a DG by using a GPS driven instrument.
My glass panel gives me mag headings from the EFIS's AHRS system and
allows me to easily follow vectors. Otherwise, I don't have a whiskey compass
or vacuum driven heading instrument. The key question is what happens with
an electronics failure... well I have a GRT ADI instrument with a GPS and
an independent backup battery. It just gives me a digital track readout
along with turn coordinator function and a quasi-horizon. I can't follow a
mag heading but I can fly a track pretty darn accurately.
Bill "not completely off-topic" Watson
On 1/4/2012 11:27 AM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
Good Morning Ken,
You said:
"Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
NDB approach."
While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the AeroElectric
list, I would like to comment.
If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
with a legal compass heading.
Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed
or manually rotatable loop and compass.
No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is
marginal,) it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
Just sayin' nothin' else
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
When a boat or ship leaves port the skipper and the navigator know exactly
how much fuel is on board...All they need is a flow meter to calculate how
much fuel they have on board. Aircraft however also like to know exactly
how much fuel is in each tank even if there is a break in a fuel line. That
requires an accurate method of measuring the fuel in the tank, in the air.
There are only two recognized methods; Capacitance fuel gauges and drip
sticks.... Drip sticks don't work in the air.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul
wilson
Sent: January 2, 2012 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do
they work?
The boat people deal with crazy shaped tanks. Here is one example
that uses a low tech float/resistor and a smart meter head.
http://www.cruzpro.com/products.html#HEADINGE
PaulW
=====
>At 10:41 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg
>elaborated on his experience with Princeton probes.
>
>But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
>Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks.
>My fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width,
>in addition to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making
>any kind of accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when
>using a linear type (float) sensor.
>I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
>They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty
>and full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance
>output so you can use them with your existing gauge.
>
>http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
>Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
>experience with this product, . YMMV.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 14 volt bus / voltage regulator? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
Looking for a voltage regulator recommendation:
I need a small 14 volt bus bar in order to service ray allen servos and
maybe a couple other 14 volt devices. I will be running a 28 volt system
and would prefer to have a separate 14 volt bus. If anyone has any
recommendations, or tips on how to go about servicing disparate voltage
components, I=B9m much obliged --
Thank you,
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
Nice!
What strikes me about your low volume capabilities is what a colleague
of mine coined some years ago, "Mass Customization". The ability to
take advantage of specialization and mass production down to quantity = 1.
Bill
On 1/4/2012 1:15 PM, Ron Raby wrote:
> Hi Bill, Bob
>
> Actually we build both high volume and low volume harnesses at my
> company. Almost all of the harnesses we build use a harness board. Non
> of the harness drawings, of the thousands we build were developed with
> 3d cad, all were done in 2d. Attached is a small harness drawing with
> a wire run list in pdf format for everyone to look at. Qty 2, 4 x 8
> sheets of plywood end to end could simulate the fusalage of most
> planes. My intension is to give people ideas that may help. I am not
> trying to sell anything.
> the link is to my website and shows some pictures of completed harnesses.
>
> http://www.advanceddesign.com/products_harnesscable.html
>
> Regards
>
> Ron Raby
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Watson" <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Harness
>
>
>>
>>
>> In other words, using a template or form board is a mass production
>> technique. Kind of the opposite of what we are doing in the OBAM world.
>>
>> Conversely, it would seem reasonable to think we can do a superior
>> job with our hand built, single craftsman approach. Of course our
>> amateur skills may cancel out any skilled craftsman advantage.
>>
>> Bill "reflecting on the joys of OBAM aircraft" Watson
>>>>
>>>> How about building the harness on a template. That way it can be
>>>> built outside the aircraft tested and inspected before instalation.
>>>
>>> That IS how the 'big' guys do it. But they often build the proof
>>> of concept harness in the airplane, take it out and build
>>> a form-board to match it. Even with full 3-D CAD systems, it's
>>> difficult to build a first-article that really fits the airplane
>>> the way the craftsmen would like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 14 volt bus / voltage regulator? |
Ray Allen makes a 12V regulator just for 28V aircraft, P/N REG-1.
Otherwise we've installed something like this for 12V items:
http://www.wmjmarine.com/vtc60-24-12.html
These days you can't really get by without a few 12V outlets.
When we had the luxury, we've gone so far as to install a complete 12V
battery and alternator, but that was on a turbine with lots of spare drive
pads.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Andy Hawes wrote:
> Looking for a voltage regulator recommendation:
>
> I need a small 14 volt bus bar in order to service ray allen servos and
> maybe a couple other 14 volt devices. I will be running a 28 volt system
> and would prefer to have a separate 14 volt bus. If anyone has any
> recommendations, or tips on how to go about servicing disparate voltage
> components, I=99m much obliged --
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andy
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
For those of us with a high-wing, we also get to use a third option of
optical quantity indication.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
>
> When a boat or ship leaves port the skipper and the navigator know exactly
> how much fuel is on board...All they need is a flow meter to calculate how
> much fuel they have on board. Aircraft however also like to know exactly
> how much fuel is in each tank even if there is a break in a fuel line.
> That
> requires an accurate method of measuring the fuel in the tank, in the air.
> There are only two recognized methods; Capacitance fuel gauges and drip
> sticks.... Drip sticks don't work in the air.
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul
> wilson
> Sent: January 2, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do
> they work?
>
>
> The boat people deal with crazy shaped tanks. Here is one example
> that uses a low tech float/resistor and a smart meter head.
> http://www.cruzpro.com/products.html#HEADINGE
> PaulW
> =====
>
> >At 10:41 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg
> >elaborated on his experience with Princeton probes.
> >
> >But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
> >Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks.
> >My fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width,
> >in addition to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making
> >any kind of accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when
> >using a linear type (float) sensor.
> >I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
> >They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty
> >and full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance
> >output so you can use them with your existing gauge.
> >
> >http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
> >
> >Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
> >experience with this product, . YMMV.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
You are correct, we can't substitute GPS unless the approach title includes
"or GPS," indicating that it is an overlay.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
> **
> Good Morning -- Is it Jared?
>
> The GPS cannot be used in lieu of an ADF for an ADF approach.
>
> It can be used for all other functions of the ADF, but not when the ADF is
> the basis for the approach.
>
> If there is a published overlay, then the overlay approach can be
> executed. We tried to get permission to use it as you suggest, but the FEDs
> were firm. They told us that all ADF approaches would either get an overlay
> or a GPS approach that had better minima. While most have been handled that
> way, many have not.
>
> Does NOT make sense, but them's the rules.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> PS Incidentally, there are no longer any NDB approaches. They were all
> converted to ADF.
>
> In a message dated 1/4/2012 11:07:31 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> email(at)jaredyates.com writes:
>
> Hmmm.... I thought we could substitute an ifr gps for adf in ndb
> approaches. When you say compass, do you mean magnetically derived heading?
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:27, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning Ken,
>
> You said:
> "Several degrees of error can become problematical for things like an RNAV
> NDB approach."
>
> While this is getting quite far away from a subject for the Aeroelectric
> list, I would like to comment.
>
> If we are flying IFR, it would seem we need a legal method of shooting an
> NDB approach and the only method currently legal is to use an ADF combined
> with a legal compass heading.
>
> Once upon a time, we were legal to shoot that approach with just a fixed
> or manually rotatable loop and compass.
>
> No longer true. We must have an ADF and a compass.
>
> If we are cheating and want to use a GPS, even a legal GPS, to execute the
> approach, it would be pertinent to set the airport location as the 'go to'
> destination and fly the track to the airport. While heading is always nice
> to know, (it helps us determine where to look when visibility is marginal,)
> it pales in importance to staying on track toward the airport.
>
> Just sayin' nothin' else
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 1/4/2012 10:01:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> klehman(at)albedo.net writes:
>
> Several degrees of error can become problematical for
> things like an RNAV NDB approach.
>
> *
>
> *
>
> **
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
True if your seat is close to the wing as in my Kitfox...You got me!
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jared
Yates
Sent: January 4, 2012 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do
they work?
For those of us with a high-wing, we also get to use a third option of
optical quantity indication.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
When a boat or ship leaves port the skipper and the navigator know exactly
how much fuel is on board...All they need is a flow meter to calculate how
much fuel they have on board. Aircraft however also like to know exactly
how much fuel is in each tank even if there is a break in a fuel line. That
requires an accurate method of measuring the fuel in the tank, in the air.
There are only two recognized methods; Capacitance fuel gauges and drip
sticks.... Drip sticks don't work in the air.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul
wilson
Sent: January 2, 2012 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do
they work?
The boat people deal with crazy shaped tanks. Here is one example
that uses a low tech float/resistor and a smart meter head.
http://www.cruzpro.com/products.html#HEADINGE
PaulW
=====
>At 10:41 AM 1/2/2012, you wrote:
>
>The electronics have been explained by Joe and Sarg, and Sarg
>elaborated on his experience with Princeton probes.
>
>But the reason for installing cap probes has gone unanswered.
>Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks.
>My fuel bays in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width,
>in addition to the whole tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making
>any kind of accurate measurement impossible over the tank range when
>using a linear type (float) sensor.
>I have installed 8' Centroid probes. Haven't fueled them yet.
>They come with two small potentiometers built in to adjust the empty
>and full points. Available in 0-5v output and various resistance
>output so you can use them with your existing gauge.
>
>http://www.centroidproducts.com/tableofc.htm
>
>Not a recommendation, just a resource, as I have no real world
>experience with this product, . YMMV.
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 25 stainbless cable ties for 5$ |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi group
For what it's worth I just visited a Harbor freight that just opened by my home
and saw they are selling 25 cable ties for 5$:
http://www.harborfreight.com/3-16-inch-x-12-inch-25-piece-stainless-steel-cable-ties-92515.html
They look OK but I didn't test them.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362459#362459
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vorsas, Dave" <DVorsas(at)triumphgroup.com> |
| Subject: | 14 volt bus / voltage regulator? |
Andy,
I used a Collins PWC-150. It has two independent channels, either of which
will handle all of the Ray Allen servos. I put an "on-off-on" toggle swit
ch so that I had both a primary and a back up 14vdc output. Protect the c
ircuit with a circuit breaker, and you are all set. You can also use a Ki
ng KA-39, although if I remember correctly, it is only one channel. Either
unit is available on E-bay for around $100 or less. Most avionics shops a
re littered with these units.
On a side note, I just powered up my panel, everything works, no smoke, no
components changed color, and no thermal events!
Good Luck,
David Vorsas
Radial Rocket N385BV
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Hawes
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 14 volt bus / voltage regulator?
Looking for a voltage regulator recommendation:
I need a small 14 volt bus bar in order to service ray allen servos and may
be a couple other 14 volt devices. I will be running a 28 volt system and
would prefer to have a separate 14 volt bus. If anyone has any recommendat
ions, or tips on how to go about servicing disparate voltage components, I'
m much obliged --
Thank you,
Andy
This message has been processed via your triumphgroup.com e-mail address.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 14 volt bus / voltage regulator? |
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
ok, that sounds like the ticket =8B thank you. I found this part number afte
r
matching up the converter specs you gave me with DigiKey that should save
you a few bucks if you need this again in the future:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?WT.z_header=search_go&
l
ang=en&site=us&keywords=102-2273-ND&x &y=15
digikey part number: 102-2273-ND this is a smaller device and 12.5
amperage output.
Just wondering if you guys use an inline fuse with this type of device? Or
would you rather have a breaker available to the pilot just in case the
device ever has an issue in flight?
Thanks for the recommendation --
Andy
On 1/4/12 5:23 PM, "Dave Saylor" wrote:
> Ray Allen makes a 12V regulator just for 28V aircraft, P/N REG-1.
>
> Otherwise we've installed something like this for 12V items:
>
> http://www.wmjmarine.com/vtc60-24-12.html
>
> These days you can't really get by without a few 12V outlets.
>
> When we had the luxury, we've gone so far as to install a complete 12V ba
ttery
> and alternator, but that was on a turbine with lots of spare drive pads.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Andy Hawes wrote:
>> Looking for a voltage regulator recommendation:
>>
>> I need a small 14 volt bus bar in order to service ray allen servos and
maybe
>> a couple other 14 volt devices. -I will be running a 28 volt system and
would
>> prefer to have a separate 14 volt bus. -If anyone has any recommendation
s, or
>> tips on how to go about servicing disparate voltage components, I=B9m much
>> obliged ---
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lis
t
>>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
| From: | Jason Beaver <jason(at)jasonbeaver.com> |
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If you wanted to put a 20A, in-line fuse holder in its
> place, that would be fine too as long as you don't have
> BREAKERS downstream.
Bob, can you explain what is bad about having circuit breakers downstream of fuses?
I wired my Lightspeed Plasma II ignition through a fuse on the battery bus
to the breaker on the panel because I didn't want such a long, always-hot wire
from the battery directly to the panel. Should I rewire this?
thanks,
jason
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
If the current ratings are similar, the fuse will always blow first, so the breaker
serves no purpose. If the fuse
current rating is some significant multiple of the breaker rating that might work
- which might be okay to protect
against shorts in the wire up to the breaker - but what is the point.
Dick Tasker
Jason Beaver wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jason Beaver
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> If you wanted to put a 20A, in-line fuse holder in its
>> place, that would be fine too as long as you don't have
>> BREAKERS downstream.
> Bob, can you explain what is bad about having circuit breakers downstream of
fuses? I wired my Lightspeed Plasma II ignition through a fuse on the battery
bus to the breaker on the panel because I didn't want such a long, always-hot
wire from the battery directly to the panel. Should I rewire this?
