AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-lv
July 07, 2013 - August 01, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/ch3yly
Your choice as to 'better'. What are your design
goals for appearance, functionality, and cost
of ownership? Is ease of fabrication, installation
and wiring important to you?
And for the lights and other electrical equipment, which has been the
choice: the classic rocker switches or the color coded toggle switches?
Thanks for your opinions, both in the technical and the functional aspects
Over the years, we've had many discussions about switch selection
on the List. If one surveys the constellation of completed
airplanes in possession of List members it is a certainty
that you will find a broad range of styles.
If it were my airplane, I would go 100% toggle switches
for the following reasons:
Easy to mount in ROUND hole made with spotfacer, stepdrill
or punch. Contrast this with the $time$ and effort to
craft rectangular holes for rocker switches.
http://tinyurl.com/m45n4f7
Functionally interchangeable switches are made by a host
of manufacturers. Rocker switches are manufacturer specific.
Replacing a switch calls for acquiring the same switch
from the same manufacturer.
Here's an exemplar set of switch arrangements
tailored to system complexity.
http://tinyurl.com/ljkw3ju
I suggest the toggle switch fitted with fast-on
terminals represents the lowest cost, greatest
ease of installation and maintenance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
I suggest the toggle switch fitted with fast-on
terminals represents the lowest cost, greatest
ease of installation and maintenance.
Another thing you might want to keep in mind in your design is that
some states / localities require that 2 key accesses be used to enter
and start the aircraft. One of the keys can be to access the door /
canopy entry and as a second key you might use a simple key switch, in a
round hole, and with fast-on terminals, used in series with the start
button. A failure of this switch, wired in this configuration would
prevent you from starting the aircraft, but would not affect engine
operation once it is running.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <fconsult(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Jabiru alternator noise-what really causes it? |
Hi All
A friend of mine has purchased a Zodiac 601 with a Jabiru engine. The
problem was originally lots of noise in the headsets. We rewired the
grounding , installed a forest of tabs on the firewall proper ground
strap to the engine. This cleared up all the noise and the receive side
of the radio is clear. The problem now is when transmitting there is a
loud side tone type noise along with the verbal transmission, this noise
gets worse with higher rpm.. The transmission of voice is clear and
fairly loud, but the hum that accompanies it is very annoying to
controllers. We disconnected the alternator (dynamo) and the noise
disappears. The alternator puts out about 15 amps and is a bit on the
small side for his application. Jabiru suggests twisting the two
alternator wires together which we did and we also shielded them with no
change. My question is what actually causes this, and is there a way
to get rid of it? It is a Microaire radio, using the built in intercom.
I did try a capacitor on the main bus to ground with little or no
effect.
Thanks Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru alternator noise-what really causes it? |
At 11:02 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
Hi All
A friend of mine has purchased a Zodiac 601 with a Jabiru engine.
The problem was originally lots of noise in the headsets. We rewired
the grounding , installed a forest of tabs on the firewall proper
ground strap to the engine. This cleared up all the noise and the
receive side of the radio is clear. The problem now is when
transmitting there is a loud side tone type noise along with the
verbal transmission, this noise gets worse with higher rpm.. The
transmission of voice is clear and fairly loud, but the hum that
accompanies it is very annoying to controllers. We disconnected the
alternator (dynamo) and the noise disappears. The alternator puts out
about 15 amps and is a bit on the small side for his application.
Jabiru suggests twisting the two alternator wires together which we
did and we also shielded them with no change. My question is what
actually causes this, and is there a way to get rid of it? It is a
Microaire radio, using the built in intercom. I did try a capacitor
on the main bus to ground with little or no effect.
Is the microphone jack electrically isolated
from the airframe? Further, does it's ground wire
route in parallel with mic audio and ptt lines
back to the radio?
Does this airplane have an intercom? Does transmit
audio route through the intercom? Are intercom
communications 'clean' or equally plagued with
alternator noise?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru alternator noise-what really causes |
it?
At 11:02 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
Hi All
A friend of mine has purchased a Zodiac 601 with a Jabiru engine.
The problem was originally lots of noise in the headsets. We rewired
the grounding , installed a forest of tabs on the firewall proper
ground strap to the engine. This cleared up all the noise and the
receive side of the radio is clear. The problem now is when
transmitting there is a loud side tone type noise along with the
verbal transmission, this noise gets worse with higher rpm.. The
transmission of voice is clear and fairly loud, but the hum that
accompanies it is very annoying to controllers. We disconnected the
alternator (dynamo) and the noise disappears. The alternator puts out
about 15 amps and is a bit on the small side for his application.
Jabiru suggests twisting the two alternator wires together which we
did and we also shielded them with no change. My question is what
actually causes this, and is there a way to get rid of it? It is a
Microaire radio, using the built in intercom. I did try a capacitor
on the main bus to ground with little or no effect.
Is the microphone jack electrically isolated
from the airframe? Further, does it's ground wire
route in parallel with mic audio and ptt lines
back to the radio?
Does this airplane have an intercom? Does transmit
audio route through the intercom? Are intercom
communications 'clean' or equally plagued with
alternator noise?
P.S. Where are the alternator and battery
grounded? To the Forest=of=Tabs?
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
At 09:52 PM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
>Carlos, I always use two toggles for the mags, and SPST key switch
>for the starter contactor and a pushbutton starter switch. It's
>cheaper if any of them fail and by having the mags separate from the
>starter switch I can turn the engine over for maintenance or
>diagnostics without worry that the engine will accidentally start.
Good point. I think you've mentioned this before.
I'll try to remember to add it to my list of
PRO-toggle arguments.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing switches |
That is exactly what I will be doing once the aircraft is flying; testing
how heavy the control forces are with the trim at either limit; on a
'step-by-step' basis until full travel is reached- then I can decide if any
further circuitry is merited, or perhaps a change in the mechanical trim
arrangement. That is what I like so much about OBAM aircraft; with a bit of
careful observation and rational thinking we can determine and apply the
solutions ourselves..
Jay
-----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: 05 July 2013 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Boeing switches
-->
At 01:05 PM 7/4/2013, you wrote:
>-->
>
>Good argument Bob.... I use a switch on the panel to power the trim,
>but that may be a bit far away for a quick reaction, before the trim
>lurks all the way to the end.
You would do well to deduce the severity of a
trim runaway. Is the airplane controllable with
full trim either up or down? How fast does the
trim run with respect to pilot reaction times
needed to deal with a runaway? Are there stops
or limits to trim excursion necessary for the full
range of CG envelopes or will the system produce
more pitch authority than would ever be necessary
for normal operations?
In a Lear, at Mach cruise, the system is manually
failed and the pilot is obligated to keep hands in
the lap for 3 seconds. Only then can he move to
deal with the situation. After achieving a stable,
safe condition, recorded data is analyzed for
busting limits on attitude, altitude and airspeed
excursions.
The exercise is repeated and trim speeds then
adjusted until a sweat-free, runaway recovery
is assured.
The trim systems I've seen in some TC aircraft
are so slow that unexpected trims under worst
case conditions are no big deal. But what's the
story for YOUR airplane?
Yes, if trim speeds are brisk, trim authority high
and you have good reason for not reducing them, then some
form of inarguable override is indicated. Instructing
the pilot to pull a breaker for taming a trim runaway
is generally not acceptable . . . even panel mounted
switche situated amongst other switches will get
you frowns from the human factors guys.
At the same time, find out just how much risk is
associated with an uncontrolled trim event and
see if that can be engineered out as opposed to
stacking emergency ops hardware on top of the
design.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Wesson" <Mark(at)wessonair.com> |
| Subject: | Trouble transmitting... |
Tom,
This sounds like a problem I have on a regular basis with a perfect radio.
If you are being handed off it is becuase you are exiting his area and
entering the next. This usually puts you at the furthest point from both
radios.
I have this problem even flying IFR in some more remote places.
A radio power output and SWR check are a good maintenance ckeck item anyway
but I would not be too worrried about one event.
Mark Wesson
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Chapman
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trouble transmitting...
Thanks Bob and Dave!
I have a starting point now and will get going on it tomorrow...
Tom
...reception is perfect
...transmit light on A200 illuminating
...my radio is being heard by ATC intermittently
Where should I start troubleshooting?
Given the long history of un-eventful and
satisfactory performance, the first rocks
to peek under are things most likely to
have CHANGED.
The first thing I would do is get an SWR/PWR
meter and check both transmitter power output
-AND- antenna SWR. Two things that might have
changed is condition of the transmitter's power
output stages or condition of the antenna
and its feed line.
Here's a good example of a tool for this task.
http://tinyurl.com/k4t2pn9
We reviewed this product here on the List a
couple of years ago. It's a great performer
at a very reasonable price. Every EAA chapter
ought to have one to lend to members. Problems
like these yield only to quantifiable measurement.
If you acquire one of these, you will want to
acquire N-male to F-BNC adapters.
http://tinyurl.com/ksmdxch
and a short piece of good coax (about 2' long)
with a BNC-Male on each end.
http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5 (scroll down to RB-142 Cable Assemblies)
Lord Kelvin expressed it thusly:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the
beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in
your thoughts advanced to the stage of science."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <fconsult(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru alternator noise-what really |
causes
=9C Is the microphone jack electrically isolated
from the airframe? Further, does it's ground wire
route in parallel with mic audio and ptt lines
back to the radio?=9D
Not sure about the mic audio and ptt grounds but will check when I get
back from holiday. We did isolate the jacks.Noise is the same whether
its intercom or radio, only time it disappears is when we take the
alternator out of the mix.
=9C P.S. Where are the alternator and battery
grounded? To the Forest=of=Tabs?=9D
The battery is grounded on the engine firewall side to the forest of
tabs, the alternator is case grounded to the engine, it has two leads
from it that go to the regulator. These leads are twisted for their full
length. It has been described as a dynamo more than an alternator, where
the rectification takes place at the regulator? These two wires are
carrying A/C as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the input
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru alternator noise-what really |
causes
Is the microphone jack electrically isolated
from the airframe? Further, does it's ground wire
route in parallel with mic audio and ptt lines
back to the radio?
Not sure about the mic audio and ptt grounds but will check when I
get back from holiday. We did isolate the jacks.Noise is the same
whether its intercom or radio, only time it disappears is when we
take the alternator out of the mix.
Okay. The high probability condition is
a ground loop that injects alternator
noise directly into the microphone
wiring.
Where are the alternator and battery
grounded? To the Forest=of=Tabs?
The battery is grounded on the engine firewall side to the forest of
tabs, the alternator is case grounded to the engine, it has two leads
from it that go to the regulator. These leads are twisted for their
full length.
Hmmmm . . . the PM alternator should be
totally isolated from ground. I.e. a pair
of leads come off the ends of the winding
and go directly to the rectifier/regulator.
Does the R/R have a case connection? The only
ones I am familiar with feature electronics that
float completely within the case.
It has been described as a dynamo more than an alternator, where the
rectification takes place at the regulator?
Yeah, the common vernacular speaks to the PM
alternator as a 'dynamo'. Back in the early
days of belt driven alternators for cars, the
rectifiers and regulators were external too.
These two wires are carrying A/C as far as I can tell.
Check to make sure the R/R does not incorporate
any kind of case ground. Consider an experiment
to connect the R/R(+) lead directly to battery(+)
at the contactor and R/R(-) lead directly to the
forest of tabs.
As microphones go, the voltage levels at the
mic jack for an aviation mic is pretty high . . .
hundreds of millivolts. To inject so strong
a signal from the alternator into the mic circuitry
suggests an extra-ordinary set of physics . . .
especially since your alternator is so limited
in output.
I think we're going to find that something
in the wiring is not as presently perceived.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
7/8/2013
Hello Carlos, You wrote: =9CFor the magnetos and starter, did
everybody use the ACS combined keyed
switch, or is it better to use 2 toggles and one push-button momentary
starter switch?=9D
Given the wiring complexity (confusion) and the widely published poor
reliability of the ACS combined starter =93 magneto switch I am
surprised that any amateur builder would even consider installing such a
switch in the aircraft that he is building.
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
PS: A more ponderable choice is how to place the switches in the panel.
Two schools of thought are: a) Scatter the switches about the panel in
some manner that locates the switches close to the instrument or device
being controlled (an ergonomic philosophy); or b) Place all (or as many
is feasible) of the switches in close proximity so that at one glance
one can tell if all switches are either ON or OFF (a visual domination
philosophy).
=============
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Choosing the switches for an RV-10
Guys
It's time to choose the switches for the RV-10 panel, and I wonder which
ones are more popular between the RV-10 builders:
For the Master and ALT field, have you used the Cessna split rocker or
just
2 separate toggle switches?
For the magnetos and starter, did everybody use the ACS combined keyed
switch, or is it better to use 2 toggles and one push-button momentary
starter switch?
And for the lights and other electrical equipment, which has been the
choice: the classic rocker switches or the color coded toggle switches?
Thanks for your opinions, both in the technical and the functional
aspects
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
>
>
>Given the wiring complexity (confusion) and the
>widely published poor reliability of the ACS
>combined starter ' magneto switch I am surprised
>that any amateur builder would even consider
>installing such a switch in the aircraft that he is building.
>
>OC
Can you point me to the discussions about this product?
Are reliability issues centered on any one feature
of the design? This switch is a clone of the legacy
Bendix/Gerdes product popularlized in the single-engine
markets waaayyy back when. I think I recall seeing a
twin that needed two-keys to go flying. I'm wondering
if the problems are not centered on starter contactor
currents. The FAA saw fit to mandate adding a diode
to the circuit for airplanes that were being upgraded
to modern, two-stage solenoid/contactors . . . when
in fact, contact opening arcing was just the worst
of stress . . . that 30A inrush was still there . . .
a stress that the switch was never designed to manage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for (off topic) |
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
Bob,
I don't recall the name either. But, if you check with an elevator
construction firm I'm sure they will have a name for this part.
They use them to suspend the hoistway cables in the shaftway.
Larry
On Jul 6, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> I'd like to tap the collective experience of
> the list in search of a gizmo that I don't even
> know what to call it . . .
>
> I've seen cousins to the 'Chinese finger trap' that
> could be slipped over a hose or large wire bundle.
> One end of the 'trap' is fitted with a loop of small
> cable . . . the same cable that makes up the
> cylinder of the device.
>
> When placed over the hose/bundle and tensioned,
> it grabs the outside surface over a large area
> (essential damage free, low pressure) while
> getting a grip on it. The work piece may then
> be secured to some suspension point.
>
> I've seen them used to hold up drop cords suspended
> from the ceiling. I've 'wandered' through the
> Grainger and McMaster catalogs. I'd bet they have
> 'em if I just knew the name of the beasts!
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51dad8de50aaf58dd0136st01duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Interesting product |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
All,
I stumbled on this while looking for something else this morning and thought it
might be of general interest. Looks like a pretty nifty product.
http://www.panelpilot.com/
Cheers, Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
On 7/6/2013 9:31 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> I have the same setup and that's how it works. That is, the low
>> voltage light simply monitors the voltage on the bus independent of
>> alternator operation. Given that, I've wondered how a failed
>> alternator would manifest itself.
>
> What architecture are we talking about? Z-12 or Z-14?
> With independent buses for each alternator, the two
> systems are normally operated with the cross-feed OPEN.
> Each LV montior will tell the condition of it's respective
> bus.
It's a Z-14
>
>
>> - If failure was due to an overvoltage situation, the breaker would
>> pop. Since I normally fly with the 2 buses interconnected
>
> Not recommended.
I see what you mean.
>
>> I would expect the low voltage lights to remain off perhaps for the
>> remainder of the flight. If one did come on because bus voltage
>> dropped below the threshold, I would expect both to come on more or
>> less simultaneously as long as the buses were interconnected. The
>> only explicit indication of Alt failure would be the popped OV breaker.
>
> The design goals for Z-14 were two-fold. (1)
> being able to parallel batteries for engine
> cranking and (2) being able to share power between
> systems in the event of an alternator failure.
>
> As you have deduced, running them in parallel
> during normal operations has the potential for
> obscuring failure of one of the alternators.
My operational goals for the Z-14 included being able to run much of the
panel on one battery while still having a fully charged battery for
starting. The idea being that I wanted to be able to enter flight plans
and even check weather before engine start. That's worked out well. I
can connect the buses for starts if needed and that works well as well.
However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I go
parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot.
>
>> - Are there other modes of Alternator failure where there would be no
>> explicit indication of failure? I'm thinking that a snapped belt
>> would be an example. If loads and battery condition were such that
>> the interconnected bus voltage stayed above the low volt threshold,
>> there would be no explicit indication. Is that right?
>
> Yes. Another reason for running them independently
> of each other for normal flight ops. With the crossfeed
> closed, you have a Z-12 with dual batteries. Unless
> one alternator is configured for stand-by operation by
> incorporation of the appropriate regulator, then you
> have two alternators in a paralleled mode of operation
> controlled by regulators not designed for paralleling
> (current management) of the two alternators.
>
I'll be going back to running independent. I know what got me started
running with the buses interconnected but I lost track of what this
robust configuration is designed to do.
Thanks Bob!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry <jlatimer1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru alternator noise-what really causes it? |
On 7/7/2013 9:02 AM, Chris wrote:
> Hi All
> A friend of mine has purchased a Zodiac 601 with a Jabiru engine.
> The problem was originally lots of noise in the headsets. We rewired
> the grounding , installed a forest of tabs on the firewall proper
> ground strap to the engine. This cleared up all the noise and the
> receive side of the radio is clear. The problem now is when
> transmitting there is a loud side tone type noise along with the
> verbal transmission, this noise gets worse with higher rpm.. The
> transmission of voice is clear and fairly loud, but the hum that
> accompanies it is very annoying to controllers. We disconnected the
> alternator (dynamo) and the noise disappears. The alternator puts out
> about 15 amps and is a bit on the small side for his application.
> Jabiru suggests twisting the two alternator wires together which we
> did and we also shielded them with no change. My question is what
> actually causes this, and is there a way to get rid of it? It is a
> Microaire radio, using the built in intercom. I did try a capacitor on
> the main bus to ground with little or no effect.
>
I had the same problem with a Microair with an external intercom.
Finally solved it by installing a Flightline 760.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting product |
Even after watching the demo it's unclear to me what this thing is supposed
to do.
For laying out my instrument panel I am using XPanel:
http://www.xpanelsoftware.com/
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Eric Page wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I stumbled on this while looking for something else this morning and
> thought it might be of general interest. Looks like a pretty nifty product.
>
> http://www.panelpilot.com/
>
> Cheers, Eric
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
| From: | Paul Fisher <rv7a.n18pf(at)gmail.com> |
I installed the ACS keyed switch in a homebuilt I finished in 1990. Wiring
was straight forward (Bob has a good diagram in the Z figures), and it has
given me 23 years of reliable service. I put another one in my most recent
project and it has been working fine for four years. So my personal
experience does not support your statement below.
It is simply part of the "security theater". As long as you are
comfortable, toggle switches will work as well.
YMMV, but the ACS switch has worked fine for me.
Paul A. Fisher
Q-200 N17PF - ~1,400 hours
RV-7A N18PF- ~400 hours
On Jul 8, 2013 9:16 AM, "Owen Baker" wrote:
> 7/8/2013
>
> Hello Carlos, You wrote: =93For the magnetos and starter, did everybody
> use the ACS combined keyed
> switch, or is it better to use 2 toggles and one push-button momentary
> starter switch?=94
>
> Given the wiring complexity (confusion) and the widely published poor
> reliability of the ACS combined starter ' magneto switch I am surprised
> that any amateur builder would even consider installing such a switch in
> the aircraft that he is building.
>
> OC
>
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gathe
r
> and understand information."
>
> PS: A more ponderable choice is how to place the switches in the panel.
> Two schools of thought are: a) Scatter the switches about the panel in so
me
> manner that locates the switches close to the instrument or device being
> controlled (an ergonomic philosophy); or b) Place all (or as many is
> feasible) of the switches in close proximity so that at one glance one ca
n
> tell if all switches are either ON or OFF (a visual domination philosophy
).
>
> ========================
==============
>
>
> From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Choosing the switches for an RV-10
>
> Guys
>
>
> It's time to choose the switches for the RV-10 panel, and I wonder which
> ones are more popular between the RV-10 builders:
>
>
> For the Master and ALT field, have you used the Cessna split rocker or ju
st
> 2 separate toggle switches?
>
>
> For the magnetos and starter, did everybody use the ACS combined keyed
> switch, or is it better to use 2 toggles and one push-button momentary
> starter switch?
>
>
> And for the lights and other electrical equipment, which has been the
> choice: the classic rocker switches or the color coded toggle switches?
>
>
> Thanks for your opinions, both in the technical and the functional aspect
s
>
> Carlos
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
>My operational goals for the Z-14 included being able to run much of
>the panel
>on one battery while still having a fully charged battery for starting. The
>idea being that I wanted to be able to enter flight plans and even
>check weather
>before engine start. That's worked out well. I can connect the
>buses for starts
>if needed and that works well as well.
Okay, but consider the ENERGY needed to do these two tasks.
Suppose you turn on three electro-whizzies for a total drain
of 3A (a lot for solid state gizmos) and take 5 minutes to
herd all the ducks into place. That 12v x 3A x 300 seconds
for a total of 11,000 watt-seconds.
Now, lets crank the engine at 200A x 12v x 10 seconds
for a total of 24,000 watt-seconds.
How much energy is available for use in a 18 a.h.
SVLA battery? At a 3A rate will give it up over 5 hours
at an average voltage of 11.5 for a total of about 650,000
watt-seconds.
In other words, the task of conducting pre-flight activities
and starting the engine are not big demands on a well
maintained battery.
>
>However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I go
>parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot.
How much 'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine
start? On the Beech products we used to offer a mini-ebus
switch that would let you fire up a comm radio directly
from the battery. Your comm radio probably needs 0.2A receive,
and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long winded pre-flight activity
might need 1000 watt-seconds.
I'm thinking that the bus from which all your 'kitchen
sink' accessories is powered also powers the comm radio
and you have no way to power up the comm radio independently?
You might want to consider moving a comm radio to a
battery bus and adding . . .
COMM RADIO . . . . . Check OFF
. . . . to your shutdown checklist.
Bottom line is that with two batteries on board, you've
got perhaps a million watt-seconds to burn. Doing your
starts in parallel will reduce relative abuse to the batteries
and extend their service life. Letting the 'kitchen sink'
accessories clock in after engine start may not be
a significant delay in your departure plans.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interesting product |
| From: | Verso Electronics <versoelectric(at)gmail.com> |
Ralph,
It's a video screen that can be customized through PC software to display tw
o separate input voltages in various ways. The voltages can be expressions o
f volts, amps, temps, pressures, quantities, etc. Pretty much anything that
's electronically measurable can be expressed as an analog voltage level and
displayed on the screen in whatever format you choose (numbers, bar graph, n
eedle-on-scale). Monitor bus voltage, alternator current, fuel qty, fuel pr
essure, fuel flow, oil temp, oil pressure, manifold pressure, manifold temp,
OAT, EGT, CHT. And so on. Choose any two and put them on a screen.
Consider a DIY, poor man's engine monitor: Use a microcontroller to monitor
and select the highest of four CHTs and highest of four EGTs to send to the
display. Use the display's alarm output to light an LED or put a tone in y
our headset.
Eric
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> Even after watching the demo it's unclear to me what this thing is suppose
d to do.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Eric Page wrote:
>>
>> http://www.panelpilot.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
7/9/2013
Hello Bob Nuckolls,
On 7/8/13 you wrote: =9CCan you point me to the discussions about
this product? Are reliability issues centered on any one feature of the
design?=9D (See posting copied below.)
On 8/16/2004 You wrote: =9CHave you considered getting your money
back and putting in toggle switches? In my never humble opinion,
key-switches suck.=9D (See posting copied below)
OC
PS: In the interest of brevity I did only one archive search of the
aeroelectriclist, using only the search term ACS SWITCH, and selected
only one posting of the 16 that showed up.
=============
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Choosing the switches for an RV-10
>
>
>Given the wiring complexity (confusion) and the
>widely published poor reliability of the ACS
>combined starter ' magneto switch I am surprised
>that any amateur builder would even consider
>installing such a switch in the aircraft that he is building.
>
>OC
Can you point me to the discussions about this product?
Are reliability issues centered on any one feature
of the design? This switch is a clone of the legacy
Bendix/Gerdes product popularlized in the single-engine
markets waaayyy back when. I think I recall seeing a
twin that needed two-keys to go flying. I'm wondering
if the problems are not centered on starter contactor
currents. The FAA saw fit to mandate adding a diode
to the circuit for airplanes that were being upgraded
to modern, two-stage solenoid/contactors . . . when
in fact, contact opening arcing was just the worst
of stress . . . that 30A inrush was still there . . .
a stress that the switch was never designed to manage.
Bob . . .
Match: #3Message: #42083From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>Subject: Igntion
SwitchesDate: Jul 21, 2008 7/21/2008
Hello Skip, You wrote: "I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches over one?" I
am glad you asked. The history of these types of ignition switches:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php does not fill one with
great confidence. See: http://tinyurl.com/j3m5j They are mechanical
devices, of not necessarily the highest quality -- sort of like an old
time watch -- with a lot of little bits and pieces inside that can get
worn / broken. Actually I'd prefer three switches. A simple, reliable,
separate toggle switch for each magneto P lead, and a push button switch
with a guard on it for activating the starter contact solenoid.
See the postings copied below for other's experience with the ACS /
Bendix keyed type switches.
-------------------------------------------- {#} Replies are directed
back to kisbuilders(at)angus.mystery.com {#} To reply to the author,
write to Keith.Miller(at)esa.int OC I started with the standard ACS
switch , but junked it after it left one of the mags live after
switching off , now I also have 3 seperate switches ( 2 "heavy duty" for
the mags and a "push to make" type for the starter ).
----------------------------------------------------------- Message:
#19408 Date: Aug 16, 2004 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re:
ACS switch issues for Rotax 912S > > >Ok, I traced it down to the ACS
ignition switch (P/N A-510-2). When I >switch to the left side ("R") it
will cut out sometimes. Not very often >but if I do it just right then
off she goes. The switch only had been >used about 40 hours when this
started showing up. > >It appears that it is grounding, or at least
partially grounding, >inadvertently when switched over to that "mag". >
>Could it have to do with the diode issue that ACS mentions with regards
to >impulse coupled mags? The diode was added to the starter contactor
control circuit . . . with totally bogus engineering behind it. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf >FWIW I've wired
according to Bob's notes with the shield acting as the >ground. I was
very very careful when wiring and so far this is the only >electrical
problem I've had. > >I've also wiggled all the wires around behind the
switch (and also the >engine) and it doesn't seem to be any of the
wires. I'm guessing it's >internal to the switch or something to do with
a spike of some sort. > >Any other ideas before I pull the switch out
and send it back to ACS? Have you considered getting your money back and
putting in toggle switches? In my never humble opinion, key-switches
suck. Bob . . .
----------------------------------------- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip LaPolice" Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:26 PM Subject:
Re: AW: Replacing Starter > Hi Owen, > I noticed in your reply to JF
regarding an ignition > switch that it is better to have " separate
magneto > and starters." Please help my understanding. > I'm building a
Pulsar with a 2200 Jabiru and I'm > thinking avionics as I mix epoxy. >
I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches > and a starter switch.
What is the benefit in two switches > over one? My car has one. > Thanks
much! > Be well, > Skip/ End Msg: #3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
Thank you all for your opinions, I 'm still undecided but I think I will
follow the toggle route.
Best
Carlos
=============
From: "Carlos Trigo" < <mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Choosing the switches for an RV-10
Guys
It's time to choose the switches for the RV-10 panel, and I wonder which
ones are more popular between the RV-10 builders:
For the Master and ALT field, have you used the Cessna split rocker or just
2 separate toggle switches?
For the magnetos and starter, did everybody use the ACS combined keyed
switch, or is it better to use 2 toggles and one push-button momentary
starter switch?
And for the lights and other electrical equipment, which has been the
choice: the classic rocker switches or the color coded toggle switches?
