AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mc
November 23, 2013 - December 07, 2013
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com/>
ank">www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com/>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
tp://forums.matronics.com
href=
"http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
href=
"http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
href=
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
href=
"http://www.mypilotstore.com/">www.mypilotstore.com
<http://www.mypilotstore.com>
href= "http://www.mrrace.com/">www.mrrace.com
<http://www.mrrace.com>
href=
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
href=
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
href=
"http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Hi Bill
Watson,
Did Abby do the glare shield cover
? Does
it keep up well or have you had any issues with it
??
Jan
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: 23 November 2013
17:57
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re:
AeroElectric-List:
panel colour?
FWIW, I painted my RV10 panel a light
brown/tan to
match the rest of my interior. It was a high gloss
polyurethane. No
regrets with the paint, gloss or color after 350 hours. including
plenty of IFR
work.
My panel is mostly glass panel, lit screens and lit rockers. My
eye
comfort and performance seems to exclusively be a product of
screen
quality and and their brightness (especially at night).
I'll attempt to attach a pic of the panel (with plenty of glare from
the
flash). Assuming the pic comes thru as intended, I'd add that the
only
regret I have about the panel is placement of the center EFIS screen
(they are
GRT HXs). I should have put the left and center EFIS close
together. The distance between the two screens makes it
uncomfortable to
use the center EFIS as a moving map. Instead I have to split my
left hand
unit to get a PFD and moving map on the same screen.
Bill "still needing to replace stuck on labels with permanent
ones"
Watson
On 11/23/2013 9:28 AM, rayj wrote:
Thanks for the info. I assume it was in a
flat
finish. Do you know what color and size text was used for
labeling?
I assume they did research to determine what what was
best, no
reason to reinvent the wheel.
Raymond
JulianKettle River,
MN.
"And you know that I could have me a
million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of
view." - John Prine
On 11/23/2013 07:37 AM, Robert Borger
wrote:
RayJ,
The USAF used that 18% neutral grey, or
maybe a bit
lighter, in all the aircraft I was associated with while I was in.
I
believe the US Navy uses the same or a similar grey. Don’t
know
about the US Army.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob
Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax
914, Airmaster C/S
Prop.
Little Toot Sport
Biplane, Lycoming
Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth,
TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
<
b>
<
b>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Well Put OC,
But I expect that from you!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 11/23/2013 11:40:04 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): =9CWhy a chill?=9D
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC
approval for experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual
builder can only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur
building that could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that
you were asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built
aircraft built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 813
0.2G
the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness
Certificate of that aircraft, will state:
=9C(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriate
ly
equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.205, this air
craft
is to be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR =C2
=A7
91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR
part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the
aircraft logbook and
maintenance records.=9D
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate
equipment referred to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required
part of
the initial airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built
aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not
the aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate
requirements of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement.
Please see the attachment for further explanation and let me know if you ha
ve
any questions. Thanks.
==============
From: _Bill Allen_ (mailto:billallensworld(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<> I had presumed, perhaps
erroneously, that this was a UK aircraft
Bill
=======
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker <_bakerocb(at)cox.net_
(mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net) > wrote:
11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: =9CIs this the RV for which you're appl
ying for
your IMC approval?=9D
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an
experimental amateur built airplane that is being built in the United Stat
es of
America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
=======
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <_billallensworld(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:billallensworld(at)gmail.com) >
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rd2(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
What is more, OC , and all, (please correct, if wrong) it does not appear, nor
am I aware of any IFR approval or certification even for certified AC. Certified
AC do not (have to) come IFR capable. IFR flights and/or IFR filing for any
AC are legal as long as the AC meets the IFR required equipment requirements
and testing (monthly VOR test, current GPS data bases, 24 months pitot-static
and transponder, etc.). The IFR required equipment may have been installed initially
or much later and is not part of the AW cert. I wasnt aware that this needs
to be applied for for OBAM, if true.
Rumen
---- Owen Baker wrote:
============
11/23/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote (see copied below): Why a chill?
A chill because there is no such thing as applying for IFR or IMC approval for
experimental amateur built aircraft in the USA.**
Any attempt to obtain such approval from the FAA by some individual builder can
only lead to confusion and intrusion into an aspect of amateur building that
could do significant harm to our community.
Can we obtain further information on the provenance of the airplane that you were
asking about?
Thanks,
OC
**PS: Here is how the IFR capability of an experimental amateur built aircraft
built and certificated in the USA is resolved: Per FAA Order 8130.2G the Operating
Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate of
that aircraft, will state:
(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR 91.205, this aircraft is to
be operated under
VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR 91.205
must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part
91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook
and
maintenance records.
Note that:
A) Passing an inspection or obtaining approval for the appropriate equipment referred
to above in the Operating Limitations is not a required part of the initial
airworthiness inspection of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
B) The builder / operator / pilot is the one who determines whether or not the
aircraft is appropriately equipped after referring to the appropriate requirements
of 14 CFR Part 91. There are some caveats to this statement. Please see the
attachment for further explanation and let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
==============
From: Bill Allen
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: IMC Approval?
Hi OC,
you wrote; << This question sent a chill up my spine > Why a chill?
<> I had presumed, perhaps erroneously, that
this was a UK aircraft
Bill
=======
On 23 November 2013 14:05, Owen Baker wrote:
11/23/2013
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: Is this the RV for which you're applying for your
IMC approval?
This question sent a chill up my spine. Are you asking about an experimental
amateur built airplane that is being built in the United States of America?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and
understand information."
=======
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: panel colour?
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com>
Yes, this is the shade I'll go with too.
Is this the RV for which you're applying for your IMC approval?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin G3X Autopliot Auto Trim with Big Trim Motor |
| From: | "tfarrell839" <tim(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
let's try this. HEre's a link:
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/docs/Garmin%20Suggestion.png
Tim
--------
Tim Farrell
Aircrafters
831-722-9141
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413889#413889
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Good Afternoon Owen,
One small potential clarification, though it may not be needed. You mention
the necessity for "current GPS databases". May just be semantics, but the
entire database is not required to be current, just the data being used.
If you are flying with an out dated card, but find that the data in the
card you have is current for the function you wish to use, you can fly IFR
with an out of date data card. That can be handy when you are away from h
ome
and the new datacard is not available. That provision can also be utilized
to fly IFR with some older GPS sets where the new databases are no longer
available. Pretty limiting most of the time, but the basis for using
current data that is on an outdated datacard was clarified in the AIM in 2
010.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park
Downers Grove, IL
In a message dated 11/23/2013 1:43:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2(at)dejazzd.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
What is more, OC , and all, (please correct, if wrong) it does not appear,
nor am I aware of any IFR =9Capproval=9D or =9Ccertifica
tion=9D even for
certified AC. Certified AC do not (have to) come IFR =9Ccapable
=9D. IFR flights
and/or IFR filing for any AC are legal as long as the AC meets the IFR req
uired
equipment requirements and testing (monthly VOR test, current GPS data
bases, 24 months pitot-static and transponder, etc.). The IFR required
equipment may have been installed initially or much later and is not part
of the AW
cert. I wasn=99t aware that this needs to be applied for for OBAM, i
f true.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: panel colour? |
Yes she did. I keeps up well with no visible signs of wear but I don't
think much of the glare shield design in general. It's a padded or
insulated fabric cover that stays comfortable to the touch. It doesn't
create any distracting reflections on the windshield. It fits but it
always seems a bit sloppy.
Personally, I pay no attention to it and it's faded into my mental
background, which is a good thing. If I knew how to fabricate a well
functioning but better looking glare shield, I'd probably not order that
piece from Abby and do my own. But I don't have a clue. I couldn't
even list the functional requirements for the piece.
Bill
On 11/23/2013 1:52 PM, jan wrote:
>
> Hi Bill Watson,
>
> Did Abby do the glare shield cover ? Does it keep up well or have you
> had any issues with it ??
>
> Jan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Bill Watson
> *Sent:* 23 November 2013 17:57
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: panel colour?
>
> FWIW, I painted my RV10 panel a light brown/tan to match the rest of
> my interior. It was a high gloss polyurethane. No regrets with the
> paint, gloss or color after 350 hours. including plenty of IFR work.
>
> My panel is mostly glass panel, lit screens and lit rockers. My eye
> comfort and performance seems to exclusively be a product of screen
> quality and and their brightness (especially at night).
>
> I'll attempt to attach a pic of the panel (with plenty of glare from
> the flash). Assuming the pic comes thru as intended, I'd add that the
> only regret I have about the panel is placement of the center EFIS
> screen (they are GRT HXs). I should have put the left and center EFIS
> close together. The distance between the two screens makes it
> uncomfortable to use the center EFIS as a moving map. Instead I have
> to split my left hand unit to get a PFD and moving map on the same
> screen.
>
> Bill "still needing to replace stuck on labels with permanent ones" Watson
>
> On 11/23/2013 9:28 AM, rayj wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I assume it was in a flat finish. Do you know
>> what color and size text was used for labeling? I assume they did
>> research to determine what what was best, no reason to reinvent the
>> wheel.
>>
>> Raymond Julian
>> Kettle River,MN.
>>
>> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
>> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>>
>> On 11/23/2013 07:37 AM, Robert Borger wrote:
>>
>>> RayJ,
>>>
>>> The USAF used that 18% neutral grey, or maybe a bit lighter, in all
>>> the aircraft I was associated with while I was in. I believe the US
>>> Navy uses the same or a similar grey. Don't know about the US Army.
>>>
>>> Blue skies & tailwinds,
>>> Bob Borger
>>> Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
>>> Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
>>> 3705 Lynchburg Dr.
>>> Corinth, TX 76208-5331
>>> Cel: 817-992-1117
>>> rlborger(at)mac.com
>>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2013, at 7:06 AM, rayj >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what color the military, any military, use in their
>>> cockpits?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Raymond Julian
>>> Kettle River,MN.
>>>
>>> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
>>> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>>>
>>> On 11/22/2013 12:16 PM, Bill Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jan - it's a color I was thinking of.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On 22 November 2013 17:47, jan >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>> In Europe for wet paint (or power for that matter) we use a lot of
>>>> RAL colour codes ... You can Google it ... Here is one that I like ..
>>>>
>>>> RAL 7031
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>> ] *On Behalf
>>>> Of *Bill Allen
>>>> *Sent:* 22 November 2013 12:17
>>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: panel colour?
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I've just finished a new panel (aluminium) for a LongEz and I have
>>>> to decide what colour to paint it. I know it's not strictly an
>>>> electrical decision, but in terms of it being the visual pinnacle
>>>> of all the electrical work behind it, I want a colour that works
>>>> ergonomically and aesthetically.
>>>>
>>>> I'm leaning towards something other than black, but something too
>>>> colourful. Perhaps a charcoal blue?
>>>>
>>>> Any advice?
>>>>
>>>> Bill Allen
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>> * *
>>>> *www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>*
>>>> *www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com/>*
>>>> *www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>*
>>>> *www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com/>*
>>>> *www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com/>*
>>>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>>>> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>>>> * *
>>>> * *
>>>> *_blank">www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>*
>>>> *.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com/>*
>>>> *="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>*
>>>> *="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com/>*
>>>> *ank">www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com/>*
>>>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>>> *ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>>>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> *href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/" >www.aeroelectric.com *
>>> *href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/" >www.buildersbooks.com *
>>> *href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/" >www.homebuilthelp.com *
>>> *href="http://www.mypilotstore.com/" >www.mypilotstore.com *
>>> *href="http://www.mrrace.com/" >www.mrrace.com *
>>> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" >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*
>>>
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression |
How the hell did you figure that out? (did it require sacrificing a
chicken or a deal with the devil? -- or was it Divine
Inspiration?) Sometimes I have to chase down some pretty hairy bugs
in software but that arcing problem would have kept me up at night.
I don't think I lost any sleep over it but it WAS
an interesting study. The really buggy thing about it
was the tiny amount of damage to contacts that were
sticking. This was a really low energy event with some
magic signature as yet un-identified.
Emacs!