>
> thanks,
>
> jason
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Start Problem |
At 02:16 AM 1/6/2012, you wrote:
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If you wanted to put a 20A, in-line fuse holder in its
> place, that would be fine too as long as you don't have
> BREAKERS downstream.
Bob, can you explain what is bad about having circuit breakers
downstream of fuses? I wired my Lightspeed Plasma II ignition
through a fuse on the battery bus to the breaker on the panel because
I didn't want such a long, always-hot wire from the battery directly
to the panel. Should I rewire this?
Probably. Put the one and only protective device
(5A breaker or fuse) at the battery bus with no further
devices downstream.
If THAT protection opens, it is because the ignition
system is hurt bad . . . and you'll need to rely on the
second, totally independent system to bring your flight
to an orderly conclusion.
To have a 'breaker' downstream of a fuse turns the
breaker into a switch. Breakers are so much slower than
a fuse that a 5A fuse upstream of the 5A breaker will
always open first. In fact, a 10A fuse upstream of a
5A breaker will still open before the 5A breaker.
The "fuse" symbol often found upstream of breakers in
aircraft power distribution diagrams is a CURRENT LIMITER,
a robust, special kind of fuse with fusing dynamics
that are very unlike their little plastic, plug-in
cousins. For example:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Note that a '35 Amp' ANL will carry 80 amps about
indefinitely which is a 200% overload. The ANL and close
cousins are suited for protecting fat-wire feeders to
busses downstream that might mount circuit breakers.
Here we see:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
that a 200% overload on a 5A ATC plastic fuse is expected
to open it in something on the order of 300 milliseconds.
In the last data sheet we see:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Breakers/Eaton/Eaton_4200.pdf
that a Series 4200 miniature breaker under 200% overload
can take from 2 to 20 seconds to open and still be "in spec".
As a matter of simple design goals, a single
feeder needs only one protective device located as near
to the power source (bus) as practical. Any device upstream
of a breaker needs to be robust enough to stay closed during
operation of the downstream device. Finally, all robust fuses
and indeed any protective device over 5A is discouraged for
use on always hot feeders. This design rule is cited in the
FARS and generally refers to circuit breakers. We know that
a 5A breaker will open a 10A fuse . . . so it follows that
one COULD consider 10A ATC fuses on battery bus feeders without
presenting potential fault energy worst than a 5A breaker.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-12, Z-13/8 or a bit of both! |
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
Initially I was going to use Z-12 for my Long-EZ system because it shows the LR-3
controller and I have the following:
B&c LR-3 alternator controller
B&C SD-8 and all the associated bits
I'm using two Bendix mags
Most probable going to use an auto alternator with the LR-3 (undecided on make
as yet)
then I was advised to use Z-13/8 (quite correctly) which shows the B&C SD-8 setup,
so my question is would it be O.K. to use a mixture of both from Z-12 and
Z-13/8.
It would be helpful to find out any pitfalls before starting this project.
Regards
Mike (U.K.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362749#362749
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12, Z-13/8 or a bit of both! |
At 12:41 PM 1/8/2012, you wrote:
>
>Initially I was going to use Z-12 for my Long-EZ system because it
>shows the LR-3 controller and I have the following:
The z-figures are intended to show ARCHITECTURE.
Parts are exemplar but not unique to that architecture.
Why Z-12? The Z-13/8 was designed to max maximum
use of the limited output of the SD-8 (no battery
contactor).
>B&c LR-3 alternator controller
>B&C SD-8 and all the associated bits
>I'm using two Bendix mags
>Most probable going to use an auto alternator with the LR-3
>(undecided on make as yet)
It needs to be an alternator compatible with external
regulation.
>then I was advised to use Z-13/8 (quite correctly) which shows the
>B&C SD-8 setup, so my question is would it be O.K. to use a mixture
>of both from Z-12 and Z-13/8.
What features of 12 need to be incorporated into 13?
The style of ignition systems is irrelevant to the
discussion.
>It would be helpful to find out any pitfalls before starting this project.
I am certain that there have been dozens of 'variations
on a theme' wherein items from various documents and
architectures were cherry-picked and assembled into
a new architecture. Most perform as advertised . . . assuming
the 'chef' really understands the significance of the
cherry-picking.
Start with Z-13/8 and tell us what items depicted don't
fit your planned suite of hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Noise in damp weather |
| From: | "chinesespaceman" <gavintt(at)hotmail.co.uk> |
Hi,
I am hoping someone can give me some pointers in finding and eliminating a problem.
I have a french built wooden aircraft with 0-200, B&C starter and 30Amp alternator.
Narco radio and transponder with intercom. The intercom is wired with shielded
wiring as per the manufacturers instructions.
This aircraft uses a negative earth, with a switch that is cable actuated.
The B&C Alternator is wired as per the manufacturers diagram, using a large capacitor
on the DC Output.
All of the lighting and as many earths as I could find have been wired independently
to a "forest of earth" on the inside of the firewall, connected by a brass
bolt to another earth forest on the engine side of the firewall. A heavy earth
cable then runs from the 5/16" brass bolt to the engine.
There is a skyflash strobe with strobe heads top and bottom of fuz. On most frequencies
there is a sharp crack through the radio as ea ch strobe discharges.
Never got to the bottom of this problem, despite various attempts.
The few times, including today that I have been caught in rain or very damp weather
and have put the nav and/or landing light on I am getting a loud buzz / shriek
through the radio into the headsets. This is normally silent in dry weather.
On finals today, the radio went dead, I thought a fuse had blown, so I switched
it off. When landed and clear the active I switched it back on and it worked
ok.
I would appreciate any ideas on where to start looking for the source of this noise
in the wet weather.
There is never any noise from the mags or the alternator.
Thanks
Gavin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362765#362765
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise in damp weather |
At 03:06 PM 1/8/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I am hoping someone can give me some pointers in finding and
>eliminating a problem.
>I have a french built wooden aircraft with 0-200, B&C starter and
>30Amp alternator. Narco radio and transponder with intercom. The
>intercom is wired with shielded wiring as per the manufacturers instructions.
>
>This aircraft uses a negative earth, with a switch that is cable actuated.
>
>The B&C Alternator is wired as per the manufacturers diagram, using
>a large capacitor on the DC Output.
>All of the lighting and as many earths as I could find have been
>wired independently to a "forest of earth" on the inside of the
>firewall, connected by a brass bolt to another earth forest on the
>engine side of the firewall. A heavy earth cable then runs from the
>5/16" brass bolt to the engine.
>
>There is a skyflash strobe with strobe heads top and bottom of fuz.
>On most frequencies there is a sharp crack through the radio as ea
>ch strobe discharges. Never got to the bottom of this problem,
>despite various attempts.
This style of noise is usually RADIATED . . . I.e. comes
directly from the strobe tube and is received through the
receiver antenna. This is an easy thing to confirm but a
TOUGH nut to crack. Check out chapter in the 'Connection on
interference analysis. In this case, I'm pretty sure the
noise you hear is affected by volume control on receiver
which means the noise is coming in through the antenna.
Proximity of the antenna to flash tube can be widened.
Sometimes a fine wire, coarsely woven wire mesh shield
over the flash tube grounded to base helps. This is one
of the hardest noise issues to eliminate.
>The few times, including today that I have been caught in rain or
>very damp weather and have put the nav and/or landing light on I am
>getting a loud buzz / shriek through the radio into the headsets.
>This is normally silent in dry weather.
>On finals today, the radio went dead, I thought a fuse had blown, so
>I switched it off. When landed and clear the active I switched it
>back on and it worked ok.
>
>I would appreciate any ideas on where to start looking for the
>source of this noise in the wet weather.
>
>There is never any noise from the mags or the alternator.
Man! Don't know where to even begin. Intermittent and/or
special-conditions events can be very $hard$ to track down.
One of my most satisfying victories involved tracking down
a pushed back pin in a pressure bulkhead connector that
would only manifest failure at very low outside ambient
temperatures and in-flight. I had to develop an instrumentation
system that we could read in the cabin to make measurements
back in the un-pressurized 'hell-hole' while in flight.
I found that I could tape ribbon-cable to the
side of the fuselage and slip it through the door gaskets
at each end to extend test signals to the cabin. Even then,
we made several test flights to 41,000 feet in an airplane
that cost a LOT of money to operate.
I would have to hear the nature of your noise to even begin
to identify its source. You might carry a hand held radio
to see if the noise can be heard it in as well. Do the
diagnostics steps defined in the chapter on noise. Is the
squeal affected by volume control . . . position of switches
power on intercom (does your intercom do a auto-bypass
when powered down so you can still use the radio?).
This can be a challenge but the problems you've observed
DO have explanations in simple physics.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise in damp weather |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Chinesespaceman--
You DO have the ability to dry airplane and then wet one section at a time.
Also, remember that WD-40 is really made for Water Displacement. It works extremely
well at driving off water and displacing it with a non-conductive oil.
There is not much downside to spraying electrical connections where leakage to
ground or other connections might occur.
--------
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=362815#362815
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise in damp weather |
The part about the shriek with an applied load that is corrected by cycling the
master sounds a lot like an experience I once had with a balky reverse current
relay. On landing roll out, just when no one would ever be looking at the electrical
gauges, the bus voltage would go way low and the avionics would start
to howl.
Clearly an RCR isn't the problem here, but perhaps transient very low bus voltage
is...
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
On 1/2/2012 8:41 AM, jonlaury wrote:
> Cap probes allow for fuel measurement of irregularly shaped tanks. My fuel bays
in the wing change in taper, both in depth and width, in addition to the whole
tank sitting at an angle (dihedral), making any kind of accurate measurement
impossible over the tank range when using a linear type (float) sensor.
I believe the capacitive probe will be linear over its length as well;
it won't "know" about the cross sectional area of the tank at any given
sensing point, just whether or not fuel is present there.
The advantage may be that a long capacitive probe can extend through a
tank designed such that a float type sensor, on one end or the other,
will 'range out', because when one end of the tank is full, the other
end is still not full, or vice versa. It's also possible, though
difficult, to custom bend a capacitive probe so that there's more range
(flatter slope) in greater cross-sectional areas of the tank, and less
range (steeper slope) in smaller areas of the tank; that tends to
linearize the output. But it's a tough thing to accomplish with high
resolution.
Generally, linearizing a broad range signal is a problem that's been
solved many times in electronics technology with signal conditioners,
even before the advent of microprocessors. Whether anyone offers such a
product, beyond the full/empty adjustments Jon mentioned, I do not
know. But the all-in-one EI and JPI solutions, as well as
AerospaceLogic's standalone indicators offer such lindearization built
into their displays.
In the 80's in process instrumentation industry, there were a number of
well-designed (non-interactive adjustment) signal conditioners, for
under $100, that had three or four linearization adjustments across an
input range.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive Fuel Level Sensor - How do they |
work?
>I believe the capacitive probe will be linear over its length as
>well; it won't "know" about the cross sectional area of the tank at
>any given sensing point, just whether or not fuel is present there.
True for off-the-shelf probes . . . wherein the designer
has no first-hand knowledge of tank geometry for the
proposed installation. It is possible to build a capacitive
probe that presents an output that is not linear with
relation to liquid level. This patent speaks to some
examples:
http://tinyurl.com/6ogp4ve
The advantage may be that a long capacitive probe can extend through
a tank designed such that a float type sensor, on one end or the
other, will 'range out', because when one end of the tank is full,
the other end is still not full, or vice versa. It's also possible,
though difficult, to custom bend a capacitive probe so that there's
more range (flatter slope) in greater cross-sectional areas of the
tank, and less range (steeper slope) in smaller areas of the tank;
that tends to linearize the output. But it's a tough thing to
accomplish with high resolution.
Until the micro-controller came along.
The last trade study I did for HBC spoke to a system with
a self calibrating feature. You put the signal
conditioner for a pure linear probe into a calibrate
mode, put unusable fuel in tank and then tell the
signal conditioner "this is zero fuel". Then fill
the tank with 10% steps for capacity stopping each
time to tall the signal conditioner to "remember
this value as x%" ending up at 100% or full.
When taken out of the calibrate mode, the signal
conditioner does a linear interpolation of the
fuel level across the constellation of calibrated
data points to offer a very close representation
of available fuel irrespective of tank and probe
geometry.
The approach to sensing and signal conditioning
would produce a device that's adaptable to virtually
any airplane and combination of probes.
This produces a gage that is "too accurate" in
that substantial uncertainty in calibration points
is introduced by dielectric constant of various
loads of fuel and temperatures. The "ultimate"
system includes a calibration probe at the bottom
of the tank that is always submerged and offers
the signal conditioner a real-time sample of
variables for that particular load of fuel.
The electronics becomes so simple that it costs
more to build an install a sturdy set of probes
in something like a Hawker 4000 than the
electronics which processes data from those
probes! Bill of materials for the electronics
came in at about $10 in production lots.
>In the 80's in process instrumentation industry, there were a number
>of well-designed (non-interactive adjustment) signal conditioners,
>for under $100, that had three or four linearization adjustments
>across an input range.
I took a whack at such a device for Cessna about
that time. They were proposing a spring cartridge
in the elevator controls that could be 'wound up'
to offer a constant stick-force-per-G under the range
of flight conditions of airspeed and CG. Made my
head get real tight! The last iteration drove
a non linear cam to 'get the curve'. The system
we proposed never made it into the airplane.
Don't recall how they solved the problem.