Thanks for your opinions, both in the technical and the functional aspects
Carlos
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Choosing the switches for an RV-10 |
At 06:08 AM 7/9/2013, you wrote:
>7/9/2013
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls,
>
>On 7/8/13 you wrote: Can you point me to the
>discussions about this product? Are reliability
>issues centered on any one feature of the
>design? (See posting copied below.)
>
>On 8/16/2004 You wrote: Have you considered
>getting your money back and putting in toggle
>switches? In my never humble opinion,
>key-switches suck. (See posting copied below)
>
>OC
>
Thank you. Yeah, I was aware that we'd thrashed some
ACS switch issues here on the List . . . was wondering
if you were aware of problems surfacing in other forums.
I think my reference to the relative 'suckiness' of key
switches was framed in notion that airplanes needed to
emulate automobiles, that the switch is big and expensive,
and that keys offered any great measure of security.
I flew a rental airplane home after having lost the
keys. Wiggled the terminals on the back of the
switch until they broke off, hand propped the airplane
and brought it home. Replaced the terminals when I
got back and replaced the key. Other pilots have
done the lost-key work-around by breaking the termimals
off the back of the mags.
It would have been interesting to do a tear-down on
the problem switch. I'm thinking that it was an
isolated incident and that for the most part the
Off-L-R-B-S key switches perform as advertised.
I just don't think they're an elegant solution to a
simple design problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
On 7/8/2013 4:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> My operational goals for the Z-14 included being able to run much of
>> the panel
>> on one battery while still having a fully charged battery for
>> starting. The
>> idea being that I wanted to be able to enter flight plans and even
>> check weather
>> before engine start. That's worked out well. I can connect the
>> buses for starts
>> if needed and that works well as well.
>
> Okay, but consider the ENERGY needed to do these two tasks.
> Suppose you turn on three electro-whizzies for a total drain
> of 3A */(a lot for solid state gizmos)/* and take 5 minutes to
> herd all the ducks into place. That 12v x 3A x 300 seconds
> for a total of 11,000 watt-seconds.
>
> Now, lets crank the engine at 200A x 12v x 10 seconds
> for a total of 24,000 watt-seconds.
>
> How much energy is available for use in a 18 a.h.
> SVLA battery? At a 3A rate will give it up over 5 hours
> at an average voltage of 11.5 for a total of about 650,000
> watt-seconds.
>
> In other words, the task of conducting pre-flight activities
> and starting the engine are not big demands on a well
> maintained battery.
That was my assumption going in. My original thought was that I'd be
able to turn everything on, do my flight plan input, clearance copy and
whatever, then turn the key and start her up. Thinking there would be
little need to manage energy through th pre-start, I do not have an
avionics master or bus or even power switches on my MFDs.
The fly in the ointment has been tendency for the MFDs (3 GRT HX units)
to reboot during an interconnected start.
The energy draw is probably a bit more than one might expect but I don't
have actual current draw measurements to validate. For planning
purposes I assumed 4.5A for the 3 MFDs combined, 1A for the dual AHRS,
.6A for ADSB weather, 2.1A for the G430. Add 1 amp for the contactor
and (unknown) for the panel fans. That's 12v x 8.2A x 300secs = 29,520
watt-secs. That doesn't include the AP and audio panel which are on the
same bus and are turned off at shutdown. It is the minimum I want for
pre-start duck herding but I'm thinking I need to find a way to mitigate it.
(BTW, Thanks so much for engaging me on this - This has become a big
task on my improvement list for the year)
>
>>
>> However, I normally start with the buses separated because if I go
>> parallel, the voltage drop causes my 3 MDFs to re-boot.
>
> How much 'stuff' do you have to turn on before engine
> start? On the Beech products we used to offer a mini-ebus
> switch that would let you fire up a comm radio directly
> from the battery. Your comm radio probably needs 0.2A receive,
> and maybe 1.5A transmit. A long winded pre-flight activity
> might need 1000 watt-seconds.
How much? I need at least one MFD (weather, input of pre-flight
values), the G430 (flight plan input & comm). But powering up only 1
MFD is a compromise - 3 are configured. With anything less, many error
msgs are generated.
Is all this pre-start duck herding necessary or desirable? Yes and Yes
Virtually 99% of my flying is IFR. Single pilot in and out of the
NY/PHL/WASH axis requires lining them up and knocking them down or
getting called on every miss. The reality is more nuanced however. In
winter, I start it, then begin the flight planning/clearance getting
process. No electron problems except that the MFDs sometimes reboot on
an interconnected cold weather start. In summer, temperatures demand
minimizing the time with the RV10 gull wing doors closed. We're very
comfortable sitting in the cockpit fooling around as long as a breeze is
blowing thru with the doors providing some shade. Engine start
requires the doors be closed and from that point on, it's sweaty and
miserable until takeoff despite the strong stream of 'fresh' air blowing
on our sun baked carcasses. The net is - I will hurry and/or skip some
pre-flight, post-start planning activities until airborne and I
invariably pay for that. Actually, I just don't let that happen any longer.
>
> I'm thinking that the bus from which all your 'kitchen
> sink' accessories is powered also powers the comm radio
> and you have no way to power up the comm radio independently?
> You might want to consider moving a comm radio to a
> battery bus and adding . . .
>
> COMM RADIO . . . . . Check OFF
>
> . . . . to your shutdown checklist.
Done. The SL30 is on the other bus and other non-essential stuff is
shut down during shut down, but the whole G430 needs to be online for
flight planning. I don't consider it a kitchen sink - just the
essentials in this bit intensive world.
It just occured to me that several non-bus essentials aren't even
included; the cell phone for remote IMC releases and the iPad. Most
NY/WASH/PHL clearances, make that 'all' such clearances, require victor
airway translation for G430 input. Entry of the 8-10 step clearance
into the iPad is required in order to figure out that actual waypoints
for entry into the G430. It's usually desirable to make sure I 'get it'
before taking off over NYC and heading toward the Wash SFRA, which
means that it then gets mostly input into the G430 before engine start.
Ah, the joys of the paper-less cockpit!
>
> Bottom line is that with two batteries on board, you've
> got perhaps a million watt-seconds to burn. Doing your
> starts in parallel will reduce relative abuse to the batteries
> and extend their service life. Letting the 'kitchen sink'
> accessories clock in after engine start may not be
> a significant delay in your departure plans.
>
Well, in summer I need the essential sink before start. Point well
taken, but no doubt about the need here.
However, I'd like to get back to interconnected parallel starts with all
my essential stuff on. I'm thinking the core problem is not the load
involved but rather the tendency for the GRT MFDs to re-boot. I started
looking at power wiring options for the GRTs. This paragraph from the
installation guide may be useful:
The majority of the current flow into the display unit will occur on
the bus with the
highest voltage. So if the voltage of the main bus or power source
falls below
that of the secondary bus or power supply, the secondary bus will
power the
display units and operation will not be interrupted. Since it is
desirable to not
have the display units and AHRS connected to the power supply
supplying power
to the engine starter during the engine start (to maximize the
current available for
the starter, and possibly extend the life of the CCFL backlight in
the display unit),
this feature allows the fitting of a small (3-5AH) auxiliary battery
to one of the
power input connections provide power to the EFIS during engine
start. If an
auxiliary battery is fitted, provisions should be made to keep it
charged.
What do you think?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
(3-5AH) auxiliary battery to one of the
power input connections provide power to the EFIS during engine start. If
an
auxiliary battery is fitted, provisions should be made to keep it charged.
My GPS/Comm used to reboot on engine start. It was a pain to wait for it
to reboot and find sats again. I put it on a TCW backup battery and it
stays on during the start now. How nice.
On a non-electric point--not to start a primer war, but--I leave my -10
doors open during taxi if it's hot out. It's one of the things I love
about the design.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
Wow! The TCW product seems perfect for the GRT issue. Was unaware of
it. Thanks.
I'm not sure I have the ba...., I mean constitution to taxi about with
the doors open. But I'm going to think about it.
I certainly leave them open in brisk winds and such. I've also cracked
it and held on to it during taxi but I'd never have a passenger do
that. But wide open 'eh?
At home, my field is rough and I'm having trouble imagining them
bouncing around. On hard top... I can see it but...
Do you limit your door open ops in any way?
On 7/10/2013 11:33 AM, Dave Saylor wrote:
>
> (3-5AH) auxiliary battery to one of the
> power input connections provide power to the EFIS during engine
> start. If an
> auxiliary battery is fitted, provisions should be made to keep it
> charged.
>
>
> My GPS/Comm used to reboot on engine start. It was a pain to wait for
> it to reboot and find sats again. I put it on a TCW backup battery
> and it stays on during the start now. How nice.
>
> On a non-electric point--not to start a primer war, but--I leave my
> -10 doors open during taxi if it's hot out. It's one of the things I
> love about the design.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
| From: | Tcwtech <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
Our IBBS product line provides back-up power to devices like efis equipment a
s well as GPS and comm systems. One of the added benefits is that during en
gine cranking the auto transfer circuitry knows to keep the connected load f
rom dropping out and resetting. Connecting our IBBS product to the GRT s
ystem is very straight forward and 1/2 the weight of adding another similar s
ized lead acid battery.
Also, if you don't need the full feature of back-up power and just want to r
esolve the issues with system resets during engine cranking, our IPS systems
provide consistent, stable voltage to the connected load(s) with a maintena
nce free solution.
All the details are on our web site and can be seen at our booth at Oshkosh.
Www.Tcwtech.com
Bob Newman.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Wow! The TCW product seems perfect for the GRT issue. Was unaware of it
. Thanks.
>
> I'm not sure I have the ba...., I mean constitution to taxi about with the
doors open. But I'm going to think about it.
>
> I certainly leave them open in brisk winds and such. I've also cracked i
t and held on to it during taxi but I'd never have a passenger do that. But
wide open 'eh?
>
> At home, my field is rough and I'm having trouble imagining them bouncing a
round. On hard top... I can see it but...
>
> Do you limit your door open ops in any way?
>
> On 7/10/2013 11:33 AM, Dave Saylor wrote:
>> (3-5AH) auxiliary battery to one of the
>> power input connections provide power to the EFIS during engine start. If
an
>> auxiliary battery is fitted, provisions should be made to kee
p it charged.
>>
>> My GPS/Comm used to reboot on engine start. It was a pain to wait for it
to reboot and find sats again. I put it on a TCW backup battery and it sta
ys on during the start now. How nice.
>>
>> On a non-electric point--not to start a primer war, but--I leave my -10 d
oors open during taxi if it's hot out. It's one of the things I love about t
he design.
>>
>> Dave Saylor
>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> 07/10/13
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Footwell got burned! |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
I accidentally burned my starboard foot-well!
I replaced my lanterns alkaline battery (EverReady) ~ Christmas 2010. It hasn't
seen any use since then.
I sit down in front of my Europa XS Mono to study the undercarriage mounting frame,
need some light. No problem, I grab my lantern that I always store with the
lens up (in case it is left on), turn it on and use it for 5 or so minutes.
I turn it off and rest it on my starboard foot-well, again with the lens up.
After about 10 minutes I pick it up, turn it on to use it again and see what I
think is water on my foot-well, it's turning the Phenolic resin black!
I'm not sure just what leaked out of the battery, but it was water clear and had
the viscosity of 3 in 1 oil.
I was able to get off perhaps 1/2 of the damage, I tried water, alcohol and acetone
with scotch-bright.
Anyway the resin sure did react quick to whatever it was that leaked out.:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=550FC20DBDDB521D!1656&authkey=!AEWLOllC2BXrnI0
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404405#404405
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I had an Eveready 12V alkaline lantern battery go into melt-down. I jerked it out
of the airplane by the wires and it was so hot it melted the ramp asphalt.
This was the second one that failed but I have no report on how the first one
failed. I was using it to power an intercom. I surmise the internal cells got
crushed from altitude changes, but I really have no clue. But there is some evil
demon inside those things.
--------
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=404460#404460
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
At 06:54 AM 7/11/2013, you wrote:
>
>I had an Eveready 12V alkaline lantern battery go into melt-down. I
>jerked it out of the airplane by the wires and it was so hot it
>melted the ramp asphalt. This was the second one that failed but I
>have no report on how the first one failed. I was using it to power
>an intercom. I surmise the internal cells got crushed from altitude
>changes, but I really have no clue. But there is some evil demon
>inside those things.
Next time anyone encounters one of these events,
I'd like to have the carcass. I'll do some research
into alkaline meltdown too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
All you need is a 1/4" thick stainless steel housing with temp monitoring
equipment and overboard venting.
Seriously, I'm glad you're OK.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
>
>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM, rparigoris
><rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
><rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
>Hi Group
>
>I accidentally burned my starboard foot-well!
>
>I replaced my lanterns alkaline battery (EverReady) ~ Christmas
>2010. It hasn't seen any use since then.
>
>I sit down in front of my Europa XS Mono to study the undercarriage
>mounting frame, need some light. No problem, I grab my lantern that
>I always store with the lens up (in case it is left on), turn it on
>and use it for 5 or so minutes.
>
>I turn it off and rest it on my starboard foot-well, again with the lens up.
>
>After about 10 minutes I pick it up, turn it on to use it again and
>see what I think is water on my foot-well, it's turning the Phenolic
>resin black!
>
>I'm not sure just what leaked out of the battery, but it was water
>clear and had the viscosity of 3 in 1 oil.
>
>I was able to get off perhaps 1/2 of the damage, I tried water,
>alcohol and acetone with scotch-bright.
>
>Anyway the resin sure did react quick to whatever it was that leaked out.:
>https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=550FC20DBDDB521D!1656&authkey=!AEWLOllC2BXrnI0
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
Ron, do you still have the carcass? I'll pay postage
and send you a new lantern to boot if I can have
the remains.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
I just got in from hangar.
I washed the foot-well with white vinegar tonight to neutralize any base, then
washed with water. The vinegar did not discolor the high temperature Phenolic
resin. The foot-well is kinda porous, even after washing with water, alcohol and
acetone, can still smell a faint amount of vinegar
I picked up the carcass, it wasn't a EverReady battery like I thought, it's a 6
volt Rayovac with an expiration of December 2017.
Where would you like for me to send the carcass? You have sent me stuff in the
past to try out, shipping is on me this time around.
Here's exactly what happened:
I installed this battery in the lantern in December 2010 and stored it with the
lens facing up. The opposite side of lens of the lantern is water tight, so it
leaked and caused no damage to the lantern at all but collected in this watertight
side.
While doing my inspection on the front of my Europa, I was picking up and putting
down the lantern, lens down several times. During those cycles the clear liquid
leaked past the threads of the lens and soaked my foot-well. Then I turned
the lantern off and put it lens up on the foot-well and noticed the liquid.
Since the liquid was on components of the lantern for a very short time, and I
washed it off, no damage occurred.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404523#404523
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
I would try talking to Rayovac. I have had their D cells leak in a Maglite and
had the flashlight replaced through Maglite, who said that they had agreements
with Rayovac, Duracel, and Energizer. There may be some sort of guarantee from
them.
On Jul 12, 2013, at 0:15, "rparigoris" wrote:
>
> Hi Bob
>
> I just got in from hangar.
>
> I washed the foot-well with white vinegar tonight to neutralize any base, then
washed with water. The vinegar did not discolor the high temperature Phenolic
resin. The foot-well is kinda porous, even after washing with water, alcohol
and acetone, can still smell a faint amount of vinegar
>
> I picked up the carcass, it wasn't a EverReady battery like I thought, it's a
6 volt Rayovac with an expiration of December 2017.
>
> Where would you like for me to send the carcass? You have sent me stuff in the
past to try out, shipping is on me this time around.
>
> Here's exactly what happened:
> I installed this battery in the lantern in December 2010 and stored it with the
lens facing up. The opposite side of lens of the lantern is water tight, so
it leaked and caused no damage to the lantern at all but collected in this watertight
side.
>
> While doing my inspection on the front of my Europa, I was picking up and putting
down the lantern, lens down several times. During those cycles the clear
liquid leaked past the threads of the lens and soaked my foot-well. Then I turned
the lantern off and put it lens up on the foot-well and noticed the liquid.
>
> Since the liquid was on components of the lantern for a very short time, and
I washed it off, no damage occurred.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404523#404523
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
At 11:15 PM 7/11/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I just got in from hangar.
>
>I washed the foot-well with white vinegar tonight to neutralize any
>base, then washed with water. The vinegar did not discolor the high
>temperature Phenolic resin. The foot-well is kinda porous, even
>after washing with water, alcohol and acetone, can still smell a
>faint amount of vinegar
>
>I picked up the carcass, it wasn't a EverReady battery like I
>thought, it's a 6 volt Rayovac with an expiration of December 2017.
>
>Where would you like for me to send the carcass? You have sent me
>stuff in the past to try out, shipping is on me this time around.
Box 130, Medicine Lodge, KS 67104-0130
Double bag it in a freezer zip-lock so you
don't get the post office upset with us!
>Here's exactly what happened:
>I installed this battery in the lantern in December 2010 and stored
>it with the lens facing up. The opposite side of lens of the lantern
>is water tight, so it leaked and caused no damage to the lantern at
>all but collected in this watertight side.
>
>While doing my inspection on the front of my Europa, I was picking
>up and putting down the lantern, lens down several times. During
>those cycles the clear liquid leaked past the threads of the lens
>and soaked my foot-well. Then I turned the lantern off and put it
>lens up on the foot-well and noticed the liquid.
>
>Since the liquid was on components of the lantern for a very short
>time, and I washed it off, no damage occurred.
>
>Ron Parigoris
okay. so your event was pure leakage with
no evidence of heating? I guess I got your
posting merged with Eric's observation of
a 'hot flashlihgt'. Hmmmm . . . if no signs
of electrical energy release it seems we're
looking at a simple leakage event. I'm curious
about the liquidity of the effluent. The few
times I've had these cells open, the contents
were the consistency of peanut butter . . .
but that was a long time ago.
Let's hold off on shipping. You could
move forward with a claim against Ray-o-Vac.
Was this a spring-post, 6v lantern battery
or individual cells?
The spring-post batteries use an array of
"F" cells . . . same diameter as D but longer.
Since they're not sold as individual cells
they don't get the same kind of jacket around
them. Was this an alkaline or carbon-zinc
product?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
At 11:01 AM 7/11/2013, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Last October, when I left my Pitot heater on overnight, my PC680 got
>pulled down to 7.5v and I mentioned the event in another post. At
>that time, you said you were building a batt cap tester to sell on the AEC.
>
>Is it about to launch?
>
>After charging, I've noticed that my PC680 drains from 13 to 11.6v
>over two weeks of sitting. My car battery doesn't drain that much
>even with phantom loads of the ECU, clock and anything else that I'm
>not aware of. So I was going to fab a poorman's cap checker unless
>you've got something that will save me the trouble.
Hi John,
Funny you should mention that. I've been on an archeological
dig on the workbench and uncovered a nicely fabricated
po' boy's cap checker sent to me for troubleshooting.
It was receipt of that project that launched the software
based timer/cap-checker project. Paul got the software up
to a beta release state. It goes on the same ECB as the
uC based wig-wag controller. I need to stuff a board,
program a chip and see if it all comes together.
Sounds like you're needs are pretty immediate. Just the
pitot heater? Sounds like the the master was left on
and more 'stuff' than pitot heater was loading the
battery. In any case, an over-night load of that magnitude
certainly extracted 99%+ of the battery's contained energy.
How old was the battery when this event occured?
What are you using to charge the battery? Is it a smart
charger with a bulk/top-off/sustain profile?
This accelerated self-discharge doesn't sound good
but it MIGHT be that your charger isn't topping
the battery off. Does it still crank the engine?
Have you conducted a cranking load test (how many
amps delivered after 15 seconds loaded down to
9 volts)?
If it's still cranking the engine, then the battery
should top off in flight with a bus of 14.4 to 14.6
volts. But if the OCV drops that fast, then it's
almost a certainty that the battery is crippled.
I've moved the po' boy's battery cap checker to
the front of the bench but its going to be awhile
before it's in a practical state of utility for
you. If you're flying this battery, you need some
faster data. Clip a 55w head-lamp bulb across the
battery and come back in 2 hours to check the
voltage.
http://tinyurl.com/kgkxw3l
If it's not at 11.0 volts or above, the battery
is toast.
Another reader suggested this battery test fixture
from Hobby King . . .
http://tinyurl.com/q2sv4xl
It's designed to test an array of li-ion cells in
a model . . . not well suited to your task and is
certainly not outfitted to load your battery in
concert with your endurance loads. Further, reviews
of this device are in the toilet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Group
Here's one slick tool that no home should be without:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__10080__Turnigy_130A_Watt_Meter_and_Power_Analyzer.html
You can keep it alive with an aux battery if required. I use a 4 AA
holder from Rat Shack that has a built in switch.
You can data log watts in or out. I have used it to charge and measure
capacity of batteries ranging from a 50mA NiMh to 4 in series 200 amp
lead acid deep discharge.
The above is OK quality, but not as nice as Astroflight Whatt Meters:
http://www.astroflight.com/electronics/watt-meters.html
It's whatt, not watt meter.
Hobby King thus far has been OK to deal with. If they show 0 in stock,
you have to wait before they will ship until they do another run.
That's the way they operate, they get orders, then build. You can go
on their site and put something on a wishlist, then when they make a
production run you will get an E-Mail they have stock. Shipping, their
cheap kind is cheap, but slow (OK by me most of the time). I think they
offer other modes of shipping.
Or buy a Whattmeter, they ship from USA, probably same day for a little
more than double the price.
The only difference I find, is the Whatt meter is not a directional tool,
run a load from a battery through the meter it will begin to accumulate
watts, now begin to charge through the meter and it will accumulate watts
the same. The Turnigy will only log in one direction. I tend to like the
quirk of the Whatt meter.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
[quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 11:01 AM 7/11/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>
> (snip).....
>
> How old was the battery when this event occured?
>
> What are you using to charge the battery? Is it a smart
> charger with a bulk/top-off/sustain profile?
>
> This accelerated self-discharge doesn't sound good
> but it MIGHT be that your charger isn't topping
> the battery off. Does it still crank the engine?
> Have you conducted a cranking load test (how many
> amps delivered after 15 seconds loaded down to
> 9 volts)?
>
> If it's still cranking the engine, then the battery
> should top off in flight with a bus of 14.4 to 14.6
> volts. But if the OCV drops that fast, then it's
> almost a certainty that the battery is crippled.
>
> I've moved the po' boy's battery cap checker to
> the front of the bench but its going to be awhile
> before it's in a practical state of utility for
> you. If you're flying this battery, you need some
> faster data. Clip a 55w head-lamp bulb across the
> battery and come back in 2 hours to check the
> voltage.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kgkxw3l
>
> If it's not at 11.0 volts or above, the battery
> is toast.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
The battery was installed about 4-5 months before the pitot drain down occurred.
It was being maintained by a Schumacher XC-10, set for 'Gel cell' per Schumacher
recommendation after 'AGM' setting was pushing over the Odyssey max voltage
of 15.5v.
When the battery is topped off at about 13.5 volts, it readily spins the 6cyl,
350 ci Franklin with 10.5 : 1 compression through about 4, 5-7 sec start attempts
before getting tired and at rest voltage starts sagging.
Yesterday, after 24 hours on the XC-10, votage was at 14.67v.
After disconnect and about 1.5 hrs, it was at 14.04v.
I'll check it todayand I'll do the lamp test across the terminals too, and report.
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404601#404601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
Bob,
The battery was installed about 4-5 months before the pitot drain
down occurred. It was being maintained by a Schumacher XC-10, set for
'Gel cell' per Schumacher recommendation after 'AGM' setting was
pushing over the Odyssey max voltage of 15.5v.
When the battery is topped off at about 13.5 volts, it readily spins
the 6cyl, 350 ci Franklin with 10.5 : 1 compression through about 4,
5-7 sec start attempts before getting tired and at rest voltage starts sagging.
Yesterday, after 24 hours on the XC-10, votage was at 14.67v. After
disconnect and about 1.5 hrs, it was at 14.04v.
That's not a 'bad' value. There is a period of time
after charger disconnect until the battery terminal
voltage falls to its nominal resting value. There
are small variations between lead-acid technologies
but they'll generally fall into this range of values.
Emacs!
These values are accurate only after a considerable 'resting
interval' for removal of either a charger or a load . . .
a 6-hour rest before measurement is probably reasonable.
The fact that it will deliver 4 cranking cycles suggests
that the battery is not seriously degraded . . . but a new
we tested a new 18 a.h. battery on a high compression
competition engine at 6 or 7 robust start cycles.
Sounds like your battery is wounded but still serviceable.
The self-discharge rate seems excessive . . . a reasonable
hypothesis is that it's a symptom of the 'wounding'. Unless
your design goals dictate that the battery support a
e-bus for several hours, this battery may service your needs
for some time.
>I'll check it todayand I'll do the lamp test across the terminals
>too, and report.
Good move. Have you established an endurance load requirement
for how you use your airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
Hi John,
>
> Funny you should mention that. I've been on an archeological
> dig on the workbench and uncovered a nicely fabricated
> po' boy's cap checker sent to me for troubleshooting . . .
Made a few drill chips this afternoon and got all the
hardware mounted on the proof of concept Bat Cap Checker.
Emacs!
Emacs!
All the holes have been plugged with screws. It's
time to stuff the board and wire it up.
This version is configured to run a battery down using
the chosen load . . . in this case 3x55w lamps.
When the test terminates, the lights will go out,
the relay will drop and connect a charger to the
battery for replenishment. Touching meter leads
to BAT- and MTR+ will yield a voltage reading
between 0 and 5 volts. 5 volts = 5 hours of
endurance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> Bob,
>
> ...snip
> Yesterday, after 24 hours on the XC-10, votage was at 14.67v. After disconnect
and about 1.5 hrs, it was at 14.04v.
>
> That's not a 'bad' value. There is a period of time
> after charger disconnect until the battery terminal
> voltage falls to its nominal resting value. There
> are small variations between lead-acid technologies
> but they'll generally fall into this range of values.
>
> [img]cid:.0[/img]
>
> These values are accurate only after a considerable 'resting
> interval' for removal of either a charger or a load . . .
> a 6-hour rest before measurement is probably reasonable.
>
> The fact that it will deliver 4 cranking cycles suggests
> that the battery is not seriously degraded . . . but a new
> we tested a new 18 a.h. battery on a high compression
> competition engine at 6 or 7 robust start cycles.
>
> Sounds like your battery is wounded but still serviceable.
>
> The self-discharge rate seems excessive . . . a reasonable
> hypothesis is that it's a symptom of the 'wounding'. Unless
> your design goals dictate that the battery support a
> e-bus for several hours, this battery may service your needs
> for some time.
>
>
> > I'll check it todayand I'll do the lamp test across the terminals too, and
report.
>
> Good move. Have you established an endurance load requirement
> for how you use your airplane?
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
2 hour 75 watt (parts on hand) load result:
Begin test voltage: 13.6 (down .44 from previous day)
End test voltage , lamp connected: 12.4v
After 2 hour rest: 12.97v
All-electric airplane 97% VFR
Electrical power: 60a alt, 40a stby alt, 18ah PC 680
Minimum electrical load at 75% power = 15.5a (load decreases slightly at lower
power setting) EFI 3.5a, 1 Ignition 2.5a, 1 pump 7a, EFIS 1a, Xpdr 1.5a
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404670#404670
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
Bob,
2 hour 75 watt (parts on hand) load result:
Begin test voltage: 13.6 (down .44 from previous day)
End test voltage , lamp connected: 12.4v
After 2 hour rest: 12.97v
Sounds like your battery's capacity is not seriously
hurt.
All-electric airplane 97% VFR
Electrical power: 60a alt, 40a stby alt, 18ah PC 680
Minimum electrical load at 75% power = 15.5a (load decreases slightly at
lower power setting) EFI 3.5a, 1 Ignition 2.5a, 1 pump 7a, EFIS 1a, Xpdr 1.5a
With dual power sources I think the risks
for continued use of this battery are low.
I'm at a loss to explain your observation of
accelerated self-discharge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
>
>Bob,
>
>2 hour 75 watt (parts on hand) load result:
>
>Begin test voltage: 13.6 (down .44 from previous day)
>End test voltage , lamp connected: 12.4v
>After 2 hour rest: 12.97v
Hmmmm . . . according to data right from the horse's
mouth, a 75 watt load on a new PC680 should take
it down to 10.00 volts in about 2.2 hours. This corresponds
to a current of about 9A.