The hardest part of the study was to get the problem
to duplicate on the bench. All the relay suppliers
were stumped. I worked on it for about a year and
a half (part time . . . skunk werks in my basement)
and getting a lot of inconclusive measurements off
the airplane before I decided to try duplicating the
wiring in the airplane. THEN things started to happen.
http://tinyurl.com/pstsggm
After that, it was a matter of sifting the physics. Even
after I began to get the relays to stick on the bench,
it was probably another several months before I was
able to put all the pieces together. These kinds
of things seldom jump off the bench and into your
lap.
>Zeners:
>
>Others have suggested the use of a bi-directional Zener. What is
>the benefit, either theoretical or actual, of using such a
>device? I'm not clear on what benefit the Zener provides nor do I
>understand what bi-directional buys you.
>
>(In your answer please speak slowly and use small words;)
Emacs!
The 'plain vanilla' approach (A) clamps the coil collapse
EMF off at about 1/2 volt (junction drop of the simple
diode). Time constant for current in an inductor is T = L/R.
Effective R of simple diode+coil is lowest; hence T is longest.
A single zener can be added to raise clamping voltage to
a higher level and raising the L/R time constant.
To make this work, the zener wants to be reverse biased
during spike time. A diode must be included to prevent
the zener from being forward biased when the relay is
energized as in (B).
Any time (A) or (B) is built into the suppressed
device, the coil terminals become polarity sensitive.
and (+) terminal must be marked and observed by the
installer.
In (C) we see two zeners back to back. In this case,
spike energy is clamped off at the same voltage but
the network can be included inside the device without
having to observe polarity of coil connections.
You can purchase two-junction transient suppressors
as 'bi-directional' devices.
http://tinyurl.com/kobtg8o
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin G3X Autopliot Auto Trim with Big Trim |
Motor
At 02:47 PM 11/23/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>let's try this. HEre's a link:
>
>http://www.aircraftersllc.com/docs/Garmin%20Suggestion.png
Hmmmm . . . you need to know the nature of Gramin's
PWM philosophy.
NORMALLY . . . pwm means applying a consistent voltage
to a motor where duty cycle is adjusted to move the
motor at any speed from zero to max.
But in systems like the Beechjet (BIG motors with
brakes on them) one cannot get slow, steady motion
from the motor by fooling it into believing that
the supply voltage has dropped. These systems accomplish
precise control by PULSING the motor at full voltage
with varying lengths of time.
I did a study on Beechjets to characterize pitch
trim performance at Mach cruise to see how short
the pulses could be and STILL move the trim system
but not so long as to be noticed by passengers and
crew in the seat of their pants.
Turns out 133 mS was the 'magic' number. If you're
going to control your high current motor through
relays, then you are most definitely limited to
a full-voltage pulsed mode as opposed to the variable
duty cycle so-motion mode.
Question: Does the Garmin system really work in the
PWM mode or PULSED mode?
This can be done with relays . . . having very fast
response times. This might be a case for installing
the zener-based coil suppression. But the ideal
buffer will be solid state. This raises the questions
I cited earlier about prophylactic measures against
unintended motion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build
standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has
regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built
aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for
around 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6
years to change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to
guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has
been made for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK
amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from
a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR &
night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various
articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
reliability of various installed components and systems - I can
provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Bannister <jaybannist(at)cs.com> |
Bob,
That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition Switch.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
As it was my email that generated the response from Owen, I replied to him
and copied in the list. However, it didn't get appear, so here it is again
in case he thought I was ignoring him;
Hi Owen,
I think the confusion has arisen because my original email was for input on
panel colors. I received much useful advice, including pictures. Panels
don't always give any clue as to the provenance of the aircraft, but the
picture alluded to in the email which "sent a chill" was from a fellow Brit.
I'm based in the UK and the USA.
In the USA I have a LongEz which I built & flew over, and migrated it from
the UK to the US register, so I am intimately acquainted with the process -
(or was in 2005 :^))
The above fellow Brit is part of a group negotiating with our CAA to remove
the burdensome "Day VFR only" restriction on homebuilts which operate in a
category known here as "Permit to Fly" - so my question to him was asking
if this was the panel he was taking forward in his negotiations (in the UK)
So no problem will be created with the FAA, and even if someone did
approach that request in such a naive manner, I'm sure that they would soon
realise that "permission" is not needed under US Experimental categories,
and even if they didn't, it would not negate the existing legal pathway.
It's a complex system over in Europe, with every country having varying
rules and regulations. You guys in the USA enjoy aviation freedoms which I
hope you all appreciate and protect.
best,
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
LongEz Diesel G-LEZE EGBJ
www.longezediesel.com
PS: maybe it was the way I spelt "color" that made you think I was in the
US :^)
On 24 November 2013 19:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
> aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and
> in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
> different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to
> day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
> on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
> progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and
> risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
> individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night,
> but it is far from a done deal.
>
> So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is
> a big deal.
>
> To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved
> for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23
> (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed
> components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required,
> but it is very, very boring.
>
> Peter
>
>
> . . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
> of the human condition. People naturally strive to
> advance the state of any art that produces benefit
> to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
> examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
> all walks of life and range of endeavors.
>
> A second class of individual emerges when you give a
> person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
> share, technologies they do not practice, and
> rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
> demand for their product. They too believe that
> they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
> make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
> progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
> irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
>
> The problem is that those returns must be
> acquired from someplace, usually from those
> who earned it by being a practicing participant
> in the first class of individuals. The second
> class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
> individuals of the first class who must promote
> their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
>
> In some societies, the forms of extortion are
> openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
> would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
> But the most crafty of despots get themselves
> elected or appointed to high office and they
> call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
> other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
> less violent but no less effective . . .
>
> Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
> advances the state of their particular art, we
> can be certain that in the absence of well
> administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
> into one's fundamental right to be left alone
> may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
> it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
> and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
> have to produce anything of value for a living.
>
> I have been an inside witness to growth in
> the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
> who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
> years. I can recall no instance wherein some
> intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
> been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
> it's still growing. I judge that over half
> the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
> of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
> the thrashing of great piles of paper.
>
> I support that argument with the following observation:
> When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
> bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
> stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
> good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
> Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
> today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
> and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
>
> The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
> effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
> similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
> What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
>
> Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
> 2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
> to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
> Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
> politics into the discussion, I suggest that
> there is nothing political about it. If you see
> two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
> it matter that they are members of any particular
> faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
> somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
> on the person or property of another individual
> without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
> one individual on the liberty of another . . .
> or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
> another.
>
> Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
> are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
> least the citizen knows the source from which
> his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
> of our arts by the work-product of millions
> in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
> to worry about something or another . . . and
> using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
>
> It's been hat-danced around here on the List
> often and usually discouraged by excited
> prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
> suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
> fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
> numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
> the speed of light.
>
> It follows then that being attentive to the protection
> or destruction of liberty is no more political
> than finding out why some relay contacts were
> sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
>
> I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
> dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
> restrict their freedoms to build and fly
> perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
> that are probably less risky than those
> produced in paper-bloated factories.
>
> Present trends plotted into the future suggest
> that it's a condition that we too will face
> in the not too distant future . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition switch |
At 11:37 AM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition Switch.
>
>Jay
>
Interesting. I wonder what the -2 means.
Does anyone on the List have an ACS510-2
keyswitch on hand that is not installed?
I'd sure like to put my hands on it to
see if my published data needs to be
updated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression |
Bob,=0A=0AThe Zener clamps the flyback voltage at a point higher than a pla
in vanilla diode - got it.- And the double Zener makes for a polarity in-
sensitive circuit.- That's what I figured but it seemed trivial.- I gue
ss it makes for fewer installation errors??=0A=0AI have attached a spec she
et for a Tyco power relay.- In the lower right hand corner of the first p
age is a wiring diagram.- In that diagram, the lower diode seems superflu
ous to me - so I'm obviously missing something...=0A=0AOK, just figured it
out.- The second (lower) diode is for reverse current protection. In case
someone hooks it up backwards it won't pop the other diode - it just won't
work.- (I was going to delete this paragraph, but decided to leave it be
cause someone else might have the same question)=0A=0A=0ABob, thanks for ta
king the time to explain - it's truly appreciated.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A__
______________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls
.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Satur
day, November 23 -, 2013 2:09 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A clarif
ication on relay/contactor coil suppression=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AHow the hell d
id you figure that out? (did it require sacrificing a=0Achicken or a deal w
ith the devil? -- or was it Divine Inspiration?)-=0ASometimes I have to c
hase down some pretty hairy bugs in software but=0Athat arcing problem woul
d have kept me up at night.=0A=0A=0A-- I don't think I lost any sleep o
ver it but it WAS=0A-- an interesting study. The really buggy thing abo
ut it=0A-- was the tiny amount of damage to contacts that were=0A--
sticking. This was a really low energy event with some=0A-- magic sign
ature as yet un-identified.=0A=0A=0A=0A- The hardest part of the study wa
s to get the problem=0A- to duplicate on the bench. All the relay supplie
rs=0A- were stumped. I worked on it for about a year and=0A- a half (pa
rt time . . . skunk werks in my basement)=0A- and getting a lot of inconc
lusive measurements off=0A- the airplane before I decided to try duplicat
ing the=0A- wiring in the airplane. THEN things started to happen.=0A=0Ah
ttp://tinyurl.com/pstsggm=0A=0A=0A- After that, it was a matter of siftin
g the physics. Even=0A- after I began to get the relays to stick on the b
ench,=0A- it was probably another several months before I was=0A- able
to put all the pieces together. These kinds=0A- of things seldom jump off
the bench and into your=0A- lap.=0A=0A=0A=0AZeners:=0A>=0A>Others have s
uggested the use of a bi-directional Zener.- What is=0Athe benefit, eithe
r theoretical or actual, of using such a device?-=0AI'm not clear on what
benefit the Zener provides nor do I understand what=0Abi-directional buys
you.=0A>=0A>(In your answer please speak slowly and use small words;)=0A>
=0A=0A=0A- The 'plain vanilla' approach (A) clamps the coil collapse=0A
- EMF off at about 1/2 volt (junction drop of the simple=0A- diode). Ti
me constant for current in an inductor is T = L/R.=0A- Effective R of s
imple diode+coil is lowest; hence T is=0Alongest.=0A=0A- A single zener c
an be added to raise clamping voltage to=0A- a higher level and raising t
he L/R time constant.=0A- To make this work, the zener wants to be revers
e biased=0A- during spike time. A diode must be included to prevent=0A-
the zener from being forward biased when the relay is=0A- energized as i
n (B).=0A=0A- Any time (A) or (B) is built into the suppressed=0A- devi
ce, the coil terminals become polarity sensitive.=0A- and (+) terminal mu
st be marked and observed by the=0A- installer.=0A=0A- In (C) we see tw
o zeners back to back. In this case,=0A- spike energy is clamped off at t
he same voltage but=0A- the network can be included inside the device wit
hout=0A- having to observe polarity of coil connections.=0A=0A- You can
purchase two-junction transient suppressors=0A- as 'bi-directional' devi
ces.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/kobtg8o=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up is not just
because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and doesn't tell the
vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial price. If you tell him
it's for an airplane application, you get the aviation price.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our area. He like every
good businessman has to keep his prices in check, because after all it is
the buyer who sets the price. If he sets the price too high, he'll have very
few customers. I have gone to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he
automatically increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is
an inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft owners
are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices. Perhaps we can trace this
belief back to the government, who by increasing the regulation with reams
of paper and bureaucrats, sets the example for others to follow.
Henador Titzoff
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/24/13, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2013, 9:18 AM
The USA is fortunate that the national
regulator allows
amateur built aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of
design and
build standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the
World has
regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur
built
aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since
for around 70
years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6
years to change
that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess
the outcome. A
comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made
for a the
ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur
builts to be able
to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for
IMC/IFR &
night is a big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most
certainly
approved for these conditions by showing compliance with
various articles
of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
reliability of
various installed components and systems - I can provide
chapter &
verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental
component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . .
hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a
free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . .
.
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are
perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following
observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having
brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe
that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery
by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I
humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the
protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <m.j.gregory(at)talk21.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Bob,
I appreciate your general point about those in authority tending to
tighten
the screw more and more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be glad
to
hear that there is a glimmer of hope on this side of the Atlantic. The
UK
Civil Aviation Authority has recently proposed amending the rule which
currently deregulates single seat microlight aircraft that are under 115
kg
ready to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing loading no more than 10
kg/m=B2, so that they do not have to meet any design or inspection code,
with
the intention of allowing any single seat microlight under 300 kg (660
lbs)
to be deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading ' although to
comply
with the UK definition of microlight they would need to have a minimum
flight speed of 35 knots or less.