A couple years later, we (Electro-Mech) did what
I belive is the first micro-processor driven trim
system that flew on the aborted Mooney M30 program.
This did use the lookup table I described
for fuel level signals to drive the pivot location
actuator for a servo/anti-servo tab.
That showed more promise but the project got
canceled (prototype missed target weights by
about 500 pounds!). In any case, it proved the
future utility of software for slaying such
dragons.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
> Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and simply use
> a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg info.
How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component is
directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does airspeed and
groundspeed and track allow you to calculate heading?
Paul
--
Please note my new email address!
millner(at)me.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sheldon Olesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> |
Hi Bob,
I've got a set of 50w HID lights that are extremely noisy. There is so much static
on either the SL 30 or the 480 that they are practically useless. I don't
dare turn them on in a high traffic area because of the poor radio reception
I get when they are on. A hand held VHF radio also picks up the static and the
amount of static varies with the distance from the lights. The vendor is
Plane Lights and they said they would take them back if I can't solve the problem.
I tried their solution of running a ground directly to the battery and that
didn't help at all. Is this a winnable battle worth the trouble or should
I just send them back? Is there anything simple that can be done?
Thanks!
Sheldon Olesen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Are they DS1 style? Those are supposed to be less noisy. That's how I ended up
with Duckworks.
Tim
On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Sheldon Olesen wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I've got a set of 50w HID lights that are extremely noisy. There is so much
static on either the SL 30 or the 480 that they are practically useless. I don't
dare turn them on in a high traffic area because of the poor radio reception
I get when they are on. A hand held VHF radio also picks up the static and
the amount of static varies with the distance from the lights. The vendor is
Plane Lights and they said they would take them back if I can't solve the problem.
I tried their solution of running a ground directly to the battery and
that didn't help at all. Is this a winnable battle worth the trouble or should
I just send them back? Is there anything simple that can be done?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sheldon Olesen
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
I have the same problem with Plane Light HIDs. Love the lights, hate the
noise. My SL-30 is unusable with the lights on.
I've tried all the simple fixes including making a filter per someone's
instructions (I forget who but it was on this list). The filter consisted
of a choke and capacitor. I followed the instructions explicitly but the
filter didn't have any effect on the noise.
I think I'm asking alot since the comm antenna on the radio that's affected
is a Bob Archer in the wingtip right next to the light. The other comm is
has a belly-mounted antenna that isn't affected at all. Good thing
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Sheldon Olesen wrote:
> saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I've got a set of 50w HID lights that are extremely noisy. There is so
> much static on either the SL 30 or the 480 that they are practically
> useless. I don't dare turn them on in a high traffic area because of the
> poor radio reception I get when they are on. A hand held VHF radio also
> picks up the static and the amount of static varies with the distance from
> the lights. The vendor is Plane Lights and they said they would take them
> back if I can't solve the problem. I tried their solution of running a
> ground directly to the battery and that didn't help at all. Is this a
> winnable battle worth the trouble or should I just send them back? Is
> there anything simple that can be done?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sheldon Olesen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
Don't know. They fit in the MR16 wingtip kit for halogen lamps that Van's
sells. They look like this:
As far as I can tell, there's nothing "less noisy" about them!
I'm lucky in that they only affect my Comm2 so it's not that big a deal but
for someone with a single comm they'd be a showstopper.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Are they DS1 style? Those are supposed to be less noisy. That's how I
> ended up with Duckworks.
> Tim
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Sheldon Olesen
> wrote:
>
> saolesen(at)sirentel.net>
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I've got a set of 50w HID lights that are extremely noisy. There is so
> much static on either the SL 30 or the 480 that they are practically
> useless. I don't dare turn them on in a high traffic area because of the
> poor radio reception I get when they are on. A hand held VHF radio also
> picks up the static and the amount of static varies with the distance from
> the lights. The vendor is Plane Lights and they said they would take them
> back if I can't solve the problem. I tried their solution of running a
> ground directly to the battery and that didn't help at all. Is this a
> winnable battle worth the trouble or should I just send them back? Is
> there anything simple that can be done?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Sheldon Olesen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
| From: | Sheldon Olesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> |
I've Bob Archer nav antennas in each wing tip. With the ballast so close to
the antennas is there any hope a different HID system? With my wings paint
ed I don't want to be cutting holes in the leading edge. I'm doing the annu
al and the weather is crappy so now is a good time to be dealing with the pr
oblem.
Sheldon Olesen
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 12, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> Don't know. They fit in the MR16 wingtip kit for halogen lamps that Van's
sells. They look like this:
>
>
>
> As far as I can tell, there's nothing "less noisy" about them!
>
> I'm lucky in that they only affect my Comm2 so it's not that big a deal bu
t for someone with a single comm they'd be a showstopper.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Are they DS1 style? Those are supposed to be less noisy. That's how I en
ded up with Duckworks.
> Tim
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Sheldon Olesen wrote
:
>
el.net>
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I've got a set of 50w HID lights that are extremely noisy. There is so m
uch static on either the SL 30 or the 480 that they are practically useless.
I don't dare turn them on in a high traffic area because of the poor radio r
eception I get when they are on. A hand held VHF radio also picks up the s
tatic and the amount of static varies with the distance from the lights. T
he vendor is Plane Lights and they said they would take them back if I can't
solve the problem. I tried their solution of running a ground directly to t
he battery and that didn't help at all. Is this a winnable battle worth the
trouble or should I just send them back? Is there anything simple that can
be done?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Sheldon Olesen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==========
> -
> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectri
c-List
> ==========
> MS -
> k">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> e -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363475#363475
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Lehman" <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Hello Paul
The GPS gives groundspeed, track, and position.
You can go into a lookup table to find the magnetic variation at your
position. If you know the TAS because you have pitot static info and
temperature, you should be able to solve for the wind vector I believe.
Same as can be done with an E6B computer. I think it goes heading vector
plus wind vector equals track vector. So if you know any two vectors you
can compute the third vector.
Mostly I was just pointing out that many glass PFD/ADI systems already
have all the sensor info they need to display a magnetic heading if the
designer wishes to display it. I often fly an aircraft that does just
that. It has no magnetic sensors but it computes and displays magnetic
heading.
Of course variation does change slightly over a multi year period so
minor changes in the lookup table might be appropriate every few years
if high accuracy is desired.
Ken
> S>
>
> On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
> > Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and simply use
> > a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg info.
> How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
> groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component is
> directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does airspeed and
> groundspeed and track allow you to calculate heading?
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
No, you're missing the heading. Your lookup table is just giving you the magnetic
adjustment to a 'true' track. Most GPS's do just that when you tell them you
want a magnetic track.
You said your aircraft has no access to magnetic information. Without that it can't
tell your plane is pointing in a direction other than the ground track -
magnetic or not. Your heading will only match your track in no wind conditions.
You still need something to tell you which way the plane is pointing, not tracking.
However if the EFIS has access to magnetic heading data, then you can calculate
wind speed and direction in the EFIS.
Bob Meyers
Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:36 PM, "Ken Lehman" wrote:
>
> Hello Paul
>
> The GPS gives groundspeed, track, and position.
> You can go into a lookup table to find the magnetic variation at your
> position. If you know the TAS because you have pitot static info and
> temperature, you should be able to solve for the wind vector I believe.
> Same as can be done with an E6B computer. I think it goes heading vector
> plus wind vector equals track vector. So if you know any two vectors you
> can compute the third vector.
>
> Mostly I was just pointing out that many glass PFD/ADI systems already
> have all the sensor info they need to display a magnetic heading if the
> designer wishes to display it. I often fly an aircraft that does just
> that. It has no magnetic sensors but it computes and displays magnetic
> heading.
>
> Of course variation does change slightly over a multi year period so
> minor changes in the lookup table might be appropriate every few years
> if high accuracy is desired.
>
> Ken
>
>> S>
>>
>> On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
>>> Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and simply use
>>> a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg info.
>> How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
>> groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component is
>> directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does airspeed and
>> groundspeed and track allow you to calculate heading?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
I tried copying your setup exactly, from your post to this list back in
February. I was pretty excited since your symptoms seemed identical to
mine, even the Dynon dropping offline. But, no luck...
What antenna are you using, and where is it? I have an Archer antenna in
each wingtip, one nav and one comm.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Brantel wrote:
>
> Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363475#363475
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
| From: | "Brantel" <bchesteen(at)hughes.net> |
I have an archer Nav in the left wingtip and use it with a 430w.
The hid lights have no effect on them with my filters installed.
Keep in mind that these ballast for these cheap HID lights are not all created
equal or the same. I may have just gotten lucky with the ones I need up with.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363547#363547
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Falcon amp/volt gauge hookup |
| From: | "bnelson79" <bnelson79(at)embarqmail.com> |
Ive just gotten a combo Falcon amp/volt gauge. It has four connections on the
back. Two connect to either side of the shunt. The third to ground. But the fourth
is supposed to connect to the ignition switch. But I have an ACS rotary
switch with multiple connections. The gauges are not reading though and I assume
it's because this fourth connection is not right. Does anyone know how this
last wire should be attached to the ignition switch?
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363548#363548
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Falcon amp/volt gauge hookup |
Bill,
<< Falcon amp/volt gauge. .. four connections .. But the fourth is supposed
to connect to the ignition switch. .. how this last wire should be attached
to the ignition switch? >>
Believe it goes to the BAT terminal which is at about 11 o'clock viewed from
the back on the ACS switch. You will need to crimp the proper sized ring
terminal onto the wire. The BAT terminal is the source of power for the
starter solenoid.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
| From: | "checkn6" <checkn6(at)yahoo.com> |
This question is slightly off topic but is aircraft and electro related, albeit
somewhat loosely. Years ago I read an article in an aviation magazine about how
a small group put in runway lights using industrial porch light fittings from
a home store and compact fluorescent lights, they were simple to install and
had lower use and maintenance cost. My question is does anyone know if this
has been done with the latest LEDs?
I am based at an airport that is currently unlit and a small group of us are exploring
this option and we dont want to re-invent the wheel so to speak. The fittings
and mechanical is easy enough but was wondering about the types of LED/drivers,
and power transmission. Runway is 2200 ft. Although the CFL option is
viable I cant help but wonder if the power use and life expectancy of the LED
wouldnt make them a better candidate for something like this.
Ill listen to any ideas/advice on this and if anyone is interested in working with
us email me off list. Forming the light configuration with proto boards is
easy enough but curious about wiring for the long runs down the runway. For example,
would it be better to run standard voltage and have a driver in each fitting,
or have a driver in a central location that sends the required voltage
to each light fitting. I would guess that it would be easier to send higher voltage
down the length and set up each light with its own driver. Then again there
is the cost to calculate. Im Just getting started on this idea so any advice
would be welcome.
Thanks,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363573#363573
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Chris
Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the cheapest and
easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No experience with it
though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that Virgin uses is when they
land in Nigeria!
I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V shape
and secured to the ground too...
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Just another data point.
I have a variety of solar lights along the "taxiway" from my parking
area to my house. The original poster didn't say where they lived, but I
have found that when it's cold the useful illumination time for most of
the solar lights is < 3hrs. Also, if it is cloudy for more than 1/2 the
day the illumination time is significantly reduced, even in the summer.
I think a cost effective solar powered system could be built, but my
experience with off the shelf items has been unsatisfactory.
Obviously, testing the unit you are considering using is a must.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/13/2012 08:49 AM, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
>
> In a situation like yours with a small unlit strip the easiest way is to
> use individuel solar lights at each location.... No wires to run and
> most of the new generation light fixtures are darn cheap to buy and work
> good....
snipped DNA
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "checkn6" <checkn6(at)yahoo.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:11:41 -0800
>
>
> This question is slightly off topic but is aircraft and electro related,
> albeit somewhat loosely. Years ago I read an article in an aviation
> magazine about how a small group put in runway lights using industrial
> porch light fittings from a home store and compact fluorescent lights,
> they were simple to install and had lower use and maintenance cost. My
> question is does anyone know if this has been done with the latest LEDs?
>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
At 08:37 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
Hi Chris
Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the
cheapest and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No
experience with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that
Virgin uses is when they land in Nigeria!
I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V
shape and secured to the ground too..
Absolutely the lowest cost-of-ownership solution.
The airport Dr. Dee and I used to own had "approved"
runway lights . . . or at least approved when they were
installed 20 years ago. They used a 10w sewing machine
bulb and had a domed cylinder cover/lens which may have
be optimized for concentrating light in the 'right' directions
but I suspect not.
Given the age of the installation, they were a real maintenance
headache. One thing I discovered was that fixtures with missing
globes were less likely to corrode . . . fresh rain water keeps
them free of dust accumulation and taking the globe off allowed
the guts of the fixture to dry out quickly. Leaving the globe on
trapped moisture inside to rot away at the metal parts.
Since we were a privately owned airport, the only risk for having
'non approved' fixtures was to risk loosing the notation in the AFM for
"low intensity lighting".
One night while driving down a section of highway under repair,
the striping was temporarily replaced with low profile reflectors
robust enough to withstand the effects of inattentive driving. Their
performance when illuminated with headlights was pretty amazing.
It was easy to imagine how these critters would look down the
edges of a runway while in a flare maneuver.
Here's one example of many:
http://tinyurl.com/7seqaey
http://tinyurl.com/85b2daj
If I were building a runway out on the farm, I would certainly
consider this technology as an alternative to powered lighting
systems.