Emacs!
I'm pretty sure that Watts and Amps are CONSTANT values applied
by a 'smart' load . . . which resistors and lamps can only approximate.
Nonetheless, the fact that you were still above 12.4 volts after two hours
raises some questions. At first blush it appears your battery
is in REALLY good shape.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bob
I'll try it again to see if I get something different.
Why is it that Odyssey comes up with a 9 amp load @ 12v making 75W?
I thought you could take to the bank the relationship of volts, amps and watts.
9 amps x 12v should be 108W in my perfect world.
J :? hn
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404714#404714
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
At 10:53 AM 7/15/2013, you wrote:
>
>Bob
>
>I'll try it again to see if I get something different.
>
>Why is it that Odyssey comes up with a 9 amp load @ 12v making 75W?
>I thought you could take to the bank the relationship of volts, amps
>and watts. 9 amps x 12v should be 108W in my perfect world.
>
EXCELLENT QUESTION! I'll try to study it
further and see if I can deduce their
methodology. Discharging the battery at
constant watts and constant amps for a
non-linear event will produce some disparity
of values . . . but I can't see that it
would be that big.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
Bob
I'll try it again to see if I get something different.
Why is it that Odyssey comes up with a 9 amp load @ 12v making 75W?
I thought you could take to the bank the relationship of volts, amps
and watts. 9 amps x 12v should be 108W in my perfect world.
Here's an excerpt on PC680 data from another Hawker-Enersys
document . . .
Emacs!
. . . and the companion plot
Emacs!
This plot is consistent with tabular data and with your
test results. I must conclude that the earlier posting was excerpted
from erroneous data.
The fact remains that your battery seems to be in good shape . . .
which still leaves us with questions about the observed self-discharge
rate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Combining alternator wires? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
I've looked through the archives because I'm sure this is in there, but I can't
find it.
I've got a Velocity-XL, 28v system, single battery (up front), dual alternators
(60a & 20a). The battery and starter contactors are both up front next to the
battery.
With respect to the B-leads from the two alternators, does each one need to have
a separate wire up to the nose? Or can I install a single wire from the firewall
to the front that both alternators can tie in to? If I can do the single
wire approach, would all three wires need protection with ANL current limiters,
or just the two lines from the alternators?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404757#404757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Combining alternator wires? |
At 11:26 AM 7/16/2013, you wrote:
>
>I've looked through the archives because I'm sure this is in there,
>but I can't find it.
>
>I've got a Velocity-XL, 28v system, single battery (up front), dual
>alternators (60a & 20a). The battery and starter contactors are both
>up front next to the battery.
>
>With respect to the B-leads from the two alternators, does each one
>need to have a separate wire up to the nose? Or can I install a
>single wire from the firewall to the front that both alternators can
>tie in to? If I can do the single wire approach, would all three
>wires need protection with ANL current limiters, or just the two
>lines from the alternators?
If it were my airplane, the starter contactor
would be as close as practical to the starter
on the firewall.
The starter contactor becomes a fat-wire tie
point to bring alternator b-leads to the bus
by tying their current limiters to the hot side of
the contactor.
So yes, the single wire approach
works for all three devices . . . a wire which
you already have in place.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Combining alternator wires? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
> The starter contactor becomes a fat-wire tie
> point to bring alternator b-leads to the bus
> by tying their current limiters to the hot side of
> the contactor.
Thanks!
Follow up question: I can't find a 20a current limiter for the backup alternator.
B&C only has them down to 40a. Do I use a regular 20a CB? Or look elsewhere
for a 20a current limiter?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404768#404768
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Combining alternator wires? |
At 01:19 PM 7/16/2013, you wrote:
>
>
> > The starter contactor becomes a fat-wire tie
> > point to bring alternator b-leads to the bus
> > by tying their current limiters to the hot side of
> > the contactor.
>
>
>Thanks!
>
>Follow up question: I can't find a 20a current limiter for the
>backup alternator. B&C only has them down to 40a. Do I use a regular
>20a CB? Or look elsewhere for a 20a current limiter?
Use an ATC inline fuseholder with a 30
A fuse in it.
http://tinyurl.com/lusgrmw
I have these for sale at:
http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
you might find them in a local automotive
parts house.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | proper way to splice RG400 pigtails? |
| From: | "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
Is there a proper way to splice RG400 coax? This may have been discussed in the
Aeroelectric docs, but I don't recall seeing it.
RG400 pigtails were connected to the back of my radio stack and made it easy to
work with coax runs under the panel. At the time BNC crimped connectors were
used for splicing and they seem to work fine for the moment. However, I'm concerned
that BNC may not offer the most reliable choice for the long term, especially
when connecting coax runs that keep one flying in the right direction...
I ran across an application that used SMA connectors... Better choice? If so, where
can those be sourced for a reasonable price?
Thanks,
Jay
RV-10 Phase 1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404822#404822
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: proper way to splice RG400 pigtails? |
BNC connectors are a very nice constant impedance connector. The good
ones are silver plated and I have seen ones that are still serviceable
after half a century of aviation use. TNC is another choice and those
connectors are available for RG400 as crimped connectors too. SMA
connectors were developed specifically for higher frequencies with lower
power handling capability in tighter spaces. If you have a connection
for a receive-only (like a VOR antenna, GPS antenna, XM antenna) then
SMA would work for that. I don't think SMA is mechanically superior to
the BNC/TNC connectors. I wouldn't use an SMA connector on a transmit
antenna (comm, xponder, etc).
SMA connectors are probably going to be more expensive because they
aren't as much of a commodity item as the BNC is. Pasternack is who I
get connectors from. They probably are not the cheapest but they only
carry good quality connectors and they have everything and I don't have
to spend hours searching. http://www.pasternack.com/
You can expect to pay about $10 a piece for RG400 SMA Male connectors.
Bill
On 7/17/13 2:00 AM, hotwheels wrote:
>
> Is there a proper way to splice RG400 coax? This may have been discussed in the
Aeroelectric docs, but I don't recall seeing it.
>
> RG400 pigtails were connected to the back of my radio stack and made it easy
to work with coax runs under the panel. At the time BNC crimped connectors were
used for splicing and they seem to work fine for the moment. However, I'm concerned
that BNC may not offer the most reliable choice for the long term, especially
when connecting coax runs that keep one flying in the right direction...
>
> I ran across an application that used SMA connectors... Better choice? If so,
where can those be sourced for a reasonable price?
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
> RV-10 Phase 1
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404822#404822
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Combining alternator wires? |
Don J. said:
> With respect to the B-leads from the two alternators, does each one need to have
> a separate wire up to the nose? Or can I install a single wire from the firewall
> to the front that both alternators can tie in to? If I can do the single
> wire approach, would all three wires need protection with ANL current limiters,
> or just the two lines from the alternators?
Bob K. replied:
> If it were my airplane, the starter contactor
> would be as close as practical to the starter
> on the firewall.
>
> The starter contactor becomes a fat-wire tie
> point to bring alternator b-leads to the bus
> by tying their current limiters to the hot side of
> the contactor.
If it were my airplane (and this is the way I layed it out in my LongEz
though I have yet to bother installing a starter and it's a single
alternator configuration):
I would put the ANL and both contactors up in the nose. The ANL in my
installation is to protect against current flowing out the battery to a
short in the wire going back to the alternator(s). The alternator(s)
themselves current limit to a degree much more than a battery does.
This wire only has to be sized to match the needs of the alternators.
The fat starter wire is only live when the starter is being activated.
The "cost" of this approach is the weight of the separate alternator
wire, the benefit to me was eliminating the un-protected, always hot
when the master is on, large wire running the whole length of the
aircraft. Acceptable though this may be, I wasn't comfortable with it.
A minor side benefit is that I had a better place to put the ANL and
starter contactor up in the nose than back on/near the firewall.
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: proper way to splice RG400 pigtails? |
At 04:00 AM 7/17/2013, you wrote:
>
>Is there a proper way to splice RG400 coax? This may have been
>discussed in the Aeroelectric docs, but I don't recall seeing it.
>
>RG400 pigtails were connected to the back of my radio stack and made
>it easy to work with coax runs under the panel. At the time BNC
>crimped connectors were used for splicing and they seem to work fine
>for the moment. However, I'm concerned that BNC may not offer the
>most reliable choice for the long term, especially when connecting
>coax runs that keep one flying in the right direction...
>
>I ran across an application that used SMA connectors... Better
>choice? If so, where can those be sourced for a reasonable price?
Either one is just fine. I use SMA under heat shrink
to splice salvaged cut-pieces for longer finished
lengths.
I can sell you a pair of BNC or SMA cable male
and female connectors. The BNC are easier to
install tho. Unless you have some practice with
the SMA I'll suggest that BNC is your highest
order probability for success.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: proper way to splice RG400 pigtails? |
>>I ran across an application that used SMA connectors... Better
>>choice? If so, where can those be sourced for a reasonable price?
>
> Either one is just fine. I use SMA under heat shrink
> to splice salvaged cut-pieces for longer finished
> lengths.
When extending an existing coax, consider the
value of trimming the original cable back some
distance to move the splice to a more convenient
location.
Things can be pretty busy behind the panel and
adding another mated pair of connectors only
6" away from one of your radios may not be the
most attractive location.
Cutting some of the original cable back before
splicing on the extension offers an opportunity
to put the spice in a less obtrusive location.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Todd <motodd(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Battery capacity tester- Why isn't there a flyback |
diode?
I finally got around to building Bob's battery capacity tester and, as a
long-time lurker on the Aeroelectric list, I'm primed to slap a
'flyback' diode on every switched inductive load I find. But, the
schematic for the battery capacity tester (
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf ) doesn't appear to
have one. My understanding of semiconductors is pretty weak but the
datasheet for the NPN transistor I happen to be using (2N5961) says the
max collector-base voltage allowed is 60V. Although the inductive load
in this case doesn't appear to be huge (my relay coil draws about 36mA
at 12.4 V), it seems to me like I might be able to do some damage to my
transistor. Is there something about the behavior of the Zener or the
transistor that moderates the flyback voltage effect?
I don't see any harm in adding a diode, but I'm just trying to learn.
Do I need to a diode across my coil before I actually use this thing?
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester- Why isn't there a flyback |
diode?
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
There probably should be a "flyback" diode there. Actually I've been searching
the antique shops for an AC plug-in clock and haven't been able to find one.
This issue of EDN has a plethora of battery-related designs, among which is a similar
battery-tester. See attached.
http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4368112/Circuit-measures-battery-capacity?elq=e82db0a50e5244e5961468cc2f470404&elqCampaignId=258
ps: The 787 has yet ANOTHER battery problem. Yikes!
--------
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=404929#404929
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/battery_tester_873.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester- Why isn't there a |
flyback diode?
Actually I've been searching the antique shops for an AC plug-in clock and
haven't been able to find one.
Walmart has a couple of these clocks in the $10 range.
I bought one at my local store recently.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester- Why isn't there |
a flyback diode?
At 09:32 AM 7/19/2013, you wrote:
>
Yes, a coil spike suppressor would e good idea.
Should have been there in the first place . . . sorry
'bout that.
>Actually I've been searching the antique shops for an AC plug-in
>clock and haven't been able to find one.
> Walmart has a couple of these clocks in the $10 range.
> I bought one at my local store recently.
But they are getting harder to find. The AA powered
quartz movement has all but totally captured the
wall/desk clock market.
The cap-tester I photographed last week measures
both battery voltage and elapsed time in software.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Heathrow 787 fire |
>
>ps: The 787 has yet ANOTHER battery problem. Yikes!
I've been reading some of the un-journalistic babbling
about the Heathrow event. Yes, the ELT was located in
the fire zone. Yes, it contains a lithium battery. But . . .
The history of this design goes back about 8 years
with 6000+ in service. The battery is never 'charged'
hence any triggering event for battery failure is limited
to electronic failure in the ELT or external environmental
effects (temperature, vibration, etc.).
The paper, voice and byteprint pundits are not
known for their sense of history or technical acumen.
A mention of the word 'lithium' in an aviation
context has the effect of an overdose of meth.
I remain skeptical that the ELT battery is
root cause of this event but hopefully, more
level headed investigators will ultimately
prevail.
There is another feature of the 797 construction
that I find more disturbing.
Look through the collection of videos and pictures
for the SFO event. As soon as the wreckage comes
to rest people are exiting the front of the aircraft
on slides, many carrying their bags. Even videos
of trucks spraying water and/or foam are remarkably
clear of visible flames.
Aftermath pictures show little evidence of
active burning outside the fuselage eitehr right
or left side. There is no evidence of burn thru
from outside.
Yet, there are huge holes in the fuselage top
which had to be caused by release of combustion
energy inside the fuselage. Fortunately, by
the time all that stuff was fully involved,
the airplane was largely empty of passengers.
This offers questions about the combustibility
of materials in the cabin.
Check the few pictures of the Heathrow
event airplane. Once again we see evidence of
heat damage to outside of the aircraft no doubt
caused by combustion of stuff inside the airplane
with convection concentrating effects on the
roof of the cabin.
No doubt the ELT was burned. Recall that Swissair 111
suffered a cabin fire that started with arcing of
wires with damaged insulation but PROPAGATED by
combustible materials adjacent to the failed
wires.
I am reluctant to jump onto the lithium wagon
for assigning root cause to this event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Ferrous Batteries |
At 09:48 PM 7/17/2013, you wrote:
Bob, I've been a customer of Pegasus Auto Racing for a few years now.
I started out buying silicon radiator hose from them, they sent a
catalog and I found quite a few aircraft related items and their
prices are certainly no worse than Spruce so if they have the item I
need I usually get it from them. This is by way of saying they are a
good solid business.
When I received their latest catalog I noticed that they are carrying
the Ballistic Performance EV02 line of Lithium Ferrous batteries.
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/group.asp?GroupID=BALLISTICEVO2
What I don't get is that they spec them by number of cells. >From my
limited understanding I would expect that the 2 cell battery would
put out ~3 volts on each cell being something like an A123 size
lithium battery of ~1.5 volts.
Flying an electrically dependant engine on my trike, the little HKS
700 has CDI ignitions but they are not powered separately like the
Rotax, I have been thinking of a winter project of adding one of these:
The lithium cells deliver energy at about 3v
per cell . . .
http://tinyurl.com/la8nhr6
Hence, a 12v battery is made up of an array of 4
cells. Larger capacity batteries will add increments
of 4 cells in parallel.
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=9402
as a reserve battery just for the ignition. I don't fly IFR or nights
and rarely more than a half hour from an airport so 8 amp hours looks
to give me at least an hour of reserve to get me to a safe touch down
with power to spare. At 15 oz. the wires to hook it up would almost
outweigh the battery. Have you ever heard of them?
I've seen this product offered by various vendors
for several years. Not heard anything 'unhappy'
about them. I note that this series of batteries
have multi-conductor service connectors on them.
This suggests that they offer a specially maintenance
tool for charging and testing the battery.,
For the guys who are using PC680's this battery;
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=9404
seems to offer a lot of performance for 2.5 lb and the price doesn't
reflect the usual "aircraft mark up".
Here is the company's web page and I've attached their instructions
and warranty information.
http://www.ballisticparts.com/products/batteries/batteries.php
Does this all make sense or is it so much hokus pokus?
Without a doubt, these batteries perform
as advertised. So did the batteries in the
787.
The uncertainty about this an all lithium products
contemplated for use in vehicles is their plug-n-play
compatibility with SVLA batteries. Do a google search
on 'lithium motorcycle battery' . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kpkjqv3
A number of these products feature battery maintenance
connectors for attaching a specialized tool. Yet
NONE of the advertising hype speaks to the value
or requirement for this connector and the tool that
attaches there. I think the Boeing 787 battery has
become one of the world's most monitored (and
pampered) battery with maintenance/monitor wires
attached to every cell.
Herein lies my discomfort. If these products were
truly plug-n-play replacement for Ni-Cad and/or
SLVA, then this maintenance connector would not
exist, nor anything like a lithium-specific charger.
We see a similar thing with battery charging offers
from the likes of Schumacher with their battery
selector switches labeled SLVA, Flooded, Gel-Cell,
Deep Cycle, etc etc.
Bottom line is that the electrical systems in our
airplanes DO NOT feature mulit-conductor maintenance
connectors that mate with the smart connector on
this or any lithium product.
Nor do our regulators feature any selector switch
for tailoring system performance to SVLA, flooded,
deep cycle, -OR- LITHIUM batteries.
I cannot tell you that I KNOW and UNDERSTAND the
suitability of any of these lithium products for
use on your airplane. I do see unexplained features
unique to the lithium battery manufacturing and
marketing that suggests the batteries are not
drop-in, plug-n-play replacements for the legacy
SLVA battery.
I DO know that SVLA batteries have a comforting
track record and they do not go into fits of
failure or fire when MILDLY abused by the vagaries
of conditions encountered in millions of vehicles
not the least of which are airplanes.
Some years back I was motivated to withhold my
recommendation for installing un-modified, internally
regulated alternators. So too must I be circumspect
about the lithium batteries in airplanes. There
was never an argument with a stock automotive alternator's
ability to perform as advertised. I DID KNOW and UNDERSTAND
their inherent failure modes. Similarly can we
expect the lithium products to be as energetic and
light weight as they claim. In this instance my
reservations are based upon what I DON'T KNOW about
the batteries . . .
(1) and NOBODY KNOWS about their historical performance in airplanes . . .
their history is a tiny fraction of that we understand
about SVLA.
(2) Should we be considering some new regulator design
that plugs into the maintenance connector on these
batteries?
(3) I do know that early drop-in replacements
for SVLA proposed on biz-jets INCLUDED internal battery
monitoring and maintenance electronics.
(4)If Boeing finds value in doing it, should we adopt the
philosophy?
Take one of these batteries apart . . .
Emacs!
. . . and you find something like this inside.
Emacs!
If the suppliers of lithium products onto my grandson's helicopter
find value in perhaps doubling the price of a toy battery
to shepherd it's life in the consumer wild, how is it
that other lithium products can be offered into
operating conditions that are at least as abusive
if not more so?
In the best of all worlds, somebody would finance an
investigative activity into the claims for plug-n-play
capabilities of lithium products onto airplanes.
At the present state of my knowledge, I haven't got a clue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester- Why isn't there a flyback |
diode?
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A quartz clock with hands can be used instead of an AC powered clock. Strip the
ends of two wires. Flatten the ends with a hammer and anvil. Make a sandwich
of the two flattened wires with a paper or plastic insulator between them.
Place this sandwich in the clock battery holder between the AA battery and a
holder contact. Connect the other ends of the two wires to the tester relay.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=404970#404970
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Todd <motodd(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, now |
clock source
> From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>
>
> There probably should be a "flyback" diode there. Actually I've been searching
> the antique shops for an AC plug-in clock and haven't been able to find one.
I went ahead and added the coil diode per yours and Bob's advice. As for
the clock, I gave up on finding an AC clock. I didn't want an AC
dependent time piece anyway. I just piggy-backed an 8V regulator
(MC7808C) I had on hand and a couple of resistors for a voltage divider
to give me a regulated 1.8 volt supply that seems to work just fine with
the quartz clock I got at Goodwill for $1.
Boy, that 55W light bulb sure gets warm after a few minutes. I bet a
big ol' heat sink and a surplus computer cooling fan would probably
extend bulb life. Back to the workbench!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
>I went ahead and added the coil diode per yours and Bob's advice. As
>for the clock, I gave up on finding an AC clock. I didn't want an
>AC dependent time piece anyway. I just piggy-backed an 8V regulator
>(MC7808C) I had on hand and a couple of resistors for a voltage
>divider to give me a regulated 1.8 volt supply that seems to work
>just fine with the quartz clock I got at Goodwill for $1.
Good workaround . . .
>Boy, that 55W light bulb sure gets warm after a few minutes. I bet
>a big ol' heat sink and a surplus computer cooling fan would
>probably extend bulb life. Back to the workbench!
Yeah, they do. Not sure how you would heat sink
it . . . most of the energy is radiated. But a fan
would help. A salvaged 12v cooling fan from a computer
should be low-cost option. The one I'm finishing up
on the bench has 3 lamps. Let me know how the fan
thingy works out for you. I might just do the same
thing with this one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
>>Boy, that 55W light bulb sure gets warm after a few minutes. I bet a big
>>ol' heat sink and a surplus computer cooling fan would probably extend
>>bulb life. Back to the workbench!
>
> Yeah, they do. Not sure how you would heat sink
> it . . . most of the energy is radiated. But a fan
> would help. A salvaged 12v cooling fan from a computer
> should be low-cost option. The one I'm finishing up
> on the bench has 3 lamps. Let me know how the fan
> thingy works out for you. I might just do the same
> thing with this one.
I understood that these lamps were designed to work for many
100's of hours without any form of cooling, other than ambient air.
If this is the case, then I do not see much advantage in going to
the
$effort$ of adding extra cooling. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | jumpimg gauge needles |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i know this has come up before but i can't find it. a friend with a 912 has
the needles on his falcon engine gauges jumping and twitching while engine
is running. are there places to look at to fix this? he has been told to
run wire from regulator to battery terminal, not just to bus. anything else
come to mind?
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
What's a 'fly-back' diode
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback
diode, now clock source
>
>
>>>Boy, that 55W light bulb sure gets warm after a few minutes. I bet a big
>>>ol' heat sink and a surplus computer cooling fan would probably extend
>>>bulb life. Back to the workbench!
>>
>> Yeah, they do. Not sure how you would heat sink
>> it . . . most of the energy is radiated. But a fan
>> would help. A salvaged 12v cooling fan from a computer
>> should be low-cost option. The one I'm finishing up
>> on the bench has 3 lamps. Let me know how the fan
>> thingy works out for you. I might just do the same
>> thing with this one.
>
>
> I understood that these lamps were designed to work for many
> 100's of hours without any form of cooling, other than ambient air.
> If this is the case, then I do not see much advantage in going to
> the
> $effort$ of adding extra cooling. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
| From: | Bill <wtrooper(at)gmail.com> |
That was my question John!
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode
Bill
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:22 AM, JOHN TIPTON wrote:
> jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
>
> What's a 'fly-back' diode
>
> John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
> I understood that these lamps were designed to work for many
> 100's of hours without any form of cooling, other than ambient air.
> If this is the case, then I do not see much advantage in going to the
> $effort$ of adding extra cooling. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Oh sure. Those are quartz-glass envelopes high
temperature materials elsewhere. They're in no
'danger' for operating uncooled.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: jumpimg gauge needles |
At 01:01 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote:
>i know this has come up before but i can't find it. a friend with a
>912 has the needles on his falcon engine gauges jumping and
>twitching while engine is running. are there places to look at to
>fix this? he has been told to run wire from regulator to battery
>terminal, not just to bus. anything else come to mind?
>
Does the jumping stop with the alternator
OFF?
Can you describe the architecture of his
ground system? Do all the gauges wiggle
or just some . . . and what do they display.
Are there oil, coolant or fuel SENSORS
that ground locally . . . in others words
ground where they mount and then carry their
data off on a single wire?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: jumpimg gauge needles |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
bob, i know the answer to some of your questions but i will track down
arnie and get answers for them all and get back to you.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> At 01:01 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote:
>
>> i know this has come up before but i can't find it. a friend with a 912
>> has the needles on his falcon engine gauges jumping and twitching while
>> engine is running. are there places to look at to fix this? he has been
>> told to run wire from regulator to battery terminal, not just to bus.
>> anything else come to mind?
>>
>>
> Does the jumping stop with the alternator
> OFF?
>
> Can you describe the architecture of his
> ground system? Do all the gauges wiggle
> or just some . . . and what do they display.
> Are there oil, coolant or fuel SENSORS
> that ground locally . . . in others words
> ground where they mount and then carry their
> data off on a single wire?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
At 01:59 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote:
>That was my question John!=C2
>
>I found this:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl
yback_diode
This is a good description. See also this
series of articles on 'spike suppression'
on our website.
http://tinyurl.com/mkcshhs
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity tester-was flyback diode, |
now clock source
Hi Bob
Got it: it's a 'diode' in spike catching mode
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery capacity tester-was
flyback diode, now clock source
At 01:59 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote:
That was my question John!=C2
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode
This is a good description. See also this
series of articles on 'spike suppression'
on our website.
http://tinyurl.com/mkcshhs
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: jumpimg gauge needles |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi bob,
ok, got the info. mitchell gauge for water temp., oil temp and oil
pressure. these 3 gauges all twitch, water temp. the worst. the electric
uma tach and the elec. vdo fuel gauge work fine. all gauges have a
separate ground wire back to a a common ground.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> bob, i know the answer to some of your questions but i will track down
> arnie and get answers for them all and get back to you.
> bob noffs
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>>
>>
>> At 01:01 PM 7/20/2013, you wrote:
>>
>>> i know this has come up before but i can't find it. a friend with a 912
>>> has the needles on his falcon engine gauges jumping and twitching while
>>> engine is running. are there places to look at to fix this? he has been
>>> told to run wire from regulator to battery terminal, not just to bus.
>>> anything else come to mind?
>>>
>>>
>> Does the jumping stop with the alternator
>> OFF?
>>
>> Can you describe the architecture of his
>> ground system? Do all the gauges wiggle
>> or just some . . . and what do they display.
>> Are there oil, coolant or fuel SENSORS
>> that ground locally . . . in others words
>> ground where they mount and then carry their
>> data off on a single wire?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: jumpimg gauge needles |
At 09:47 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
>hi bob,
> ok, got the info. mitchell gauge for water temp., oil temp and oil
> pressure. these 3 gauges all twitch, water temp. the worst. the
> electric uma tach and the elec. vdo fuel gauge work fine. all
> gauges have a separate ground wire back to a a common ground.
Okay, a picture is beginning to emerge. I suspect
those first three have single wires to the guages
and they ground through their threaded fittings
to the engine.
My working theory is that there is substantial
resistance between the crankcase and the "common
ground." I.e. the common ground is NOT a forest-
of-tabs on the firewall with a nice bond strap
between crankcase and forest-of-tabs.
The EASY fix is to take GAUGE grounds for the
3 twitchy instruments out to the crankcase. I'm
90% certain that the observed twitchiness will
go away.
Years ago I think I related a story about a Long-Ez
driver who had a 30A alternator on the engine but
no starter. His VERY long crankcase ground routed
to battery(-) in the nose offered substantial
voltage drop when the alternator was charging.
This cause a rather large excursion in his gauges
with local ground sensors when the alternator
was turned ON and OFF.
Bringing instrument grounds for those systems
back to the crankcase DIDN'T change the voltage
drop on the alternator ground wire, it just moved
that drop OUTSIDE the signal loop for the gauge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Skelt" <cskelt(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 496 with Trutrak Autopilot, Dynon EFIS D100 |
and Garmin SL30
Folks,
Someone must have done this, but I can=99t find any references.
The Garmin 496 can provide directional reference to the Pictorial Pilot
Directional AP, position and direction to the EFIS HSI display, and VOR
and COM frequencies to the SL30 NAV/COMM.
a.. It seems all devices can work with 9600 baud.
b.. The SL30 and D100 are OK with the 496 =9CData out=9D
setting =9CNMEA & VHF out.=9D The AP documentation
doesn=99t mention the VHF angle.
c.. The EFIS and AP can live with the 496 =9CAdvanced=9D
setting =9CNormal.=9D I don=99t know about the SL30
but doubt it matters.
Do I simply split the 496 =9Cdata out=9D wire three ways and
run to each device and hope the AP isn=99t confused by the
extraneous commands from the GPS intended for the SL30?
Any recommendations on running grounds between the devices, using
screened cable etc.?
Thanks!!
Regards, Chris.
Lancair 360, 90% done, 90% to do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 with Trutrak Autopilot, Dynon EFIS |
D100 and Garmin SL30
At 03:23 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
>Folks,
>Someone must have done this, but I can=99t find
>any references. The Garmin 496 can provide
>directional reference to the Pictorial Pilot
>Directional AP, position and direction to the
>EFIS HSI display, and VOR and COM frequencies to the SL30 NAV/COMM.