This may not appear as a great advance, but it is very encouraging that
the
officials involved have taken a positive and common sense approach to
the
regulation, and we hope that it will not be too long before further
changes
may increase our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night flying for
permit
aircraft ' as Peter has mentioned below.
Regards,
Mike
Dr Mike Gregory
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 24 November 2013 17:18
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards
and
in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited
to
day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety
and
risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR &
night,
but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night
is a
big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
approved
for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of
FAR23
(or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various
installed
components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is
required,
but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion
about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves
this forum away from one which is focused on answers to problems and
moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be
proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this
year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
> aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build
> standards and in operation. Much of the rest of the World has
> regulators that take a different view. In the UK all amateur built
> aircraft have been limited to day VFR operations only since for around
> 70 years. There has been an on-going effort for the last 6 years to
> change that. It is a work in progress, and is difficult to guess the
> outcome. A comprehensive safety and risk based argument has been made
> for a the ability (probably for individually approved) UK amateur
> builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night, but it is far from a done deal.
>
> So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR &
> night is a big deal.
>
> To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly
> approved for these conditions by showing compliance with various
> articles of FAR23 (or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating
> reliability of various installed components and systems - I can
> provide chapter & verse on what is required, but it is very, very boring.
>
> Peter
>
>
> . . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
> of the human condition. People naturally strive to
> advance the state of any art that produces benefit
> to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
> examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
> all walks of life and range of endeavors.
>
> A second class of individual emerges when you give a
> person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
> share, technologies they do not practice, and
> rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
> demand for their product. They too believe that
> they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
> make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
> progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
> irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
>
> The problem is that those returns must be
> acquired from someplace, usually from those
> who earned it by being a practicing participant
> in the first class of individuals. The second
> class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
> individuals of the first class who must promote
> their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
>
> In some societies, the forms of extortion are
> openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
> would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
> But the most crafty of despots get themselves
> elected or appointed to high office and they
> call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
> other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
> less violent but no less effective . . .
>
> Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
> advances the state of their particular art, we
> can be certain that in the absence of well
> administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
> into one's fundamental right to be left alone
> may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
> it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
> and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
> have to produce anything of value for a living.
>
> I have been an inside witness to growth in
> the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
> who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
> years. I can recall no instance wherein some
> intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
> been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
> it's still growing. I judge that over half
> the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
> of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
> the thrashing of great piles of paper.
>
> I support that argument with the following observation:
> When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
> bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
> stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
> good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
> Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
> today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
> and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
>
> The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
> effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
> similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
> What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
>
> Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
> 2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
> to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
> Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
> politics into the discussion, I suggest that
> there is nothing political about it. If you see
> two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
> it matter that they are members of any particular
> faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
> somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
> on the person or property of another individual
> without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
> one individual on the liberty of another . . .
> or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
> another.
>
> Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
> are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
> least the citizen knows the source from which
> his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
> of our arts by the work-product of millions
> in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
> to worry about something or another . . . and
> using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
>
> It's been hat-danced around here on the List
> often and usually discouraged by excited
> prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
> suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
> fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
> numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
> the speed of light.
>
> It follows then that being attentive to the protection
> or destruction of liberty is no more political
> than finding out why some relay contacts were
> sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
>
> I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
> dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
> restrict their freedoms to build and fly
> perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
> that are probably less risky than those
> produced in paper-bloated factories.
>
> Present trends plotted into the future suggest
> that it's a condition that we too will face
> in the not too distant future . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
Interesting you would say that, Raymond. Especially with that John Prine
quote below your signature.
Bob mostly speaks in realities, not in politics.
Bill
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rayj
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IMC Approval?
Bob,
It's your list.
I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different opinion about
what's important and how to achieve it. Adding politics moves this forum
away from one which is focused on answers to problems and moves it to one of
one opinion vs. another, where no real answers can be proven.
Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier this
year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 11/24/2013 11:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
The USA is fortunate that the national regulator allows amateur built
aircraft a great deal of freedom in terms of design and build standards and
in operation. Much of the rest of the World has regulators that take a
different view. In the UK all amateur built aircraft have been limited to
day VFR operations only since for around 70 years. There has been an
on-going effort for the last 6 years to change that. It is a work in
progress, and is difficult to guess the outcome. A comprehensive safety and
risk based argument has been made for a the ability (probably for
individually approved) UK amateur builts to be able to fly IMC/IFR & night,
but it is far from a done deal.
So in most of the World outside of the USA approval for IMC/IFR & night is a
big deal.
To correct an earlier post, certified aircraft are most certainly approved
for these conditions by showing compliance with various articles of FAR23
(or CS23). This is mostly by demonstrating reliability of various installed
components and systems - I can provide chapter & verse on what is required,
but it is very, very boring.
Peter
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 01:17 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>It's your list.
>
>I hope we can keep politics off it. Every one has a different
>opinion about what's important and how to achieve it. Adding
>politics moves this forum away from one which is focused on answers
>to problems and moves it to one of one opinion vs. another, where no
>real answers can be proven.
>
>Please take the time to set up the list you were discussing earlier
>this year and keep this forum for solutions based on verifiable science.
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 12:52 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I appreciate your general point about those in
>authority tending to tighten the screw more and
>more to restrict our freedoms, but you will be
>glad to hear that there is a glimmer of hope on
>this side of the Atlantic. The UK Civil Aviation
>Authority has recently proposed amending the
>rule which currently deregulates single seat
>microlight aircraft that are under 115 kg ready
>to fly less fuel and pilot and have a wing
>loading no more than 10 kg/m, so that they do
>not have to meet any design or inspection code,
>with the intention of allowing any single seat
>microlight under 300 kg (660 lbs) to be
>deregulated, with no restriction on wing loading
> although to comply with the UK definition of
>microlight they would need to have a minimum flight speed of 35 knots or less.
>
>This may not appear as a great advance, but it
>is very encouraging that the officials involved
>have taken a positive and common sense approach
>to the regulation, and we hope that it will not
>be too long before further changes may increase
>our freedoms, perhaps allowing IMC and night
>flying for permit aircraft as Peter has mentioned below.
Cool. There was a similar move on this side of the
pond for a new class of light aircraft including
a 'sport pilot' certification to fly them. To be
sure these are welcomed expansions of freedoms.
We need to take care lest the small victories be
celebrated so loudly that the underlying growth
of bureaucracy and rule making goes unnoticed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A clarification on relay/contactor coil suppression |
>OK, just figured it out. The second (lower) diode is for reverse
>current protection. In case someone hooks it up backwards it won't
>pop the other diode - it just won't work. (I was going to delete
>this paragraph, but decided to leave it because someone else might
>have the same question)
Excellent supposition! It's always a challenge
to reverse-guess the motives of the designer when
you discover such features that are not explained
in the catalong. Your idea sounds more plausible
than the first thing that popped into my head:
A few months ago I was digging through a relay
catalog and found a similar circuit for a relay
with an AC coil rating. In this case, the series diode
provided half-wave rectification while the parallel
diode offered a purposeful delay of dropout between
half cycles.
In the case of 60HZ AC, the relay inductance gets
"charged" for 1/120th second every 1/60th second.
If the L/R time constant for decay of coil current
is long enough, then the parallel diode offers the
same 'smoothing' effects on the rectified AC as
a capacitor but much smaller, less expensive and
exploits the energy storage abilities of the inductor.
Isn't this stuff fun?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IMC Approval? |
At 12:29 PM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
Just a quick note, Bob, that the extortion pushing aviation prices up
is not just because of the government, or I should say directly the government.
Take for example, a bolt. If one buys a bolt commercially and
doesn't tell the vendor it is for an airplane, you get the commercial
price. If you tell him it's for an airplane application, you get the
aviation price.
But only if it's 'certified' to service in the aviation
markets. There is little difference in the price of materials
and processes over the range of 'carriage bolts' to Grade-8.
A local (30 miles!) supplier of hardware to the farming
community sells all their bin-bulked hardware by the pound.
I can buy grade-8 bolts for about 3.50 a POUND. Carriage bolts
are about $2.50 a pound. A bolt with the same capabilities
through TC parts distribution are $3.50 EACH.
But if you read the materials and processes specification
for super-bolts, you would think that there's some magic
happening that makes these bolts superior to the stuff
I can buy on the street. The magic is nothing more than
words on paper . . . mere certification.
When in fact, 'certification' guarantees nothing. Behavior
is the benchmark of success for minimizing risk, increasing
value and improving performance. Interestingly enough, you
are more likely to be sold a bogus bolt through TC distribution
than out of the farmer's bin-bolts. There's no money to be
made in faking a farmer's bolt even when it's the same
bolt.
Another good example is a well known automotive painter in our
area. He like every good businessman has to keep his prices in
check, because after all it is the buyer who sets the price. If he
sets the price too high, he'll have very few customers. I have gone
to this guy to get aircraft parts painted, but he automatically
increases prices if the article is aviation related. There is an
inherent belief in our country, and possibly the world, that aircraft
owners are extremely rich and can afford the padded prices.
Your supposition has interesting merit . . . but as
you and I know, perceptions of wealth are driven by
a constellation of forces. We both know folks who
live rather low on the hog so that they can support
their aviation hobby. OBAM aviation is a demonstrable
argument against the public perception given that
airplanes we build can be secured for 1/3 or less
of the going market for a production equivalent.
Unfortunately, folks take notice of John Travolta's bevy of
luxury aircraft while remaining ignorant of the fact
that for every John Travolta, there are dozens
of John Q Pulic pilots who probably spend no more
on their airplanes than their neighbors spend on
their own choice of hobby.
Perhaps we can trace this belief back to the government, who by
increasing the regulation with reams of paper and bureaucrats, sets
the example for others to follow.
Exactly. Compliance costs for regulation in virtually
every commercial endeavor has become a significant
cost of doing business. You cannot walk into your
kitchen or bathroom and put your hands on a piece
of merchandise that has not become more expensive
to produce . . .assuming that it is even allowed to
be produced any more all by virtue of regulation.
Somebody once suggested that I seek PMA on some of
my products for use on TC aircraft. The burden of
no-value-added time on my cost of doing business
was a huge turn off. My stuff does go on TC aircraft
after the owner assumes that burden by getting his
337 signed off.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Registering a non-TC in the UK |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All
After seeing that there are a number of members on this list in the UK and
operating non-TC aircraft, I would like to find out what the process is
really like registering a non type-certified aircraft in the UK. I realise
this isn't an electrics problem, so any replies can be off-list.
I've read through the regulations, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't
look like an onerous process. However, the rumours are that one would be
better served by repeatedly bashing one's head against a concrete lintel!
The history of my aircraft is that it started it's life as a TC Champion
Citabria 7ECA. It was then flown into a tree, and broken rather badly. The
subsequent re-build was done here in South Africa, where the aircraft was
registered as an experimental, non-TC aircraft with a number of
modifications from the original design (bungy undercarriage, no upholstery,
raised belly to remove the pregnant look...).
Clearly, this isn't an existing "approved design" by the UK CAA's
standards, it's not a kit, and it's not a TC with a different label on it.
I've heard from the grapevine that I would need to get all the
modifications that have been done since it was in a TC state approved
individually, but I would like to confirm that it is the case, or if there
is an alternative, more suitable route to follow...?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... |
>From the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from
advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap
into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have
always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user
is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't
want. Yahoo, Google and that elk are not "free". The user must constantly
endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing
rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb
to that.
That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot
of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, air conditioning,
maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc. I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser
each year during the month of November where I simply send out a short email
every other day asking the members to make a small contribution to support the
operation. That being said, that contribution is completely voluntary and non-compulsory.
Many members choose not to contribute and that's fine.
However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution
and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's
it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the
Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement
or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum
that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way.
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
| Subject: | AA primary cells compared |
Interesting site: http://www.batteryshowdown.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Hi Bob,
According to ACS, -2 means it has a starter position. -5 means no starter
position.