Further, efficient reflectors of some larger size and shape
could be used to create a poor-boy's VASI system. They can be
placed at the bottom of a deep box with geometry that controls
the angle of illumination/reflection of the colors.
Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
resistant.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
>
>Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
>
>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DavidM <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
But reflective-only lights are zero help when you're trying to just FIND
the airport at night! That is no fun at all.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:37 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the
> cheapest and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No
> experience with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that
> Virgin uses is when they land in Nigeria!
> <<>>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
Where do we start?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
>
>
> This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
> need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
> over the years concerning the system integration risks for
> systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
> but without the support of studies showing suitability to
> task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
> product for LED lighting.
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
> a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
> and added a filter for noise mitigation.
>
> It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
> from a similar repackaging effort.
>
>
> **
>
> ** Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
resistant.
Bob . . .
Just remember that in the northern climate, snow, ice, and
frost can compromise these reflective devices more than an incandescent
bulb, which generates some heat to melt the frozen surface. With any
runway
lighting system design, it is imperative that all probable weather
conditions be taken into account.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Wesson" <Mark(at)wessonair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
I am in the market for HID lights for my RV-9. I am finishing the wings and
am about to pull the trigger on the purchase of the Duckworks install kit
and a cheap HID kit.
Something like this for the HID would be much appreciated.
Mark Wesson
_____
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, January 13, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: HID light noise
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid>
&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
If Bob is going to offer some "tutoring & mentoring", I want to play on this
project!
(However, logistically participation could be problematic since I'm in
Southern California - perhaps an excuse to fly to Watsonville more often.)
-Jeff Luckey
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Saylor
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 09:52
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: HID light noise
Where do we start?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid>
&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DavidM <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
David M.
ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
>
> Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
> setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
> end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
> of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
> of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
> resistant.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Just remember that in the northern climate, snow, ice, and
> frost can compromise these reflective devices more than an incandescent
> bulb, which generates some heat to melt the frozen surface. With any runway
> lighting system design, it is imperative that all probable weather
> conditions be taken into account.
>
> Roger
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
RF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
John Grosse
Ralph Finch wrote:
> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
> RF
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DavidM <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and
is relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
David M.
John Grosse wrote:
>
>
> Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
> John Grosse
>
> Ralph Finch wrote:
>> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
>> RF
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
Agreed,
Didn't Uncle Bob create a new forum for this sort of commentary last
summer??
I'm all for political discourse, let's just do it in the appropriate place.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:49
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against
aviation user fees and got this response
Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
John Grosse
Ralph Finch wrote:
> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
> RF
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
And I certainly don't think it has anything to do with any 'aviation
community' outside of the US
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "DavidM" <ainut(at)knology.net>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against
aviation user fees and got this response
>
> This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and is
> relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
>
> David M.
>
>
> John Grosse wrote:
>>
>>
>> Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
>> John Grosse
>>
>> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
>>> RF
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
Is this really the ONLY place you guys have to complain? Let's just
please stick to the purpose of this list. None of us joined because we
thought this was a political chat line.
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Thank you Bob and Paul for taking the time to point this out
and correct my understanding.
The documentation that I have is incomplete and I believed it without
thinking it through. It may not have any external magnetic sensor but I
agree that it must at least have an unmentioned internal sensor.
Ken
On 12/01/2012 8:10 PM, Bob Meyers wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob
> Meyers
>
> No, you're missing the heading. Your lookup table is just giving you
> the magnetic adjustment to a 'true' track. Most GPS's do just that
> when you tell them you want a magnetic track.
>
> You said your aircraft has no access to magnetic information. Without
> that it can't tell your plane is pointing in a direction other than
> the ground track - magnetic or not. Your heading will only match your
> track in no wind conditions.
>
> You still need something to tell you which way the plane is pointing,
> not tracking. However if the EFIS has access to magnetic heading
> data, then you can calculate wind speed and direction in the EFIS.
>
> Bob Meyers
>
> Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:36 PM, "Ken Lehman"
> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken
>> Lehman"
>>
>> Hello Paul
>>
>> The GPS gives groundspeed, track, and position. You can go into a
>> lookup table to find the magnetic variation at your position. If
>> you know the TAS because you have pitot static info and
>> temperature, you should be able to solve for the wind vector I
>> believe. Same as can be done with an E6B computer. I think it goes
>> heading vector plus wind vector equals track vector. So if you know
>> any two vectors you can compute the third vector.
>>
>> Mostly I was just pointing out that many glass PFD/ADI systems
>> already have all the sensor info they need to display a magnetic
>> heading if the designer wishes to display it. I often fly an
>> aircraft that does just that. It has no magnetic sensors but it
>> computes and displays magnetic heading.
>>
>> Of course variation does change slightly over a multi year period
>> so minor changes in the lookup table might be appropriate every few
>> years if high accuracy is desired.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul
>>> Millner S>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
>>>> Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and
>>>> simply use a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg
>>>> info.
>>> How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
>>> groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component
>>> is directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does
>>> airspeed and groundspeed and track allow you to calculate
>>> heading?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Bill Watson <mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
FWIW, I recently confirmed that accurate calibration of the mag sensor has a significant
impact on wind calculations. After carefully running the calibration
routine on my GRT EFIS, the displayed wind direction and speeds are now spot
on.
Bill
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Ken wrote:
>
> Thank you Bob and Paul for taking the time to point this out
> and correct my understanding.
>
> The documentation that I have is incomplete and I believed it without thinking
it through. It may not have any external magnetic sensor but I agree that it
must at least have an unmentioned internal sensor.
>
> Ken
>
> On 12/01/2012 8:10 PM, Bob Meyers wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob
>> Meyers
>>
>> No, you're missing the heading. Your lookup table is just giving you
>> the magnetic adjustment to a 'true' track. Most GPS's do just that
>> when you tell them you want a magnetic track.
>>
>> You said your aircraft has no access to magnetic information. Without
>> that it can't tell your plane is pointing in a direction other than
>> the ground track - magnetic or not. Your heading will only match your
>> track in no wind conditions.
>>
>> You still need something to tell you which way the plane is pointing,
>> not tracking. However if the EFIS has access to magnetic heading
>> data, then you can calculate wind speed and direction in the EFIS.
>>
>> Bob Meyers
>>
>> Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:36 PM, "Ken Lehman"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken
>>> Lehman"
>>>
>>> Hello Paul
>>>
>>> The GPS gives groundspeed, track, and position. You can go into a
>>> lookup table to find the magnetic variation at your position. If
>>> you know the TAS because you have pitot static info and
>>> temperature, you should be able to solve for the wind vector I
>>> believe. Same as can be done with an E6B computer. I think it goes
>>> heading vector plus wind vector equals track vector. So if you know
>>> any two vectors you can compute the third vector.
>>>
>>> Mostly I was just pointing out that many glass PFD/ADI systems
>>> already have all the sensor info they need to display a magnetic
>>> heading if the designer wishes to display it. I often fly an
>>> aircraft that does just that. It has no magnetic sensors but it
>>> computes and displays magnetic heading.
>>>
>>> Of course variation does change slightly over a multi year period
>>> so minor changes in the lookup table might be appropriate every few
>>> years if high accuracy is desired.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul
>>>> Millner S>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
>>>>> Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and
>>>>> simply use a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg
>>>>> info.
>>>> How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
>>>> groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component
>>>> is directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does
>>>> airspeed and groundspeed and track allow you to calculate
>>>> heading?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical Gremlins |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
1.) I installed an EyeBeam Mini as a cabin light. It's in a housing that also contains
the radio speaker. It gets its power from the battery bus.
Whenever I turn on the PS Engineering 7000B audio panel, or key the mike, the EBM
starts flashing and is unresponsive to its on/off switch or built-in dimmer.
The only way to get it to stop is to pull the power.
The dimming/switching are by capacitance sensing (touch). Everything in the airplane
is connected to a single point ground.
Suggestions much appreciated
:D
2.) I installed an AEC 9005 LVW module per instructions but the LVW lamp flashes
(blinking LED) when I power the system from my bench 13.6v power supply.
3.) Same as 2 above for my B&C LR3 regulator. I did all of their troubleshooting
diagnostics and everything was to spec.
Thanks for any help,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363739#363739
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
Hi Ken,
Yes, you probably have an internal compass.
I assume you don't have an inertial navigation system with ring laser gyros!!!
Not too many of those in the OBAM market. The accelerometers and gyro pkgs in our
EFIS units are pretty good though.
Bob Meyers
Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Ken wrote:
>
> Thank you Bob and Paul for taking the time to point this out
> and correct my understanding.
>
> The documentation that I have is incomplete and I believed it without thinking
it through. It may not have any external magnetic sensor but I agree that it
must at least have an unmentioned internal sensor.
>
> Ken
>
> On 12/01/2012 8:10 PM, Bob Meyers wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob
>> Meyers
>>
>> No, you're missing the heading. Your lookup table is just giving you
>> the magnetic adjustment to a 'true' track. Most GPS's do just that
>> when you tell them you want a magnetic track.
>>
>> You said your aircraft has no access to magnetic information. Without
>> that it can't tell your plane is pointing in a direction other than
>> the ground track - magnetic or not. Your heading will only match your
>> track in no wind conditions.
>>
>> You still need something to tell you which way the plane is pointing,
>> not tracking. However if the EFIS has access to magnetic heading
>> data, then you can calculate wind speed and direction in the EFIS.
>>
>> Bob Meyers
>>
>> Flying my Sonex N982SX - Building log at http://n982sx.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:36 PM, "Ken Lehman"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken
>>> Lehman"
>>>
>>> Hello Paul
>>>
>>> The GPS gives groundspeed, track, and position. You can go into a
>>> lookup table to find the magnetic variation at your position. If
>>> you know the TAS because you have pitot static info and
>>> temperature, you should be able to solve for the wind vector I
>>> believe. Same as can be done with an E6B computer. I think it goes
>>> heading vector plus wind vector equals track vector. So if you know
>>> any two vectors you can compute the third vector.
>>>
>>> Mostly I was just pointing out that many glass PFD/ADI systems
>>> already have all the sensor info they need to display a magnetic
>>> heading if the designer wishes to display it. I often fly an
>>> aircraft that does just that. It has no magnetic sensors but it
>>> computes and displays magnetic heading.
>>>
>>> Of course variation does change slightly over a multi year period
>>> so minor changes in the lookup table might be appropriate every few
>>> years if high accuracy is desired.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul
>>>> Millner S>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2012 7:55 AM, Ken Lehman wrote:
>>>>> Some rnav units that have airspeed inputs calculate drift and
>>>>> simply use a lookup table to convert track to magnetic dg
>>>>> info.
>>>> How would that work, Ken? Seems like knowing only airspeed and
>>>> groundspeed, you don't know if the headwind/tailwind component
>>>> is directly ahead/behind you or off a wingtip... so how does
>>>> airspeed and groundspeed and track allow you to calculate
>>>> heading?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical Gremlins |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
EyeBeam Mini URL:
http://aveogroup.com/aveoshop/product.php?id_product=40
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363764#363764
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise in damp weather |
| From: | "chinesespaceman" <gavintt(at)hotmail.co.uk> |
Guys, thanks for the input.
Given that the battery was too low today to crank the motor, I guess the voltage
was indeed low at the end of the last flight. I have listed below the checks
I made and corrections before flying today. (it was -5.5C this morning here
in the UK)
My aircraft has a cable operated master switch that serves to break the negative
lead from the battery. It has a 30Amp B&C Alternator, that feeds 3 phase to
the regulator rectifier:
Flew today and made a few tests and observations.
I haven't as yet checked the battery.
When I arrived I checked all the terminals and connections related to the alternator.
Tightened the screws that secure the DC + and - through the large capacitor. They
weren't hanging off, but not as tight as should have been.
There was a very loose connection from 1 of the output phases into the fuse box.
I checked and tightened up all of the terminals of the 3 phase output each side
of their fuses.
Battery terminals both secure. Earth lead battery to negative master switch secure.
Main earth lead from forest of earth on firewall to engine mount secure and
clean.
Checked the negative master switch (cable operated) to ensure it was functioning
correctly, all appeared good, with no high resistance when closed.
No continuity through the master switch when open.
Hand to hand start the engine as the battery was a bit low, I expect it hasn't
been charging on the return leg of it's last journey due to the loose connection
from the alternator.
Flew for total of 1:20 without any electrical issues, turning lights on etc did
not cause any noise.
When landed and parked up, I pulled the master switch while the engine was running.
Got a severe noise blast through the headsets via the intercom. This got
worse if I turned for example the nav lights on. If I switched the alternator
off by it's switch then all went quiet.
Battery voltage after flight was 13.7 volts. I measured the voltage between battery
+ and the - after the master switch and that too was 13.7v, so doesn't seem
to be a master switch problem.
I am guessing that when I disconnect the master switch, i.e. the primary earth
return, then there still exists an earth return through the panel, cable outers
etc. However, even if they make their way back to the engine, the negative master
switch should prevent it getting back to the battery? So, the current from
the alternator is somehow providing electrical power + and - even with the
master switch off?
When I got the aircraft all of the earths ran everywhere, lots through the panel,
mostly low current stuff like fuel gauges etc. There are still some of these
remaining, although 90% + do run to the forest of earth inside the firewall.
With the engine off and the master switch turned off, there is no current flow.
Maybe I don't have anything to worry about?
Your thoughts appreciated
Gavin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363769#363769
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon McLin <jon.mclin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a white translucent
tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap that is commonly available
for wire harnesses; nor is it regular electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness"
is somewhere in between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap
holds, but it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I estimate
the thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
What is this, and where can I purchase some?