> * It seems all devices can work with 9600 baud.
> * The SL30 and D100 are OK with the 496
> =9CData out=9D setting =9CNMEA & VHF out.=9D
> The AP documentation doesn=99t mention the VHF angle.
> * The EFIS and AP can live with the 496
> =9CAdvanced=9D setting =9CNormal.=9D I don
=99t
> know about the SL30 but doubt it matters.
>
>Do I simply split the 496 =9Cdata out=9D wire
>three ways and run to each device and hope the
>AP isn=99t confused by the extraneous commands
>from the GPS intended for the SL30?
>Any recommendations on running grounds between
>the devices, using screened cable etc.?
NEMA data streams are fixed format, labeled sentences
of ordered data words. There are few devices that read
all the data from any given device. Listeners watch all
data strings starting with the right label, and then they
disassemble the sentence for the data of interest.
For example, if your listener wants to know lat,lon it looks
for a sentence formatted to carry that data. Like "GGA"
GGA - essential fix data which provide 3D location and accuracy data.
$GPGGA,123519,4807.038,N,01131.000,E,1,08,0.9,545.4,M,46.9,M,,*47
Where:
GGA Global Positioning System Fix Data
123519 Fix taken at 12:35:19 UTC
4807.038,N Latitude 48 deg 07.038' N
01131.000,E Longitude 11 deg 31.000' E
1 Fix quality: 0 = invalid
1 = GPS fix (SPS)
2 = DGPS fix
3 = PPS fix
4 = Real Time Kinematic
5 = Float RTK
6 = estimated (dead reckoning) (2.3
feature)
7 = Manual input mode
8 = Simulation mode
08 Number of satellites being tracked
0.9 Horizontal dilution of position
545.4,M Altitude, Meters, above mean sea level
46.9,M Height of geoid (mean sea level) above WGS84
ellipsoid
(empty field) time in seconds since last DGPS update
(empty field) DGPS station ID number
*47 the checksum data, always begins with *
In this case, the listener watches for $GPGGA to come along
then it parses the sentence for the second and third words
after the header.
There are proprietary sentences too. For example, Garmin
may find it useful to output a $PGRME sentence where word
pairs offer position error distances and units in which
those data are given.
Garmin
The following are Garmin proprietary sentences.
"P" denotes proprietary, "GRM" is Garmin's
manufacturer code, and "M" or "Z" indicates the
specific sentence type. Note that the PGRME
sentence is not set if the output is set to NMEA 1.5 mode.
$PGRME,15.0,M,45.0,M,25.0,M*1C
where:
15.0,M Estimated horizontal position error in meters (HPE)
45.0,M Estimated vertical error (VPE) in meters
25.0,M Overall spherical equivalent position error
So it's conceivable that your constellation of listeners
are interested in only a small port of all data offered by
the talker.
So as long as your 'talker' offers all the data needed
by all of your 'listeners', then each listener will sift
the good stuff out of the noise. Hook them all together.
Twisted pairs are good data lines. 9600 Baud is not
a bit EMC risk but shielding the wires is not a bad
idea. Ground the shield at listener end only.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 with Trutrak Autopilot, Dynon EFIS D100 |
and Garmin SL30
If you have all the pieces, the best thing to do would be to try it out
on the bench.
When I talked to Garmin a few years ago about connecting this unit, they
said it was fine to parallel it to several devices. I *think* they said
up to five.
Do you have any devices that need to talk back to the 496? If so, that
is the only device that should have its Tx line connected to the 496 Rx
line. (you can't parallel these)
Otherwise, I would use a twisted pair for 496 Data Tx and 496 Data
Ground, and run them from the Garmin to each instrument in a
star-pattern. The screen is probably optional, depending on what else is
in the wiring harness with it and how far it's going. Things that might
be sensitive to digital noise should be guarded, and it should be
guarded from strong RF sources like antenna feeds. These are just
suggestions though. In a lot of times, within reason, it's just
'whatever works best'
Bob and I differ on where to terminate the screen, but that drills into
some serious minutiae on this project. It's probably just not necessary
at all. (Bob -- I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the termination
location rationale though)
Oh, and just in case you get some funny ideas, the Tx 2 and Rx 2 lines
that are in that Garmin-made wire harness are not connected in the 496!
I think they are for the 296 only..
I found an extra Garmin power data cable laying around and I've included
a drawing showing how I would wire the system and a page of the
installation manual with some useful warnings. Looking back at my notes,
though, in the install I did it looks like I didn't even connect the
serial ground to the D100. When the instruments are inches apart and
inches from the ground terminals, all this star-grounding and shielding
starts to make less difference.
http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/GPSMAP496_OwnersManual_forEurope_.pdf
On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Christopher Skelt wrote:
> Folks,
> Someone must have done this, but I can=92t find any references. The
Garmin 496 can provide directional reference to the Pictorial Pilot
Directional AP, position and direction to the EFIS HSI display, and VOR
and COM frequencies to the SL30 NAV/COMM.
> It seems all devices can work with 9600 baud.
> The SL30 and D100 are OK with the 496 =93Data out=94 setting =93NMEA &
VHF out.=94 The AP documentation doesn=92t mention the VHF angle.
> The EFIS and AP can live with the 496 =93Advanced=94 setting =93Normal.=94
I don=92t know about the SL30 but doubt it matters.
>
> Do I simply split the 496 =93data out=94 wire three ways and run to
each device and hope the AP isn=92t confused by the extraneous commands
from the GPS intended for the SL30?
> Any recommendations on running grounds between the devices, using
screened cable etc.?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Regards, Chris.
> Lancair 360, 90% done, 90% to do.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 with Trutrak Autopilot, Dynon EFIS |
D100 and Garmin SL30
>
>Bob and I differ on where to terminate the screen, but that drills
>into some serious minutiae on this project. It's probably just not
>necessary at all. (Bob -- I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on
>the termination location rationale though)
Sure . . . easy . . . flip a coin.
Shielding is a prophylactic against the weakest of all
EMI propagation modes - electrostatic.
Modern serial data signals will deliberately soften
the leading and trailing edges of the data to minimize
the strength of the propagation mode in bundles.
Twisting pairs of a balanced data stream (Like RS422)
drops the coupling mode to a small fraction of and
already weak coupling mode.
Twisting an unbalanced data stream can't exploit
the common mode rejection capability of a balanced
pair receiver . . . but it still reduces electrostatic
coupling by a substantial proportion.
Shielding breaks the electrostatic propagation mode.
The currents flowing in the shield are so tiny as to be
difficult to measure . . . one can terminate the shield
at ANY low impedance node tied to signal or power ground and it's
got all the conductivity needed to do its nearly
insignificant job.
Grounding shields at the listener-end is a convention
we used most places I worked . . . a convention not
driven by significant physics.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 with Trutrak Autopilot, Dynon EFIS |
D100 and Garmin SL30
At 09:31 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
Bob and I differ on where to terminate the screen, but that drills
into some serious minutiae on this project. It's probably just not
necessary at all. (Bob -- I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on
the termination location rationale though)
Sure . . . easy . . . flip a coin.
Shielding is a prophylactic against the weakest of all
EMI propagation modes - electrostatic.
Modern serial data signals will deliberately soften
the leading and trailing edges of the data to minimize
the strength of the propagation mode in bundles.
Twisting pairs of a balanced data stream (Like RS422)
drops the coupling mode to a small fraction of and
already weak coupling mode.
Twisting an unbalanced data stream can't exploit
the common mode rejection capability of a balanced
pair receiver . . . but it still reduces electrostatic
coupling by a substantial proportion.
Shielding breaks the electrostatic propagation mode.
The currents flowing in the shield are so tiny as to be
difficult to measure . . . one can terminate the shield
at ANY low impedance node tied to signal or power ground and it's
got all the conductivity needed to do its nearly
insignificant job.
Grounding shields at the listener-end is a convention
we used most places I worked . . . a convention not
driven by significant physics.
P.S. In some cases, the system designer will specify
that the outer conductor of a shielded wire be connected
at both ends.
This is a perfectly valid means by which a 'ground' can
be carried along with the shielded signal wires but
the system designer will also have addressed any
risks for creating a ground-loop on the double terminated
shield. In all other cases, single end grounding is
the legacy convention although in cases where the
shielded wire runs a couple of feet between panel
mounted black boxes, risk of shield induced ground
loop is non-existent.
Bottom line suggests that studying the installation
wiring diagrams for shield handling is a good
practice.
The legacy conventions evolved out of large
aircraft systems wherein small signal wires
run considerable distances through hostile
electrical environments with HIGH risk off
shield induced ground-loops.
Except for legacy magneto p-leads, I suspect
all other shields could be left un-terminated
or even deleted from the wire bundle with
no adverse effects.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> I'll try it again to see if I get something different.
>
>
> Bob . . .
After a night on the charger and a few hours rest, started at 13.0 volts and after
2 hours of 75 watt draw, disconnected lamp and measured 12.0
The relatively high day to day discharge turns out to be attributable to having
left my pilot side NC headset (battery bus) on. The LED indicator was facing
the seat back.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405118#405118
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cap Tester |
>After a night on the charger and a few hours rest, started at 13.0
>volts and after 2 hours of 75 watt draw, disconnected lamp and measured 12.0
>
>The relatively high day to day discharge turns out to be
>attributable to having left my pilot side NC headset (battery bus)
>on. The LED indicator was facing the seat back.
Aha! A credible explanation. Good work!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
| From: | "bvc11" <nizenmekan(at)outlook.com> |
[Rolling Eyes] sorry to hear that,but i should be careful the next time i deal
with the battery,thanks,that really teach me a lesson.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405212#405212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | I have just re-subscribed. |
Hi All
Seeing Bob's appearance in the August Kitplanes issue reminded me that I
had been a member of the list back before retiring in early 2005 but
somehow, I dropped off in the months that followed. Quite when that
happened, I can't tell butit has been many years since I have received
any list traffic. I'm sure that I was using the same email address back
then.
No matter, I have now re-subscribed and now look forward to seeing what
you have all been up to in the intervening years. The wigWag project is
certainly among that activity, so I will start by reading about that.
Regards
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Hi List,
I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for trouble
shooting this.
I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox. My com2
is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except for the radio:
I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I can see the
Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the PTT buttons
are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
- I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works perfectly and
they work on other a/c).
- I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear transmissions
that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an antenna on the
GNS).
- I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connectors using a
tester.
- I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA and on the
GNS.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious that I should
check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA works but
I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two
separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some
comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, not 24?
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>
> Hi List,
> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for
> trouble shooting this.
> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox. My
> com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except for
> the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I can
> see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the
> PTT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works
> perfectly and they work on other a/c).
> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear
> transmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an
> antenna on the GNS).
> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connectors
> using a tester.
> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA and
> on the GNS.
> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious that I
> should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA
> works but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> Sacha
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <fconsult(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited. |
Hi Bob and All
I had a chance to do some work on the Zodiac 601 with a jabiru engine
again. The problem is the Microair radio has a very loud hum when
transmitting. The voice is clear but along with the voice is a very loud
hum (whine). This happens with either the radio, or intercom being
used, makes no difference. So far I=99ve installed a forest of
tabs on the firewall, and rewired all grounds to it, Jabiru recommended
twisting the alternator(PM) leads full length, this was done, phone jack
isolation washers where installed and checked for no errant grounds,
regulator/rectifier hot lead was moved to the battery, ground was moved
to forest of tabs big bolt. Mic audio and mic ground wires where
separated as best as I could for most of their length(short run anyway).
Capacitor was installed across the bus to ground.
The noise starts to appear at 1600 rpm and increases in volume up to
max engine rpm. The alternator cuts in at 1600 rpm. Disconnected the
alternator and ran it, no hum, everything is fine. If it is the
alternator being the culprit, is there anyway to deal with it?
Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far but I=99m running out
of ideas.
Chris F
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Dave,
Yup, power is present on both inputs and its definitely a 12v unit. The Rx (
resp. the Tx) signal does appear on the LCD screen when the radio is receivi
ng (resp. when I push the PTT button), it's just that no sound seems to be r
eceived or transmitted.
Sacha
On Jul 24, 2013, at 15:41, Dave Saylor w
rote:
> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two separa
te inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some comm stu
ff without comm power, IIRC.
>
> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, not 24
?
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for tr
ouble shooting this.
>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox. M
y com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except for
the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I can s
ee the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the P
TT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works perfe
ctly and they work on other a/c).
>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear transm
issions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an antenna
on the GNS).
>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connectors u
sing a tester.
>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA and o
n the GNS.
>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious that I
should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA wor
ks but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>> Sacha
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectr
ic-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
Sacha,
My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem. .
.
When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit too
far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed flush with
the panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 430 in, all the
pins do not fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin sockets.
This can also happen when you install the 430 into a properly located
chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn back into the chassis via the
screw locking device.
D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Saylor
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240
setup)
Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two
separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do
some comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit,
not 24?
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
Hi List,
I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas
for trouble shooting this.
I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my
Kitfox. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work
except for the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even
though I can see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which
indicates that the PTT buttons are working and that the radio is
receiving *something*.
Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
- I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works
perfectly and they work on other a/c).
- I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear
transmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting
an antenna on the GNS).
- I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA
connectors using a tester.
- I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA
and on the GNS.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious
that I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel
on GMA works but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sacha
==========
-
ric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I have just re-subscribed. |
At 03:55 AM 7/24/2013, you wrote:
>Hi All
>
>Seeing Bob's appearance in the August Kitplanes issue reminded me
>that I had been a member of the list back before retiring in early
>2005 but somehow, I dropped off in the months that followed. Quite
>when that happened, I can't tell but it has been many years since I
>have received any list traffic. I'm sure that I was using the same
>email address back then.
>
>No matter, I have now re-subscribed and now look forward to seeing
>what you have all been up to in the intervening years. The wigWag
>project is certainly among that activity, so I will start by reading
>about that.
>
>Regards
>Bill
Welcome back Bill! Hmmm . . . Matt has excellent
archives on List traffic for all the services
on his system . . . it's all on file assuming
you've not got better ways to spend your time!
The software performance spec for the
Quad-Function Module (AEC9024) is 99% done.
Paul is going to do the software for it
too. Board layouts are done. This one
isn't an open source project but programmed
chips, DIY kits and complete assemblies will
be available from our website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in the 430 ins
tall manual to determine if you are getting complete pin engagement from the
tray/panel assembly
Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D subs and make s
ure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when you try to press t
hem out.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd" wrote:
> Sacha,
> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem. . .
>
> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit too f
ar back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed flush with the p
anel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 430 in, all the pins do n
ot fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin sockets. This can also ha
ppen when you install the 430 into a properly located chassis box, if the 43
0 is not fully drawn back into the chassis via the screw locking device.
> D
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Saylor
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup
)
>
> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two separa
te inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some comm stu
ff without comm power, IIRC.
>
> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, not 24
?
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for tr
ouble shooting this.
>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox. M
y com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except for
the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I can s
ee the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the P
TT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works perfe
ctly and they work on other a/c).
>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear transm
issions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an antenna
on the GNS).
>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connectors u
sing a tester.
>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA and o
n the GNS.
>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious that I
should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA wor
ks but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>> Sacha
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectr
ic-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good place to look
. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble doing so. I'll ch
eck that and report any findings.
Regards
Sacha
On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres wrote:
> Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in the 430 i
nstall manual to determine if you are getting complete pin engagement from t
he tray/panel assembly
> Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D subs and mak
e sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when you try to pres
s them out.
>
> Tim
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd" wrote:
>
>> Sacha,
>> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem. . .
>>
>> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit too f
ar back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed flush with the p
anel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 430 in, all the pins do n
ot fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin sockets. This can also ha
ppen when you install the 430 into a properly located chassis box, if the 43
0 is not fully drawn back into the chassis via the screw locking device.
>> D
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dave Saylor
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setu
p)
>>
>> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two separ
ate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some comm st
uff without comm power, IIRC.
>>
>> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, not 2
4?
>>
>> Dave Saylor
>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi List,
>>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for t
rouble shooting this.
>>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox. M
y com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except fo
r the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I can
see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the
PTT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works perf
ectly and they work on other a/c).
>>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear trans
missions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an antenn
a on the GNS).
>>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connectors u
sing a tester.
>>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA and
on the GNS.
>>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious that
I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA w
orks but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>>> Sacha
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -
>>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElect
ric-List
>>> ==========
>>> MS -
>>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> e -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
Don't forget *all* the grounds, too. I tried to help a friend with a
similar issue several years ago; even spoke directly with a Garmin tech
& told him exactly which pins were hooked up. The tech told me we were
golden on all the wires. Radio worked when inserted in another a/c. He
finally took it to a radio shop. They took one look at the back of the
tray & said, "You're missing that ground right there." They installed
the ground, & everything worked. Sorry to say I don't know which ground
they added (there are several).
On 07/24/2013 01:23 PM, Sacha wrote:
> Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good place
> to look. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble
> doing so. I'll check that and report any findings.
> Regards
> Sacha
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres > wrote:
>
>> Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in the
>> 430 install manual to determine if you are getting complete pin
>> engagement from the tray/panel assembly
>> Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D subs
>> and make sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when
>> you try to press them out.
>>
>> Tim
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd" > > wrote:
>>
>>> Sacha,
>>> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430
>>> problem. . .
>>> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit
>>> too far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed
>>> flush with the panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the
>>> 430 in, all the pins do not fully engage into the chassis box
>>> receiver pin sockets. This can also happen when you install the 430
>>> into a properly located chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn
>>> back into the chassis via the screw locking device.
>>> D
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Dave Saylor
>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and
>>> GMA240 setup)
>>>
>>> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs
>>> two separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll
>>> still do some comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
>>>
>>> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V
>>> unit, not 24?
>>>
>>> Dave Saylor
>>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hi List,
>>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of
>>> ideas for trouble shooting this.
>>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in
>>> my Kitfox. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc)
>>> work except for the radio: I cannot hear others and they
>>> cannot hear me, even though I can see the Tx and Rx symbols
>>> on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that the PTT
>>> buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the
>>> intercom works perfectly and they work on other a/c).
>>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I
>>> can hear transmissions that I send using a handheld radio,
>>> even without mounting an antenna on the GNS).
>>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA
>>> connectors using a tester.
>>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on
>>> the GMA and on the GNS.
>>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something
>>> obvious that I should check? I suppose I haven't checked
>>> that the com1 channel on GMA works but I have no reason to
>>> doubt it, since the unit is new.
>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>>> Sacha
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -
>>> ric-List"
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> ==========
>>> MS -
>>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> e -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I have a little DC-DC converter(pc board & components) robbed out of a Cig adapter
that Im relocating into a plastic utility box. I need to pot it in position.
Is Shoe Goo a good choice here? IF not what is? The adhesive will need to contact
the "verks" and be non conductive or corrosive
Thanks in advance!
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:23 PM 7/24/2013, you wrote:
>I have a little DC-DC converter(pc board & components) robbed out of
>a Cig adapter that Im relocating into a plastic utility box. I need
>to pot it in position.
>Is Shoe Goo a good choice here? IF not what is? The adhesive will
>need to contact the "verks" and be non conductive or corrosive
>Thanks in advance!
>Tim
shoe-goo is a close cousin to E6000 which
is solvent based, water clear, and non
conductive. HOWEVER, it may attack your
plastic box.
Alternatively, RTV sealant used for
aquarium sealing is an option.
also, 5-minute epoxy won't attack the
plastics . . . but may not get a
really good grip on smooth, bright
surface of plastic box.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I have just re-subscribed. |
Thanks Bob.
Reading Matt's information page causes me to suspect that I might have
been removed automatically at some time past because a test email may
have failed to be delivered. I recall I did have a few dayssome years
back when my ISP was refusing to accept emails because I was away, had
let too many accumulate and so consumed all my mailbox allowance.
I'll need to spend some time in the archives but I think I'll also need
to be fairly selective. While theold traffic is safely stored there, I
don't really find Matt's search engine easy to use when it comes to
following an email thread. Unlike some other lists, hitting the "Next"
button gets you to the next post in chronological sequence, regardless
of the subject matter, ather than the next post on the same thread, like
some other engines will. That might be down to my unfamilarity though.
I ordered the CD overnight so that should get me up to date on your
current thinking.
Regards
Bill
On 25/07/2013 3:06 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:55 AM 7/24/2013, you wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> Seeing Bob's appearance in the August Kitplanes issue reminded me
>> that I had been a member of the list back before retiring in early
>> 2005 but somehow, I dropped off in the months that followed. Quite
>> when that happened, I can't tell but it has been many years since I
>> have received any list traffic. I'm sure that I was using the same
>> email address back then.
>>
>> No matter, I have now re-subscribed and now look forward to seeing
>> what you have all been up to in the intervening years. The wigWag
>> project is certainly among that activity, so I will start by reading
>> about that.
>>
>> Regards
>> Bill
>
> Welcome back Bill! Hmmm . . . Matt has excellent
> archives on List traffic for all the services
> on his system . . . it's all on file assuming
> you've not got better ways to spend your time!
>
> The software performance spec for the
> Quad-Function Module (AEC9024) is 99% done.
> Paul is going to do the software for it
> too. Board layouts are done. This one
> isn't an open source project but programmed
> chips, DIY kits and complete assemblies will
> be available from our website.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 fire |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Only a few days ago the AAIB released this special report, which may be the source
of some of the news reports.
It seems that they do indeed hold the ELT as prime suspect. The aircraft was unpowered
at the time, and the AAIB notes that the ELT is the only item in the area
with enough stored energy to initiate combustion under these circumstances.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405285#405285
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 fire |
At 09:21 PM 7/24/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Only a few days ago the AAIB released this special report, which may
>be the source of some of the news reports.
>
>It seems that they do indeed hold the ELT as prime suspect. The
>aircraft was unpowered at the time, and the AAIB notes that the ELT
>is the only item in the area with enough stored energy to initiate
>combustion under these circumstances.
>
>http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf
Thank you sir! Much appreciated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks all for your help. It turns out that the unit was not sufficiently sc
rewed in. The unit appeared to work but did not work completely. The insta
llation manual says it needs a minimum of three turns of the Allen key and m
ine only had two turns. I wiggled the unit and managed to squeeze an extra t
urn into it and bingo! It works perfectly!
Thanks all for your help, I can't tell you how relieved I feel... I had been
trying to fix this for months.
My next project is to wire in the handheld (its an Icom A3E)... Does anyone k
now if this is possible?
On Jul 24, 2013, at 22:36, Charlie England wrote:
> Don't forget *all* the grounds, too. I tried to help a friend with a simil
ar issue several years ago; even spoke directly with a Garmin tech & told hi
m exactly which pins were hooked up. The tech told me we were golden on all t
he wires. Radio worked when inserted in another a/c. He finally took it to a
radio shop. They took one look at the back of the tray & said, "You're miss
ing that ground right there." They installed the ground, & everything worked
. Sorry to say I don't know which ground they added (there are several).
>
> On 07/24/2013 01:23 PM, Sacha wrote:
>> Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good place to l
ook. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble doing so. I'll
check that and report any findings.
>> Regards
>> Sacha
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres wrote:
>>
>>> Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in the 430
install manual to determine if you are getting complete pin engagement from
the tray/panel assembly
>>> Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D subs and m
ake sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when you try to pr
ess them out.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sacha,
>>>> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem. .
.
>>>>
>>>> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit to
o far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed flush with t
he panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 43
0 in, all the pins do not fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin soc
kets. This can also happen when you install the 430 into a properly located
chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn back into the chassis via the sc
rew locking device.
>>>> D
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Dave Saylor
>>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 se
tup)
>>>>
>>>> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two sep
arate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some comm s
tuff without comm power, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, not
24?
>>>>
>>>> Dave Saylor
>>>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas for
trouble shooting this.
>>>>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox.
My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>>>>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except f
or the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I ca
n see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that th
e PTT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>>>>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>>>>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works pe
rfectly and they work on other a/c).
>>>>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear tra
nsmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an ante
nna on the GNS).
>>>>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connector
s using a tester.
>>>>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA a
nd on the GNS.
>>>>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious th
at I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GMA
works but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
>>>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>>>>> Sacha
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> -
>>>>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEle
ctric-List
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> MS -
>>>>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> e -
>>>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
Sacha,
I am glad my suggestion worked out to fix the 430 problem . . .
Here is another tip about installing the 430 back into the receiver
chassis whenever you have removed it.
I don't recommend that you draw the 430 back into it chassis by only
using the Allen drive screw-jack. This is hard on the small screw
assembly and could cause it to fail later on.
I always insert the 430 using my thumbs on the panel ends until I feel
engagement resistance. Then, I take up 1 turn on the screw jack, then
using my thumbs again, I press and rock the 430 further back into the
chassis and then use the screw-jack to take up the slack until it is
fully seated.
Two reasons for doing this..... using your fingers can detect if the 430
is hanging up going into the chassis and you can stop and investigate.
#2.. is to take the torqueing wear and tear off the screw- jack
mechanism. It is small and uses nylon parts. It is not very durable if
you are the ham fisted slam it in type.....
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Sacha
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240
setup)
Thanks all for your help. It turns out that the unit was not
sufficiently screwed in. The unit appeared to work but did not work
completely. The installation manual says it needs a minimum of three
turns of the Allen key and mine only had two turns. I wiggled the unit
and managed to squeeze an extra turn into it and bingo! It works
perfectly!
Thanks all for your help, I can't tell you how relieved I feel... I
had been trying to fix this for months.
My next project is to wire in the handheld (its an Icom A3E)... Does
anyone know if this is possible?
On Jul 24, 2013, at 22:36, Charlie England
wrote:
Don't forget *all* the grounds, too. I tried to help a friend with a
similar issue several years ago; even spoke directly with a Garmin tech
& told him exactly which pins were hooked up. The tech told me we were
golden on all the wires. Radio worked when inserted in another a/c. He
finally took it to a radio shop. They took one look at the back of the
tray & said, "You're missing that ground right there." They installed
the ground, & everything worked. Sorry to say I don't know which ground
they added (there are several).
On 07/24/2013 01:23 PM, Sacha wrote:
Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good
place to look. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble
doing so. I'll check that and report any findings.
Regards
Sacha
On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres
wrote:
Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in
the 430 install manual to determine if you are getting complete pin
engagement from the tray/panel assembly
Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D
subs and make sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when
you try to press them out.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd"
wrote:
Sacha,
My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430
problem. . .
When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set
a bit too far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed
flush with the panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 430
in, all the pins do not fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin
sockets. This can also happen when you install the 430 into a properly
located chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn back into the chassis
via the screw locking device.
D
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Saylor
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430
and GMA240 setup)
Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It
needs two separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll
still do some comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a
12V unit, not 24?
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha
wrote:
Hi List,
I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out
of ideas for trouble shooting this.
I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted
in my Kitfox. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc)
work except for the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me,
even though I can see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display
which indicates that the PTT buttons are working and that the radio is
receiving *something*.
Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble
shooting:
- I have checked that the headsets are working (the
intercom works perfectly and they work on other a/c).
- I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I
can hear transmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even without
mounting an antenna on the GNS).
- I have checked all the connections between the GNS and
GMA connectors using a tester.
- I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch
on the GMA and on the GNS.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing
something obvious that I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that
the com1 channel on GMA works but I have no reason to doubt it, since
the unit is new.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sacha
==========
-
ric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
[quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 05:23 PM 7/24/2013, you wrote:
>
> snip....
> also, 5-minute epoxy won't attack the
> plastics . . . but may not get a
> really good grip on smooth, bright
> surface of plastic box.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
You can overcome the lack of adhesion to plastic by drilling some counter sunk
holes on the outside of the box. Force epoxy through them to the inside and clamp
your electronic guts to the inside over the epoxy. When the epoxy sets, your
electronic gizmo is held by epoxy 'rivets'.
If your epoxy runs, turn the project so the counter sunk holes are facing up or
use a thixotrope like cabosil (fumed silica) to make it into more of a paste.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405316#405316
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
David,
Absolutely. In fact I did exactly as you said. I still can't believe it's al
l working, it feels like a luxury not to have to grab the handheld everytime
I need to make a radio call!
I've been wondering.... Is there a way that one can wire in the handheld (Ic
om A3E) to the audio panel as a standby com2?