I cannot find any listings for 510 without the dash number.
see
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/igswitches.php?clickkey=5735
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition switch
At 11:37 AM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
Bob,
That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition Switch.
Jay
Interesting. I wonder what the -2 means.
Does anyone on the List have an ACS510-2
keyswitch on hand that is not installed?
I'd sure like to put my hands on it to
see if my published data needs to be
updated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andy Hawes <andy717(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition switch |
Bob -- I have one mounted in the panel, but not wired. I'd rather not
ship it, as I'll need it here this week to do some wiring, but is there
something I can test for you here in my shop?
On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:52 AM, B Tomm wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> According to ACS, -2 means it has a starter position. -5 means no
starter position.
>
> I cannot find any listings for 510 without the dash number.
>
> see
>
>
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/igswitches.php?clickkey=57
35
>
> Bevan
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:56 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition switch
>
> At 11:37 AM 11/24/2013, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> That switch I asked you about is ACS Products Co., A-510-2 Ignition
Switch.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>
> Interesting. I wonder what the -2 means.
> Does anyone on the List have an ACS510-2
> keyswitch on hand that is not installed?
> I'd sure like to put my hands on it to
> see if my published data needs to be
> updated.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.mypilotstore.com">www.mypilotstore.com
> href="http://www.mrrace.com">www.mrrace.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AA primary cells compared |
At 09:12 AM 11/25/2013, you wrote:
>
>Interesting site: http://www.batteryshowdown.com/
Interesting. They pretty much duplicated the experiments
I conducted 11 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/kjuhl67
I've got a new DAS that I'm thinking of setting up
to repeat the experiment . . . and add some specialty
cells (lithium enhanced). I'm not expecting the
outcome to be much different.
My current 'favorite' source for AA and AAA cells
is Dollar Tree which sells blister-paks of 4
cells for $1 or 0.25 per cell. I'll certianly
include these in the new tests.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition switch |
At 11:05 AM 11/25/2013, you wrote:
>Bob -- I have one mounted in the panel, but not wired. I'd rather
>not ship it, as I'll need it here this week to do some wiring, but
>is there something I can test for you here in my shop?
Absolutely. Can you confirm the validity of this
figure intended to describe operation of this switch?
Emacs!
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: OT: politics on the list |
Good Morning Ron,
I agree that more and more regulation is the norm for anything new to the
scene, but that does not make it good!
Bob wants the freedom to advance the art without the do gooder
intervention. Raymond wishes for a superior power to be sure he does not develop
any
beyond what big brother will want. That is and always will be the battle
between the lovers of individual freedom and those who know our business better
than we do. (Or at least, think they do.)
Those who are tasked with retaining the status quo can always find a good
reason to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 11/25/2013 12:41:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ronburnett(at)charter.net writes:
What am I missing here? I don't see any of this as political as it has
all happened as beaurocrats from all times have written rules from every
administration since the 1920s and the CAA. It isn't political but just common
sense as rules, laws and opinions are written, then enforced.
Happy thanksgiving to all and let's enjoy our freedom to fly and build
airplanes!
Ron Burnett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OT: politics on the list |
Greeting Old Bob,
I feel obligated to state that I disagree with your characterization of
me. Just as a matter of record. Of course you're entitled to your
opinion. I just wish you had sited the statements that lead you to your
conclusion, so others may judge the correctness of it.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 11/25/2013 01:10 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Ron,
> I agree that more and more regulation is the norm for anything new to
> the scene, but that does not make it good!
> Bob wants the freedom to advance the art without the do gooder
> intervention. Raymond wishes for a superior power to be sure he does
> not develop any beyond what big brother will want. That is and always
> will be the battle between the lovers of individual freedom and those
> who know our business better than we do. (Or at least, think they do.)
> Those who are tasked with retaining the status quo can always find a
> good reason to do so.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 11/25/2013 12:41:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> ronburnett(at)charter.net writes:
>
> What am I missing here? I don't see any of this as political as
> it has all happened as beaurocrats from all times have written
> rules from every administration since the 1920s and the CAA. It
> isn't political but just common sense as rules, laws and opinions
> are written, then enforced.
>
> Happy thanksgiving to all and let's enjoy our freedom to fly and
> build airplanes!
>
> Ron Burnett
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Registering a non-TC in the UK |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Etienne,
I'm involved with the LAA (and the PFA before it) and watched some years
ago while a buddy was made to jump through hoops (full structural load
tests) over importation of a US made VariEze.
I also know of a case whereby a Cyprus built Rutan Defiant was imported
into the UK and the guy tried to get a Permit to Fly from the CAA. He
supplied copious data, but was tripped at the final hurdle when he could
not produce the records of the "PPM dust contaminate for each structural
layup".
Your aircraft is "neither fish nor fowl" and although you may not find
anyone in authority man enough to say "you're wasting your time" you will
find people suggesting that you apply in writing to formalise your request
etc etc.
The strategy seems to be one of "when we have exhausted him with a long
series of requests, he will go away, but we can never be accused of
actually denying a request"
Bear in mind that an administrator never lost his job for preventing
something happening, but could loose employment by approving something
which later turned out to be an embarrassment. They have no incentive to
help you.
If you enjoy crusades, have a go, but if you hold in mind that "your time
is our life, and your life is your time" maybe you could burn your time in
more fun and productive ways...
Just my take on it have been round that racetrack for a few laps.
best,
Bill Allen
LongEz 160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
On 25 November 2013 08:07, Etienne Phillips wrote:
> Hi All
>
> After seeing that there are a number of members on this list in the UK and
> operating non-TC aircraft, I would like to find out what the process is
> really like registering a non type-certified aircraft in the UK. I realise
> this isn't an electrics problem, so any replies can be off-list.
>
> I've read through the regulations, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't
> look like an onerous process. However, the rumours are that one would be
> better served by repeatedly bashing one's head against a concrete lintel!
>
> The history of my aircraft is that it started it's life as a TC Champion
> Citabria 7ECA. It was then flown into a tree, and broken rather badly. The
> subsequent re-build was done here in South Africa, where the aircraft was
> registered as an experimental, non-TC aircraft with a number of
> modifications from the original design (bungy undercarriage, no upholstery,
> raised belly to remove the pregnant look...).
>
> Clearly, this isn't an existing "approved design" by the UK CAA's
> standards, it's not a kit, and it's not a TC with a different label on it.
> I've heard from the grapevine that I would need to get all the
> modifications that have been done since it was in a TC state approved
> individually, but I would like to confirm that it is the case, or if there
> is an alternative, more suitable route to follow...?
>
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks
> Etienne
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on Z-16) |
Hi Folks,
I've finished a CAD drawing of the electrical diagram such as it currently
exists on my Rotax 912 powered Kitfox (Kitfox Diagram 0.6.pdf/dwg).
>From reading through Bob's materials and from previous exchanges on the
list, I've come up with the following changes which I think are pretty
standard:
- Eliminate the Master CB (I had put it there following the diagram
in the Rotax installation manual)
- Make the Avionics bus the E-bus and feed it via a diode instead of
via the Avionics Master Switch
- Eliminate the Avionics CB and Avionics Master Switch and use the
switch as an Alternate Feed for the E-bus
- Eliminate the Alternator Light and rewire it as a "Starter On
Warning Light"
- Create a Battery bus for things like clock, panel lighting, etc
This leads to Kitfox Proposed Diagram 1.23.pdf/dwg which I am submitting for
comments/suggestions. It's essentially a version of Z-16 with the
following differences:
- Ignition is via a momentary push-button whereas the
Off/BAT/BAT+ALT modes are selected via an On-OFF-On Key switch. This is
more of an inheritance than a conscious choice. if I had to do things again
I'd probably use the S700-2-10 switch as per Z-16 and the Key Switch for the
mags.
- A starter ON warning light was fitted
- The low/high voltage monitoring is achieved via a LED with a tiny
voltage sensitive auto-dimming circuit (Eclipse, sold by Sparkbright in the
UK for approx $15). This is green when the main bus voltage is between 13.2
and 15.2 volts, and various combinations of amber, alternating green and red
or flashing red for over or under-voltage conditions. Sparkbright claims the
calibration is better than 0.03 volts and I have not been able to disprove
this.
- There are some extra features represented (such as the wiring of
the two joysticks (Infinity Grips, Infinity Aerospace) and the extra 22,000
uF capacitor for the fuel pump (as per Rotax installation manual).
I've also attached a load analysis (Load Analysis.xls).
Thanks in advance for your comments!
Regards,
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin G3X Autopliot Auto Trim with Big Trim Motor |
| From: | "tfarrell839" <tim(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
Any thoughts on using transistors in this setup instead of relays?
Thanks,
Tim
--------
Tim Farrell
Aircrafters
831-722-9141
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414229#414229
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming |
Soon!
Dear Listers,
There's just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Sacha,
The output of the dynamo goes through a 5 amp circuit breaker which is too small
for a 20 amp dynamo.
The 25 amp main circuit breaker is a single point of failure. When it opens,
everything electrical stops working.
To fix the above two problems, use the 25 amp circuit breaker for the dynamo
circuit. Do not install any main circuit breaker. The pilot can shut off the
master relay in case of smoke in the cockpit.
The 20 amp avionics circuit breaker is another single point of failure. Replace
it with a wire.
I see no reason to have the starter switch on the control stick unless the pilot
intends to make frequent engine starts while flying. It is only a matter
of time before the start button is accidentally pushed when the engine is already
running.
If anyone disagrees with the above, please speak up. It will not hurt my feelings
and I want Sacha to have good advice.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414324#414324
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Sacha,
I was looking at the wrong schematic, Kitfox Diagram 0.6.pdf, my mistake.
I should have been looking at Kitfox_Proposed_Diagram_1.23.pdf.
Even so, the dynamo output is still going though a 5 amp breaker. And the start
switch is still on the control stick.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414327#414327
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
At 08:41 AM 11/27/2013, you wrote:
Sacha,
I was looking at the wrong schematic, Kitfox Diagram 0.6.pdf, my mistake.
I should have been looking at Kitfox_Proposed_Diagram_1.23.pdf.
Even so, the dynamo output is still going though a 5 amp
breaker. And the start switch is still on the control stick.
Joe
Joe offers some salient observations. I'm pleased that you've
taken a run at the AutoCAD flavored gauntlet!
As you evolve your plan for this airplane, consider refining
your drawings to be less like schematics and more like wiring
diagrams. If you study the drawings I've posted you will discover
that they look more like the sketch on the left where the
END of each wire, i.e. the location of each termination is defined
both electrically and physically.
Schematics are entirely suited to describing how a
thing works but its a good idea to include information
on just how it all goes together too.
Emacs!
Additional points of interest from your draft:
The battery bus is generally located very close to the
battery contactor. Feeder from the battery to battery
bus is short and no protection is necessary.
Your e-bus loads include a lot of stuff that seems
to go beyond the needs for en route, battery only
endurance. In other words, what is the minimalist
suite of electro-whizzies needed to navigate to
a point of destination airport in sight. After that,
your arrival in one piece is assured . . . you
can close the battery contactor and tax what ever
energy remains in the battery without adding to
your risks.
Consider re-assigning supply points for some
of the items on the avionics bus.
The breaker in the alternator b-lead can be
replaced with an in-line, fuse holder . . .
Emacs!
and 30A fuse. The b-lead fuse can then
be located right next to the battery's
connection with the battery contactor.
The 5A "alternator breaker" is actually
a CONTROL breaker included to accommodate
the crowbar OV protection system.
Not sure stick-grip starter buttons are a good
idea . . . but if you do incorporate them
into the system, make sure your starter
contactor coil currents are not overly
antagonistic to the switches. As I outlined
in my essay on two-stage, starter-mounted
solenoids, the pull-in currents carried
buy the starter button are pretty scary . . .
hence the advice for a stand-alone, automotive
starter contactor with MUCH more benign
current draws . . . but even these are on
the order of 5A . . . and should probably
be wired with 20AWG wire to insure strong
pull-in. Contactors are most abused by soggy
pull-in current. More contactors have been
burned up by nearly dead batteries than by
healthy, fully charged batteries.
Recommend you use panel mounted, robust
button only and wire with 20AWG wire from
a protected feeder . . . you don't show a
'starter' breaker or fuse.