Thanks,
Jon McLin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Jon,
Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce carries it. Good luck!
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Starting engine soon - Should be flying this year!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon McLin
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:53 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
>
> Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a
> white translucent tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap
> that is commonly available for wire harnesses; nor is it regular
> electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness" is somewhere in
> between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap holds,
> but it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I
> estimate the thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
>
> What is this, and where can I purchase some?
>
> Thanks,
> Jon McLin
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon McLin <jon.mclin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
> Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce carries it. Good
luck!
>
Thanks, but no, it's not silicone tape. That stuff fuses together permanently.
This stuff is easily unwrapped.
I found some earlier notes I made - the Cessna stuff is apparently 12 mils thick.
Where it was used in the cabin it (installed perhaps 34 years ago) it remains
flexible, and could probably be reused. Under the cowl it was pretty hard,
and cracked when I unwrapped it.
Online I find "dry vinyl" tape for wire harnesses, which apparently sticks to itself
but can be easily unwrapped. That's the desired behavior. The dry vinyl
tape that I can find is only available in opaque black or yellow, and is much
thinner (4 mils).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Sure doesn't sound like it would pass legal inspection. Adhesive tapes are
not supposed to be used at all. Not for connecting wires or binding them
together in bundles. For that there is coraseal nylon ties and wax cord.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
Sent: January 15, 2012 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
Jon,
Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce carries it.
Good luck!
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Starting engine soon - Should be flying this year!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon McLin
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:53 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
>
> Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a
> white translucent tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap
> that is commonly available for wire harnesses; nor is it regular
> electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness" is somewhere in
> between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap holds,
> but it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I
> estimate the thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
>
> What is this, and where can I purchase some?
>
> Thanks,
> Jon McLin
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i don't talk to many pilots that use the wax cord but i do and it is worth
a look. as i understand it is still used in military planes. it has a
tensile strength of 80 lbs compared to a wire tie at 18 lbs. a spool will
last a lifetime and several wraps will secure about anything. its cross
section is about the same as flat rib lacing.
bob noffs
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> Sure doesn=92t sound like it would pass legal inspection. Adhesive tape
s
> are not supposed to be used at all. Not for connecting wires or binding
> them together in bundles. For that there is coraseal nylon ties and wax
> cord.****
>
> ** **
>
> Noel****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *
> halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
> *Sent:* January 15, 2012 2:02 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?****
>
> ** **
>
> Jon,****
>
> Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce carries it.
> Good luck!****
>
> ****
>
> Hal Benjamin - RV-4****
>
> Long Island, NY****
>
> Starting engine soon - Should be flying this year!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon McLin
> Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:53 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> >
> > Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a
> > white translucent tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap
> > that is commonly available for wire harnesses; nor is it regular
> > electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness" is somewhere in
> > between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap holds,
> > but it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I
> > estimate the thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
> >
> > What is this, and where can I purchase some?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jon McLin
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> > ****
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
I use the wax cord as well. There is something nostalgic and relaxing
about lacing up a section of wiring. I use tie wraps, loosely
positioned to hold them in position until the loom is ready.
Mike
> i don't talk to many pilots that use the wax cord but i do and it is
> worth a look. as i understand it is still used in military planes. it
> has a tensile strength of 80 lbs compared to a wire tie at 18 lbs. a
> spool will last a lifetime and several wraps will secure about
> anything. its cross section is about the same as flat rib lacing.
> bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise in damp weather |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Gavin,
It seems that you have found the problem with the loose alternator connection.
The AC ripple voltage is much larger when one of the alternator wires is not
connected. It has been my experience that a threaded fastener that is 1/4 turn
loose can cause problems.
It is not a good idea to run the engine and alternator with the battery disconnected.
The battery helps to stabilize the alternator output.
You asked,
> "Maybe I don't have anything to worry about?"
Not if everything is working to your satisfaction. The vast majority of electrical
problems are due to bad connections. Good job fixing it.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363890#363890
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Jon
Is it perhaps Teflon Tape?
See Aircraft Spruce and Ssearch Teflon Tape, it is adhesive backed. You
can also have a look at www.mcmaster.com.
Ron Parigoris
>
>
>> Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce
carries it.
>> Good luck!
>>
> Thanks, but no, it's not silicone tape. That stuff fuses
together
> permanently. This stuff is easily unwrapped.
>
> I found some earlier notes I made - the Cessna stuff is apparently
12 mils
> thick. Where it was used in the cabin it (installed perhaps 34 years
ago)
> it remains flexible, and could probably be reused. Under the cowl it
was
> pretty hard, and cracked when I unwrapped it.
>
> Online I find "dry vinyl" tape for wire harnesses, which
apparently sticks
> to itself but can be easily unwrapped. That's the desired
behavior. The
> dry vinyl tape that I can find is only available in opaque black
or
> yellow, and is much thinner (4 mils).
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
At 07:37 PM 1/14/2012, you wrote:
>
>Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a
>white translucent tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap
>that is commonly available for wire harnesses; nor is it regular
>electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness" is somewhere in
>between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap holds, but
>it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I estimate the
>thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
At Boeing in 1961 we called that stuff "Irvolite". I'm sure
this was a trade name. I've also heard it referred to as
"Sirco". Also a trade name. Given that we were using this
stuff on the B-52, it's a certainty that it has a generic
name further identified by a mil-spec.
The stuff came in both flat wrap (tape) and
sleeve (tubing) forms and the material of choice
for adding extra insulation and/or scuff protection.
The stuff was mildly self-bonding to itself but
we always secured the end of the wrap with a
string-tie.
It's not as chemically and thermally robust as the soft
silicone tape in common use today, at the same
time it's mechanical robustness is superior to
silicone. I've not seen a 'fresh' roll of it in
a very long time. I've not observed its use on
any airplane at Beech in many years. Its pedigree is
from the Polyurethane/Vinyl era . . . not something
we would see on a modern TC aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Velcro works great as a temporary wrap; just peel it open to add wire.
(Don't tell anyone, but it can work fine as a permanent wrap, too.)
Charlie
On 01/15/2012 03:03 PM, Mike Nellis wrote:
>
> I use the wax cord as well. There is something nostalgic and relaxing
> about lacing up a section of wiring. I use tie wraps, loosely
> positioned to hold them in position until the loom is ready.
>
> Mike
>
>> i don't talk to many pilots that use the wax cord but i do and it is
>> worth a look. as i understand it is still used in military planes. it
>> has a tensile strength of 80 lbs compared to a wire tie at 18 lbs. a
>> spool will last a lifetime and several wraps will secure about
>> anything. its cross section is about the same as flat rib lacing.
>> bob noffs
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
My preference is the wax cord but as with a lot of things it does take some
practice to get to install it properly. It has other pluses over the nylon
tie wraps You will never slice a hand open while rooting around in an engine
bay that has coraseal and wax cord used. I am one of the ones who has
received my fair share of slices on tie wraps.
One easy way to tell if it will pass inspection is to check and see if tape
of any kind is listed in the Maintenance Manual.. If it's not there and you
use it without an STC you may find your plane grounded and according to Mr.
Murphy it will only happen at the worst possible time. I've seen large
aircraft grounded for a $0.11 item.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob noffs
Sent: January 15, 2012 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
i don't talk to many pilots that use the wax cord but i do and it is worth a
look. as i understand it is still used in military planes. it has a tensile
strength of 80 lbs compared to a wire tie at 18 lbs. a spool will last a
lifetime and several wraps will secure about anything. its cross section is
about the same as flat rib lacing.
bob noffs
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
Sure doesn't sound like it would pass legal inspection. Adhesive tapes are
not supposed to be used at all. Not for connecting wires or binding them
together in bundles. For that there is coraseal nylon ties and wax cord.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
Sent: January 15, 2012 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
Jon,
Sounds like Silicone tape. (aka rescue tape) Aircraft Spruce carries it.
Good luck!
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Starting engine soon - Should be flying this year!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon McLin
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:53 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
>
> Wire bundles in my Cessna are in some places spiral wrapped in a
> white translucent tape. The tape is not the plastic spiral wrap
> that is commonly available for wire harnesses; nor is it regular
> electrical tape. The thickness and "stickiness" is somewhere in
> between - the tape sticks to itself enough that the wrap holds,
> but it can be readily unwrapped. It's roughly 1" wide. I
> estimate the thickness at somewhere between 5 and 10 mils.
>
> What is this, and where can I purchase some?
>
> Thanks,
> Jon McLin
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Another thing about the use of tape is it will hold heat in a bundle so if
it is used not only may it dry out and fall off but it will also change the
wire spec for current carried on any particular wire in a bundle.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Nellis
Sent: January 15, 2012 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
I use the wax cord as well. There is something nostalgic and relaxing
about lacing up a section of wiring. I use tie wraps, loosely
positioned to hold them in position until the loom is ready.
Mike
> i don't talk to many pilots that use the wax cord but i do and it is
> worth a look. as i understand it is still used in military planes. it
> has a tensile strength of 80 lbs compared to a wire tie at 18 lbs. a
> spool will last a lifetime and several wraps will secure about
> anything. its cross section is about the same as flat rib lacing.
> bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
At 09:39 PM 1/15/2012, you wrote:
>My preference is the wax cord but as with a lot of things it does
>take some practice to get to install it properly. It has other
>pluses over the nylon tie wraps You will never slice a hand open
>while rooting around in an engine bay that has coraseal and wax cord
>used. I am one of the ones who has received my fair share of slices
>on tie wraps.
>
Here's a link to a tread on the topic a few years
ago:
http://tinyurl.com/7a89njo
The "waxed cord" commonly found in military and domestic
production aircraft is probably Mil-T-43435 as described
below in the Aircraft Spruce Catalog
Emacs!
. . . and the Braden
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
At 11:42 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>
>But reflective-only lights are zero help when you're trying to just
>FIND the airport at night! That is no fun at all.
There's where your GPS comes in. While I was
still flying a lot off of 1K1, I crafted a GPS
aided approach that always put me 1/2 mile off
the approach end of the runway on an aligned
heading. Had the runway lights been out or non-
existent, reflectors would have sufficed to
complete the approach and landing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
At 11:51 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>Where do we start?
Are we all talking about the same kit? Where do I put
my hands on one of them? I just ordered a plug-n-play
HID conversion for my minivan off of Ebay.
http://tinyurl.com/6q7pueo
I'll evaluate this kit for noise before I put it on
the car.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Gremlins |
>
>2.) I installed an AEC 9005 LVW module per instructions but the LVW
>lamp flashes (blinking LED) when I power the system from my bench
>13.6v power supply.
>
>3.) Same as 2 above for my B&C LR3 regulator. I did all of their
>troubleshooting diagnostics and everything was to spec.
Do the lights go out when the alternator comes on line?
Why two separate LV warning systems?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
At 01:38 PM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>
>And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
Not sure what 4G has to do with it . . . are these
known GPS antagonists? I've never experienced a GPS
outage but it's been a few years. If your needing
really robust lighting on the subject field, perhaps
reflectors are not for you. I'm my experience here in
flyover country, they would have sufficed for every
night-time arrival I've ever made to my home field.
One could craft some LED, solar powered REIL fixtures
too. This would get you oriented with the most rudimentary
of navigation devices. It doesn't take much light to be
seen from 5 miles away. Hence, not much energy needs to
be stored to keep a few LEDs flashing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
I think he's talking about the pending LightSquared issues -- they purchased bandwidth
that was reserved for satellite communication some time ago, but the plans
for using that spectrum was scrapped as impractical (by LightSquared), so
then they began pursuing using the band as land-based 4G network spectrum.
That's all well and good, except that the band is adjacent to the GPS band, and
its power due to proximity tends to overwhelm the input circuitry of GPS receivers,
because they were never designed to be selective enough to filter out such
a thing.
My personal feeling is that this will never actually see the light of day, regardless
of all the lobbying LS can muster.
As a suggestion to your failure analysis, I think it would be a bad idea to rely
on home-grown runway lighting in a critical way -- which means diverting to
a lighted muni airport would always need to be an option anyway.
Thoughts?
On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 01:38 PM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
>
> Not sure what 4G has to do with it . . . are these
> known GPS antagonists? I've never experienced a GPS
> outage but it's been a few years. If your needing
> really robust lighting on the subject field, perhaps
> reflectors are not for you. I'm my experience here in
> flyover country, they would have sufficed for every
> night-time arrival I've ever made to my home field.
>
> One could craft some LED, solar powered REIL fixtures
> too. This would get you oriented with the most rudimentary
> of navigation devices. It doesn't take much light to be
> seen from 5 miles away. Hence, not much energy needs to
> be stored to keep a few LEDs flashing.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DavidM <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
yes, LightSquared. Multiple tests prove that their 4G cell systems do
in fact render GPS unusable. One would think the FCC would stop them
out of hand but LS gave the obamanation several million dollars so now
he is also behind their financial success, which does not bode well for
us GPS users. Even the heavies (airliners) have trouble and they are
supposed to be "interference hardened." This is politics but it GREATLY
interferes with my safety.
David M.
Daniel Hooper wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Daniel Hooper
>
> I think he's talking about the pending LightSquared issues -- they purchased
bandwidth that was reserved for satellite communication some time ago, but the
plans for using that spectrum was scrapped as impractical (by LightSquared),
so then they began pursuing using the band as land-based 4G network spectrum.