I already have an adaptor to use the headset with the handheld, but it would
require me to unplug the headset from the aircraft and plug it into the ha
ndheld. Is there a way that I wire things so I just have to select com2 on t
he audio panel?
Sacha
On Jul 26, 2013, at 0:19, "David Lloyd" wrote:
> Sacha,
> I am glad my suggestion worked out to fix the 430 problem . . .
> Here is another tip about installing the 430 back into the receiver chassi
s whenever you have removed it.
>
> I don't recommend that you draw the 430 back into it chassis by only using
the Allen drive screw-jack. This is hard on the small screw assembly and c
ould cause it to fail later on.
>
> I always insert the 430 using my thumbs on the panel ends until I feel eng
agement resistance. Then, I take up 1 turn on the screw jack, then using my
thumbs again, I press and rock the 430 further back into the chassis and th
en use the screw-jack to take up the slack until it is fully seated.
>
> Two reasons for doing this..... using your fingers can detect if the 430 i
s hanging up going into the chassis and you can stop and investigate. #2.. i
s to take the torqueing wear and tear off the screw- jack mechanism. It is s
mall and uses nylon parts. It is not very durable if you are the ham fisted
slam it in type.....
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sacha
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup
)
>
> Thanks all for your help. It turns out that the unit was not sufficiently s
crewed in. The unit appeared to work but did not work completely. The inst
allation manual says it needs a minimum of three turns of the Allen key and m
ine only had two turns. I wiggled the unit and managed to squeeze an extra t
urn into it and bingo! It works perfectly!
> Thanks all for your help, I can't tell you how relieved I feel... I had be
en trying to fix this for months.
>
> My next project is to wire in the handheld (its an Icom A3E)... Does anyon
e know if this is possible?
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 22:36, Charlie England wrote:
>
>> Don't forget *all* the grounds, too. I tried to help a friend with a simi
lar issue several years ago; even spoke directly with a Garmin tech & told h
im exactly which pins were hooked up. The tech told me we were golden on all
the wires. Radio worked when inserted in another a/c. He finally took it to
a radio shop. They took one look at the back of the tray & said, "You're mi
ssing that ground right there." They installed the ground, & everything work
ed. Sorry to say I don't know which ground they added (there are several).
>>
>> On 07/24/2013 01:23 PM, Sacha wrote:
>>> Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good place to l
ook. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble doing so. I'll
check that and report any findings.
>>> Regards
>>> Sacha
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test procedure in the 43
0 install manual to determine if you are getting complete pin engagement fro
m the tray/panel assembly
>>>> Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the D subs and m
ake sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out when you try to pr
ess them out.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd" wrote
:
>>>>
>>>>> Sacha,
>>>>> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem.
. .
>>>>>
>>>>> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit t
oo far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed flush with t
he panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the 430 in, all the pins
do not fully engage into the chassis box receiver pin sockets. This can al
so happen when you install the 430 into a properly located chassis box, if t
he 430 is not fully drawn back into the chassis via the screw locking device
.
>>>>> D
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Dave Saylor
>>>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 s
etup)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs two se
parate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll still do some comm
stuff without comm power, IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V unit, no
t 24?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Saylor
>>>>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of ideas fo
r trouble shooting this.
>>>>>> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my Kitfox
. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
>>>>>> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work except
for the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot hear me, even though I c
an see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD display which indicates that t
he PTT buttons are working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
>>>>>> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
>>>>>> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom works p
erfectly and they work on other a/c).
>>>>>> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can hear tr
ansmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even without mounting an ant
enna on the GNS).
>>>>>> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA connecto
rs using a tester.
>>>>>> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on the GMA a
nd on the GNS.
>>>>>> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something obvious t
hat I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that the com1 channel on GM
A works but I have no reason to doubt it, since the unit is new.
>>>>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>>>>>> Sacha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl
ectric-List
>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>> MS -
>>>>>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>> e -
>>>>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>>>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://w
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
m/c
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"'>http://w
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.co
m/contribution
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys (Bob)
I'd like to fit 2 x radio coms, I don't want or need a full 'audio panel'
what are my options, I guess I really need is some kind of sophisticated
change-over switch
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
Intercom?
On 26 July 2013 09:07, JOHN TIPTON wrote:
> jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
>
> Hi Guys (Bob)
>
> I'd like to fit 2 x radio coms, I don't want or need a full 'audio panel'
> what are my options, I guess I really need is some kind of sophisticated
> change-over switch
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
I too ran into this.
In fact, it took a good bit of 'shimming' to get the G430, an SL30 and
a PMA9000EX to all 'line up'. They each have a slightly different
criteria for relating to the front panel.
Bill
On 7/24/2013 12:49 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> Sacha,
> My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the 430 problem. . .
> When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe set a bit
> too far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be fixed
> flush with the panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide the
> 430 in, all the pins do not fully engage into the chassis box receiver
> pin sockets. This can also happen when you install the 430 into a
> properly located chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn back into
> the chassis via the screw locking device.
> D
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Saylor
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and
> GMA240 setup)
>
> Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430? It needs
> two separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll
> still do some comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
>
> Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's a 12V
> unit, not 24?
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hi List,
> I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run out of
> ideas for trouble shooting this.
> I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel mounted in my
> Kitfox. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in yet.
> All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music, etc) work
> except for the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot
> hear me, even though I can see the Tx and Rx symbols on the
> GNS's LCD display which indicates that the PTT buttons are
> working and that the radio is receiving *something*.
> Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble shooting:
> - I have checked that the headsets are working (the intercom
> works perfectly and they work on other a/c).
> - I have also checked that the radio works on my bench (I can
> hear transmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even
> without mounting an antenna on the GNS).
> - I have checked all the connections between the GNS and GMA
> connectors using a tester.
> - I have turned up the volume and turned down the squelch on
> the GMA and on the GNS.
> Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing something
> obvious that I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that
> the com1 channel on GMA works but I have no reason to doubt
> it, since the unit is new.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> Sacha
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240 setup) |
Sacha,
I 'assume' what you are asking is a method to be able to "plug-in" a
handheld into the aircraft's antenna system.
There is and Bob has addressed this before in one of his many responses.
In summary, (others will point to the details. . .) One builds or buys a
small shielded box with the main ship's antenna cable going thru it via
BNC connectors, but, broken via a jack and plug set-up with the jack
connector accessible via the panel.
The handheld's antenna is removed and a short shielded cable is attached
and the other end does to the new switch box.input located on the panel.
The connection is made such that the main comm's are disconnected from
the antenna and the handheld now has command of the ship's antenna.
Bob or others will point to the detailed article & method of doing this
or where to purchase.....Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Sacha
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and GMA240
setup)
David,
Absolutely. In fact I did exactly as you said. I still can't believe
it's all working, it feels like a luxury not to have to grab the
handheld everytime I need to make a radio call!
I've been wondering.... Is there a way that one can wire in the
handheld (Icom A3E) to the audio panel as a standby com2?
I already have an adaptor to use the headset with the handheld, but it
would require me to unplug the headset from the aircraft and plug it
into the handheld. Is there a way that I wire things so I just have to
select com2 on the audio panel?
Sacha
On Jul 26, 2013, at 0:19, "David Lloyd" wrote:
Sacha,
I am glad my suggestion worked out to fix the 430 problem . . .
Here is another tip about installing the 430 back into the receiver
chassis whenever you have removed it.
I don't recommend that you draw the 430 back into it chassis by only
using the Allen drive screw-jack. This is hard on the small screw
assembly and could cause it to fail later on.
I always insert the 430 using my thumbs on the panel ends until I
feel engagement resistance. Then, I take up 1 turn on the screw jack,
then using my thumbs again, I press and rock the 430 further back into
the chassis and then use the screw-jack to take up the slack until it is
fully seated.
Two reasons for doing this..... using your fingers can detect if the
430 is hanging up going into the chassis and you can stop and
investigate. #2.. is to take the torqueing wear and tear off the screw-
jack mechanism. It is small and uses nylon parts. It is not very
durable if you are the ham fisted slam it in type.....
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----- Original Message -----
From: Sacha
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working (GNS430 and
GMA240 setup)
Thanks all for your help. It turns out that the unit was not
sufficiently screwed in. The unit appeared to work but did not work
completely. The installation manual says it needs a minimum of three
turns of the Allen key and mine only had two turns. I wiggled the unit
and managed to squeeze an extra turn into it and bingo! It works
perfectly!
Thanks all for your help, I can't tell you how relieved I feel...
I had been trying to fix this for months.
My next project is to wire in the handheld (its an Icom A3E)...
Does anyone know if this is possible?
On Jul 24, 2013, at 22:36, Charlie England
wrote:
Don't forget *all* the grounds, too. I tried to help a friend
with a similar issue several years ago; even spoke directly with a
Garmin tech & told him exactly which pins were hooked up. The tech told
me we were golden on all the wires. Radio worked when inserted in
another a/c. He finally took it to a radio shop. They took one look at
the back of the tray & said, "You're missing that ground right there."
They installed the ground, & everything worked. Sorry to say I don't
know which ground they added (there are several).
On 07/24/2013 01:23 PM, Sacha wrote:
Thanks guys. I hadn't thought of that but it seems like a good
place to look. When my GNS slides in, it does in fact have some trouble
doing so. I'll check that and report any findings.
Regards
Sacha
On Jul 24, 2013, at 19:50, Tim Andres
wrote:
Dave's suggestion is a good one and there is a test
procedure in the 430 install manual to determine if you are getting
complete pin engagement from the tray/panel assembly
Check the audio panel for the same issue. Next pull all the
D subs and make sure all the pins are fully seated and don't push out
when you try to press them out.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "David Lloyd"
wrote:
Sacha,
My suggestion is a bit far out, but, I have witnessed the
430 problem. . .
When the 430 chassis box is mounted in the panel, it maybe
set a bit too far back in the rack; maybe 1/8 inch or so. It must be
fixed flush with the panel front. If it is not flush, when you slide
the 430 in, all the pins do not fully engage into the chassis box
receiver pin sockets. This can also happen when you install the 430
into a properly located chassis box, if the 430 is not fully drawn back
into the chassis via the screw locking device.
D
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Saylor
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio not working
(GNS430 and GMA240 setup)
Do you have power to all the power inputs on the 430?
It needs two separate inputs, and the separation isn't intuitive. It'll
still do some comm stuff without comm power, IIRC.
Other than that, if you're using 12V, are you sure it's
a 12V unit, not 24?
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Sacha
wrote:
Hi List,
I have a problem that is driving me nuts. I have run
out of ideas for trouble shooting this.
I have a GN430 as com 1 and a GMA240 audio panel
mounted in my Kitfox. My com2 is a handheld and I haven't wired it in
yet.
All the GNS and GMA functions (GPS, intercom, music,
etc) work except for the radio: I cannot hear others and they cannot
hear me, even though I can see the Tx and Rx symbols on the GNS's LCD
display which indicates that the PTT buttons are working and that the
radio is receiving *something*.
Here are the steps I have taken so far towards trouble
shooting:
- I have checked that the headsets are working (the
intercom works perfectly and they work on other a/c).
- I have also checked that the radio works on my bench
(I can hear transmissions that I send using a handheld radio, even
without mounting an antenna on the GNS).
- I have checked all the connections between the GNS
and GMA connectors using a tester.
- I have turned up the volume and turned down the
squelch on the GMA and on the GNS.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Am I missing
something obvious that I should check? I suppose I haven't checked that
the com1 channel on GMA works but I have no reason to doubt it, since
the unit is new.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sacha
==========
-
ric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"'>http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.c
om/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
There are a number of options. Suggest you review the chapter on audio systems
and then come back for necessary clarification on selection of a solution.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405341#405341
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited. |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
The voice is clear but along with the voice is a very loud hum (whine). This happens
with either the radio, or intercom being used, makes no difference.
This suggests that the noise is being injected into the microphone wiring such
it is heard on the intercom and carried through to the radio.
So far Ive installed a forest of tabs on the firewall, and rewired all grounds
to it
ALL grounds? Avionics grounds should be treated as shown in installation diagrams.
For example, microphone and headset grounds are generally routed with their
signal wires and grounded to the device that get the signals . . . intercom
or radio. This is illustrated and discussed in the chapter on audio systems.
Jabiru recommended twisting the alternator(PM) leads full length, this was done,
Pointless
Phone jack isolation washers where installed and checked for no errant grounds,
Good
regulator/rectifier hot lead was moved to the battery, ground was moved to forest
of tabs big bolt.
Okay
Mic audio and mic ground wires where separated as best as I could for most of their
length(short run anyway).
OOPS! See above.
Capacitor was installed across the bus to ground.
Okay but pointless. Bus filters never help.
The noise starts to appear at 1600 rpm and increases in volume up to max engine
rpm. The alternator cuts in at 1600 rpm. Disconnected the alternator and ran
it, no hum, everything is fine. If it is the alternator being the culprit, is
there anyway to deal with it?
The alternator is the greatest generator of noise in the airplane. It cannot be
filtered by any practical means . . . only careful crafting of system architectures
will isolated the victim radios from the potential antagonism of the alternator.
Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far but Im running out of ideas.
Run all three microphone wires in twisted trio (shielded too if handy but not a
driving requirement) from mic jack to the intercom. Do you have a stick mounted
push to talk? Make sure it doesn't get to ground anywhere at connects only
to the COMMON and PTT terminals on the mic jack.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405343#405343
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Alternators on aircraft |
How often is there a scenario where an aircraft or automobile alternator
needs to be balanced? Is this something that needs to be considered?
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternators on aircraft |
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
Generally or specifically, never.
The only time they give trouble in general is if the bearings are worn out o
r if there's a bad diode. Rarely there's problems with bushes since not much
current goes through them. They do wear out like everything. Bad bearings a
re sometimes the result of an over tightened belt.
There's nothing to wear asymmetrically so if they're balanced from the facto
ry they're good for life.
Bill
On Jul 26, 2013, at 13:10, "Bill Bradburry" wrote
:
> How often is there a scenario where an aircraft or automobile alternator n
eeds to be balanced? Is this something that needs to be considered?
>
> Bill B
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Guys
I suppose this has been discussed before, but my laziness to search in the
archives makes me raise this issue again.
In the RV-10 that I am building, I am thinking in using a 12V(14V)
electrical system, most probably based in the Nuckolls's Z-14 architecture,
with the VP-X Pro box.
However, when searching for the Comm radios to choose from, I found that the
best radios, in terms of transmitting power (16W), are 28V.
Should I consider changing all the electric system to 28V, or is it possible
to have a 14V system and include a 14/28 voltage "converter" to feed the
radio?
All opinions welcome
Regards
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
> In the RV-10 that I am building, I am thinking in using a 12V(14V)
> electrical system, most probably based in the Nuckolls's Z-14
> architecture,
> with the VP-X Pro box.
>
> However, when searching for the Comm radios to choose from, I found that
> the
> best radios, in terms of transmitting power (16W), are 28V.
> Should I consider changing all the electric system to 28V, or is it
> possible
> to have a 14V system and include a 14/28 voltage "converter" to feed the
> radio?
28 volt systems have become the normal for many new production
aircraft. You can use lighter fat wires and thus save a bit of
weight.
All of the electrical components are available in either voltage.
I would recommend that you go with one voltage or the other, and not
try to
run a dual voltage machine. Just keep in mind that if you go with a
28 volt
system, you must keep all other electrical items such as, starter,
lighting,
contactors and anything else plugged into the system, compatable
with the
28 volts.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 07/27/2013 05:49 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Guys
>
> I suppose this has been discussed before, but my laziness to search in the
> archives makes me raise this issue again.
> In the RV-10 that I am building, I am thinking in using a 12V(14V)
> electrical system, most probably based in the Nuckolls's Z-14 architecture,
> with the VP-X Pro box.
>
> However, when searching for the Comm radios to choose from, I found that the
> best radios, in terms of transmitting power (16W), are 28V.
> Should I consider changing all the electric system to 28V, or is it possible
> to have a 14V system and include a 14/28 voltage "converter" to feed the
> radio?
>
> All opinions welcome
> Regards
> Carlos
>
Unless you're operating in an environment where the last 1/2 mile of
range matters, don't worry about it. VHF is basically line of site, &
even a 3W handheld (with a proper external antenna) can reach the
horizon unless you're flying at airliner altitudes. I'm too lazy to dig
up the math, but here's a rough rule of thumb: If you want to double
your range, multiply power by 10.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a pound or
two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the larger battery.
If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW! You will not find any
automotive parts that are 28V. I suggest you will need a reason better than
weight savings to go 28V.
B2
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger &
Jean
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
> In the RV-10 that I am building, I am thinking in using a 12V(14V)
> electrical system, most probably based in the Nuckolls's Z-14
> architecture,
> with the VP-X Pro box.
>
> However, when searching for the Comm radios to choose from, I found that
> the
> best radios, in terms of transmitting power (16W), are 28V.
> Should I consider changing all the electric system to 28V, or is it
> possible
> to have a 14V system and include a 14/28 voltage "converter" to feed the
> radio?
28 volt systems have become the normal for many new production
aircraft. You can use lighter fat wires and thus save a bit of
weight.
All of the electrical components are available in either voltage.
I would recommend that you go with one voltage or the other, and not
try to
run a dual voltage machine. Just keep in mind that if you go with a
28 volt
system, you must keep all other electrical items such as, starter,
lighting,
contactors and anything else plugged into the system, compatable
with the
28 volts.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | "toddheffley" <public(at)toddheffley.com> |
John
I wonder if you have considered an alternative solution to a installed second com?
My experience with hand crafted audio control systems has been 100% negative,,,,
meaning poorly thought out, no documentation, making repair a puzzling endeavor.
My favorite set up for a VFR/CrossCountry/LightIFR aircraft is:
ONE com. The best quality you can afford. CI122 antenna on the belly, Meaning a
REAL antenna, not just a cheapy 1/4 wave stick, not a internal antenna. Best
practices on coax termination and so forth. Carefully think through Bob's well
documented Zdiagrams to give the unit the bast chance of rock solid power +
some type of Plan B power.
A intercom correctly installed with the direct Mic/Phone jacks wired, as well
as the Pilot/Copilot/Pax mic/phone jacks. NAT is my favorite, but that is because
I am a snob.
My point is, put most of you eggs in that basket and make that basket FIRST RATE.
Secondly, a backup com system that is a REAL backup.
Meaning, a handheld radio, SOLIDLY afix the panel or side wall. Separate mic and
phone jacks wired ONLY to the handheld. A DEDICATED 2nd com antenna hooked directly
to the handheld.
FRESH batteries, and/or Fresh spare batteries in the flight bag.
This approach gets rid of the audio panel, a single point of failure, and divides
the cost of the second com in half.
I recommend this after YEARS of working on light aircraft with poorly maintained,
2nd rate avionics.
Best wishes for you and your project.
Todd
--------
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405436#405436
________________________________________________________________________________
bbradburry(at)bellsouth.n wrote:
> In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a pound or
> two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the larger battery.
> If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW! You will not find any
> automotive parts that are 28V. I suggest you will need a reason better than
> weight savings to go 28V.--
I would agree. I'm building a 28v system and the... adjustments I've had to make
are a bit of a pain. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go with a
14v system.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405443#405443
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is when
I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the ammeter
pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating positive
(discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate in
the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup has never
worked.
Thanks for any hints.
Michael-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
I should note that the ammeter shunt is measuring alternator current. It is installed
as in the Z-11 electrical system, between the starter contractor and the
"b" lead on the alternator.
This could very well be expected behavior when on battery only.
Michael-
On Jul 27, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is when
I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the
ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
>
> My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating
positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate in
the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
>
> The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup has
never worked.
>
> Thanks for any hints.
>
> Michael-
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
Don, Bill, Carlos,=0A=0A=0AApart from the 14V vs. 28V debate, I'd like to p
oint out that one doesn't necessarily have to add 10-15 lbs for the "28V" b
attery, i.e. it isn't necessarily that much of a "larger" battery. 12V batt
eries have six plates, while "28V" batteries have 12 plates.- If one need
s the same amount of power at the starter, an equally sized "28V" battery w
ith smaller plates will do the job, since P = E*I.- Voltage goes up, bu
t current goes down in the same proportion, or slightly less since the volt
age drops to the starter will sum less. In summary, same battery size, same
energy density, just higher voltage with less current needed.=0A=0AEnough
theory, now let's look at real world numbers. I've put quotes around the 28
Vs above, because 28V aircraft batteries are actually 24V, as one can see a
t the following link:=0A=0A---- http://www.concordebattery.com/alla
ircraftbatteries.php=0A=0A=0ANote that the Concorde CB-25 12V battery weigh
s 22 lbs, while the CB24-11 24V battery weighs 27 lbs. If Carlos plans his
electrical system well, surely he can make up that additional 5 lbweight by
using fat wires.=0A=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______________________
__________=0A From: donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-li
st(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:16 PM=0ASubject: AeroEl
ectric-List: Re: 14V or 28V=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted b
y: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>=0A=0A=0Abbradburry(at)bellsouth.n wr
ote:=0A> In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a
pound or=0A> two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the l
arger battery.=0A> If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW!-
You will not find any=0A> automotive parts that are 28V.- I suggest you
will need a reason better than=0A> weight savings to go 28V.--=0A=0A=0AI wo
uld agree. I'm building a 28v system and the... adjustments I've had to mak
e are a bit of a pain. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably go wit
h a 14v system.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://foru
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:34 AM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a pound or
>two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the larger battery.
not strictly true. When going to a higher voltage system
a battery with 1/2 the a.h. capacity has the same stored
energy as the lower voltage battery.
>If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW! You will not find any
>automotive parts that are 28V. I suggest you will need a reason better than
>weight savings to go 28V.
The weight savings are pretty small . . . we did
some calculations on it way back when here on the
list. Not very impressive until you considered
a sea-plane with very long + and ground leads.
Many of the compelling reasons for 28v circulating
in the wild are more fantasy or error than face. See
page 12 and on in this document.
http://tinyurl.com/k9v2rfw
A 28v battery at 1/2 capacity will not be as roubust
to the effects of cranking events.
Cessna went 100% 28v for manufacturing conveniences
and before the advent of the higher efficiency, geared
light weight starters.
It would be interesting to see those economics
re-evaluated but in the certified, heavy iron
business, it's not likely to happen.
The most compelling reason cited for 28v here on
the list was "my engine came fitted with 28v hardware
and I didn't what to change it out."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
At 06:59 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>
>I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40)
>Intercom (Flightcom 403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I
>don't understand is when I push the PTT to transmit on a common
>unicom frequency such as 122.7, the ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I
>transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies such as 135.85, it
>only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting, I
>can hear on my handheld.
>
>My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in
>indicating positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What
>would make it indicate in the negative directions. This is using
>just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
>
>The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the
>setup has never worked.
You didn't say but I'm betting your ammeter is
the one Van's sells . . . minus 40 - zero - plus
40?
I have one of those things laying around here somewhere.
I think I reported to the List after I bought it that
the instrument was very vulnerable to strong RF
in the cockpit.
What kind of airplane and where is your antenna
located? Have you checked VSWR on the antenna
over the vhf comm range?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
At 02:07 AM 7/26/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys (Bob)
>
>I'd like to fit 2 x radio coms, I don't want or need a full 'audio
>panel' what are my options, I guess I really need is some kind of
>sophisticated change-over switch
>
>John
Have you considered 1 comm radio and a hand-held?
My flight bag always carried this constellation of
back-ups . . . even when I was flying an A36 with
all the goodies.
http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
The nice thing about this line-up is that it's
totally independent of the airplane's electrical
system no matter which airplane you're flying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternators on aircraft |
At 03:10 PM 7/26/2013, you wrote:
>How often is there a scenario where an aircraft or automobile
>alternator needs to be balanced? Is this something that needs to be
>considered?
>
>Bill B
Depends on how you define 'need'. B&C started
balancing their rotors many years ago based
on the fact that belt driven alternators on
a Lycoming cruise at about 2x the rpm in cars.
2x speed is 4x the vibrational forces due to
unbalance.
Van's used to sell a larger pulley to 'slow
down' the alternators he sold/recommended.
Takes care of the cruise vibration but degreades
output at ground ops rpms. B&C elected to
maintain the performance and do a simple
operation to mitigate vibration.
B&C's track record has been exemplary. Would
it have been noticeably degraded if not balanced?
Don't know. It's a bearing life issue and doesn't
represent a large cost-of-ownership or flight
risk.
If your experience shows that you're shucking
bearings too often, then balancing or slowing
down are options. If you buy a B&C, those
concnerns are addressed with the package.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
40 Amps is 480 watts at 14V. That's a lot for an aircraft radio to pull. It's an
8 watt transmitter and just keying the mic with no modulation it would be a
fraction of that (it's an AM transmitter). The radio has an internal 7A fuse and
the installation manual says to use a 5A external fuse or breaker.
I'm thinkin' there's something wonkie with the ammeter or the grounding for the
avionics or the meter electronics.
Bill
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:32 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 06:59 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is when
I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the
ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
>>
>> My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating
positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate
in the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
>>
>> The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup has
never worked.
>
>
> You didn't say but I'm betting your ammeter is
> the one Van's sells . . . minus 40 - zero - plus
> 40?
>
> I have one of those things laying around here somewhere.
> I think I reported to the List after I bought it that
> the instrument was very vulnerable to strong RF
> in the cockpit.
>
> What kind of airplane and where is your antenna
> located? Have you checked VSWR on the antenna
> over the vhf comm range?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, my ammeter is the Vans ammeter.
My airplane is an RV-9A. My COM antenna is mounted on the bottom of the airplane,
approximately under where the left leg of the pilot is when sitting in the
airplane. The antenna is from Delta Pop Aviation. The coax cable is RG400 from
B&C.
I have not checked the VSWR on the antenna. I see your book gives some instructions
on how to do that.
The airplane is currently in my garage. Would that "focus" the RF energy more than
being out in the open?
Thanks,
Michael-
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:32 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 06:59 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is when
I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the
ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
>>
>> My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating
positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate
in the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
>>
>> The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup has
never worked.
>
>
> You didn't say but I'm betting your ammeter is
> the one Van's sells . . . minus 40 - zero - plus
> 40?
>
> I have one of those things laying around here somewhere.
> I think I reported to the List after I bought it that
> the instrument was very vulnerable to strong RF
> in the cockpit.
>
> What kind of airplane and where is your antenna
> located? Have you checked VSWR on the antenna
> over the vhf comm range?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:35, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> Have you considered 1 comm radio and a hand-held?
> My flight bag always carried this constellation of
> back-ups . . . even when I was flying an A36 with
> all the goodies.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
>
> The nice thing about this line-up is that it's
> totally independent of the airplane's electrical
> system no matter which airplane
Bob,
With this setup (in your own airplane) would you recommend:
A) connecting the handheld antenna to the aircraft com antenna (if so, how? Dave
mentioned in a previous post a that you had a setup specifically designed for
that with what sounded like an antenna splitter, but I could not find details
on your website)
B) wiring the PTT and Rx/Txs of the handheld through the audio panel as com2 (if
there is a simple way to do this, not sure... But the idea would be that the
handheld functions exactly like a normal com2).
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Sorry I just realized that John does not need/want an audio panel, I didn't mean
to high jack the thread...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Bob
and all
Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to feed
the radio?
Carlos
-----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: domingo, 28 de Julho de 2013 04:27
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
-->
At 09:34 AM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a
>pound or two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the larger
battery.
not strictly true. When going to a higher voltage system
a battery with 1/2 the a.h. capacity has the same stored
energy as the lower voltage battery.
>If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW! You will not
>find any automotive parts that are 28V. I suggest you will need a
>reason better than weight savings to go 28V.
The weight savings are pretty small . . . we did
some calculations on it way back when here on the
list. Not very impressive until you considered
a sea-plane with very long + and ground leads.
Many of the compelling reasons for 28v circulating
in the wild are more fantasy or error than face. See
page 12 and on in this document.
http://tinyurl.com/k9v2rfw
A 28v battery at 1/2 capacity will not be as roubust
to the effects of cranking events.
Cessna went 100% 28v for manufacturing conveniences
and before the advent of the higher efficiency, geared
light weight starters.