Looks like a great starting point . . . let's
continue to discuss its refinement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin G3X Autopliot Auto Trim with Big Trim |
Motor
At 10:44 PM 11/26/2013, you wrote:
>
Sure. Will this project include a wheel-master disconnect
switch?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cole-Hersee relay sticks |
At 10:05 AM 11/28/2013, you wrote:
Hi,
I read on the Lancair mail list that a few builders had their starter
contractor weld shut.
I am using a Cole Hersee
24047 http://www.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/183/24047/ (that's
what Lancair supplies)
Would it be worth upgrading to a Lamar
X61-0030 http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/solenoidx610030.php ?
Make current would go from 750 to 900A and Break current from 100 to 300A
Thanks for your insight!
Happy Thanksgiving,
Giorgio
---------------------------------------------
With all due respect to a staid ol' supplier
of electro-whizzies, this particular 'intermittent
duty' contactor was never well suited to use as a
starter contactor.
RMB/Stancore/White-Rogers evolutions of the
Model 70 contactor are also available in an
intermittent duty version (higher coil current
and somewhat enhanced closure forces). Cessna
use to use the intermittent duty versions too on
the starter side . . . . wayyyyyy back when.
The "problem" is centered around the design
of contacts . . .
----------------------------------------------
The Cole-Hersee device is in the same family of contactors as
the 70 Series White-Rogers devices designed for continuous duty,
high carry-current and the switching of moderate loads.
http://tinyurl.com/koq788n
Here's an 'exploded view' for this class of contactor
http://tinyurl.com/mjndr93
Note the massive moving contact with LARGE area, hence LOW PRESSURE
footprint against the stationary contacts. This design will CARRY
lots of current but bounces like a golf ball. Especially vulnerable
to the ravages of high-inrush, somewhat inductive loads . . . like
starter motors.
http://tinyurl.com/mqpd92j
http://tinyurl.com/mtshbmj
Nice stationary contacts integrated with fat-wire studs . . .
http://tinyurl.com/k5674y9
"REAL" starter contactors have features unique to a device
specifically designed for intermittent duty switching of
large loads loads.
http://tinyurl.com/mmvkmeh
http://tinyurl.com/kcme565
Note the light weight moving contact with very small footprint
against the stationary contacts . . . very low mass . . . very
little bounce . . . much higher PRESSURE.
http://tinyurl.com/lgsmf77
Again, stationary contacts are integral with fat-wire studs.
http://tinyurl.com/kaqevb4
Note evidence of small area, high pressure mating of movable and
stationary contacts . . .
http://tinyurl.com/krnf3n5
http://tinyurl.com/k582728
I am surprised to know that Lancair is offering that Cole-Hersee
product for this application. I did a weekend seminar at Lancair
some years back and we talked about characteristics of the two
kinds of contactors in some detail. The 'real' starter contactor
was a prominent character in the relays/switches/contactors segment
of the seminar.
Feel free to forward this email to the Lancair-List and even
directly to Lancair. The problems associated with mis-application
of this particular C-H contactor were predictable . . . but easy
to fix.
Cole-Hersee has a 'later' design that MIGHT be better
suited to task than the current selection
http://tinyurl.com/mxer975
But the architecture appears to be an evolution of the earlier
designs . . . without taking one apart, I cannot tell if this
device exploits the quantum leap in performance offered by low mass,
high pressure contacts.
I would suggest that the Lancair community consider replacing
the existing C-H device with something more like the SS598/1533
starter contactor with built in diode suppression.
http://tinyurl.com/pee3msa
Designed for this task, works good, lasts a long time . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cole-Hersee relay sticks |
Bob,=0A=0AI have googled a fair amount but have been unable to find a real
spec sheet for the SS598 or SW1533.- I find random references to a coil-s
uppression diode but not a real spec sheet that specifically describes the
solenoid & diode.- You'd think with such a popular device the spec sheet
would be easier to find.- Do you have one?=0A=0AI have one of these solen
oids and when I energize the coil w/ a jumper wire I get more arcing when I
remove the coil lead than I see on other solenoids where I have installed
a suppression diode.- It's not a very conclusive test but it is possible
that my solenoid does not have a diode.=0A=0AAlso, that solenoid also has a
n "I" terminal that could be used to light a "starter engaged" light.-
=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: Giorgio Cagliero ; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, November
28, 2013 10:53 AM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cole-Hersee relay stic
II" =0A=0AAt 10:05 AM 11/28/2013, you wrote:
=0AHi,=0A=0AI read on the Lancair mail list that a few builders had their s
tarter contractor weld shut.=0AI am using a Cole Hersee 24047- http://www
.colehersee.com/home/item/cat/183/24047/ (that's what Lancair supplies)=0A
=0AWould it be worth upgrading to a Lamar X61-0030- http://www.aircraftsp
ruce.com/catalog/elpages/solenoidx610030.php- ?=0A=0AMake current would g
o from 750 to 900A and Break current from 100 to 300A=0A=0AThanks for your
insight!=0A=0AHappy Thanksgiving,=0A=0AGiorgio=0A--------------------------
-------------------=0A- - With all due respect to a staid ol' supplier
=0A- - of electro-whizzies, this particular 'intermittent=0A- - dut
y' contactor was never well suited to use as a=0A- - starter contactor.
=0A=0A- - RMB/Stancore/White-Rogers evolutions of the=0A- - Model 7
0 contactor are also available in an=0A- - intermittent duty version (h
igher coil current=0A- - and somewhat enhanced closure forces).- Cess
na=0A- - use to use the intermittent duty versions too on=0A- - the
starter side . . . . wayyyyyy back when.=0A=0A- - The "problem" is cen
tered around the design=0A- - of contacts . . .=0A=0A------------------
----------------------------=0AThe Cole-Hersee device is in the same family
of contactors as=0Athe 70 Series White-Rogers devices designed for continu
ous duty,=0Ahigh carry-current and the switching of moderate loads.=0A=0Aht
tp://tinyurl.com/koq788n=0A=0AHere's an 'exploded view' for this class of c
ontactor=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/mjndr93=0A=0ANote the massive moving conta
ct with LARGE area, hence LOW PRESSURE=0Afootprint against the stationary c
ontacts. This design will CARRY=0Alots of current but bounces like a golf b
all. Especially vulnerable=0Ato the ravages of high-inrush, somewhat induct
ive loads . . . like=0Astarter motors.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/mqpd92j=0A
=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/mtshbmj=0A=0ANice stationary contacts integrated with
fat-wire studs . . .=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/k5674y9=0A=0A"REAL" starter c
ontactors have features unique to a device=0Aspecifically designed for inte
rmittent duty switching of=0Alarge loads loads.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/mmv
kmeh=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/kcme565=0A=0ANote the light weight moving cont
act with very small footprint=0Aagainst the stationary contacts . . . very
low mass . . . very=0Alittle bounce . . . much higher PRESSURE.=0A=0Ahttp:/
/tinyurl.com/lgsmf77=0A=0AAgain, stationary contacts are integral with fat-
wire studs.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/kaqevb4=0A=0ANote evidence of small are
a, high pressure mating of movable and stationary contacts . . .=0A=0Ahttp:
//tinyurl.com/krnf3n5=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/k582728=0A=0AI am surprised t
o know that Lancair is offering that Cole-Hersee=0Aproduct for this applica
tion. I did a weekend seminar at Lancair=0Asome years back and we talked ab
out characteristics of the two=0Akinds of contactors in some detail. The 'r
eal' starter contactor=0Awas a prominent character in the relays/switches/c
ontactors segment=0Aof the seminar.=0A=0AFeel free to forward this email to
the Lancair-List and even=0Adirectly to Lancair. The problems associated w
ith mis-application=0Aof this particular C-H contactor were predictable . .
. but easy=0Ato fix.=0A=0ACole-Hersee has a 'later' design that MIGHT be b
etter=0Asuited to task than the current selection=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/m
xer975=0A=0ABut the architecture appears to be an evolution of the earlier
=0Adesigns . . . without taking one apart, I cannot tell if this=0Adevice e
xploits the quantum leap in performance offered by low mass,=0Ahigh pressur
e contacts.=0A=0AI would suggest that the Lancair community consider replac
ing=0Athe existing C-H device with something more like the SS598/1533=0Asta
rter contactor with built in diode suppression.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/pee
3msa=0A=0ADesigned for this task, works good, lasts a long time . . .=0A=0A
=========================0A
=====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
Joe and Bob,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
I'm pleased that you've taken a run at the AutoCAD flavored gauntlet!
Yup, it was worth it in the end. not just for my personal education, but
also when you have to re-draw the same diagram several times.
As you evolve your plan for this airplane, consider refining
your drawings to be less like schematics and more like wiring
diagrams. If you study the drawings I've posted you will discover
that they look more like the sketch on the left where the
END of each wire, i.e. the location of each termination is defined
both electrically and physically.
Good point - it had occurred to me that that was a good idea but I haven't
got around to doing it yet.
The battery bus is generally located very close to the
battery contactor. Feeder from the battery to battery
bus is short and no protection is necessary.
OK, will remove the fuselink.
Your e-bus loads include a lot of stuff that seems
to go beyond the needs for en route, battery only
endurance. In other words, what is the minimalist
suite of electro-whizzies needed to navigate to
a point of destination airport in sight. After that,
your arrival in one piece is assured . . . you
can close the battery contactor and tax what ever
energy remains in the battery without adding to
your risks.
I thought about this a lot before I stuck all that stuff on the E-bus.
strictly speaking I don't need:
- Transponder/Alt encoder
- Autopilot
- AHRS
- Cigar Lighter 12V and USB supplies
But it's nice to be able to have them (e.g. if you're going to be landing in
a field that's new to you, you can have the A/P on while you look at the
chart, etc), so I figured I would leave them there and turn them off if
necessary (except for the AHRS but that only consumes 0.3A). Is this not
advisable? (I'm a low time PPL so I'm completely open to suggestions in this
area).
Consider re-assigning supply points for some
of the items on the avionics bus.
The breaker in the alternator b-lead can be
replaced with an in-line, fuse holder . . .
By replaced, do you mean I should add a fuse between the Dynamo and the
Voltage regulator? I don't currently have a fuse on the b-lead, I don't
think.
Emacs!
and 30A fuse. The b-lead fuse can then
be located right next to the battery's
connection with the battery contactor.
I'm confused. I thought the b-lead is wire that goes between the dynamo and
the voltage regulator. How can it be connected to the battery contactor?
The 5A "alternator breaker" is actually
a CONTROL breaker included to accommodate
the crowbar OV protection system.
That was the idea. I think I was looking at Z-17 when I positioned the ALT
breaker. But as Joe correctly remarks, it seems to limiting the current
that the dynamo can supply to the battery, which is not a good idea. I need
to re-think this part of the diagram.
Not sure stick-grip starter buttons are a good
idea . . .
I incorporated them following the suggestions on the Infinity Grip order
form (http://www.infinityaerospace.com/gripwire.pdf) and against the better
judgment of my expert friend who helped me with the wiring. I thought it
might be a good idea to have them handy in case of an engine failure in
order to attempt a restart. But in hindsight, it was maybe not such a great
idea. There is also the potential, any time the master is on on the ground,
to accidentally hit the starter button and swing the prop.
Joe> It is only a matter of time before the start button is accidentally
pushed when the engine is already running.
I'm not so concerned about this. It seems to happen on cars every now and
then and not do much in terms of damage.
but if you do incorporate them
into the system, make sure your starter
contactor coil currents are not overly
antagonistic to the switches. As I outlined
in my essay on two-stage, starter-mounted
solenoids, the pull-in currents carried
buy the starter button are pretty scary . . .
hence the advice for a stand-alone, automotive
starter contactor with MUCH more benign
current draws . . . but even these are on
the order of 5A . . . and should probably
be wired with 20AWG wire to insure strong
pull-in. Contactors are most abused by soggy
pull-in current. More contactors have been
burned up by nearly dead batteries than by
healthy, fully charged batteries.
My diagram shows two stages: the pushbutton(s) which closes the starter
contactor coil circuit which activates the starter. Is this not as per your
recommendation?
Recommend you use panel mounted, robust
button only and wire with 20AWG wire from
a protected feeder . . . you don't show a
'starter' breaker or fuse.
I will include a starter breaker/fuse.