> That's all well and good, except that the band is adjacent to the GPS band, and
its power due to proximity tends to overwhelm the input circuitry of GPS receivers,
because they were never designed to be selective enough to filter out
such a thing.
>
> My personal feeling is that this will never actually see the light of day, regardless
of all the lobbying LS can muster.
>
> As a suggestion to your failure analysis, I think it would be a bad idea to rely
on home-grown runway lighting in a critical way -- which means diverting to
a lighted muni airport would always need to be an option anyway.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>> At 01:38 PM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DavidM
>>>
>>> And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
>> Not sure what 4G has to do with it . . . are these
>> known GPS antagonists? I've never experienced a GPS
>> outage but it's been a few years. If your needing
>> really robust lighting on the subject field, perhaps
>> reflectors are not for you. I'm my experience here in
>> flyover country, they would have sufficed for every
>> night-time arrival I've ever made to my home field.
>>
>> One could craft some LED, solar powered REIL fixtures
>> too. This would get you oriented with the most rudimentary
>> of navigation devices. It doesn't take much light to be
>> seen from 5 miles away. Hence, not much energy needs to
>> be stored to keep a few LEDs flashing.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DavidM <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
I've experienced a GPS outage once, but fortunately I was only on a
motorcycle at the time.
David
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 01:38 PM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
>
> Not sure what 4G has to do with it . . . are these
> known GPS antagonists? I've never experienced a GPS
> outage but it's been a few years. If your needing
> really robust lighting on the subject field, perhaps
> reflectors are not for you. I'm my experience here in
> flyover country, they would have sufficed for every
> night-time arrival I've ever made to my home field.
>
> One could craft some LED, solar powered REIL fixtures
> too. This would get you oriented with the most rudimentary
> of navigation devices. It doesn't take much light to be
> seen from 5 miles away. Hence, not much energy needs to
> be stored to keep a few LEDs flashing.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
| From: | "checkn6" <checkn6(at)yahoo.com> |
Gentlemen, thank you for all of your input and ideas.
Our little group of intrepid night flyers is now leaning towards the solar lights
with the addition of reflective tape on flexible poles. The field is seldom
used and although someone in trouble may look down and see a few twinkly lights
and find salvation it is not the intent. At one point we had considered getting
the PCL switching system, and have it done up to the highest standards but
for our little field is just seems too impractical so started looking for less
expensive home grown options.
We determined that we all know our way and could find it by landmarks (with a little
help from our GPS) even at night due to the proximity to a busy highway,
and an small but well lit business a mile from the end of the runway so the final
consensus is that the lighting would primarily be for an early evening straggler
that stayed out a little later than anticipated so LED solar would give
ample service, and for departing earlier in the morning than the suns desire
to get out of bed then reflectors would light the way while departing.
Thanks again for the input and ideas.
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363983#363983
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Weak and Static on Transmission |
I have a GNS430W radio and Advanced Aircraft Electronics high gain antenna
model 5T in my Lancair Legacy (fiberglass fuselage). The antenna is mounted
vertically behind the rear bulkhead on the right side of the fuselage.
Although I didn't need that much length to reach the antenna, I made the
coax the recommended 13 feet or so length. (right now I cant remember the
exact length recommended). This antenna is designed to be mounted inside
plastic airplanes and doesn't require a ground plane.
I get a "weak and lots of static but usable" reports from radio checks and
on occasion, while airborne, static gets so great that I can not hear
approach at all. I have had to make two NORDO landings at a Class C airport
that is located under an overhanging Class B airspace due to the receiving
static. The controllers are beginning to take exception to this and I need
to get this fixed! :>)
I have checked the SWR on the antenna and it was around 1.5 which I
understand to be fine.
Any ideas as to where I should begin my investigation on the source of this
static?
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
fwiw, your idea sounds good. my wife enjoys all these solar lights
available and has them around her gardens. i think some variety would work
for you.
bob noffs
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:41 AM, checkn6 wrote:
>
> Gentlemen, thank you for all of your input and ideas.
>
> Our little group of intrepid night flyers is now leaning towards the sola
r
> lights with the addition of reflective tape on flexible poles. The field
is
> seldom used and although someone in trouble may look down and see a few
> twinkly lights and find salvation it is not the intent. At one point we h
ad
> considered getting the PCL switching system, and have it done up to the
> highest standards but for our little field is just seems too impractical
so
> started looking for less expensive home grown options.
>
> We determined that we all know our way and could find it by landmarks
> (with a little help from our GPS=92) even at night due to the proximity t
o a
> busy highway, and an small but well lit business a mile from the end of t
he
> runway so the final consensus is that the lighting would primarily be for
> an early evening straggler that stayed out a little later than anticipate
d
> so LED solar would give ample service, and for departing earlier in the
> morning than the suns desire to get out of bed then reflectors would ligh
t
> the way while departing.
>
> Thanks again for the input and ideas.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363983#363983
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
This sounds a lot like rib-lacing cord. Is that an acceptable substitute?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/threads2.php
James
On 16 January 2012 05:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:39 PM 1/15/2012, you wrote:
>
> My preference is the wax cord but as with a lot of things it does take
> some practice to get to install it properly. It has other pluses over the
> nylon tie wraps You will never slice a hand open while rooting around in an
> engine bay that has coraseal and wax cord used. I am one of the ones who
> has received my fair share of slices on tie wraps.
>
>
> Here's a link to a tread on the topic a few years
> ago:
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/7a89njo*
>
> The "waxed cord" commonly found in military and domestic
> production aircraft is probably Mil-T-43435 as described
> below in the Aircraft Spruce Catalog
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> . . . and the Braden
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> **
>
> ** Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
I missed most of this thread...but, wanted to add a comment.
Those solar powered lights should work well for your specific
application.
However, they have a tendency for a short life span. Even the expensive
units. I suspect the typical NiCad cells in them go bad. And, bugs,
usually spiders can squeeze into a lot of the designs and their activity
kills the circuitry.
So. find units that are 100% sealed, use standard sized rechargeable
cells, maybe a better quality, etc. Buy spares and install them closer
in spacing than you originally guesstimated..... Make sure that whoever
is in charge of mowing (grass..?) is sober and had excellent vision.
D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: bob noffs
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting
fwiw, your idea sounds good. my wife enjoys all these solar lights
available and has them around her gardens. i think some variety would
work for you.
bob noffs
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:41 AM, checkn6 wrote:
Gentlemen, thank you for all of your input and ideas.
Our little group of intrepid night flyers is now leaning towards the
solar lights with the addition of reflective tape on flexible poles. The
field is seldom used and although someone in trouble may look down and
see a few twinkly lights and find salvation it is not the intent. At one
point we had considered getting the PCL switching system, and have it
done up to the highest standards but for our little field is just seems
too impractical so started looking for less expensive home grown
options.
We determined that we all know our way and could find it by
landmarks (with a little help from our GPS=92) even at night due to the
proximity to a busy highway, and an small but well lit business a mile
from the end of the runway so the final consensus is that the lighting
would primarily be for an early evening straggler that stayed out a
little later than anticipated so LED solar would give ample service, and
for departing earlier in the morning than the suns desire to get out of
bed then reflectors would light the way while departing.
Thanks again for the input and ideas.
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363983#363983
==========
-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
LED-based pavement markers from BrightPortal Resources were recently
installed at 18FD to supplement the existing pilot-controlled incandescents.
VERY impressive. The individual lights are stuck to concrete blocks plopped
in the dirt beside the existing light fixtures. Relatively inexpensive,
zero maintenance, no wires to string and appropriate colors for side and
end-markers are readily available.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
One could craft some LED, solar powered REIL fixtures
too. This would get you oriented with the most rudimentary
of navigation devices. It doesn't take much light to be
seen from 5 miles away. Hence, not much energy needs to
be stored to keep a few LEDs flashing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
Thanks Bob; I knew you would have the right link to a certified product.
Noel
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: January 16, 2012 1:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape?
At 09:39 PM 1/15/2012, you wrote:
My preference is the wax cord but as with a lot of things it does take some
practice to get to install it properly. It has other pluses over the nylon
tie wraps You will never slice a hand open while rooting around in an engine
bay that has coraseal and wax cord used. I am one of the ones who has
received my fair share of slices on tie wraps.
Here's a link to a tread on the topic a few years
ago:
http://tinyurl.com/7a89njo
The "waxed cord" commonly found in military and domestic
production aircraft is probably Mil-T-43435 as described
below in the Aircraft Spruce Catalog
Emacs!
. . . and the Braden
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Good Evening Neal,
Just wondering what you mean when you say the lights are stuck in a
concrete block near the existing lights.
A concrete block on the surface could be a rather dangerous item if it is
even partially above the ground. If the block were completely buried, I
think that would be alright.
Whatever supports the light, it should be frangible as determined by the
type aircraft involved.
I have read some big airport specifications where frangible was deemed to
mean frangible by a 36 inch wheel. I would think a Bonanza could get some
serious damage if it hit a concrete block on the surface.
36 inch diameter wheel on a heavy jet might be no problem at all.
Any comments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/16/2012 6:14:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
n8zg(at)att.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neal George"
LED-based pavement markers from BrightPortal Resources were recently
installed at 18FD to supplement the existing pilot-controlled
incandescents.
VERY impressive. The individual lights are stuck to concrete blocks
plopped
in the dirt beside the existing light fixtures. Relatively inexpensive,
zero maintenance, no wires to string and appropriate colors for side and
end-markers are readily available.
Neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Good points Bob -
I wasn't involved in the install, but it appears that the LED fixtures are
bonded (some sort of glue/putty/epoxy/caulk) to the blocks. Standard block
is nominally 8" high x 10" wide x 8" thick, actually 7.5" x 9.5" x 7.5".
The blocks in this situation are half-thick standard concrete block, so
approximately 7.5" x 9.5" x 3.5". It also appears that the blocks were
inset slightly in an effort to get them close to level. The result is the
blocks are less than 3" proud of the ground, immediately adjacent to the
existing runway edge- and end-marker light fixtures, which stand knee high.
Low enough to not be a prop strike hazard, but probably not friendly to
wheel pants.
But if one strays into the lights, chances are good the lights and their
mounts are the least of one's troubles. To paraphrase the old
cartographers, "Here there be Dragons."
neal
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
Good Evening Neal,
Just wondering what you mean when you say the lights are stuck in a concrete
block near the existing lights.
A concrete block on the surface could be a rather dangerous item if it is
even partially above the ground. If the block were completely buried, I
think that would be alright.
Whatever supports the light, it should be frangible as determined by the
type aircraft involved.
I have read some big airport specifications where frangible was deemed to
mean frangible by a 36 inch wheel. I would think a Bonanza could get some
serious damage if it hit a concrete block on the surface.
36 inch diameter wheel on a heavy jet might be no problem at all.
Any comments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/16/2012 6:14:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
n8zg(at)att.net writes:
LED-based pavement markers from BrightPortal Resources were recently
installed at 18FD to supplement the existing pilot-controlled incandescents.
VERY impressive. The individual lights are stuck to concrete blocks plopped
in the dirt beside the existing light fixtures. Relatively inexpensive,
zero maintenance, no wires to string and appropriate colors for side and
end-markers are readily available.
Neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Weak and Static on Transmission |
1/17/2012
Hello Bill Bradburry, You wrote:
1) "Although I didn't need that much length to reach the antenna, I made the
coax the recommended 13 feet or so length."
It may not have a direct bearing on your "weak and lots of static but
usable" problem, but it sounds like you are a bit confused about the antenna
requirements of the GNS 430W.
The specific coax length that you referred to in your posting refers to the
GPS antenna for the 430W. High quality coax such as RG400 is required.
Here is what AAE says about the cable length for one of their VHF comm
antennas:
"Q. What cable length is recommended for the antenna ?
A. Any length can be used. This antenna is impedance matched to 50 ohms to
allow you to use any length required."
2) "Any ideas as to where I should begin my investigation on the source of
this
static?"
You could narrow down the source of the problem a bit if you could borrow a
GNS 430W from a fellow builder or shop and install it temporarily for
testing. If the problem goes away the problem is inside your 430W box and
not the aircraft installation.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: Pull out and reseat your 430W box before going to the bother of
borrowing another unit -- the problem may just be a reseating or mis aligned
pin condition.
============================================================
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Weak and Static on Transmission
I have a GNS430W radio and Advanced Aircraft Electronics high gain antenna
model 5T in my Lancair Legacy (fiberglass fuselage). The antenna is mounted
vertically behind the rear bulkhead on the right side of the fuselage.
Although I didn't need that much length to reach the antenna, I made the
coax the recommended 13 feet or so length. (right now I cant remember the
exact length recommended). This antenna is designed to be mounted inside
plastic airplanes and doesn't require a ground plane.
I get a "weak and lots of static but usable" reports from radio checks and
on occasion, while airborne, static gets so great that I can not hear
approach at all. I have had to make two NORDO landings at a Class C airport
that is located under an overhanging Class B airspace due to the receiving
static. The controllers are beginning to take exception to this and I need
to get this fixed! :>)
I have checked the SWR on the antenna and it was around 1.5 which I
understand to be fine.
Any ideas as to where I should begin my investigation on the source of this
static?
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
As far as the runway lights, I guess it depends on how much you trust
your runway lights. If you're willing to trust your work on your
OBAM aircraft, I wouldn't think there would be a problem trusting
your OBAM runway lights.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
Excellent point! I've been wrestling semantics with
some lawyers who would like for the public to believe
that "experimental" aircraft are labeled such because
they are fraught with heretofore unproven and potentially
dangerous features of design and fabrication.