It would be interesting to see those economics
re-evaluated but in the certified, heavy iron
business, it's not likely to happen.
The most compelling reason cited for 28v here on
the list was "my engine came fitted with 28v hardware
and I didn't what to change it out."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternators on aircraft |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
If you swapped to a different alternator pulley and are experiencing a vibration,
that MIGHT be the source of your problem. If you wish, you can do a rough
balance check by disassembling the alternator, mounting the pulley on the armature
and check for a heavy spot by supporting the armature on its own bearings.
Alternatively, you can support the armature on level knife edges on the bare
armature shaft. Or just retract/remove the brushes and if the armature spins
freely in its case, you should be able to detect a heavy spot.
This procedure will only check for a static imbalance; which will probably suffice.
Most balancing correction marks that I have seen have been directly on the
pulley (heavy) end. Besides, anything rigid and dynamically balanced will
also always be in perfect static balance and exhibit no signs of a heavy spot.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405487#405487
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R. curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
> Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
> How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to
> feed
> the radio?
You could use something like this. Just make sure that you
size it to supply enough 24 volt power for your needs.
This will connect to your 12 volt system and supply 24 volts
to your radios.
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136
Using this would mean that there is no other mod required
to your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard
12 volt system.
Roger
--
Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
Carlos,=0A=0ACheck out this 14V to 28V converter at Aircraft Splice:=0A=0A
---- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lsStepUpCon.php?
clickkey=87526=0A=0A-=0AThings you might want to consider are:=0A=0A
* Cost:- $450 plus shipping=0A* Weight: 0.7 lbs, which is pretty low i
n my opinion, given it's TSO'ed=0A=0A* Reliability: 100K hrs MTBF, not b
ad=0A* Output: 27.5V, 8 Amps or 220W, enough for your 16W transmitter po
wer. The radio will probably pull 2.5 times that, so 40W isn't so bad and w
ill be good for the converter's MTBF=0A* Heatsink: may require that you
mount it to a metal surface, which is no problem in your RV=0A* Ripple:
25 mV P-P. This and the switching frequency may affect your radio's audio o
utput and also ride on the transmission modulation. Depending on your insta
ll, your problem may benever or forever.=0ASeems like a lot of hassle for v
ery little, but if you gotta have it, it may be the solution=0A=0A=0AHenado
r Titzoff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Carlos Trigo <t
rigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Sunday
, July 28, 2013 7:05 AM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A =0A
pac.pt>=0A=0ABob=0Aand all=0A=0AStill didn't get any answer about the secon
d part of my initial query.=0AHow about keeping the 14V system and using a
14/28 voltage converter to feed=0Athe radio?=0A=0ACarlos- =0A=0A=0A-----O
riginal Message-----=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
=0A[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rober
t L.=0ANuckolls, III=0ASent: domingo, 28 de Julho de 2013 04:27=0ATo: aeroe
lectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A
> =0A=0AAt 09:34 AM 7/27/2013, you wrote:=0A
bellsouth.net>=0A>=0A>In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces,
maybe even a =0A>pound or two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pou
nds for the larger=0Abattery.=0A=0A- not strictly true. When going to a
higher voltage system=0A- a battery with 1/2 the a.h. capacity has the s
ame stored=0A- energy as the lower voltage battery.=0A=0A>If you decide
you should install two batteries...WOW!- You will not =0A>find any automo
tive parts that are 28V.- I suggest you will need a =0A>reason better tha
n weight savings to go 28V.=0A=0A- The weight savings are pretty small .
. . we did=0A- some calculations on it way back when here on the=0A-
list. Not very impressive until you considered=0A- a sea-plane with ver
y long + and ground leads.=0A=0A- Many of the compelling reasons for 28v
circulating=0A- in the wild are more fantasy or error than face. See=0A
- page 12 and on in this document.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/k9v2rfw=0A=0A
- - A 28v battery at 1/2 capacity will not be as roubust=0A- - to t
he effects of cranking events.=0A=0A- - Cessna went 100% 28v for manufa
cturing conveniences=0A- - and before the advent of the higher efficien
cy, geared=0A- - light weight starters.=0A=0A- - It would be intere
sting to see those economics=0A- - re-evaluated but in the certified, h
eavy iron=0A- - business, it's not likely to happen.=0A=0A- - The m
ost compelling reason cited for 28v here on=0A- - the list was "my engi
ne came fitted with 28v hardware=0A- - and I didn't what to change it o
ut."=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
It will work, if you really want to do it. I've got a Garmin 430 28v
model on the shelf that I'll install in my RV-7 (12v system) with a
14-28v adapter. But the only reason to do that is that I got a 'deal' on
the radio. The adapter adds weight & costs efficiency. As I said in my
previous response, it's unlikely that you'll be able to tell the
difference in range between a 6 watt radio and a 16 watt radio.
Charlie
On 07/28/2013 06:05 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Bob
> and all
>
> Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
> How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to feed
> the radio?
>
> Carlos
>
>
> -----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: domingo, 28 de Julho de 2013 04:27
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> -->
>
> At 09:34 AM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> In an experimental plane, you will save a few ounces, maybe even a
>> pound or two in smaller wires, but you will add 10-15 pounds for the larger
> battery.
>
> not strictly true. When going to a higher voltage system
> a battery with 1/2 the a.h. capacity has the same stored
> energy as the lower voltage battery.
>
>> If you decide you should install two batteries...WOW! You will not
>> find any automotive parts that are 28V. I suggest you will need a
>> reason better than weight savings to go 28V.
> The weight savings are pretty small . . . we did
> some calculations on it way back when here on the
> list. Not very impressive until you considered
> a sea-plane with very long + and ground leads.
>
> Many of the compelling reasons for 28v circulating
> in the wild are more fantasy or error than face. See
> page 12 and on in this document.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/k9v2rfw
>
> A 28v battery at 1/2 capacity will not be as roubust
> to the effects of cranking events.
>
> Cessna went 100% 28v for manufacturing conveniences
> and before the advent of the higher efficiency, geared
> light weight starters.
>
> It would be interesting to see those economics
> re-evaluated but in the certified, heavy iron
> business, it's not likely to happen.
>
> The most compelling reason cited for 28v here on
> the list was "my engine came fitted with 28v hardware
> and I didn't what to change it out."
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Multi-hop wire sizing? |
When sizing wires, do you use the total distance or segment distance?
For example: The starter is a total of 15' from the battery. But that total distance
is made up of a 1' battery-to-master contactor, 12' master contactor-to-starter
contactor and 4' starter contactor-to-starter.
So do we use a 30' round trip distance when sizing all the wires? Or do we size
each segment based on its distance (i.e. 8' for the starter contactor to starter)?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405493#405493
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
(from my Z-100 paper) Choosing a Voltage for Your Airplane Project.
Bob's Nuckolls (AeroElectric guru) often makes the point about the relative costs
of using 14V automotive components, and I have to agree. If you went to buy
your electrical system from the 28V-Store, you'd find that most of the stuff
was expensive, for certificated a/c (remember that they certify the milk, but
they certificate the cow) and the selection would not be all that large. The
14V-Store has all the bargains and selection to be sure.
In short, the advantages of 28V don't seem to warrant the added expense. Although
28V is very handy for producing the high currents needed to start big diesel
truck engines, many get along fine on 14V. Super-capacitors are also finding
use in starting diesels.
Is the auto industry going to 42V? (Arguments applicable to 28V too.)
I was spreading that rumor once. More recent rumors show advantages in staying
at 14V; because LED lighting systems, microprocessors, and mosfets solid-state
switches, are more efficient at lower voltages, while the use of single-wire
power busses makes the argument about smaller wire gauges less important for small
aircraft (higher voltages still do make sense for large aircraft). The integration
of the starter and alternator works fine at 14V too.
The extinguishing of electrical-contact arcing is a difficult problem at 42V, and
problems of load dump and transient voltages are much more severe. Higher voltage
motors are smaller but they use smaller gauge windings too, thus the cost-per-watt
of the motor goes up. A 42V system can injure or even kill mechanics
and tinkerers. Trying to jump 14V and 42V vehicles can destroy the 14V vehicles
electrical system.
Then too, 42V and 28V systems corrode faster than 14V systems. Its a no-brainer
that more volts is better from a motive-power standpoint, but many in the automotive
field now say the move to 42V systems will never happen.
Big, really big aircraft use bunches of voltage buses, 12, 28, even 120VAC, and
more to accomplish their various needs.
But for the small experimental a/c, Go with 14V. Use PerihelionDesign.com CCA to
reduce the Fatwire weight.
--------
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=405497#405497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>
>Big, really big aircraft use bunches of voltage buses, 12, 28, even
>120VAC, and more to accomplish their various needs.
The B-52's I cut my avionics teeth on sported 400Hz,
208 3-phase systems for all but the lowest power
systems and those that HAD to run on batteries for
emergency situations.
Getting a 400Hz system to play well required constant
speed drives between the variable speed engine and the
alternator that really need to run at 12,000 or 6,000
RPM all the time. I think the B-52 had hydraulic
drives - a variable displacement pump plumbed to
a variable displacement motor. A governor modulated
the wobble plates such that for any RPM at the input
shaft, the output shaft speed was constant.
Nowadays, wild frequency systems are becoming more
prevalent. This is made practical by the advent of
high horsepower, brushless DC motors and a constellation
of high-voltage switching technologies to go with it.
The need for constant speed drives goes away.
Now the large system designer can carry much greater
flows of energy around the airplane on twisted trios.
The frequency of the ac no longer drives rotational
speed off the motors because the AC is rectified locally
to relatively smooth 270VDC with the same, acceptably
low ripple (5%) we enjoy from our 3-phase a 14v alternators.
The high voltage ac is easier to control in solid state
components with triacs so arcing issues associated with
mechanical contacts goes away.
The simple ideas are unchanged, the deck of cards has
be reshuffled to exploit technology advances in
high voltage semiconductors.
DC systems on large aircraft tend to be localized,
like the forward battery on the B787 is used for emergency
backup in the cockpit, the mid-ships battery primarily
used to crank an APU. In neither instance is the DC battery
power shipped very far on wires.
Local DC requirements are easily addressed with switchmode
power supplies not unlike those we find in our computers
and cell phone chargers. Pipe POWER around the airplane
on 115/208 VAC and convert it to DC locally as needed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
At 09:09 AM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
>
>When sizing wires, do you use the total distance or segment distance?
>
>For example: The starter is a total of 15' from the battery. But
>that total distance is made up of a 1' battery-to-master contactor,
>12' master contactor-to-starter contactor and 4' starter contactor-to-starter.
>
>So do we use a 30' round trip distance when sizing all the wires? Or
>do we size each segment based on its distance (i.e. 8' for the
>starter contactor to starter)?
Voltage drop calculations for the cranking
scenario are not particularly satisfying.
What size engine . . . are you considering a PM
starter? Do you anticipate cold weather operations?
Your words paint an image of a plastic, canard pusher
with battery in the nose. 95+ percent do just fine
with 2AWG wire which will have more than the 'idealized'
5% voltage drop for continuous duty ops of appliances
but acceptable for the few seconds it takes to get
an engine running.
Put starter contactor on firewall and use cranking
feeder to bring alternator b-lead forward.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
Several of the gauges sold by Van's are susceptible to interference from
radio transmissions, particularly manifold pressure and amps. Probably
not worth the effort to determine how/why it happens...
Peter
On 28/07/2013 05:17, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> Yes, my ammeter is the Vans ammeter.
>
> My airplane is an RV-9A. My COM antenna is mounted on the bottom of the airplane,
approximately under where the left leg of the pilot is when sitting in the
airplane. The antenna is from Delta Pop Aviation. The coax cable is RG400 from
B&C.
>
> I have not checked the VSWR on the antenna. I see your book gives some instructions
on how to do that.
>
> The airplane is currently in my garage. Would that "focus" the RF energy more
than being out in the open?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael-
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:32 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>>
>> At 06:59 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is
when I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the
ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
>>>
>>> My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating
positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate
in the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not running.
>>>
>>> The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup has
never worked.
>>
>> You didn't say but I'm betting your ammeter is
>> the one Van's sells . . . minus 40 - zero - plus
>> 40?
>>
>> I have one of those things laying around here somewhere.
>> I think I reported to the List after I bought it that
>> the instrument was very vulnerable to strong RF
>> in the cockpit.
>>
>> What kind of airplane and where is your antenna
>> located? Have you checked VSWR on the antenna
>> over the vhf comm range?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
I hadn't noticed it, but the manifold pressure gauge, is also deflecting a good
deal during radio transmission. I guess that's what I get for trying to be frugal
with my instrumentation. I was alarmed by the ammeter deflection. But everything
seems to be working otherwise, and there is no smoke or blown fuses, so
I'm going to assume that this explains the ammeter deflection.
Michael-
On Jul 28, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> Several of the gauges sold by Van's are susceptible to interference from radio
transmissions, particularly manifold pressure and amps. Probably not worth the
effort to determine how/why it happens...
>
> Peter
>
> On 28/07/2013 05:17, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>>
>> Yes, my ammeter is the Vans ammeter.
>>
>> My airplane is an RV-9A. My COM antenna is mounted on the bottom of the airplane,
approximately under where the left leg of the pilot is when sitting in the
airplane. The antenna is from Delta Pop Aviation. The coax cable is RG400 from
B&C.
>>
>> I have not checked the VSWR on the antenna. I see your book gives some instructions
on how to do that.
>>
>> The airplane is currently in my garage. Would that "focus" the RF energy more
than being out in the open?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael-
>>
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:32 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At 06:59 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to chase down a problem with my Radio (Garmin SL-40) Intercom (Flightcom
403) wiring. One of the strange behaviors that I don't understand is
when I push the PTT to transmit on a common unicom frequency such as 122.7, the
ammeter pegs at -40 amps. When I transmit on one of the maintenance frequencies
such as 135.85, it only deflects negative 1-2 amps. But the radio is transmitting,
I can hear on my handheld.
>>>>
>>>> My ammeter is a shunt type ammeter and seems to work correctly in indicating
positive (discharge) loads for other equipment. What would make it indicate
in the negative directions. This is using just the battery. i.e. engine not
running.
>>>>
>>>> The situation is that I'm trying to debug my initial wiring, so the setup
has never worked.
>>>
>>> You didn't say but I'm betting your ammeter is
>>> the one Van's sells . . . minus 40 - zero - plus
>>> 40?
>>>
>>> I have one of those things laying around here somewhere.
>>> I think I reported to the List after I bought it that
>>> the instrument was very vulnerable to strong RF
>>> in the cockpit.
>>>
>>> What kind of airplane and where is your antenna
>>> located? Have you checked VSWR on the antenna
>>> over the vhf comm range?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator with dual alternators |
I installed the Intelligent Power Stabilizer IPS-12v-8a this past week
and did some testing. It appears to have solved my problems. Thanks to
all involved!
To recap:
Problem; Despite having a robust Z-14 power scheme installed in my RV10,
I found myself starting on 1 battery because if I started with both
batteries, my 3 GRT EFISs would re-boot. I This defeated one of the
advantages of the Z-14 dual alternator, dual battery, dual bus architecture.
Solution; I installed TCW's IPS-12v-8a unit and connected the 3 EFISs
and the GPS/NAV side of the G430. The EFISs each have 3 power inputs
and will draw from the input with most juice. So the EFISs remain
connected to one of the buses but the secondary inputs are connected to
the IPS unit. The G430/GPS/NAV is connected directly to the IPS only.
Test Results; I am now able to turn on the EFISs and the G430, use them
for flight planning and clearance work (say 10 minutes), then turn on
the other bus, interconnect the 2 buses and start the engine. The
engine turnover is clearly more robust and the EFISs continue to run
without a hiccup.
I also did some bus load rebalancing to better reflect the charging
capabilities of the main and secondary alternators.
Now I'll be flying with the Z-14 as it is designed. Fully
interconnected buses for start and disconnected into 2 separate buses
for flight operations. Interconnection is available if needed in
various failure scenarios.
Thanks Bob N and Thanks Bob N!
On 7/10/2013 2:11 PM, Tcwtech wrote:
> Our IBBS product line provides back-up power to devices like efis
> equipment as well as GPS and comm systems. One of the added benefits
> is that during engine cranking the auto transfer circuitry knows to
> keep the connected load from dropping out and resetting.
> Connecting our IBBS product to the GRT system is very straight forward
> and 1/2 the weight of adding another similar sized lead acid battery.
>
> Also, if you don't need the full feature of back-up power and just
> want to resolve the issues with system resets during engine cranking,
> our IPS systems provide consistent, stable voltage to the connected
> load(s) with a maintenance free solution.
>
> All the details are on our web site and can be seen at our booth at
> Oshkosh.
> Www.Tcwtech.com <http://Www.Tcwtech.com>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Bill Watson > wrote:
>
>> Wow! The TCW product seems perfect for the GRT issue. Was unaware
>> of it. Thanks.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
Correct. Velocity with the battery (24v) in the nose and the starter contactor
on the firewall. Continental IO-550N with a factory starter. I can't find the
specs on the starter but I've been told that 200a is a conservative starting point.
So for instance, the length from the starter contactor to the starter is 4'. Based
on the chart in 43.13 (which requires some extrapolation for a 200a load),
theoretically, I could get by with 8AWG for that run. Whereas the master to starter
contactor would require 4AWG.
Which brings me back all the way back around to the question of: Is the wire size
based on the total distance or per segment distance?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405515#405515
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
Are you using a shielded bundle to run the shunt sense wires? If so you could experiment
with where you terminate the shield, whether that's at a ground near
the shunt, or at a ground near the ammeter -- the idea would be to help get the
RF energy shorted back to the source (the radio) without forcing it to go through
the ammeter as it is now.
This particular model ammeter is passive, right? The shunt wires are the only two
wires coming out of it?
On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I hadn't noticed it, but the manifold pressure gauge, is also deflecting a good
deal during radio transmission. I guess that's what I get for trying to be
frugal with my instrumentation. I was alarmed by the ammeter deflection. But everything
seems to be working otherwise, and there is no smoke or blown fuses,
so I'm going to assume that this explains the ammeter deflection.
>
> Michael-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
I would add to Bob's response that in any circuit, you need to ensure
that the conductors involved, be they wire or bus metal, are adequately
sized to carry the required current from source, the battery, to the
load, the starter in your example, and back, as the current always has
to take that round trip.
Bill
On 29/07/2013 12:09 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> When sizing wires, do you use the total distance or segment distance?
>
> For example: The starter is a total of 15' from the battery. But that total distance
is made up of a 1' battery-to-master contactor, 12' master contactor-to-starter
contactor and 4' starter contactor-to-starter.
>
> So do we use a 30' round trip distance when sizing all the wires? Or do we size
each segment based on its distance (i.e. 8' for the starter contactor to starter)?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405493#405493
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
At 05:14 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
>
>Are you using a shielded bundle to run the shunt sense wires? If so
>you could experiment with where you terminate the shield, whether
>that's at a ground near the shunt, or at a ground near the ammeter
>-- the idea would be to help get the RF energy shorted back to the
>source (the radio) without forcing it to go through the ammeter as it is now.
>
>This particular model ammeter is passive, right? The shunt wires are
>the only two wires coming out of it?
Unfortunately, no. See:
http://tinyurl.com/mpx8hze
This instrument is fitted with several 'radio
receivers' in the form of op-amps.
This design philosophy seems to be common to
the whole product line. It's a fundamental
design error which shielding of wires is
unlikely to rectify.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
Zoiks.
Nice and cheap, but what are they gaining with all that circuitry? A
stiffer needle? That can't be it... A lower-ohm shunt?
"..unlikely to rectify."
haha nice
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> This particular model ammeter is passive, right? The shunt wires are
the only two wires coming out of it?
>
> Unfortunately, no. See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mpx8hze
>
> This instrument is fitted with several 'radio
> receivers' in the form of op-amps.
>
> This design philosophy seems to be common to
> the whole product line. It's a fundamental
> design error which shielding of wires is
> unlikely to rectify.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
>>So do we use a 30' round trip distance when sizing all the wires?
>>Or do we size each segment based on its distance (i.e. 8' for the
>>starter contactor to starter)?
Neither. As I tried to articulate earlier, selection of wire
in the cranking circuit is not driven by current rating
of wire based on temperature rise and only loosely based
on voltage drop.
In the TC aircraft world, we concern ourselves with worst
case situations like battery nearing end of life, engine
and battery are cold-soaked at the lowest operating temperatures
recommended by engineering and marketing for operations
without ground assist (pre-heat or ground power cart).
There are lots of warm weather VariEz drivers who did their
long runs with 4AWG . . . and I've not heard of anyone finding it
useful to change out the wire . . . more than likely
they would go for a more robust battery first.
200A at 18 volts (worst case battery volts for starting)
is about half again more energy than the 300A at 9v
we use as a rule-of-thumb for 14 volt airplanes.
But I can tell you that nobody I've ever known picked
a cranking system wire size based on any predictive
performance based on analysis or calculation. I know
of some airplanes (a noteworthy Piper Cherokee) that
got a 'heavy duty' battery option added to its type
certificate due to poor cranking performance complaints
by some customers. These customers found it more attractive
to upsize to a 35 a.h. battery than to change out the
starter or make any other changes to reduce the stack-up
of conditions that degraded cranking.
If you're going to limit to warm weather flying and
plan to keep the battery well maintained, then perhaps
4AWG will be adequate to your intended use of the
airplane. 2AWG wire was common to all small SE aircraft
with remote mounted batteries. Once the batteries
moved forward to the firewall, I think the shift to
4AWG was axiomatic.
Selection of wire in this case was more a matter of
sticking a wet finger (or soggy battery) into a -20C
breeze than any carefully calculated design decision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Heathrow 787 lithium event |
As layers of the onion are being peeled back,
it seems that yes, the lithium battery within
the ELT was a source of the energy that started
this fire . . . but . . .
root cause may well have been a pinched wire
within the ELT. See:
http://tinyurl.com/mv7gohj
. . . watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
The DreamLiner has had its share of glaring problems.- If a pinched wire
was the root cause of failure, then I attribute this to poor workmanship.
- This is a very bad attribute for a new, high tech airliner, possibly le
ading to other failures.- What else lurks inside that carcass?=0A=0ALast
thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling under my butt.=0A
=0A=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A Fro
m: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelec
tric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:09 PM=0ASubject: A
eroElectric-List: Heathrow 787 lithium event=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AAs layers of the onion are being peeled back,=0Ait seems that yes,
the lithium battery within=0Athe ELT was a source of the energy that starte
d=0Athis fire . . . but . . .=0A=0Aroot cause may well have been a pinched
wire=0Awithin the ELT. See:=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/mv7gohj=0A=0A. . . watc
=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle
========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
At 06:35 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
>Zoiks.
>
>Nice and cheap, but what are they gaining with all that circuitry? A
>stiffer needle? That can't be it... A lower-ohm shunt?
>
>"..unlikely to rectify."
>
>haha nice
Actually, it was probably done to achieve a design
goal for an electronics assembly that would
work across a lot of products . . . by changing
scaling resistors and perhaps some jumpers you
could built a host of instruments with great
commonality of bill of materials.
I too like to operate under that banner.
If they're guilty of having fumbled the ball,
it was lack of understanding the environment
that their electro-whizzy was being asked to
function. I'll bet their major market is
automotive . . . vehicles without VHF
transmitters.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
Wow I see from the link containing the pictures that the problems with this instrument
are well known.
Since my airplane is VFR and I also have a voltmeter, I'm probably going to stick
with my current setup at least until I'm flying. Perhaps I can find a drop-in
replacement that works with the same shunt.
Michael-
On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 06:35 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
>> Zoiks.
>>
>> Nice and cheap, but what are they gaining with all that circuitry? A stiffer
needle? That can't be it... A lower-ohm shunt?
>>
>> "..unlikely to rectify."
>>
>> haha nice
>
> Actually, it was probably done to achieve a design
> goal for an electronics assembly that would
> work across a lot of products . . . by changing
> scaling resistors and perhaps some jumpers you
> could built a host of instruments with great
> commonality of bill of materials.
>
> I too like to operate under that banner.
> If they're guilty of having fumbled the ball,
> it was lack of understanding the environment
> that their electro-whizzy was being asked to
> function. I'll bet their major market is
> automotive . . . vehicles without VHF
> transmitters.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
At 07:48 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
>The DreamLiner has had its share of glaring problems. If a pinched
>wire was the root cause of failure, then I attribute this to poor
>workmanship. This is a very bad attribute for a new, high tech
>airliner, possibly leading to other failures. What else lurks
>inside that carcass?
>
>Last thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling under my butt.
Yes but . . . it seems this 'pinched wire' is INSIDE the
ELT. The FAA issued an AD against the airframe
http://tinyurl.com/mekmrzd
stating . . .
"We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the aft crown of the
airplane, or to
detect and correct discrepancies within the ELT that could cause such
a fire."
. . .which I find a little odd. If the suspected
root cause is located inside a TSO'ed appliance
then I would have thought the AD would have been
written against that appliance.
There are approximately 6000 of this ELT in
service but the AD only investigates those installed
on the 787 and then in very unspecific terms except
to
"Inspect the Honeywell fixed ELT for discrepancies, and do all
applicable corrective actions
before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD."
Not sure I understand how this works . . .
perhaps every ELT installed on a 787
receives proper 'corrective action', gets
re-installed and all is right with the
universe? Seems there's a few thousands
yet to be inspected/corrected. . . oh,
perhaps another AD, this time against the
ELT.
In the mean time, how would you like to
be Honeywell looking at financing the fixing
of a smoked 787 and doing inspect/repair/replace
on a boatload of ELTs?
Aren't you glad you fly an OBAM aircraft?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
Bob, I believe the FAA is requiring that all 787 ELTs be inspected as a sam
pling of a larger population in order to derive statistical data, then regr
oup and do what's in section Interim Action:=0A=0A---- "This AD is
considered to be interim action. Because the fire occurred on a =0A--
--- Model 787-8 airplane, required actions in this AD are focused on
Honeywell=0A- - - fixed ELTs installed on that model. However, we ack
nowledge that ELTs are=0A- - - installed on various other aircraft; t
herefore, continued investigation is=0A- - - required. Once final act
ion has been identified, we might consider further=0A- - - rulemaking
." =0A=0AIt just seems odd that this particular model ELT decided to burn u
p on a DreamLiner and so far, two of its worse problems involve lithium bat
teries. Maybe the DreamLiner has more vibration at specific frequencies tha
n other planes, and the ELT is spec'ed incorrected?- All I know is it's e
asier to blame the little guy than the big guy, especially when it involves
big corporations and/or government. It won't be long before this airplane
is called the BadDreamLiner.=0A=0AYes, I'm glad I fly OBAM, but it's mostly
because of the TSA and all the security hassles we're subjected to. I don'
t mind being frisked by a good looking babe, but most of them are Fugly! I
asked one if the TSA paid all the bills, and she said "no, I also work nigh
ts at a masochist masseuse parlor. Here's my business card."=0A=0A-=0AHen
ador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L. N
uckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matro
nics.com =0ASent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:54 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectri
c-List: Heathrow 787 lithium event=0A =0A=0A=0AAt 07:48 PM 7/28/2013, you w
rote:=0A=0AThe DreamLiner has had its share=0Aof glaring problems.- If a
pinched wire was the root cause of=0Afailure, then I attribute this to poor
workmanship.- This is a very=0Abad attribute for a new, high tech airlin
er, possibly leading to other=0Afailures.- What else lurks inside that ca
rcass?=0A>=0A>Last thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling
under my=0Abutt.=0A-- Yes but . . . it seems this 'pinched wire' is IN
SIDE=0Athe=0A-- ELT. The FAA issued an AD against the airframe=0A=0Ahtt
p://tinyurl.com/mekmrzd=0A=0A-- stating . . .=0A=0A"We are issuing this
AD=0Ato prevent a fire in the aft crown of the airplane, or to=0Adetect an
d correct discrepancies within the ELT that could cause such a=0Afire." -
- -------=0A=0A- . . .which I find a little odd. If the
suspected=0A- root cause is located inside a TSO'ed appliance=0A- then
I would have thought the AD would have been=0A- written against that appl
iance.=0A=0A- There are approximately 6000 of this ELT in=0A- service b
ut the AD only investigates those installed=0A- on the 787 and then in ve
ry unspecific terms except=0A- to =0A=0A"Inspect the Honeywell fixed ELT
=0Afor discrepancies, and do all applicable corrective actions=0Abefore fur
ther flight, using a method approved in accordance with the=0Aprocedures sp
ecified in=0Aparagraph (h) of this AD."=0A=0A- Not sure I understand how
this works . . .=0A- perhaps every ELT installed on a 787=0A- receives
proper 'corrective action', gets=0A- re-installed and all is right with t
he=0A- universe?- Seems there's a few thousands=0A- yet to be inspect
ed/corrected. . . oh,=0A- perhaps another AD, this time against the=0A-
ELT.=0A=0A- In the mean time, how would you like to=0A- be Honeywell l
ooking at financing the fixing=0A- of a smoked 787 and doing inspect/repa
ir/replace=0A- on a boatload of ELTs?=0A=0A- Aren't you glad you fly an
=====
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two com radios |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
Todd, thanks for the heads up on an issue I would never have considered
from that point of view!