By the way, (this is a followup from a previous thread on contactors), I
managed to solder some 4AWG wire onto the 3/8" faston female connectors so
that I can connect my battery to the automotive cube relay and use it as a
master relay as per the proposed diagram. Attached is a picture of the
result.
it's not the best example of workmanship, but it seems robust enough to me
(though this may be difficult to judge from the picture). It will now be
covered in shrink tubing for strain relief.
Looks like a great starting point . . . let's
continue to discuss its refinement.
Thank you. as usual your help is much appreciated.
Sacha
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cole-Hersee relay sticks |
At 03:57 PM 11/28/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I have googled a fair amount but have been unable to find a real
>spec sheet for the SS598 or SW1533. I find random references to a
>coil-suppression diode but not a real spec sheet that specifically
>describes the solenoid & diode. You'd think with such a popular
>device the spec sheet would be easier to find. Do you have one?
No . . . but if the diode is included, it will
be noted on the base-plate. Here's the bottom
view photo of the ebay offering
http://tinyurl.com/klumbjp
You can see the words "diode suppressed"
stamped onto the bottom surface.
>I have one of these solenoids and when I energize the coil w/ a
>jumper wire I get more arcing when I remove the coil lead than I see
>on other solenoids where I have installed a suppression diode. It's
>not a very conclusive test but it is possible that my solenoid does
>not have a diode.
Add one outside. Two diodes is not bad;
no diodes not so good . . .
>Also, that solenoid also has an "I" terminal that could be used to
>light a "starter engaged" light.
Yes, the I terminal is intended to bypass a Kettering
coil resistor to offer better spark during cranking.
I'm not aware of any other use of this terminal . . .
but you are correct, it provides a +output that could
drive the warning light.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cole-Hersee relay sticks |
Does anyone have any quality control feedback for the EBay units Bob refere
nces. $9.95 is a very low price and I worry that these are cheap Chinese kn
ock-offs.=0A=0AI see in several Ford truck forums that there are many compl
aints about cheap Chinese parts.- Most people in the Ford forums suggest
going w/ Motorcraft/OEM parts at around $30.=0A=0AIs there any way to tell
the difference between the cheapos & the real thing??=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______
_________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@
aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday,
November 28, 2013 6:34 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cole-Hersee
Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AAt 03:57 PM 11/28/2013,
you wrote:=0A> Bob,=0A> =0A> I have googled a fair amount but have been un
able to find a real spec sheet for the SS598 or SW1533.- I find random re
ferences to a coil-suppression diode but not a real spec sheet that specifi
cally describes the solenoid & diode.- You'd think with such a popular de
vice the spec sheet would be easier to find.- Do you have one?=0A=0A- N
o . . . but if the diode is included, it will=0A- be noted on the base-pl
ate.- Here's the bottom=0A- view photo of the ebay offering=0A=0Ahttp:/
/tinyurl.com/klumbjp=0A=0A- You can see the words "diode suppressed"=0A
- stamped onto the bottom surface.=0A=0A> I have one of these solenoids a
nd when I energize the coil w/ a jumper wire I get more arcing when I remov
e the coil lead than I see on other solenoids where I have installed a supp
ression diode.- It's not a very conclusive test but it is possible that m
y solenoid does not have a diode.=0A=0A- Add one outside. Two diodes is
not bad;=0A- no diodes not so good . . .=0A=0A=0A> Also, that solenoid a
lso has an "I" terminal that could be used to light a "starter engaged" lig
ht.=0A=0A- Yes, the I terminal is intended to bypass a Kettering=0A-
coil resistor to offer better spark during cranking.=0A- I'm not aware o
f any other use of this terminal . . .=0A- but you are correct, it provi
des a +output that could=0A- drive the warning light.=0A=0A=0A- Bob .
==============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just Two Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a couple days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've
been putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to
choose from this year. I personally want at least four of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Gents
I am using toggle switches for non-lights (e.g. Fuel pump, Pitot heat, Aux
Battery, etc.) and both for aesthetical reasons and non-confusing reasons, I
am planning to use rocker illuminated switches for the Lights (Landing
Light, Taxi Light, Strobes, Beacon, NAV Lights, Cabin Light).
I am not finding a source for good rocker switches, like for example the
ones from Klixon or other good brand. Neither ACS or Stein Air seems to
carry those.
Can someone please point me to a source for good rocker illuminated
switches?
Regards
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
Carlos,
<< source for good rocker switches >>
Mouser Electronics (mouser.com) is happy to sell small quantities to the
amateur builder. They list 1,166 illuminated rocker switches in their
online catalog, 166 of which are SPST rated at 10 amps or more.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Thank you Tom
But I suppose that Mouser does not sell engraved rocker switches, do they?
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de The Kuffels
Enviada: 29 de novembro de 2013 18:23
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switches
Carlos,
<< source for good rocker switches >>
Mouser Electronics (mouser.com) is happy to sell small quantities to the
amateur builder. They list 1,166 illuminated rocker switches in their
online catalog, 166 of which are SPST rated at 10 amps or more.
Tom
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> By replaced, do you mean I should add a fuse between the Dynamo and the Voltage
regulator?
No
> Im confused I thought the b-lead is wire that goes between the dynamo and the
voltage regulator. How can it be connected to the battery contactor?
The two yellow wires from the dynamo carry AC to the voltage rectifier / regulator.
The yellow wires connect to "G" terminals. I assume the "G" stands for
Generator. Notice the letter "B" on the regulator connector. I consider the
"B" lead to be the wire that connects the output of the regulator to the aircraft
electrical system. This wire needs to be protected against short circuits
at the battery end with a fuse or circuit breaker. The advantage of using a
fuse is that it can be located on the engine side of the firewall adjacent to
and connected to the load side of the master relay. Since the maximum output
of the Rotax dynamo is 20 amps, it is unlikely that a 30 amp fuse will nuisance
blow.
> the ALT breaker. . . . seems to limiting the current that the dynamo can supply
. .
The output of an alternator is limited by the load or by the capacity of the alternator,
whichever is less. Since the load will usually be more than 5 amps,
a 5 amp circuit breaker will trip and disable the charging system. The charging
system will never work at all if wired per the schematic.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414523#414523
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
Carlos,
<< Mouser does not sell engraved rocker switches >>
Some have the on-off symbol engraved but labeling functions puts you
into a whole different custom order ballgame. I just use a P-touch to
produce black letters on clear tape.
Bob does not favor this approach but I like the combined magnetic
circuit breaker/switch made by Airpax/Sensata. The part number is
R11-51-[amperage]-G06EV-S. These are life rated for medical
applications and available from OnLineComponents.com for less the $12.
But they are not illuminated. See the thread Tyco Breakers in the
archive for a more detailed discussion of these devices.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Your local trophy supplier should be able to engrave any rocker you supply
with whatever you wish engraved on it. They are normally able to make "lami
coid" nameplates and that equipment will engrave a plastic rocker. You can
fill the engraving with paint of your choosing and wipe the excess from the
surrounding area to give a nicely "filled" engraved wording for your switc
hes.
Bob McC
From: trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Switches
Date: Fri=2C 29 Nov 2013 18:29:22 +0000
Thank you Tom But I suppose that Mouser does not sell engraved rocker switc
hes=2C do they? De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:o
wner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de The Kuffels
Enviada: 29 de novembro de 2013 18:23
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switches Carlos=2C << source for good rock
er switches >> Mouser Electronics (mouser.com) is happy to sell small quant
ities to the amateur builder. They list 1=2C166 illuminated rocker switche
s in their online catalog=2C 166 of which are SPST rated at 10 amps or more
. Tom www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comwww.my
pilotstore.comwww.mrrace.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List< - MATRONICS WEB FORUM
S -http://forums.matronics.com=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m confused=C3=A2=82=AC=C2 I thought
the b-lead is wire that goes between the dynamo and the voltage
regulator. How can it be connected to the battery contactor?
The two yellow wires from the dynamo carry AC to the voltage rectifier
/ regulator. The yellow wires connect to "G" terminals. I assume the
"G" stands for Generator. Notice the letter "B" on the regulator
connector. I consider the "B" lead to be the wire that connects the
output of the regulator to the aircraft electrical system. This wire
needs to be protected against short circuits at the battery end with a
fuse or circuit breaker. The advantage of using a fuse is that it can
be located on the engine side of the firewall adjacent to and connected
to the load side of the master relay. Since the maximum output of the
Rotax dynamo is 20 amps, it is unlikely that a 30 amp fuse will nuisance
blow.
Ah! I got it! Here is the revised diagram 1.24 (it needs to be cleaned
up but at least now I think it is correct).
> the ALT breaker. . . . seems to limiting the current that the dynamo
can supply . .
The output of an alternator is limited by the load or by the capacity
of the alternator, whichever is less. Since the load will usually be
more than 5 amps, a 5 amp circuit breaker will trip and disable the
charging system. The charging system will never work at all if wired
per the schematic.
Joe
Absolutely. The diagram made no sense at all. In fact, I think I must
have drawn the diagram wrong because the aircraft has flown some 40
hours without the ALT breaker ever tripping. Anyway, I think I've got
it now. Thank you sir!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
OK, you have the dynamo working now. I see no other major mistakes. I would not
have all of those buttons on the control stick because I know that I would
get them mixed up and push the wrong one. But that is a matter of personal preference.
In the lower right hand corner of the drawing is a 22,000 microfarad
capacitor that is connected between ground and the contactors. I do not think
that capacitor is needed. It does not hurt anything, but is one more thing
that could fail.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414546#414546
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
It's November 30th and that always means a couple of things. Its my birthday again;
the big 50, in fact! But it also means that it's that last official day
of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been thinking about picking
up one of those really nice incentive gifts now is the time to jump on it!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, NOW is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists!
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in
support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running
and I don't ever forget it.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you to all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | battery tender jr |
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob-
I was wondering if you'd had time to tinker with the wall wart charger I
sent a while back-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guido von Allmen <lapulce(at)sunrise.ch> |
| Subject: | Icom A200 transceiver |
> My name is Guido and I am new to this List. I have some trouble with
> my Icom A200 which is in my newly built Wittman Tailwind W10. Maybe
> this topic has already been discussed and if so can you tell where I
> can find this issue .
>>
>>>
>>> Here in Locarno Switzerland ( LSZL) my local airport the tower
>>> transmits with 2 antennas at the same frequency 134.825 ( one
>>> directly on the tower and the other about 7 miles north in the
>>> direction of the runway 26 ) They told me this is due to the
>>> mountains all around the airport. Only at a certain point flying
>>> between the two antennas ( for instance on long final ) I cannot
>>> hear the tower instructions and the tower hears me only when they
>>> shut down one antenna. There is absolutely no problem with all the
>>> other airtraffic on ground and in the air. All the other
>>> airplanes don't have this problem as we were told. I already
>>> changed the antenna, its position on the plane from the bottom to
>>> the top and the antenna cable with a double shielded one but with
>>> no result.
>>> Can anyone of the Forum give me some advice how to solve this
>>> problem.
>>> I contacted Icom America where I bought the transceiver but they
>>> too couldn't get me an answer.
>>> Thanks in advance and have a nice weekend.
>>> Guido
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
In the lower right hand corner of the drawing is a 22,000
microfarad capacitor that is connected between ground and the contactors. I
do not think that capacitor is needed. It does not hurt anything, but is
one more thing that could fail.
The Rotax 912 installation manual recommends having a capacitor in parallel
with the fuel pump. Electrically I guess it is in parallel... Does it make
any difference whether I leave it as it is or should I connect it like this:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Sacha,
Without a winmail program, I was unable to open the winmail.dat file.
To reduce electrical noise from the fuel pump, the capacitor should be located
at the fuel pump and connected to the positive and negative wires of the fuel
pump. I assume that is what you have done in the winmail.dat file.
In your original drawing, yes, the capacitor is in parallel with the fuel pump
in a roundabout way. But when trying to suppress electrical noise, it is better
to keep wires short.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414638#414638
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/29/13 |
| From: | Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)GMAIL.COM> |
Carlos,
Check these guys out. This page shows where to buy the switches and they'll engrave
them for you.