I offered the notion that "experimental" is synonymous
with "exploration" and "discovery". For students in
the chemistry lab, the treatment of certain substances
is indeed an "experiment". For the teacher, it's a recipe
for a successful teaching moment. The outcome of the
experiment is known to the teacher . . . just as the outcome
of a kit airplane built to instructions and common sense.
When the kit is completed and flying, that builder can
now be a teacher in that they've "been there, done that".
It is the job of a teacher to make sure that deviations
from instructions are well thought out, perhaps "explored
or discovered", and proven to be useful, non-hazardous
changes whereupon the changes are no longer experimental.
Experimentation is a process by which a useful design goal
is achieved.
When one sets out to fabricate DIY runway lights, it's
almost a certainty that individuals who choose to experiment
in public will sort through the ideas and potential
pitfalls in places like this List-Server. Even then,
I would expect the developer to use the system many times
under ever-increasing levels of degradation due to environmental
effects . . . and report back as to the limits he/she
personally places on the utility of that system.
TC aviation has processes and procedures for advancing
the state of the art and reducing risk. TC aviation is famous
for what I call the $1000 meeting where useful advances
are slow and cumbersome.
OBAM aviation has a process too. It's different but no less effective . . .
and a whole lot more satisfying. We who sit at our keyboards
with a cup of coffee collaborate and advance an idea further
and faster to the benefit of hundreds who read now and
that many more who read the archives later. This is the
process by which WE choose to reduce risk.
Keep it up folks! We're doing good work here.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
At 08:48 AM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
>This sounds a lot like rib-lacing cord. Is that an acceptable substitute?
Not sure which direction the substitution is taking
place. Are you asking if you can use the recommended
rib lacing cord to tie wire bundles? The answer would
be certainly. Use the flat-lace described to tie
fabric to ribs? Don't know. I'd be inclined to
stick with the legacy, 'been there, done that' materials.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
At 06:38 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
Thanks Bob; I knew you would have the right link to a certified product.
Let's not be too quick to call it 'certified' . . . it's
certainly a material built to known quality and performance
standards and suited to the task on certified airplanes.
But no part or accessory gets holy-watered by the FAA with
any sort of certification, only complete airframes get
type certificates. Once ANY part or material shows up
on the bill of materials for a TC aircraft, it is
'qualified' for such service irrespective of its pedigree.
There are many products built to rigorous specifications
that may or may no be suited to task aboard an airplane.
So just because it's 'mil-spec' doesn't make it holy. In
this case, the flat lace cited has a long and successful
history in TC aircraft and elsewhere.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
At 08:07 AM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
. . . I get a "weak and lots of static but usable" reports from
radio checks and on occasion, while airborne, static gets so great
that I can not hear approach at all. I have had to make two NORDO
landings at a Class C airport that is located under an overhanging
Class B airspace due to the receiving static. The controllers are
beginning to take exception to this and I need to get this fixed! :>)
Bob's points are well taken. I can expand by suggesting
that you are committed to the classic "divide and conquer"
ploy . . . you need to separate the potential for an antenna
system problems from the radio's potential problems.
It's difficult to sift the sands of potential problems
without hearing the nature of the "static". If you were
getting a signal report from a grey-bearded ham radio
operator he would qualify the report with "weak to the point
of inducing pop-corn noise", or succumbing to atmospheric
noises like lightning crashes, or scratching noise reminiscent
of a loose connection. Further, such noises heard by
experienced ears could probably tell if it was in the
RF or audio chain of your transmission system.
But alas, I've never heard a cogent signal report from
a tower operator and seldom from other pilots in their own
airplanes.
I'd recommend a series of experiments. Plug a
hand held into the antenna system and get signal reports
from other pilots. You can start on the ground but
they should probably be airborne so that they can fly
outbound and get some sense of signal strength along
with judgement of audio quality. If it doesn't repeat
on the ground, then you go flying too. If the other
guy reports noises, do YOU hear any noises? Open the
radio's squelch control and tune in stations some
distance away. Does the complaining controller repeat
the complaint while the hand-held is being used?
If the antenna system seems okay, this leaves the
radio. "Weak and static" suggests one or more issues
combining to reduce power output and introduction
of noises reminiscent of loose connections. Probably
nothing you can do about it personally except to
confirm poor performance by getting a measurement
of output power during an SWR check. This takes a
unique kind of instrument not often found in the
OBAM aviation toolbox.
Emacs!
Also, check with someone else in another airplane or
even on the ground who overhears both sides of your
conversation with the controllers. Does that third party
agree with the controller's assessment? Can they refine the
description of "static"? I assisted in a similar
exercise many years ago where the builder left a
tape recorder running with the mic in front of
the Unicom receiver in his hangar. One could hear
both sides of the conversation. In this case, both
sides of the conversation were clear. We then did a
frequency check on the airplane radio and found that
it was at the high end of the spec . . . enough off
center to be at the edge of the government's receiver
bandwidth but still inside the bandwidth of the
lower cost receiver in the hangar. Replacing one
of the transmitter's crystals fixed the problem.
In your modern, frequency synthesized radio, this
is an exceedingly remote possibility.
The point is that you need GOOD data that tests
a host of possibilities. "Weak and static" from
one observer is insufficient data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
Please ignore any emails from my yahoo account.. I am NOT in England or anywhere
else and do NOT send money anywhere!!
We are working hard to correct this.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
I was wondering if there was anything special about the electrical type
that would preclude me from using the spare flat waxed rib cord I have --
it came on a reel with about 2 miles of cord, so there's quite a bit left
over from when I did the covering!
Thanks for the advice.
James
On 17 January 2012 15:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 08:48 AM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
>
>> This sounds a lot like rib-lacing cord. =C3=82 Is that an acceptable
>> substitute?=C3=82
>>
>
> Not sure which direction the substitution is taking
> place. Are you asking if you can use the recommended
> rib lacing cord to tie wire bundles? The answer would
> be certainly. Use the flat-lace described to tie
> fabric to ribs? Don't know. I'd be inclined to
> stick with the legacy, 'been there, done that' materials.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
=====**===================
===========**=
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Bundle Wrapping Tape? |
At 02:54 PM 1/17/2012, you wrote:
I was wondering if there was anything special about the electrical
type that would preclude me from using the spare flat waxed rib cord
I have -- it came on a reel with about 2 miles of cord, so there's
quite a bit left over from when I did the covering!
Thanks for the advice.
I think that's a safe substitution. In fact, does your
spool of flat lace have any numbers on it . . . like
Mil-T-$#@%?
It may well be that the stuff we tie wires with is
exactly the same as that used to stitch ribs. In any
case, wire ties are not highly stress nor subject to
the effects of exposure to the environment. Using
it to tie wires is not a high-risk decision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon McLin <jon.mclin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Crimping to component leads? |
I recently ran across "crimp sleeves" or some such at a web site, associated with
a leaded electrical component. Although it wasn't explicit, I gathered that
this is simply a small metal tube which can be used to crimp a wire to the lead
of the component. This approach would be convenient in a couple of cases:
using resistors in lieu of fuses or circuit breakers for low-amperage circuit
(for example, with LED lighting or indicators, one could put the current limiting
resistor at the bus rather than the device, and no additional circuit protection
would be necessary); or diode functions could be implemented in the
wiring harness.
I've found no other reference or source to anything like this. Is my interpretation
correct? If so, where might one find "crimp sleeves", beyond that one site?
I assume this would be limited to lead-to-wire vs. lead-to-lead (as might
be used in cascading components) - is this the case? What components are suitable
for this approach? The sample was actually an axially-leaded thermostat,
but I'd hope/expect it would work with leaded resistors and beefy-bodied plastic-encapsulated
diodes. And that leaded reed switches would be a really poor
choice.
Thoughts?
Thx,
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimping to component leads? |
At 08:32 PM 1/17/2012, you wrote:
I recently ran across "crimp sleeves" or some such at a web site,
associated with a leaded electrical component. Although it wasn't
explicit, I gathered that this is simply a small metal tube which can
be used to crimp a wire to the lead of the component. This approach
would be convenient in a couple of cases: using resistors in lieu of
fuses or circuit breakers for low-amperage circuit (for example, with
LED lighting or indicators, one could put the current limiting
resistor at the bus rather than the device, and no additional circuit
protection would be necessary); or diode functions could be
implemented in the wiring harness.
There are a number of such products that I saw in common
usage at Beech. Installing in-line components was not
allowed but they WERE used to splice wires and COULD be
used to install components.
Here's my own favorite technique for 'homeless' components.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Homeless/Homeless_Components.htm
The goal is (1) good electrical connection and (2) support
of vibration prone solid wires including the solid-by-solder
strands of the wires.
I've found no other reference or source to anything like this. Is my
interpretation correct? If so, where might one find "crimp sleeves",
beyond that one site? I assume this would be limited to lead-to-wire
vs. lead-to-lead (as might be used in cascading components) - is this
the case? What components are suitable for this approach? The
sample was actually an axially-leaded thermostat, but I'd hope/expect
it would work with leaded resistors and beefy-bodied
plastic-encapsulated diodes.
Yup.
And that leaded reed switches would be a really poor choice.
You got that right!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Gremlins |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
> Do the lights go out when the alternator comes on line?
> Why two separate LV warning systems?
I've got a few days to go before engine start so I can't address the on-line alternator
scenario.
Re 2 LVW's, I have two alternators. The stby alternator uses a Ford-type regulator,
hence the 9005 LVM.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364202#364202
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Just to make sure the obvious is not overlooked, are you sure that the location
of the antenna is surrounded by fiberglass and not RF-opaque carbon fiber?
IIRC, the Legacy uses a lot of CF in the airframe.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364203#364203
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious of likely P-static. Does
the aircraft have any static wicks?
On 1/18/2012 10:30 AM, jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> Just to make sure the obvious is not overlooked, are you sure that the location
of the antenna is surrounded by fiberglass and not RF-opaque carbon fiber?
> IIRC, the Legacy uses a lot of CF in the airframe.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364203#364203
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical Gremlins |
>I've got a few days to go before engine start so I can't address the
>on-line alternator scenario.
>Re 2 LVW's, I have two alternators. The stby alternator uses a
>Ford-type regulator, hence the 9005 LVM.
Understand. Check the calibration of your
bench test setup for the LV Warning trip
points. To have both an LR3 and ABMM module
to be off by the same direction and magnitude
is curious.
Both are set by design at 13.0 volts although
being .5 V higher wouldn't hurt their utility.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
At 11:30 AM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>Just to make sure the obvious is not overlooked, are you sure that
>the location of the antenna is surrounded by fiberglass and not
>RF-opaque carbon fiber?
>IIRC, the Legacy uses a lot of CF in the airframe.
???? Hmmm . . . didn't know that about the Legacy
but I wondered when he made the reference to 'fiberglas'. I
thought it curious that Lancair would use the carbon
fiber in the IV and glass in the Legacy.
Yeah, if the antenna is inside a carbon structure
it's effectiveness is severely degraded.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
At 10:18 PM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious
>of likely P-static. Does the aircraft have any static wicks?
He didn't mention flying in precip and static
wicks don't have anything to 'connect' to on
a glass airplane. If it's a carbon fiber then
wicks might be useful but my impression was that
his poor signal reports were at low altitudes
and probably slowed down for approach to landing
and in clear weather. P-static wouldn't hurt
a transmitted signal, only a received signal and
he didn't mention not being able to hear . . .
only be heard.
This is why the differentiation between weak-signal
static versus poor connection static is important.
The presence of carbon would support the notion of
it being the weak-signal variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
continues.
Lancair has an all carbon Legacy available but this one is all fiberglass
with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer, which is carbon. The
antenna is inside the fuselage about 4+feet forward of the stabilizer.
The bottom and rear half of the plane is in primer. The rest of the plane
is bare fiberglass. The primer ends just about at the location of the
antenna on the fuselage. I don't know if this would have an effect on the
static on the plane or not. I would have had to consider static wicks a
long time earlier in the build in order to install bonding wire. It is too
late now AFAIK.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 10:18 PM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious
>of likely P-static. Does the aircraft have any static wicks?
He didn't mention flying in precip and static
wicks don't have anything to 'connect' to on
a glass airplane. If it's a carbon fiber then
wicks might be useful but my impression was that
his poor signal reports were at low altitudes
and probably slowed down for approach to landing
and in clear weather. P-static wouldn't hurt
a transmitted signal, only a received signal and
he didn't mention not being able to hear . . .
only be heard.
This is why the differentiation between weak-signal
static versus poor connection static is important.
The presence of carbon would support the notion of
it being the weak-signal variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Bill,
Could this be interference from
1. Your EFIS?
2. Your electronic ignition at higher RPM?
I have an SL-30 with the antenna behind my rear seat bulkhead, and a SL-40
with the antenna a homemade in the vertical stab.
SL-30 is noisy like you describe, but the -40 works fine.
I think it is the EFIS (was worse with Blue mountain, still present with
Grand Rapids, but not as bad)
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Bradburry
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 7:38 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
continues.
Lancair has an all carbon Legacy available but this one is all fiberglass
with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer, which is carbon. The
antenna is inside the fuselage about 4+feet forward of the stabilizer.
The bottom and rear half of the plane is in primer. The rest of the plane
is bare fiberglass. The primer ends just about at the location of the
antenna on the fuselage. I don't know if this would have an effect on the
static on the plane or not. I would have had to consider static wicks a
long time earlier in the build in order to install bonding wire. It is too
late now AFAIK.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
At 10:18 PM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious
>of likely P-static. Does the aircraft have any static wicks?