Just wrestling with the whole 2 comms/intercom problem at the moment. You
just made it easier!
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza ZU-DLW
Safari ZU- AJF
On 27 July 2013 20:15, toddheffley wrote:
> public(at)toddheffley.com>
>
> John
>
> I wonder if you have considered an alternative solution to a installed
> second com?
>
> My experience with hand crafted audio control systems has been 100%
> negative,,,, meaning poorly thought out, no documentation, making repair a
> puzzling endeavor.
>
> My favorite set up for a VFR/CrossCountry/LightIFR aircraft is:
>
> ONE com. The best quality you can afford. CI122 antenna on the belly,
> Meaning a REAL antenna, not just a cheapy 1/4 wave stick, not a internal
> antenna. Best practices on coax termination and so forth. Carefully think
> through Bob's well documented Zdiagrams to give the unit the bast chance of
> rock solid power + some type of Plan B power.
>
> A intercom correctly installed with the direct Mic/Phone jacks wired, as
> well as the Pilot/Copilot/Pax mic/phone jacks. NAT is my favorite, but
> that is because I am a snob.
>
> My point is, put most of you eggs in that basket and make that basket
> FIRST RATE.
>
> Secondly, a backup com system that is a REAL backup.
>
> Meaning, a handheld radio, SOLIDLY afix the panel or side wall. Separate
> mic and phone jacks wired ONLY to the handheld. A DEDICATED 2nd com antenna
> hooked directly to the handheld.
>
> FRESH batteries, and/or Fresh spare batteries in the flight bag.
>
> This approach gets rid of the audio panel, a single point of failure, and
> divides the cost of the second com in half.
>
> I recommend this after YEARS of working on light aircraft with poorly
> maintained, 2nd rate avionics.
>
> Best wishes for you and your project.
>
> Todd
>
> --------
> WWW.toddheffley.com
> www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
> AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405436#405436
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
Bob, I believe the FAA is requiring that all 787 ELTs be inspected as
a sampling of a larger population in order to derive statistical
data, then regroup and do what's in section Interim Action:
It may well be . . . but it seems that a
mandatory service bulletin from Boeing would
do the same thing.
It just seems odd that this particular model ELT decided to burn up
on a DreamLiner and so far, two of its worse problems involve lithium
batteries. Maybe the DreamLiner has more vibration at specific
frequencies than other planes, and the ELT is spec'ed
incorrected? All I know is it's easier to blame the little guy than
the big guy, especially when it involves big corporations and/or
government. It won't be long before this airplane is called the BadDreamLiner.
The difference between failures in the ship's
system batteries and the ELT battery is profound.
Root cause for the system batteries was internal
to the battery and was not particularly unique
to the lithium chemistry . . . all battery
technologies have suffered separator development
and quality control problems at one time or
another.
The 'simple failure' that occurred within the
battery was elevated in consequence by the chemistry
that really likes to burn.
The failure in the ELT seems to be a quality control
issue with the routing of wires outside the batteries
during assembly. Again, the 'simple failure' was
elevated to $high$ miseries by the energetic failure
mode of the lithium batteries . . . but in this
case, the batteries themselves were performing as
designed and qualified onto the product.
In the first case, we have a failure to meet design
goals in a product with hazardous failure modes. In
the second case, the failure seems to reside with
first line supervision in manufacturing and quality
control of a mature product. The first case is
not excusable but understandable. The second case
(assuming present suppositions are proven true)
boggles the mind.
Yes, I'm glad I fly OBAM, but it's mostly because of the TSA and all
the security hassles we're subjected to. I don't mind being frisked
by a good looking babe, but most of them are Fugly! I asked one if
the TSA paid all the bills, and she said "no, I also work nights at a
masochist masseuse parlor. Here's my business card."
Understand. And I hope my comments were not mis-interpreted
by anyone to mean that my global view of hazard for
the air transport industry was pessimistic. Those
guys could loose an airplane a day and still be
statistically safer than personal automobile.
I am concerned that questions of suitability to task,
meeting system design goals and having the will
and means to react quickly to serious problems
is bring impeded by an increasing load of no-value-
added 'activity' dictated by bureaucratic organization
and policy/procedures taking its toll on skills/
common-sense.
For the moment at least, we're largely free of such
impediments in the OBAM aviation world.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
Thanks for the reply.
But I still am unclear on something.
Let me try a different example.
The alternator (50a) B lead will connect to the battery side of the starter contactor
on the firewall. That wire will be about 4' long. When I size that wire,
do I only consider the 4' distance and ignore the larger wire to the battery?
(In which the alternator wire can be 12AWG)
Or do I consider the length from the alternator to the battery. (In which case
I'm looking at 8AWG).
Sorry if I'm not making my question clear. [Embarassed]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405574#405574
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
You have to be careful when selecting power converters of this type.- =0A
=0ABe aware of the power requirements.- If the radio in question only dra
ws 2 amps at transmit then that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts = am
ps x volts) that the converter must deliver when you key the mic.- The on
e referenced is only 13 watts and would be inadequate.=0A=0A=0A=0A_________
_______________________=0A From: R. curtis <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15
AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-L
ist message posted by: "R. curtis" =0A=0A=0A>
Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.=0A>
How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to fe
ed=0A> the radio?=0A=0A=0A- - - You could use something like this.
- Just make sure that you=0A- - - size it to supply enough 24 volt
power for your needs.=0A- - - This will connect to your 12 volt sys
tem and supply 24 volts=0A- - - to your radios.=0A=0A- - - ht
tp://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&pro
duct_id=136=0A=0A- - - Using this would mean that there is no othe
r mod required=0A- - - to your aircraft electrical system thus maint
aining a standard=0A- - - 12 volt system.=0A=0A- - - Roger
=0A=0A--=0A=0ADo you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
At 11:15 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>But I still am unclear on something.
>
>Let me try a different example.
>
>The alternator (50a) B lead will connect to the battery side of the
>starter contactor on the firewall. That wire will be about 4' long.
>When I size that wire, do I only consider the 4' distance and ignore
>the larger wire to the battery? (In which the alternator wire can be 12AWG)
Yes, that wire is not part of the cranking system
and is rated for continuous duty operation at some
current level and ambient temperature.
So the alternator b-lead is sized to the alternator's
output. Don't know where you got 12AWG . . . 6 AWG
is closer to appropriate.
>Or do I consider the length from the alternator to the battery. (In
>which case I'm looking at 8AWG).
???? distance is not a factor here on these short runs.
It's temperature rise over ambient when subjected
to the design currents.
>Sorry if I'm not making my question clear. [Embarassed]
I'm sorry I didn't pick up on your concerns. We're
getting wrapped around the axles of minute details
that most venues have put aside with conservative
selection as opposed to spending $time$ on slicing
and dicing the options. I'd go to local weld shop
where I know you can get 4AWG welding cable . . .
and put a hunk of that nice flexible stuff in for
a b-lead feeder. If they stock 6AWG, cool, use
that.
But once that wire ties into the battery/starter
feeders for cranking, all the slicing and dicing for continuous
duty service is replaced with meeting design goals.
Goals in intermittent duty service where supply
voltage, load current and energy demands levied
by engine characteristics and pilot skills
stack up to suggest much fatter wires.
Wires so fat as to be insignificant
players in the voltage drop issues for the
continuous duty studies driven by a load
analysis.
If it were my airplane with 30' of cranking
loop, I'd go with 2AWG. B-lead at 4AWG. If
you've got a hydraulic gear pump, then you
MIGHT drop to 6AWG for that feeder but if
it is short and 4AWG was all the local shop
had in stock, make that 4AWG too.
The problems your wrestling with have legacy
solutions borne more of field experience and
practice than of finely tuned analysis.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Jeff
Thanks for calling my attention.
In that case, I suppose the adequate should be this one
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&produ
ct_id=436> &path=1_12400_12406&product_id=436
or this one
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12800_12807&produ
ct_id=531> &path=1_12800_12807&product_id=531
Is that so?
Carlos
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey
Enviada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:04
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
You have to be careful when selecting power converters of this type.
Be aware of the power requirements. If the radio in question only draws 2
amps at transmit then that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts = amps x
volts) that the converter must deliver when you key the mic. The one
referenced is only 13 watts and would be inadequate.
_____
From: R. curtis <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net
>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
> How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to
feed
> the radio?
You could use something like this. Just make sure that you
size it to supply enough 24 volt power for your needs.
This will connect to your 12 volt system and supply 24 volts
to your radios.
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&produ
ct_id=136> &path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136
Using this would mean that there is no other mod required
to your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard
12 volt system.
Roger
--
Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan
http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
>
> Yes, that wire is not part of the cranking system
> and is rated for continuous duty operation at some
> current level and ambient temperature.
Thanks! That's what I was looking for.
>
> So the alternator b-lead is sized to the alternator's
> output. Don't know where you got 12AWG . . . 6 AWG
> is closer to appropriate.
The chart in AC43-13 indicates that 28v over ~10' at 50a works out to 12AWG.
I've got some pretty tight ducts for wire and I'm trying to conserve space as much
as possible and at the same time meet the electron moving requirements.
The hydraulic pump is only about 18" from the battery and draws ~25a. So I'm thinking
of running 14AWG there.
Thanks again,
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405581#405581
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
So...
1) I'd say that a 12 AWG wire is a little on the light side for 50A.
Should be a 6 or 8 AWG according to AC 43.13-1B.
b) I would recommend a 50A circuit breaker (push-pull or toggle) between
the alternator and the battery side of the starter relay that can be
operated by the pilot. It's bad when an alternator dies (open) and
doesn't charge when in flight. It's much worse when an alternator dies
(shorted) and starts draining the battery as fast as it can. In my
airplane, their is a wire from the battery side of the starter solenoid
to the master bus (where all the circuit breakers are) and the
alternator is just another one on that bus. Of course there is also a 5A
breaker for the "field" (really goes to the regulator and then to the
rotor in the alternator).
III) In all cases you first look at AC 43.13-1B
(http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861)
Table 11-9 to find the minimum size wire you need. This is the wire's
maximum capacity regardless of length. It is based on the heat generated
as the current flows though the wire's internal resistance (you know
current * resistance per foot = watts of heat per foot). Select the wire
the size dictated by the load and wire temperature rating. For a 50A
circuit you need an 8 or 6 AWG wire depending on the temperature rating.
Then, use AC 43.13-1B Figure 11-3 to determine the larger size wire
needed if a longer wire run would have too much voltage drop for the
circuit. Length is the round trip circuit so if you're using the
airframe in a well bonded aluminum airplane the ground return is pretty
much ignored. If you've got a nav light at the tip of a fiberglass wing,
you have to calculate the length including the hot wire out to the load
and the ground return wire length back.
Note to self: I really have to connect the engine to the airframe (or
ground bus in a composite aircraft) with at least as big a wire as I
used for the starter. Bolts through the engine shock mounts don't count.
Bill
On 7/29/13 9:15 AM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> But I still am unclear on something.
>
> Let me try a different example.
>
> The alternator (50a) B lead will connect to the battery side of the starter contactor
on the firewall. That wire will be about 4' long. When I size that wire,
do I only consider the 4' distance and ignore the larger wire to the battery?
(In which the alternator wire can be 12AWG)
>
> Or do I consider the length from the alternator to the battery. (In which case
I'm looking at 8AWG).
>
> Sorry if I'm not making my question clear. [Embarassed]
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405574#405574
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
BTW: The presumption that a 28V radio has greater transmitting power than a 12V
radio is, in principle, untrue.
--------
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=405583#405583
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
Carlos,=0A=0AYou should start with the spec sheet of the radio that you wan
t to use to determine its current draw.- Then you can use the formula I p
rovided to calc the required power.- I would then select a power converte
r that gives you a significant safety margin of power; perhaps at least 20
percent greater power than your calculation indicates.=0A=0ALet's hope some
one on this List has done this before and can recommend a device that they
have used successfully.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A F
rom: Carlos Trigo =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics
.com =0ASent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:21 AM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-Li
st: 14V or 28V=0A =0A=0A=0AJeff=0A-=0AThanks for calling my attention.=0A
In that case, I suppose the adequate should be this one=0A-=0Ahttp://acon
inc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&product_id
=436=0A-=0Aor this one =0A-=0Ahttp://aconinc.com/index.php?route=pr
oduct/product&path=1_12800_12807&product_id=531=0A-=0AIs that so?=0AC
arlos =0A-=0A-=0ADe:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailt
o:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey=0AEn
viada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:04=0APara: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0A
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A-=0AYou have to be careful w
hen selecting power converters of this type.- =0A=0ABe aware of the power
requirements.- If the radio in question only draws 2 amps at transmit th
en that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts = amps x volts) that the con
verter must deliver when you key the mic.- The one referenced is only 13
watts and would be inadequate.=0A-=0A=0A________________________________
=0A=0AFrom:R. curtis =0ATo: aeroelectric-list
@matronics.com =0ASent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroEl
urtis" =0A=0A=0A> Still didn't get any answer
about the second part of my initial query.=0A> How about keeping the 14V s
ystem and using a 14/28 voltage converter to feed=0A> the radio?=0A=0A=0A
- - - You could use something like this.- Just make sure that you
=0A- - - size it to supply enough 24 volt power for your needs.=0A-
- - This will connect to your 12 volt system and supply 24 volts=0A-
- - to your radios.=0A=0A- - - http://aconinc.com/index.php?rout
e=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136=0A=0A- - -
Using this would mean that there is no other mod required=0A- - - to
your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard=0A- - - 1
2 volt system.=0A=0A- - - Roger =0A=0A--=0A=0ADo you have a slow PC?
Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen=0A=0A
=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp://forums.mat
=============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Eric
Would you please elaborate a little bit on your opinion?
But do it for an electron-idiot guy, please...
Carlos
-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Eric M.
Jones
Enviada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:38
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: AeroElectric-List: Re: 14V or 28V
-->
BTW: The presumption that a 28V radio has greater transmitting power than a
12V radio is, in principle, untrue.
--------
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=405583#405583
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | 14V / 28V converter |
Well, the spec sheet of the TRIG radio mentions 2.4A when transmitting, so I
suppose that a 50W converter will still not be enough.
By the way, what would happen if I put an under rated converter, would it
fry after a couple of radio transmissions?
Carlos
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey
Enviada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:55
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
Carlos,
You should start with the spec sheet of the radio that you want to use to
determine its current draw. Then you can use the formula I provided to calc
the required power. I would then select a power converter that gives you a
significant safety margin of power; perhaps at least 20 percent greater
power than your calculation indicates.
Let's hope someone on this List has done this before and can recommend a
device that they have used successfully.
_____
From: Carlos Trigo < <mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
Jeff
Thanks for calling my attention.
In that case, I suppose the adequate should be this one
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&produ
ct_id=436>
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&produc
t_id=436
or this one
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12800_12807&produ
ct_id=531>
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12800_12807&produc
t_id=531
Is that so?
Carlos
De:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [
mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey
Enviada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:04
Para:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
You have to be careful when selecting power converters of this type.
Be aware of the power requirements. If the radio in question only draws 2
amps at transmit then that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts = amps x
volts) that the converter must deliver when you key the mic. The one
referenced is only 13 watts and would be inadequate.
_____
From: R. curtis < <mailto:mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
> How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to
feed
> the radio?
You could use something like this. Just make sure that you
size it to supply enough 24 volt power for your needs.
This will connect to your 12 volt system and supply 24 volts
to your radios.
http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product
<http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&produ
ct_id=136> &path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136
Using this would mean that there is no other mod required
to your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard
12 volt system.
Roger
--
Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan
http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
<http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-->
http://www.matronics.com/con===============
Forum -
to browse
Un/Subscription,
Chat, FAQ,
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
> Would you please elaborate a little bit on your opinion?
> But do it for an electron-idiot guy, please...
I'm not Eric, but I'll chime in. VHF radio transmissions are line of
site. For the most part, if you can see it, you can "hear" it via radio.
Several years ago I climbed to the top of a mountain which was about 1
mile ASL. A friend of mine was ~80 miles away in a direct line, on the
ground at maybe 200 ASL. We both had handheld radios, and were talking
to each other. He was using 1/2 of a watt, I was using 1/4 of a watt
(the lowest power setting of the radios). There was barely any
discernible difference between 5 watts (the maximum setting), and the
low power settings that we were using.
In general, for the typical distances that we are communicating in our
airplanes, combined with the height above ground, it just doesn't matter
if the radio is 8 watts or 16 watts. The signal is only going to go as
far as line of site under normal conditions (ie, no weird atmospheric
"skip" happening).
In other words, under typical circumstances, you are not going to be
transmitting any farther using 16 watts than you are at 8 watts.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 14V / 28V converter |
=0A=0ABy the way, what would happen if I put an under rated converter, woul
d it fry after a couple of radio transmissions?=0A=0ALots of bad things:=0A
1. Transmitted signal would be weak or non-existant=0A2. Possible damage to
radio due to brown-out condition=0A3. You might fry the power supply or it
may have built-in overload protection and simply shut-off=0A=0A4. you migh
t induce total plutonic reversal and cause a rift in the space-time continu
um (oh, wait - that's only if you "cross the streams";)=0A=0A=0A=0A________
________________________=0A From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>=0ATo
: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:15 AM
=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V / 28V converter=0A =0A=0A=0AWell, th
e spec sheet of the TRIG radio mentions 2.4A when transmitting, so I suppos
e that a 50W converter will still not be enough=0A=C2-=0ABy the
way, what would happen if I put an under rated converter, would it fry afte
r a couple of radio transmissions?=0A=C2-=0ACarlos=C2- =0A=C2-=0A=C2
-=0ADe:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroele
ctric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey=0AEnviada: 29 de ju
lho de 2013 18:55=0APara: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0AAssunto: Re: Ae
roElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A=C2-=0ACarlos,=0A=0AYou should start with t
he spec sheet of the radio that you want to use to determine its current dr
aw.=C2- Then you can use the formula I provided to calc the required powe
r.=C2- I would then select a power converter that gives you a significant
safety margin of power; perhaps at least 20 percent greater power than you
r calculation indicates.=0A=0ALet's hope someone on this List has done this
before and can recommend a device that they have used successfully.=0A=C2
-=0A=C2-=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AFrom:Carlos Trigo <
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday
, July 29, 2013 10:21 AM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A=C2
-=0AJeff=0A=C2-=0AThanks for calling my attention.=0AIn that case, I su
ppose the adequate should be this one=0A=C2-=0Ahttp://aconinc.com/index.p
hp?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&product_id=436=0A=C2-
=0Aor this one =0A=C2-=0Ahttp://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/pro
duct&path=1_12800_12807&product_id=531=0A=C2-=0AIs that so?=0ACarlos
=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0ADe:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com[mailto
:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jeff Luckey=0AEnv
iada: 29 de julho de 2013 18:04=0APara: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0AA
ssunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A=C2-=0AYou have to be careful
when selecting power converters of this type.=C2- =0A=0ABe aware of the
power requirements.=C2- If the radio in question only draws 2 amps at tra
nsmit then that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts = amps x volts) that
the converter must deliver when you key the mic.=C2- The one referenced
is only 13 watts and would be inadequate.=0A=C2-=0A=0A___________________
_____________=0A=0AFrom:R. curtis =0ATo: aero
electric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15 AM=0ASubject
: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message post
ed by: "R. curtis" =0A=0A=0A> Still didn't ge
t any answer about the second part of my initial query.=0A> How about keepi
ng the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter to feed=0A> the radio
?=0A=0A=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- You could use something like this.=C2- Jus
t make sure that you=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- size it to supply enough 24 vol
t power for your needs.=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- This will connect to your 12
volt system and supply 24 volts=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- to your radios.=0A
=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/produc
t&path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136=0A=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- Using thi
s would mean that there is no other mod required=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- to
your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard=0A=C2- =C2-
=C2- 12 volt system.=0A=0A=C2- =C2- =C2- Roger =0A=0A--=0A=0ADo yo
u have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter
?cid=sigen=0A=0A=0Ahttp://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com
=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A=C2-=0A=C2- --> http://www.m
atronics.com/con=================0A=0A=0Aht
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronic
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Not arguing with that, but I believe the 430AW model is 28 volts only and is the
one with the 16 watt transmitter.
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 29, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Eric M. Jones" wrote:
>
> BTW: The presumption that a 28V radio has greater transmitting power than a 12V
radio is, in principle, untrue.
>
> --------
> 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=405583#405583
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Yes, Watts is Watts, but the input voltage is irrelevant, and usually there isn't
much hardware-dependent on a particular voltage that the manufacturer won't
have another voltage available. But keeping the 28V radio and having an up-converter
is a bad use of money, an increase in noise and weight, a decrease in
reliability.
Eric's Rule #1: 1) Sell what you don't want on Ebay. 2) Buy the appropriate unit.
Eric's Rule #2: 99% of everything electrical on Earth comes in a 12V model.
GNS-430AW is 14/28 V operation.
--------
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=405607#405607
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
> 1) I'd say that a 12 AWG wire is a little on the light side for 50A.
> Should be a 6 or 8 AWG according to AC 43.13-1B.
My interpretation of figure 11-2 from 43-13-1B shows 12AWG. Are you sure you're
looking at the 28v column?
> b) I would recommend a 50A circuit breaker (push-pull or toggle) between the
alternator and the battery side of the starter relay that can be
> operated by the pilot. It's bad when an alternator dies (open) and
> doesn't charge when in flight. It's much worse when an alternator dies
> (shorted) and starts draining the battery as fast as it can. In my
> airplane, their is a wire from the battery side of the starter solenoid
> to the master bus (where all the circuit breakers are) and the
> alternator is just another one on that bus. Of course there is also a 5A
> breaker for the "field" (really goes to the regulator and then to the
> rotor in the alternator).
>
Excellent point. But with that configuration, it doesn't make sense to put the
starter contactor on the firewall because I'll still need to run the alternator
wire all the way up to the front anyway. I was planning on an ANL50 for protection.
> III) In all cases you first look at AC 43.13-1B
> (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861)
> Table 11-9 to find the minimum size wire you need. This is the wire's
> maximum capacity regardless of length. It is based on the heat generated
> as the current flows though the wire's internal resistance (you know
> current * resistance per foot = watts of heat per foot). Select the wire
> the size dictated by the load and wire temperature rating. For a 50A
> circuit you need an 8 or 6 AWG wire depending on the temperature rating.
I'll look into that.
> Then, use AC 43.13-1B Figure 11-3 to determine the larger size wire
> needed if a longer wire run would have too much voltage drop for the
> circuit. Length is the round trip circuit so if you're using the
> airframe in a well bonded aluminum airplane the ground return is pretty
> much ignored. If you've got a nav light at the tip of a fiberglass wing,
> you have to calculate the length including the hot wire out to the load
> and the ground return wire length back.
Figure 11-3 in my copy is for intermittent load.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405608#405608
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 03:32 PM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
>
>Yes, Watts is Watts, but the input voltage is irrelevant, and
>usually there isn't much hardware-dependent on a particular voltage
>that the manufacturer won't have another voltage available.
Most of the time. Garmin had several products that
would run on 14/28 for the 'smart side' but needed
28v for full power out of the transmitter . . . but
it was still a quite useful output at 14v.
I'd have to dig back in my files to identify the radio
I did install drawings for on the AGATE program
at Beech but it had that characteristic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
At 12:33 PM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
>
>So...
>
>1) I'd say that a 12 AWG wire is a little on the light side for 50A.
>Should be a 6 or 8 AWG according to AC 43.13-1B.
>
>b) I would recommend a 50A circuit breaker (push-pull or toggle)
>between the alternator and the battery side of the starter relay
>that can be operated by the pilot.
Crew accessible b-lead breakers have pretty much gone
the way of the ADF and LORAN receivers.
B-lead protection moved out to the firewall on Bonanzas
about 35-30 years ago.
Emacs!
Not sure what the philosophy is for current
single engine production. I'll have to see
if I still know anyone at Cessna or Piper.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GERRY VAN%20DYK <gerry.vandyk(at)shaw.ca> |
Just happened to be looking at the 400 series installation manual this afternoon.
Pate 1.4.2 "General Specifications" says:
Input Voltage range - all unites (main connector) 10 to 33.2 VDC
Input Voltage range GNC 420W, GNS 430W (Com Connector) - 11 to 33 VDC
Input Voltage range GNC 420AW, GNS 430AW (Com Connector) - 24.1 to 33 VDC
GNC 420W, GNC 420AW (Main Connector) 1.2A@28VDC (max) 2.5A@14VDC (max)
GNS 430W, GNS 430AW (Main Connector) 1.2A@28VDC (max) 2.5A@14VDC (max)
(amongst other specs)
Evidently the 420AW / 430AW units are 24/28V on the com side but full voltage range
on the main connector.
Gerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:11:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 14V or 28V
At 03:32 PM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
>
>Yes, Watts is Watts, but the input voltage is irrelevant, and
>usually there isn't much hardware-dependent on a particular voltage
>that the manufacturer won't have another voltage available.
Most of the time. Garmin had several products that
would run on 14/28 for the 'smart side' but needed
28v for full power out of the transmitter . . . but
it was still a quite useful output at 14v.
I'd have to dig back in my files to identify the radio
I did install drawings for on the AGATE program
at Beech but it had that characteristic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 14V / 28V converter |
So, it depends. Assume the wattage rating is the output wattage and not
the input wattage (being charitable here). A 50W converter is designed
to put out 1.8A at 28V. It probably operates over an 11V-15V input
range. So if it's 80% efficient it would use about 62W of power to make
the 50W on the output. A designer has to figure that at 11V input the
transistors that switch the DC have to be good for something more than
5.7A. At 15V They only need to do 4.2A and something slightly less than
that at the nominal 14V. What usually happens is that these inverters
use pulse duty cycle of these input transistors to do the raw regulation
of the output voltage. Once the maximum duty cycle is reached the power
in the circuit is at maximum and if more current is required the voltage
has to fall.
The bad news is that the power supply in the transceiver is also a
switch mode one (cause they're smaller, cheaper and lighter than
anything else) so it wants to keep the voltages inside the radio at the
designed conditions. So as the input voltage falls, it increases it's
duty cycle which draws more current at the input. I think you can see
where this is headed.
If the radio is designed well, it will blow an internal fuse or self
protect and shut down (probably requiring an avionics bus power cycle to
reset it). If it's pourly designed the radio's power supply will let the
internal voltages fall below the designed values making the transmitter
frequency unstable and creating all kinds of other interference products
in the transmitter. My guess that would be caught in the FCC independent
lab testing and it wouldn't get certified. So probably the power supply
in the radio is designed right.
You're asking that the converter operate at 130% of it's rated power?
Most designers cut some slack in their designs so you could get away
with a little. Most sales/marketing people want the numbers to sound big
though. So, if they say it's a 50W converter, that might be the input
power. If the converter is 80% efficient, that's 40W on the output.
About 1.4A and your radio is then 170% of the rated load. 70% is way to
expensive to design in for manufacturing slack. Of course your converter
may have used it's manufacturing slack in manufacturing...
I have had some sad experiences with one US manufacturers radio that
simply burn up the internal power supply in the radio in response to too
low an input voltage. It use to be that making the new engineers design
the power supplies was the thing to do because it was the least fun.