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/rocker_switches.htm
Lots of folks in the Glasair crowd have used them.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
> From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches
>
> Gents
>
>
> I am using toggle switches for non-lights (e.g. Fuel pump, Pitot heat, Aux
> Battery, etc.) and both for aesthetical reasons and non-confusing reasons, I
> am planning to use rocker illuminated switches for the Lights (Landing
> Light, Taxi Light, Strobes, Beacon, NAV Lights, Cabin Light).
>
>
> I am not finding a source for good rocker switches, like for example the
> ones from Klixon or other good brand. Neither ACS or Stein Air seems to
> carry those.
>
>
> Can someone please point me to a source for good rocker illuminated
> switches?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: battery tender jr |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
I've seen it on the bench several times and noted that it's on the list of things
to do. I did get my shop utility computer back up and updated . . . but my
po' ol' bench battery of some 8-10 years finally tossed in the towel. Puffed up
like a toad and died.
I'm going to scrounge another bench battery here shortly.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414662#414662
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
> To reduce electrical noise from the fuel pump, the capacitor should be located
at the fuel pump and connected to the positive and negative wires of the fuel
pump. I assume that is what you have done in the winmail.dat file. Joe Gores
Yes it is. But I thought that the capacitor in parallel with the fuel pump was
to facilitate the starting of the pump not to reduce noise.
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: battery tender jr |
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
No problemo- no hurries here. I've yet to replace my batteries, either.
Just curious-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | RE: Rocker switches |
Thanks Ron
I already had sent an email to AE, because this is probably the way to go.
Regards
Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ronald
Cox
Sent: sbado, 30 de Novembro de 2013 15:55
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/29/13
-->
Carlos,
Check these guys out. This page shows where to buy the switches and they'll
engrave them for you.
http://www.engravers.net/aircraft/rocker_switches.htm
Lots of folks in the Glasair crowd have used them.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
> From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches
>
> Gents
>
>
> I am using toggle switches for non-lights (e.g. Fuel pump, Pitot heat,
> Aux Battery, etc.) and both for aesthetical reasons and non-confusing
> reasons, I am planning to use rocker illuminated switches for the
> Lights (Landing Light, Taxi Light, Strobes, Beacon, NAV Lights, Cabin
Light).
>
>
> I am not finding a source for good rocker switches, like for example
> the ones from Klixon or other good brand. Neither ACS or Stein Air
> seems to carry those.
>
>
> Can someone please point me to a source for good rocker illuminated
> switches?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <m.j.gregory(at)talk21.com> |
| Subject: | Icom A200 transceiver |
Hello Guido,
It would be helpful for you to speak to the technicians who look after the
ground radio systems at Locarno to find out whether there are 2 separate
transmitters operating on 134.825, but at slightly different frequencies
(known as offset carrier working). This can be adopted to avoid 2 identical
signals interfering with each other - they are both within the pass band of
the receiver and so should reinforce each other, but it is possible that
they could generate a beat frequency that interferes with the
signal-to-noise squelch circuit.
I have no explanation to suggest why the ground receivers should be able to
accept other people's transmissions and not those from your ICOM. However,
the more you know about the technical setup on the ground that connects to
the 2 separate antennas, the better placed you will be to discuss with ICOM
what might be causing your problem.
Good luck!
Mike
Dr Mike Gregory
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guido von
Allmen
Sent: 30 November 2013 09:21
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom A200 transceiver
My name is Guido and I am new to this List. I have some trouble with my Icom
A200 which is in my newly built Wittman Tailwind W10. Maybe this topic has
already been discussed and if so can you tell where I can find this issue .
Here in Locarno Switzerland ( LSZL) my local airport the tower transmits
with 2 antennas at the same frequency 134.825 ( one directly on the tower
and the other about 7 miles north in the direction of the runway 26 ) They
told me this is due to the mountains all around the airport. Only at a
certain point flying between the two antennas ( for instance on long final )
I cannot hear the tower instructions and the tower hears me only when they
shut down one antenna. There is absolutely no problem with all the other
airtraffic on ground and in the air. All the other
airplanes don't have this problem as we were told. I already changed the
antenna, its position on the plane from the bottom to the top and the
antenna cable with a double shielded one but with no result.
Can anyone of the Forum give me some advice how to solve this problem.
I contacted Icom America where I bought the transceiver but they too
couldn't get me an answer.
Thanks in advance and have a nice weekend.
Guido
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Icom A200 transceiver |
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Guido von Allmen
Sent: 30 November 2013 09:21
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Icom A200 transceiver
My name is Guido and I am new to this List. I have some trouble with
my Icom A200 which is in my newly built Wittman Tailwind W10. Maybe
this topic has already been discussed and if so can you tell where I
can find this issue .
Here in Locarno Switzerland ( LSZL) my local airport the tower
transmits with 2 antennas at the same frequency 134.825 ( one
directly on the tower and the other about 7 miles north in the
direction of the runway 26 ) They told me this is due to the
mountains all around the airport. Only at a certain point flying
between the two antennas ( for instance on long final ) I cannot hear
the tower instructions and the tower hears me only when they shut
down one antenna. There is absolutely no problem with all the other
airtraffic on ground and in the air. All the other
airplanes don't have this problem as we were told. I already changed
the antenna, its position on the plane from the bottom to the top and
the antenna cable with a double shielded one but with no result.
Can anyone of the Forum give me some advice how to solve this problem.
I contacted Icom America where I bought the transceiver but they too
couldn't get me an answer.
Thanks in advance and have a nice weekend.
Guido
I would not expect ICOM to be helpful . . . nor would
it be helpful for you to 'do things' to your installation
on the airplane.
There are two ways that two antennas can work in close
proximity on the same frequency to transmit . . .
(1) you have two separate facilities, probably tied
together by land line. In this instance, the operator
of the ground based facilities chooses facility A
or B to talk to any given airplane. This is done with
a selector switch of some type . . . a switch that
usually prevents simultaneous operation of both
facilities. This is, I suspect, what has been installed
at your local airport. BOTH receivers can be active
at all times but when one receiver gets a strong signal
from an airplane, there's an indicator lamp that tells
the operator which receiver took the call and he/she
is expected to select the appropriate transmitter on
which to reply, But in no case would you want the both
transmitters to operate simultaneously.
(2) two antennas are treated as an array for generating
emissions from one source or two phase-locked sources.
This is fraught with potential for compromised transmissions
as the receiving station (airplane) moves through the
standing waves set up by troughs and peaks of alternately
opposing and aiding signals from the two antennas . . .
heard in the airplane as 'flutter' on the received
signal.
If you are experiencing a null zone between the two
antennas but do not hear flutter or a beat note
between the two transmitted signals . . . then it's
probable that system (1) is installed and you have
a severe sensitivity issue with your installation.
I suspect an open coax.
Check SWR on your airplane's comm antenna from
the transceiver end of the feedline. How's your
radio's performance for communicating with other
facilities that do not have remotely located
transceivers on a shared frequency? From 1000
feet up, you should be able to talk with a
ground station that is 25 miles away (assuming
no intervening mountains) or other airplanes
from 50 to 100 miles away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Yes the Faston tabs are 3/8" instead of the regular 1/4". Here's a
>pic I took yesterday but its not easy to see how the connections are
>made on the cube.
>Sacha
>
>
>Note that he appears to be using something (on the left) that looks
>to me like a battery contactor in lieu of a starter contactor. The
>master contactor is the red "384" series cube on the right.
I am not comfortable with the notion of tying
4AWG wires to these 70A plastic cube relays . . .
Consider the terminals on a 70-series contactors
. . . or any other "contactor". They are mechanically
robust.
Emacs!
The whole idea behind terminal posts on a contactor
is to provide rigidity . . . wiring induced bending
and torque moments do not move the terminal . . .
hence they do not affect contact alignment inside
the contactor.
Terminals on the plastic cube relays are simply
held in place by virtue of the housing molded
around them. I think if I were going to incorporate
one of the 70A cubes into a system, I would wire
with no greater than 6AWG and use welding cable
at that (soft and flexible).
The reasoning driving substitution of the plastic
cube as a battery relay seems to be rooted in
power consumption . . .
The 'savings' between a cube (180mA) and a
70-series (700mA) coil current is only about
1/2 amps.
Are you sure you NEED to save that 1/2A for
other tasks? If 1/2A has so much influence
on your load analysis, then perhaps you're
proposed sources/loads are not practical.
I suggest you consider finishing up the load
analysis task before you commit to incorporation
of an extra-ordinary substitution for a battery
contactor with a known service history.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
At 03:32 PM 11/30/2013, you wrote:
>
>
> > To reduce electrical noise from the fuel pump, the capacitor
> should be located at the fuel pump and connected to the positive
> and negative wires of the fuel pump. I assume that is what you
> have done in the winmail.dat file. Joe Gores
>
>Yes it is. But I thought that the capacitor in parallel with the
>fuel pump was to facilitate the starting of the pump not to reduce noise.
>
>Sacha
Have there been any reported instances of noise from
a fuel pump?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
At 09:30 PM 11/29/2013, you wrote:
>
>OK, you have the dynamo working now. I see no other major
>mistakes. I would not have all of those buttons on the control
>stick because I know that I would get them mixed up and push the
>wrong one. But that is a matter of personal preference. In the
>lower right hand corner of the drawing is a 22,000 microfarad
>capacitor that is connected between ground and the contactors. I do
>not think that capacitor is needed. It does not hurt anything, but
>is one more thing that could fail.
The large electrolytic capacitors common to
most PM/Rectifier-Regulator installations
is problematic. We know that these capacitors
have little benefit for smoothing ripple
voltage on the rectified output of the rectifier/
regulator.
There's no demonstrated benefit for reduction
of observable noise in headsets/radios.
The presence of this capacitor MIGHT be of
benefit when operating the system alternator-only
but I've not accomplished any testing to explore
or demonstrate this feature.
In any case, they've been installed on most if
not all PM alternator systems and certainly
don't hurt anything. But their benefits are
not yet qualified.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Two Audios wired to One PM-3000 input thru a 500ohm |
resistor each?
Hi,
I am installing a PM-3000, 11931-A in my SeaRey Amphibian. This device
has
two Un-switched inputs, and I have three audio output warning devices. I
have gained some understanding from the archives that an isolation
amplifier
is needed to make this work properly, but the SeaRey factory and dealer
are
telling me that all I need to do is to connect my Gear Alert and my
Power
Buss alert audio wires to a 500ohm resistor each, and connect them to a
single un-switched audio input on the PM-3000. Both of these devices
have
adjustable gain. The remaining input connects to the SkyView audio out.
The instruction is qualified with the fact that this has been performed
satisfactorily on many of these aircraft. Yet what I learned from The
List,
and from AE Connection, leaves me skeptical.
I sent a note to PS Engineering over a week ago, no response yet.
Can anyone shed some light on how acceptable this is, or why and how I
should do something different?
I also am a little troubled by the SkyView instructions for multiple SV
Screens, that CLEARLY state; to electrically connect both left and right
stereo outputs together at each screen connector (creating a Mono
output),
PLUS to jumper across all screens. This is to ensure that regardless of
power to any screen, all audio warning will be heard. This is not only
clearly communicated, they provide an example making clear all 4 audio
outputs of a two screen system are twisted together and fed to one input
on
the Intercom. Any comments regarding this instruction?
Thanks,
Alan ,
HasbrouckA(at)yahoo.com
SeaRey Amphibian, Assembled and Painted. Working on VFR avionics and
wiring
(Dynon Skyview full suite). Top Priority is keep it light, and place
weight
forward!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Audios wired to One PM-3000 input thru a |
500ohm resistor each?
At 03:00 PM 12/2/2013, you wrote:
Hi,
I am installing a PM-3000, 11931-A in my SeaRey Amphibian. This
device has two Un-switched inputs, and I have three audio output
warning devices. I have gained some understanding from the archives
that an isolation amplifier is needed to make this work properly, but
the SeaRey factory and dealer are telling me that all I need to do is
to connect my Gear Alert and my Power Buss alert audio wires to a
500ohm resistor each, and connect them to a single un-switched audio
input on the PM-3000. Both of these devices have adjustable gain. The
remaining input connects to the SkyView audio out.
The instruction is qualified with the fact that this has been
performed satisfactorily on many of these aircraft. Yet what I
learned from The List, and from AE Connection, leaves me skeptical.
I sent a note to PS Engineering over a week ago, no response yet.