He didn't mention flying in precip and static
wicks don't have anything to 'connect' to on
a glass airplane. If it's a carbon fiber then
wicks might be useful but my impression was that
his poor signal reports were at low altitudes
and probably slowed down for approach to landing
and in clear weather. P-static wouldn't hurt
a transmitted signal, only a received signal and
he didn't mention not being able to hear . . .
only be heard.
This is why the differentiation between weak-signal
static versus poor connection static is important.
The presence of carbon would support the notion of
it being the weak-signal variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak and Static on Transmission |
Any chance that the kit has carbon material layered into the fiberglass for
some reason like rigidity, or some other form of strength needed..? Sure
sounds like the antenna is being blocked. Have you tried to temporary
substitute a simple outside antenna..? At least that would eliminate the
radio system as being the cause....
Dave
___________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:38 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
>
>
> Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on
> the
> ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
> reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
> approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was
> a
> loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
> have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my
> radio
> back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
> below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far)
> and
> am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
> have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
> continues.
>
> Lancair has an all carbon Legacy available but this one is all fiberglass
> with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer, which is carbon. The
> antenna is inside the fuselage about 4+feet forward of the stabilizer.
> The bottom and rear half of the plane is in primer. The rest of the plane
> is bare fiberglass. The primer ends just about at the location of the
> antenna on the fuselage. I don't know if this would have an effect on the
> static on the plane or not. I would have had to consider static wicks a
> long time earlier in the build in order to install bonding wire. It is
> too
> late now AFAIK.
>
> Bill B
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:10 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
>
>
>
> At 10:18 PM 1/18/2012, you wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm surprised no one has brought up the obvious
>>of likely P-static. Does the aircraft have any static wicks?
>
> He didn't mention flying in precip and static
> wicks don't have anything to 'connect' to on
> a glass airplane. If it's a carbon fiber then
> wicks might be useful but my impression was that
> his poor signal reports were at low altitudes
> and probably slowed down for approach to landing
> and in clear weather. P-static wouldn't hurt
> a transmitted signal, only a received signal and
> he didn't mention not being able to hear . . .
> only be heard.
>
> This is why the differentiation between weak-signal
> static versus poor connection static is important.
> The presence of carbon would support the notion of
> it being the weak-signal variety.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Burnt wire at Ducati Regulator |
| From: | "jerrytex" <jery230(at)tconline.net> |
I had originally posted this message on the Kitfox Forum and have since spoken
to Bob on the phone and he suggested that I put this on the aero electrical forum
as well. I believe that it was a bad connection done by the previous builder
and have since replaced/repaired with a new connector and a proper crimp. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had a forced landing today due to smoke in the cockpit. Fortunately I was nearby
the airport and landed safely after shutting down all the electrical. After
removing the foam donuts that my butt cut out of the seat pads, I started troubleshooting.
I found that one of the wires from the coils/alternator where it
goes into the regulator was fried.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364387#364387
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_063_rev_204.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_061_rev_147.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RG 58 Connectors VS RG 400 Connectors |
| From: | "bnelson79" <bnelson79(at)embarqmail.com> |
I currently have RG 58 coax connecting my radio to the antenna. Picking up a lot
of engine noise though. Would like to switch over to RG 400. But I see that
RG 400 coax has BNC 400 connectors. Will the BNC 400 female connector fit
on to a BNC 58 male connector?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364410#364410
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Burnt wire at Ducati Regulator |
At 03:33 PM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
Thanks for the follow-up Jerry and the pictures. It would be interesting
to have the old cut-off terminal to examine. It MIGHT have been a failure
of the fast-on terminal's grip on the tab but from your description of
the crimps, failure at the wire-to-terminal connection seems more likely.
In any case, peering at it under the microscope would still be an
interesting exercise.
As we discussed on the phone, if the new crimp tool you've purchased
specifically covers "PIDG" terminals, then you're good to go with
an inspection and perhaps some replacement of existing terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG 58 Connectors VS RG 400 Connectors |
At 07:01 PM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
I currently have RG 58 coax connecting my radio to the
antenna. Picking up a lot of engine noise though. Would like to
switch over to RG 400.
It is doubtful that a change of coax will fix
any noise problem.
But I see that RG 400 coax has BNC 400 connectors. Will the BNC 400 female
connector fit on to a BNC 58 male connector?
Yes, "BNC" is the designation for a series
of connectors that will mate with each other
irrespective of the style of coax in the
connector.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)yahoo.ca> |
Hi Bob
-
Though-this is not aircraft related,-you did mention-you were going t
o install an HID light system in-your vehicle.- I just installed an aft
ermarket system in a 2001 VW Passat.- No noticable noise/issues on the au
dio system, although I haven;t held my handheld nav/com near the ballasts.
-
Bottom line, for about $100 Cnd, the lights are great compared to the halog
ens I had previously.
-
Regards,-
-
Rick
Vans #40956
Southampton, Ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:14 PM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>
>Though this is not aircraft related, you did mention you were going
>to install an HID light system in your vehicle. I just installed an
>aftermarket system in a 2001 VW Passat. No noticable noise/issues
>on the audio system, although I haven;t held my handheld nav/com
>near the ballasts.
>
>Bottom line, for about $100 Cnd, the lights are great compared to
>the halogens I had previously.
Rick, Thanks for the input. I've not received the
exemplar kit that folks are reporting as 'noisy' but
I did get this kit from an advertiser on eBay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/120843597694?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649
The parts look good. My Sedona is in the transmission
shop so I won't be able to try the new lights until
Monday. Will let the group know what I discover as
well. Let me know if your hand-held 'sniffer' smells
anything.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grand rapids cs02 / cs01 amp sensor |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi all
> I am installing a Grand Rapids J6000 EIS in my aircraft.
> > Where have people wired the amp current sensor? and through whit size
> > wire was it?
> > There are 2 different current sensors and they are for different size
> > wires?
> >
> > you can use the CS-01 or CS-02 or amps. the most important difference
> > is the size wire that is allowed for each.
> > the CS-01 100amp can fit up to a #4 wire and the CS-02 50amp can only
> > fit up to #6 wire. so if you're using a big battery cable most
> > people require the #4 wire and the CS-01.
> >
> > So which one to use and where did you fit it in the elec circuit on a
> > Jab3300?
> >
> > Chris
> > Zodiac XL
> > Jab 3300
> >
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364425#364425
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Headset microphone level reducer |
Hi there Etienne,
The MGL radio can have the microphone levels independently set- do you have
the V10 or V6 radio?
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Etienne
Phillips
Sent: 02 January 2012 08:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Headset microphone level reducer
Hi All
I have two dissimilar headsets that have very different microphone output
levels. The one headset is an oldish basic Avcomm model, and the other is a
new child-sized one. My MGL radio/intercom doesn't have the ability to
reduce the volume of the new headset adequately.
I've never worked with electret microphones before, so am not sure how to
build a signal reducer. I have noticed that they are polarity sensitive,
which leads me to expect some phantom power is required...?
I need to reduce the volume by about 15dB (according to the MGL radio) to
match the Avcomm. Ideally, I'd like to be able to build a passive circuit
that I can squeeze into the headset itself, rather than an interface box or
off-the-shelf device. This will allow me to use the new headset in other
aircraft as the Avcomm's seem to play nicely with other major brands.
If anyone has some insight, I'd be most appreciative!
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Weak and Static on Transmission |
1/21/2012
Hello Bill Bradburry, You wrote: "These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly."
I consider the following items to be mandatory equipment in my experimental
amateur built airplane both during phase one testing and subsequently:
1) One of the readily available, portable, battery powered hand held VHF
communications radios along with both its original rechargeable battery
(recently recharged) and a spare fitted battery case filled with alkaline
batteries.
2) An adapter that allows me to plug my headset into the portable radio.
3) A means to temporarily connect the antenna connection of the portable
radio into one of the airplane's more capable antennae. Note that:
a) Actually using this temporary antenna connection is optional at the time
of intended use and initial attempts at communication may be made using the
antenna mounted on the portable radio itself.
b) Using this temporary antenna connection and the hand held radio for
trouble shooting may aid in locating the source of your communication
problem.
Following the above philosophy may take you out of the "afraid to fly
category".
When you eventually solve this problem please let us know what the problem
was -- thanks.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: You also wrote: "I sent my radio back to have it checked out and nothing
was found."
A "ground checks OK" result does not guarantee that the connection between
the radio and your airplane is also OK. Have you been able to borrow an
identical radio and test it in your airplane?
==========================================================
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Weak and Static on Transmission
Well, to further clarify this problem. I seem to be able to hear ok on the
ground while taxiing around the airport, but after I leave the airport the
reception gets really bad. At first I thought it was a problem with the
approach frequency because that is where it would first start up. It was a
loud hiss in the headphones so loud that I could not hear ATC. In fact, I
have made two NORDO landings as a result on this loud hiss. I sent my radio
back to have it checked out and nothing was found. All this trouble is at
below 5000 ft and fine weather. I am flying off my 40 hours (22 so far) and
am only flying in good weather. These radio problems at a Class C airport
have made me afraid to fly. ATC could take some action against me if it
continues.
Lancair has an all carbon Legacy available but this one is all fiberglass
with the exception of the horizontal stabilizer, which is carbon. The
antenna is inside the fuselage about 4+feet forward of the stabilizer.
The bottom and rear half of the plane is in primer. The rest of the plane
is bare fiberglass. The primer ends just about at the location of the
antenna on the fuselage. I don't know if this would have an effect on the
static on the plane or not. I would have had to consider static wicks a
long time earlier in the build in order to install bonding wire. It is too
late now AFAIK.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grand rapids cs02 / cs01 amp sensor |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i put mine on the cable from the battery after the starter so it
monitored supply to the panel.
bob noffs
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:46 PM, chris Sinfield <
chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
>
> Hi all
> > I am installing a Grand Rapids J6000 EIS in my aircraft.
> > > Where have people wired the amp current sensor? and through whit size
> > > wire was it?
> > > There are 2 different current sensors and they are for different size
> > > wires?
> > >
> > > you can use the CS-01 or CS-02 or amps. the most important difference
> > > is the size wire that is allowed for each.
> > > the CS-01 100amp can fit up to a #4 wire and the CS-02 50amp can only
> > > fit up to #6 wire. so if you're using a big battery cable most
> > > people require the #4 wire and the CS-01.
> > >
> > > So which one to use and where did you fit it in the elec circuit on a
> > > Jab3300?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > Zodiac XL
> > > Jab 3300
> > >
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364425#364425
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Headset microphone level reducer |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Jay
I've got a V10 radio, and I've already maxed out the settings, turning the pax
headset all the way down, and it still was too loud. I don't want to turn up the
Pilot's mic, as it is set correctly, matching the incoming radio volume.
I haven't gotten around to trying out Bob's suggestion yet, but I'm pretty sure
it'll work.
Thanks
Etienne
On 21 Jan 2012, at 10:43 AM, Jay Hyde wrote:
>
> Hi there Etienne,
>
> The MGL radio can have the microphone levels independently set- do you have
> the V10 or V6 radio?
>
> Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
>the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
>on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
>
> Roger
>
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
transmission line sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SWR Meter OOPS |
Sorry, hit the 'send' function before finishing the
reply. Ignore the previous posting . . .
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
>the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
>on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
>
> Roger
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
directional coupler sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common.
Emacs!
A general description of this device can be secured
at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWR_meter
They are quite effective over the range of 2 to
perhaps 30 MHz. To be useful, the length of transmission
line inside must be a small fraction of a wavelength
at the frequency of interest. In this case, 126 Mhz.
When you study the design of a Watt/SWR meter suited
for VHF . . .
Emacs!
The sampling is in a single "slug" that can be
rotated to present complimentary forward and reverse
power samples.
Emacs!
The slug contains a miniaturized version of the directional
coupler sampling sampling loops found in your SWR meter.
Here's a photo of a miniaturized version of your SWR meter
optimized for VHF/UHF service. The loops are about 1/2"
long.
Emacs!
So the short answer is the instrument you have is useful
at Citizen's band frequencies and below. You need something
tailored to VHF to do any serious work with your ship's
antennas. Something like this
Emacs!
which can be had for about $60 off eBay. It's optimized
for VHF and will produce more useful readings.
For an more in-dept explanation you can browse a compendium of
publications at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RF_PWR_Meter/
and in particular an article at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RF_PWR_Meter/Directional%20Coupler%20pa0nhc.pdf
which describes a modification of instruments like yours
that extends their useful range into VHF/UHF regions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
I wouldn't use this type of SWR meter on anything north of 50 mHz. Find a
ham or telco tech who used to work on microwave equipment to test your
antenna. Such a person might also advise you on things like ground planes
and antenna location. For certified aircraft the work should be signed off
by a certified avionics shop.
Noel
-----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: January 21, 2012 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SWR Meter
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2012, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> I have a Vintage Sears SWR / FS meter which appears to be
>the same as the Cal Com Model 9856. Can this be used to check the antenna
>on aircraft nav com radios? If so, how do I set it up for use?
>
> Roger
>
This is no doubt an excellent example of a
transmission line sampling reflectometer. Dozens
of products of this genre' were manufactured
and they are quite common.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
I forgot to say there was at least one Heathkit VHF SWR/FS meter on E-Bay a
few minutes ago. Not the highest quality meter but it will put you in the
ball park.
Noel
December 28, 2011 - January 21, 2012
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ku