If you could figure out a way to limit the current in the converter, you
could charge a very small 28V battery from the converter and since the
transmitter duty cycle is low you'd just transmit using the battery
power to bridge the time you're transmitting and the battery would
charge back up using surplus capacity when the radio is in receive.
Or you could get the 14V Trig radio that puts out 6W instead of 12W.
That's an insignificant (-3dB) power decrease and oh so much simpler a
solution. A better antenna will make that much difference. If you were
in outer space the 12W would go twice as far but most of us don't travel
in outer space and we get over the horizon before we run out of power.
There is no limitation on the size of the transmitter based on input
voltage. I have a VHF ham radio that will deliver 100W and it runs on my
13V car battery. Draws a lot of amps doing it though. The power supply
inside the radio takes care of making the RF parts happy at whatever
power level is desired.
Bill
On 7/29/13 11:15 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Well, the spec sheet of the TRIG radio mentions 2.4A when
> transmitting, so I suppose that a 50W converter will still not be
> enough...
>
> By the way, what would happen if I put an under rated converter, would
> it fry after a couple of radio transmissions?
>
> Carlos
>
> *De:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *Em nome de
> *Jeff Luckey
> *Enviada:* 29 de julho de 2013 18:55
> *Para:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Assunto:* Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> Carlos,
>
> You should start with the spec sheet of the radio that you want to use
> to determine its current draw. Then you can use the formula I
> provided to calc the required power. I would then select a power
> converter that gives you a significant safety margin of power; perhaps
> at least 20 percent greater power than your calculation indicates.
>
> Let's hope someone on this List has done this before and can recommend
> a device that they have used successfully.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Carlos Trigo >
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 10:21 AM
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> Jeff
>
> Thanks for calling my attention.
>
> In that case, I suppose the adequate should be this one
>
> http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12406&product_id=436
>
> or this one
>
> http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12800_12807&product_id=531
>
> Is that so?
>
> Carlos
>
> *De:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> *Em nome de *Jeff Luckey
> *Enviada:* 29 de julho de 2013 18:04
> *Para:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Assunto:* Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
> You have to be careful when selecting power converters of this type.
>
> Be aware of the power requirements. If the radio in question only
> draws 2 amps at transmit then that's 48 watts of power, P = IE (watts
> = amps x volts) that the converter must deliver when you key the mic.
> The one referenced is only 13 watts and would be inadequate.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*R. curtis >
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:15 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: 14V or 28V
>
>
> >
>
>
> > Still didn't get any answer about the second part of my initial query.
> > How about keeping the 14V system and using a 14/28 voltage converter
> to feed
> > the radio?
>
>
> You could use something like this. Just make sure that you
> size it to supply enough 24 volt power for your needs.
> This will connect to your 12 volt system and supply 24 volts
> to your radios.
>
> http://aconinc.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1_12400_12402&product_id=136
>
> Using this would mean that there is no other mod required
> to your aircraft electrical system thus maintaining a standard
> 12 volt system.
>
> Roger
>
> --
>
> Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan
> http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen
>
>
>
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
> * -->**http://www.matronics.com/con================* **
>
>
> **
>
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ****
> ***http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List** ***
> ******
> ******
> ****http://forums.matronics.com******
> ******
> ******
> ******
> ******
> ****http://www.matronics.com/contribution******
> ******
> *** ***
> **
> *
>
>
> *
> **
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
On 7/29/13 1:32 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
>
>> 1) I'd say that a 12 AWG wire is a little on the light side for 50A.
>> Should be a 6 or 8 AWG according to AC 43.13-1B.
> My interpretation of figure 11-2 from 43-13-1B shows 12AWG. Are you sure you're
looking at the 28v column?
In that table voltage is irrelevant. It's the maximum current a wire of
a selected gauge (based on the internal resistance of the wire and the
amount of heat rise allowed) can safely handle. Could be 1V or 1000V. If
a piece of wire (of some length) has 1 ohm of resistance. 1 amp passed
through that wire will create 1 volt of drop across it and 1 watt of
heat. If the surface of the wire can dissipate that heat and stay below
the designed temperature it's safe. If the wire is operating in a
1,000,000 volt circuit with 1 amp flowing though it it's still going to
have 1 volt of drop across it creating the same 1 watt of heat.
>
>> b) I would recommend a 50A circuit breaker (push-pull or toggle) between the
alternator and the battery side of the starter relay that can be
>> operated by the pilot. It's bad when an alternator dies (open) and
>> doesn't charge when in flight. It's much worse when an alternator dies
>> (shorted) and starts draining the battery as fast as it can. In my
>> airplane, their is a wire from the battery side of the starter solenoid
>> to the master bus (where all the circuit breakers are) and the
>> alternator is just another one on that bus. Of course there is also a 5A
>> breaker for the "field" (really goes to the regulator and then to the
>> rotor in the alternator).
>>
> Excellent point. But with that configuration, it doesn't make sense to put the
starter contactor on the firewall because I'll still need to run the alternator
wire all the way up to the front anyway. I was planning on an ANL50 for protection.
I'd put the starter contactor as close to where the other loads are as
possible. If you have the battery in the back for W&B considerations
you're going to have to run a heavy gauge cable to the starter in the
front. Put the contactor on the firewall then everything gets to take
advantage of this big heavy wire when you're not cranking.
I realize that you aren't required to build to Part 23 standards but
some of them do make sense. Part 23 requires that circuit protection
devices for loads critical to safety of flight be resettable or
replaceable by the flight crew while in flight. What stuff are you
powering with the alternator you'd like to have if you're flying VFR on
top at night over Nevada somewhere? How would you fly and replace an
NL50 fuse? Where would you put it so it would be handy? Carrying a spare
NL50? That's required too (in Part 23).
>
>
>> III) In all cases you first look at AC 43.13-1B
>> (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861)
>> Table 11-9 to find the minimum size wire you need. This is the wire's
>> maximum capacity regardless of length. It is based on the heat generated
>> as the current flows though the wire's internal resistance (you know
>> current * resistance per foot = watts of heat per foot). Select the wire
>> the size dictated by the load and wire temperature rating. For a 50A
>> circuit you need an 8 or 6 AWG wire depending on the temperature rating.
>
> I'll look into that.
>
>
>> Then, use AC 43.13-1B Figure 11-3 to determine the larger size wire
>> needed if a longer wire run would have too much voltage drop for the
>> circuit. Length is the round trip circuit so if you're using the
>> airframe in a well bonded aluminum airplane the ground return is pretty
>> much ignored. If you've got a nav light at the tip of a fiberglass wing,
>> you have to calculate the length including the hot wire out to the load
>> and the ground return wire length back.
> Figure 11-3 in my copy is for intermittent load.
Yes, you're right. It's probably safer to design the alternator circuit
for continuous duty. If you design to Part 23 your loads should never
exceed 80% of generating capacity. This was really hard to do before
there were LED and HID landing lights. Old tube radios really wolfed
down the juice too.
This table (Figure 11-2) really sets the allowable voltage drop over the
length of the wire. In a circuit where wire size is dominated by current
carrying capacity like the relatively short alternator wire, this table
doesn't dictate wire size. If the alternator is mounted on the front of
the engine, it could be 8-12 wire feet to get to the circuit protection
device and another 4-6 wire feet to get back to the battery side of the
starter contactor. Worst case that's between 12' and 20' and of wire
(always use the next line up on the chart) and that says an 8 AWG wire.
Then is it an 8 AWG or a 6 AWG? Depends on the thermal rating of the wire.
Bill
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405608#405608
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-hop wire sizing? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
Excellent point. But with that configuration, it doesn't make sense
to put the starter contactor on the firewall because I'll still need
to run the alternator wire all the way up to the front anyway. I was
planning on an ANL50 for protection.
Why? Did I miss something in the deliberations?
I'd put the starter contactor as close to where the other loads are
as possible. If you have the battery in the back for W&B
considerations you're going to have to run a heavy gauge cable to the
starter in the front. Put the contactor on the firewall then
everything gets to take advantage of this big heavy wire when you're
not cranking.
Okay, refresh my memory. I thought we were talking
about a canard pusher with battery in nose.
I realize that you aren't required to build to Part 23 standards but
some of them do make sense. Part 23 requires that circuit protection
devices for loads critical to safety of flight be resettable or
replaceable by the flight crew while in flight. What stuff are you
powering with the alternator you'd like to have if you're flying VFR
on top at night over Nevada somewhere? How would you fly and replace
an NL50 fuse? Where would you put it so it would be handy? Carrying a
spare NL50? That's required too (in Part 23).
Actually it is not. The relevant paragraph is here:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be
used to protect any other circuit.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be
designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
1357.d speaks to 'essential to safety in flight' . . . okay suppose
you have a breaker that protects the only radio on the panel and you're
anticipating a launch into the murk. How many things in that radio can
'break' and render the radio inop? Don't know but you can bet
it's a bunch.
What is the likelihood that ANY kind of radio killing event will cause
the breaker to operate yet be 'clear' in some manner that
allows the breaker
to be reset?
Once a circuit protective device operates, the very high probability
assumption is that the powered device is no longer available
irrespective of root cause for the trip. At the same time, a
tripped breaker suggests that the device did it's job to prevent
electrically induced fire or wire damage. Once the breaker or fuse
has operated, do you really want to give it a second chance of
doing more damage?
Pilots in the big iron birds are told to leave popped breakers
alone . . . but if you're feeling lucky . . . reset one time only.
Failure tolerant design goals say that probability for comfortable
termination of flight is greatly enhanced if EVERY device
has a no-sweat backup. This includes the alternator. This
is the operating philosophy that birthed the e-bus about 20 years
ago. It's the philosophy that birthed Z-13/8 shortly thereafter.
That same philosophy is satisfied by having battery powered hand-helds
in the flight bag.
http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
In other words, with careful management of known energy
requirements, it's no big deal to have greater electrical
endurance than fuel endurance. Hence, all things electric are
relieved of their sweat-breaking criticality and there's no
good reason to fiddle with any circuit progective device
in flight.
Yes, you're right. It's probably safer to design the alternator
circuit for continuous duty. If you design to Part 23 your loads
should never exceed 80% of generating capacity. This was really hard
to do before there were LED and HID landing lights. Old tube radios
really wolfed down the juice too.
The 80% rule was never intended to de-rate an
engine driven power source. It was intended to
wall off head-room for battery recharge in
some nominal period of time after takeoff . . .
no hard numbers here but 60-90 minutes has been
the rule of thumb . . . and is obviously driven
by the sized of the battery.
In fact, it's the dead-battery recharge scenario
that drove a number tense events for pilots. I've
often referred to the type-certificated, 60A B-lead
breaker on tens of thousands of airplanes fitted with
60A alternators as, "the breaker designed to nuisance trip."
A cold alternator recharging a dead battery will
put out significantly more than its nameplate rating.
I jump started a Cherokee 140 out of 1K1 and about
15 minutes out, the panel went black. B-lead breaker
was popped but resetting it did not bring the alternator
back. I'm guessing that the alternator load-dump
zorked something.
In any case, I finished the leg on hand-helds,
put a charger on the battery in Sallisaw and
flew home battery-only with minimal loads backed
up by hand-held. A no-sweat trip.
Your b-lead protection would do well to emulate
Beech and many others by switching to current
limiters (VERY robust fuses) on the firewall.
These DO NOT nuisance trip but will perform
intended functions for shorted diodes.
In spite of this level of robustness, there are
still many things that can take the alternator down
that a pilot is ill-advised to mess with while
in flight. Plans-B, C and even D outweigh a box
full of tools any day.
See Chapters 10 and 17 in the 'Connection. Also
articles at:
http://tinyurl.com/mpdjsef
http://tinyurl.com/mthp9u4
http://tinyurl.com/nxgdccs
http://tinyurl.com/7lhbbah
This table (Figure 11-2) really sets the allowable voltage drop over
the length of the wire. In a circuit where wire size is dominated by
current carrying capacity like the relatively short alternator wire,
this table doesn't dictate wire size. If the alternator is mounted on
the front of the engine, it could be 8-12 wire feet to get to the
circuit protection device and another 4-6 wire feet to get back to
the battery side of the starter contactor. Worst case that's between
12' and 20' and of wire (always use the next line up on the chart)
and that says an 8 AWG wire. Then is it an 8 AWG or a 6 AWG? Depends
on the thermal rating of the wire.
Circuit protection is classically installed as
close to the source of hazardous energy as practical. In
the case of the canard pusher with front mounted
battery, the current limiter would be mounted as
close to the starter contactor as practical and
the starter feeder used to take alternator energy
forward to the battery and bus structure.
Every "must" and "shall" in FAR23.1357 is easily
put to bed by well considered, failure tolerant
design. The most powerful failure tolerant design
goal says, "No single item in the electrical system
is necessary for me to comfortably terminate flight
at airport of intended destination without breaking
a sweat (or punching a circuit breaker back in)."
Too many stories like this have graced the pages
of the flying-rags . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kqo7jx8
. . .and for the most part, serve to illustrate how
little most pilots know about how their airplane's
systems really work. The sad thing is that the vast
majority of these stories should have played out
much differently . . . were in fact so ho-hum that
it wasn't worth writing for the magazine.
This my friends is what the 'Connection and these
forums are all about . . . A quest for ho-hum flying
where the most exciting features of a flight are
fantastic scenes viewed out the window.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
Damn Bob, you're so right! Why didn't I suggest that. Just charge the batter
y at every stop and do away with the alternator all together. :)
By the way, a 15 minute overload in the Cherokee probably falls outside the d
efinition of a "Nuisance Trip". And if you'd opened the breaker on the input
to the regulator you probably would have been able to reset the Over Voltag
e Protection circuit in the regulator and get the alternator back on line. J
ust a guess that when the output breaker opened the output voltage spiked an
d the OVP latched. Have to remove all the power to it to get it to reset. Bu
t you probably knew that.
You're right I did miss the pusher configuration part. You da man!
Bill
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:42 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
> Excellent point. But with that configuration, it doesn't make sense to put
the starter contactor on the firewall because I'll still need to run the al
ternator wire all the way up to the front anyway. I was planning on an ANL5
0 for protection.
>
> Why? Did I miss something in the deliberations?
>
> I'd put the starter contactor as close to where the other loads are as pos
sible. If you have the battery in the back for W&B considerations you're goi
ng to have to run a heavy gauge cable to the starter in the front. Put the c
ontactor on the firewall then everything gets to take advantage of this big h
eavy wire when you're not cranking.
>
> Okay, refresh my memory. I thought we were talking
> about a canard pusher with battery in nose.
>
> I realize that you aren't required to build to Part 23 standards but some o
f them do make sense. Part 23 requires that circuit protection devices for l
oads critical to safety of flight be resettable or replaceable by the flight
crew while in flight. What stuff are you powering with the alternator you'd
like to have if you're flying VFR on top at night over Nevada somewhere? Ho
w would you fly and replace an NL50 fuse? Where would you put it so it would
be handy? Carrying a spare NL50? That's required too (in Part 23).
>
> Actually it is not. The relevant paragraph is here:
>
> Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
> (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
> installed in all electrical circuits other than--
>
> (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
> (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
>
> (b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not b
e
> used to protect any other circuit.
> (c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
> the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must
be
> designed so that--
>
> (1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
> (2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
> circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
>
> (d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
> essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
> located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
> (e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
>
> (1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
> each rating, whichever is greater; and
> (2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
>
>
> 1357.d speaks to 'essential to safety in flight' . . . okay suppose
> you have a breaker that protects the only radio on the panel and you'
re
> anticipating a launch into the murk. How many things in that radio ca
n
> 'break' and render the radio inop? Don't know but you can bet it's a b
unch.
> What is the likelihood that ANY kind of radio killing event will caus
e
> the breaker to operate yet be 'clear' in some manner that allows the b
reaker
> to be reset?
>
> Once a circuit protective device operates, the very high probability
> assumption is that the powered device is no longer available
> irrespective of root cause for the trip. At the same time, a
> tripped breaker suggests that the device did it's job to prevent
> electrically induced fire or wire damage. Once the breaker or fuse
> has operated, do you really want to give it a second chance of
> doing more damage?
>
> Pilots in the big iron birds are told to leave popped breakers
> alone . . . but if you're feeling lucky . . . reset one time only.
>
> Failure tolerant design goals say that probability for comfortable
> termination of flight is greatly enhanced if EVERY device
> has a no-sweat backup. This includes the alternator. This
> is the operating philosophy that birthed the e-bus about 20 years
> ago. It's the philosophy that birthed Z-13/8 shortly thereafter.
> That same philosophy is satisfied by having battery powered hand-held
s
> in the flight bag.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
>
> In other words, with careful management of known energy
> requirements, it's no big deal to have greater electrical
> endurance than fuel endurance. Hence, all things electric are
> relieved of their sweat-breaking criticality and there's no
> good reason to fiddle with any circuit progective device
> in flight.
>
> Yes, you're right. It's probably safer to design the alternator circuit fo
r continuous duty. If you design to Part 23 your loads should never exceed 8
0% of generating capacity. This was really hard to do before there were LED a
nd HID landing lights. Old tube radios really wolfed down the juice too.
>
> The 80% rule was never intended to de-rate an
> engine driven power source. It was intended to
> wall off head-room for battery recharge in
> some nominal period of time after takeoff . . .
> no hard numbers here but 60-90 minutes has been
> the rule of thumb . . . and is obviously driven
> by the sized of the battery.
>
> In fact, it's the dead-battery recharge scenario
> that drove a number tense events for pilots. I've
> often referred to the type-certificated, 60A B-lead
> breaker on tens of thousands of airplanes fitted with
> 60A alternators as, "the breaker designed to nuisance trip."
>
> A cold alternator recharging a dead battery will
> put out significantly more than its nameplate rating.
> I jump started a Cherokee 140 out of 1K1 and about
> 15 minutes out, the panel went black. B-lead breaker
> was popped but resetting it did not bring the alternator
> back. I'm guessing that the alternator load-dump
> zorked something.
>
> In any case, I finished the leg on hand-helds,
> put a charger on the battery in Sallisaw and
> flew home battery-only with minimal loads backed
> up by hand-held. A no-sweat trip.
>
> Your b-lead protection would do well to emulate
> Beech and many others by switching to current
> limiters (VERY robust fuses) on the firewall.
> These DO NOT nuisance trip but will perform
> intended functions for shorted diodes.
>
> In spite of this level of robustness, there are
> still many things that can take the alternator down
> that a pilot is ill-advised to mess with while
> in flight. Plans-B, C and even D outweigh a box
> full of tools any day.
>
> See Chapters 10 and 17 in the 'Connection. Also
> articles at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mpdjsef
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mthp9u4
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nxgdccs
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7lhbbah
>
>
> This table (Figure 11-2) really sets the allowable voltage drop over the l
ength of the wire. In a circuit where wire size is dominated by current carr
ying capacity like the relatively short alternator wire, this table doesn't d
ictate wire size. If the alternator is mounted on the front of the engine, i
t could be 8-12 wire feet to get to the circuit protection device and anothe
r 4-6 wire feet to get back to the battery side of the starter contactor. Wo
rst case that's between 12' and 20' and of wire (always use the next line up
on the chart) and that says an 8 AWG wire. Then is it an 8 AWG or a 6 AWG? D
epends on the thermal rating of the wire.
>
> Circuit protection is classically installed as
> close to the source of hazardous energy as practical. In
> the case of the canard pusher with front mounted
> battery, the current limiter would be mounted as
> close to the starter contactor as practical and
> the starter feeder used to take alternator energy
> forward to the battery and bus structure.
>
> Every "must" and "shall" in FAR23.1357 is easily
> put to bed by well considered, failure tolerant
> design. The most powerful failure tolerant design
> goal says, "No single item in the electrical system
> is necessary for me to comfortably terminate flight
> at airport of intended destination without breaking
> a sweat (or punching a circuit breaker back in)."
>
> Too many stories like this have graced the pages
> of the flying-rags . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kqo7jx8
>
> . . .and for the most part, serve to illustrate how
> little most pilots know about how their airplane's
> systems really work. The sad thing is that the vast
> majority of these stories should have played out
> much differently . . . were in fact so ho-hum that
> it wasn't worth writing for the magazine.
>
> This my friends is what the 'Connection and these
> forums are all about . . . A quest for ho-hum flying
> where the most exciting features of a flight are
> fantastic scenes viewed out the window.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | twitching gauge needles. |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
a few weeks ago i posted about a friend with gauges that wouldn't hold
still. as was suggested, when he put in a proper ground from battery to
engine, his problems disappeared.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: twitching gauge needles. |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
That's great news! Bob's espousal of the common ground prevents or cures a
multitude of aeroplane electrical sins.
Happy flying!
James
On 30 July 2013 11:52, bob noffs wrote:
> a few weeks ago i posted about a friend with gauges that wouldn't hold
> still. as was suggested, when he put in a proper ground from battery to
> engine, his problems disappeared.
> bob noffs
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
At 01:42 AM 7/30/2013, you wrote:
>Damn Bob, you're so right! Why didn't I suggest that. Just charge
>the battery at every stop and do away with the alternator all together. :)
>
>By the way, a 15 minute overload in the Cherokee probably falls
>outside the definition of a "Nuisance Trip".
I defined nuisance trip as a behavior in response to
an expected, normal condition.
>And if you'd opened the breaker on the input to the regulator you
>probably would have been able to reset the Over Voltage Protection
>circuit in the regulator and get the alternator back on line. Just a
>guess that when the output breaker opened the output voltage spiked
>and the OVP latched. Have to remove all the power to it to get it to
>reset. But you probably knew that.
Tried that. This event 'killed' something. It was before
I owned the airport so I wasn't 'plugged in' to failure
analysis and repairs needed to restore the system.
Too many of our brothers in the heavier iron business
believed that 60A nameplate rating for an alternator
was a limit. Regulators for the generators replaced
by alternators featured a calibrated current limit control
relay. In this case, generator output and nameplate rating
were in lockstep.
Emacs!
An alternator is inherently current limited but at a
value dependent on temperature. The nameplate rating is
worst case for max allowable operating temperature. In
OTHER conditions, the user should expect MORE than nameplate
output.
Failure to understand this feature prompted the folks to
keep the same breaker-to-nameplate rating as for the legacy
generators thus setting the stage for the relatively rare
but significant breaker tripping in response to a predictable
and expected operating condition. This drove my recommendations
for following in Beech's footsteps and using uber-robust
current limiters for b-lead protection.
Emacs!
Note that a 35A ANL limiter will carry 80A at room
temperature for ever . . . but hit it with a shorted
diode fed by a battery and it opens in 100 mS or less.
This style of protection will not nuisance trip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: twitching gauge needles. |
At 05:52 AM 7/30/2013, you wrote:
>a few weeks ago i posted about a friend with gauges that wouldn't
>hold still. as was suggested, when he put in a proper ground from
>battery to engine, his problems disappeared.
Actually, it would have been better to take the
instrument grounds to the engine and leave the battery
tied to a common firewall ground . . . but what ever
works! I'm pleased that his instruments are now
more stable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: twitching gauge needles. |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i dunno, the battery and engine/firewall were connected by the fuselege!.
bob noffs
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> At 05:52 AM 7/30/2013, you wrote:
>
>> a few weeks ago i posted about a friend with gauges that wouldn't hold
>> still. as was suggested, when he put in a proper ground from battery to
>> engine, his problems disappeared.
>>
>
> Actually, it would have been better to take the
> instrument grounds to the engine and leave the battery
> tied to a common firewall ground . . . but what ever
> works! I'm pleased that his instruments are now
> more stable.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Footwell got burned! |
| From: | "Angus" <abel9165(at)outlook.com> |
loll fucking ugly chink girl got burned in the face from her chink boyfriend.
loll japan sucks ass
--------
http://www.rctophobby.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405689#405689
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | B-lead protection |
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
I'm finishing the wiring in my safari helicopter and need some advice re B-lead
ANL or fuse. I'm using the skytec starter with built in solenoid with about
3 feet of number 2 wire going from the starter to the master contactor. I'm using
a tractor style push-button starter switch and an externally regulated 40a
alternator. Since I have no external starter contactor, do I need to run the
B-lead from the alternator via a fuse to the master contactor or can I run it
the much shorter length between the alternator and starter? If the former, I
could mount the ANL holder on the firewall but I would have three fat wires (starter,
B-lead and main bus) bolted to the master contactor. If I can just connect
the alternator to the starter lead I can use an inline fuse holder. My questions
are:
1. Where do I put the B-lead and fuse/ANL?
2. What size wire for the B-lead?
3. What size fuse/ANL?
4. Do I need to put a diode across the starter button and if so, which one and
in what direction?
Thanks!
Allan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B-lead protection |
At 08:42 AM 7/31/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm finishing the wiring in my safari helicopter and need some
>advice re B-lead ANL or fuse. I'm using the skytec starter with
>built in solenoid with about 3 feet of number 2 wire going from the
>starter to the master contactor.
#2 is possibly overkill, #4 would certainly suffice
for your battery/starter wiring.
>Since I have no external starter contactor, do I need to run the B-lead
>from the alternator via a fuse to the master contactor or can I run it
>the much shorter length between the alternator and starter?
Take it to the starter.
>1. Where do I put the B-lead and fuse/ANL?
As close as practical to the starter but if
the fuse ends up in the middle of the wire run,
it's no big deal.
>2. What size wire for the B-lead?
8AWG is fine for 40A alternator.
>3. What size fuse/ANL?
I see Walmart is offering this fuse
in a 30A, which is plenty robust for
your alternator.
http://tinyurl.com/l6qbxsc
This is a miniature fuse for which you
can fabricate your own holder from a piece
of phenolic and some screws, nuts and washers
from the hardware store.
>4. Do I need to put a diode across the starter button
>and if so, which one and in what direction?
Not ACROSS the button but from contactor side
of button to ground. Cathode connected to pushbutton,
anode to ground. Any of the 1N5400 series diodes
from Radio Shack are find. See:
http://tinyurl.com/l65nqnw
There was an AD issued against the ACS key-switch
some years back that put a diode across the switch . . .
completely ineffective.
http://tinyurl.com/l6qbxsc
Diode needs to wire across
the solenoid coil either at the switch as described
or on the contactor (probably not as convenient but
if you can put it there, that's good too.)
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B-lead protection |
>
>2. What size wire for the B-lead?
>3. What size fuse/ANL?
Here's a 40A MIDI style stocked by Digikey
http://tinyurl.com/mpudgxu
and a holder like this
Emacs!
To mount it can be found here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kcbyc79
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
Where would I find the FAA definition of "circuit essential to flight
safety"?
Thanks, -john-
(get'n close to inspection)
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe
.
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be
used to protect any other circuit. .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
At 03:45 PM 7/31/2013, you wrote:
>Where would I find the FAA definition of "circuit essential to flight safety"?
There is no such definition that I know of. It's one
of those catch-all phrases that will be addressed
by the certification test plan for each airplane.
I wrote the cert test plan for the GP-180's electrical
system. We took each paragraph of the applicable FARS
and spoke to how requirements of that paragraph were
to be addressed. It's been almost 30 years but as I
recall, there were no circuits (or associated protective
devices) that were essential to flight safety. In
other words, any single circuit who's failure would
put the airframe at risk had (1) immediate notification
to crew that a failure had occurred and (2) a back-up
plan for that condition.
The idea that being able to reset a breaker for some
circuit that put the airplane at risk simply wasn't
a consideration. If a breaker trips, that system
is off line for the duration of the flight and
prudent design called for making such circuits
un-essential for comfortable termination of the
flight.
Failure tolerant design drives risks to insignificant
probability without having to prove 10-to-the-
minus-9 failure rates . . . the probability of
dual failures for 10-to-the-minus-4, 5 or 6
rates within an operating window of a single
tank of fuel is exceedingly small. Hence the
statement for identifying "circuits essential to
flight safety" have been moot for decades. Well
crafted machines have no such circuits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Ventura <ventura(at)brandeis.edu> |
| Subject: | Navman Fuel Flow Meter |
This is a post I made on one of the canard lists a couple months ago. I
got no response
there, so I thought someone here might have some information. First a
July 07, 2013 - August 01, 2013
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-lv