The two-resistor-mixer technique will work. You
may find it useful/necessary to fiddle the
the resistor sizes to get the volume you want
from each tone. Increasing the size of the resistor
decreases volume. When trying a different size
resistor, make about a 20% jump from the previous
value. 500 or even 510 are not real common. Start
with 470 ohms, 1/2w.
Can anyone shed some light on how acceptable this is, or why and how
I should do something different?
I also am a little troubled by the SkyView instructions for multiple
SV Screens, that CLEARLY state; to electrically connect both left and
right stereo outputs together at each screen connector (creating a
Mono output), PLUS to jumper across all screens. This is to ensure
that regardless of power to any screen, all audio warning will be
heard. This is not only clearly communicated, they provide an example
making clear all 4 audio outputs of a two screen system are twisted
together and fed to one input on the Intercom. Any comments regarding
this instruction?
Hmmmm . . . are these warnings FROM the SkyView
instruments . . . and they are stereo?
You might go the resistor-mixer route here
too starting with 470 ohms in each of the feeds
brought together the OTHER un-switched input to
the PM3000.
If push comes to shove, you can craft an
isolation amp from our DIY plans and ecb
or exploit a number of manufactured options.a
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
Good Evening All,
A few yeas ago someone on this list mentioned that a fellow had developed
an electronic gadget that could indicate whether or not fuel was flowing
through a line. It consisted of a stock AN aluminum T with the non inline
portion containing some sort of light which could tell when fuel was flowing
through the inline T portion. Nothing fancy and no measurement of the gallons
or flow rate. Just whether or not fuel was flowing. It was pure solid
state. No pin wheels or anything. Just light as I recall, and it only had to
shine one way. It did not go through the T to another sensor. Does anyone
else remember that gadget? If so, do you recall who it was that offered it?
I could sure use an accurate, though economical, way to tell when fuel is
no longer being pumped through a line.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Baron Tach Problem |
| From: | "frank3" <frank3phyl(at)comcast.net> |
Today I was assisting local A&P problem solving a tachometer problem in a twin
Baron. Owner reports the tachometer for the left engine does not register RPM
on initial engine start but does register normally after engine warms up. We
swapped the canon plugs to see if the problem would follow the connections.
To our surprise both needles registered properly on start up. We swapped wires
back to appropriate connections and the left needle did not register. We swapped
them again (left lead to right input and right lead to left input) and the
right needle did not register on engine start while the left registered normal
at engine start. In other words, we were able to duplicate owner's experience
on this second attempt. With engine running we wiggled the wires and disconnected/re-connected
the canon plug. Seemed maybe there was a very slight movement
of the needle when re-connected but not sure. After approximately ten
minutes of engine warm up the right needle popped into action as if it became
suddenly unstuck. After changing oil we ran the engines and again experienced
the same problem reported by the owner.
The A&P said he previously disassembled the left engine tach sensor when the owner
initially reported the problem. He found the bearings dry and repacked them.
There was no oil contamination.
All ideas/suggestions are welcomed.
--------
Frank McDonald
Kitfox S7
912S, Sensenich Composite 3 Blade
Acworth, GA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414753#414753
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
On 12/2/2013 5:44 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening All,
> A few yeas ago someone on this list mentioned that a fellow had
> developed an electronic gadget that could indicate whether or not fuel
> was flowing through a line. It consisted of a stock AN aluminum T with
> the non inline portion containing some sort of light which could tell
> when fuel was flowing through the inline T portion. Nothing fancy and
> no measurement of the gallons or flow rate. Just whether or not fuel
> was flowing. It was pure solid state. No pin wheels or anything. Just
> light as I recall, and it only had to shine one way. It did not go
> through the T to another sensor. Does anyone else remember that
> gadget? If so, do you recall who it was that offered it?
> I could sure use an accurate, though economical, way to tell when fuel
> is no longer being pumped through a line.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
>
These intended for flow, but they do detect the presence of liquid:
http://www.gemssensors.com/Products/Level/Single-Point-Level-Switches/Electro-optic
I've got a couple that I intend to try in the situation you describe,
but I'm afraid it will take a bigger mount point than the leg of a T. No
experience yet on whether they can see fluid in something as small as a
fuel line.
Another option I've considered is a low pressure sensor on the output of
the pump, with a slightly restrictive orifice after the sensor. If
pressure drops below a preset level, it would trip an indicator.
If someone already has a simple & affordable solution, I'd love to hear
about it, as well.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Audios wired to One PM-3000 input thru a |
500ohm resistor each?
On 12/2/2013 4:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 03:00 PM 12/2/2013, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am installing a PM-3000, 11931-A in my SeaRey Amphibian. This device
> has two Un-switched inputs, and I have three audio output warning
> devices. I have gained some understanding from the archives that an
> isolation amplifier is needed to make this work properly, but the
> SeaRey factory and dealer are telling me that all I need to do is to
> connect my Gear Alert and my Power Buss alert audio wires to a 500ohm
> resistor each, and connect them to a single un-switched audio input on
> the PM-3000. Both of these devices have adjustable gain. The remaining
> input connects to the SkyView audio out.
>
> The instruction is qualified with the fact that this has been
> performed satisfactorily on many of these aircraft. Yet what I learned
> from The List, and from AE Connection, leaves me skeptical.
>
> I sent a note to PS Engineering over a week ago, no response yet.
>
> The two-resistor-mixer technique will work. You
> may find it useful/necessary to fiddle the
> the resistor sizes to get the volume you want
> from each tone. Increasing the size of the resistor
> decreases volume. When trying a different size
> resistor, make about a 20% jump from the previous
> value. 500 or even 510 are not real common. Start
> with 470 ohms, 1/2w.
>
>
> Can anyone shed some light on how acceptable this is, or why and how I
> should do something different?
>
> I also am a little troubled by the SkyView instructions for multiple
> SV Screens, that CLEARLY state; to electrically connect both left and
> right stereo outputs together at each screen connector (creating a
> Mono output), PLUS to jumper across all screens. This is to ensure
> that regardless of power to any screen, all audio warning will be
> heard. This is not only clearly communicated, they provide an example
> making clear all 4 audio outputs of a two screen system are twisted
> together and fed to one input on the Intercom. Any comments regarding
> this instruction?
>
> Hmmmm . . . are these warnings FROM the SkyView
> instruments . . . and they are stereo?
>
> You might go the resistor-mixer route here
> too starting with 470 ohms in each of the feeds
> brought together the OTHER un-switched input to
> the PM3000.
>
> If push comes to shove, you can craft an
> isolation amp from our DIY plans and ecb
> or exploit a number of manufactured options.a
>
>
> Bob . . .
The Skyview might have the series resistor already in its audio output
circuit. That would make it very simple for the installer (supplying the
summing resistors), and guarantee load fault protection for the audio amp.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
Good Evening Charlie,
The one I remember was built by a homebuilder and offered to the OBAM
public. His was mounted in an AN T for 3/8ths inch line.
Thanks for the information provided.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/2/2013 7:14:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ceengland7(at)gmail.com writes:
On 12/2/2013 5:44 PM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
Good Evening All,
A few years ago someone on this list mentioned that a fellow had developed
an electronic gadget that could indicate whether or not fuel was flowing
through a line. It consisted of a stock AN aluminum T with the non inline
portion containing some sort of light which could tell when fuel was flowing
through the inline T portion. Nothing fancy and no measurement of the
gallons or flow rate. Just whether or not fuel was flowing. It was pure solid
state. No pin wheels or anything. Just light as I recall, and it only had to
shine one way. It did not go through the T to another sensor. Does anyone
else remember that gadget? If so, do you recall who it was that offered it?
I could sure use an accurate, though economical, way to tell when fuel is
no longer being pumped through a line.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
These intended for flow, but they do detect the presence of liquid:
http://www.gemssensors.com/Products/Level/Single-Point-Level-Switches/Electr
o-optic
I've got a couple that I intend to try in the situation you describe, but
I'm afraid it will take a bigger mount point than the leg of a T. No
experience yet on whether they can see fluid in something as small as a fuel
line.
Another option I've considered is a low pressure sensor on the output of
the pump, with a slightly restrictive orifice after the sensor. If pressure
drops below a preset level, it would trip an indicator.
If someone already has a simple & affordable solution, I'd love to hear
about it, as well.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
I did see this on the GEM site, but it's for 1/2" npt:
http://www.gemssensors.com/en/Products/Flow/Flow-Switches/FS-600%20No-Moving-parts
On 12/2/2013 7:30 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Charlie,
> The one I remember was built by a homebuilder and offered to the OBAM
> public. His was mounted in an AN T for 3/8ths inch line.
> Thanks for the information provided.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/2/2013 7:14:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> On 12/2/2013 5:44 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Evening All,
>> A few years ago someone on this list mentioned that a fellow had
>> developed an electronic gadget that could indicate whether or not
>> fuel was flowing through a line. It consisted of a stock AN
>> aluminum T with the non inline portion containing some sort of
>> light which could tell when fuel was flowing through the inline T
>> portion. Nothing fancy and no measurement of the gallons or flow
>> rate. Just whether or not fuel was flowing. It was pure solid
>> state. No pin wheels or anything. Just light as I recall, and it
>> only had to shine one way. It did not go through the T to another
>> sensor. Does anyone else remember that gadget? If so, do you
>> recall who it was that offered it?
>> I could sure use an accurate, though economical, way to tell when
>> fuel is no longer being pumped through a line.
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
>>
> These intended for flow, but they do detect the presence of liquid:
>
> http://www.gemssensors.com/Products/Level/Single-Point-Level-Switches/Electro-optic
>
> I've got a couple that I intend to try in the situation you
> describe, but I'm afraid it will take a bigger mount point than
> the leg of a T. No experience yet on whether they can see fluid in
> something as small as a fuel line.
>
> Another option I've considered is a low pressure sensor on the
> output of the pump, with a slightly restrictive orifice after the
> sensor. If pressure drops below a preset level, it would trip an
> indicator.
>
> If someone already has a simple & affordable solution, I'd love to
> hear about it, as well.
>
> Charlie
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
Good Evening Charlie,
That has to be getting close!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/2/2013 8:00:59 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ceengland7(at)gmail.com writes:
I did see this on the GEM site, but it's for 1/2" npt:
http://www.gemssensors.com/en/Products/Flow/Flow-Switches/FS-600%20No-Moving
-parts
On 12/2/2013 7:30 PM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
Good Evening Charlie,
The one I remember was built by a homebuilder and offered to the OBAM
public. His was mounted in an AN T for 3/8ths inch line.
Thanks for the information provided.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/2/2013 7:14:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
_ceengland7(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:ceengland7(at)gmail.com) writes:
On 12/2/2013 5:44 PM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
Good Evening All,
A few years ago someone on this list mentioned that a fellow had developed
an electronic gadget that could indicate whether or not fuel was flowing
through a line. It consisted of a stock AN aluminum T with the non inline
portion containing some sort of light which could tell when fuel was flowing
through the inline T portion. Nothing fancy and no measurement of the
gallons or flow rate. Just whether or not fuel was flowing. It was pure solid
state. No pin wheels or anything. Just light as I recall, and it only had to
shine one way. It did not go through the T to another sensor. Does anyone
else remember that gadget? If so, do you recall who it was that offered it?
I could sure use an accurate, though economical, way to tell when fuel is
no longer being pumped through a line.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
These intended for flow, but they do detect the presence of liquid:
http://www.gemssensors.com/Products/Level/Single-Point-Level-Switches/Electr
o-optic
I've got a couple that I intend to try in the situation you describe, but
I'm afraid it will take a bigger mount point than the leg of a T. No
experience yet on whether they can see fluid in something as small as a fuel
line.
Another option I've considered is a low pressure sensor on the output of
the pump, with a slightly restrictive orifice after the sensor. If pressure
drops below a preset level, it would trip an indicator.
If someone already has a simple & affordable solution, I'd love to hear
about it, as well.
Charlie
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.mypilotstore.com/)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Registering a non-TC in the UK |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks everyone for all the replies... I'll continue the investigation and
see where it leads!
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Yahoo hasbroucka" <hasbroucka(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Two Audios wired to One PM-3000 input thru a |
500ohm resistor each?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 8:21 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two Audios wired to One PM-3000 input thru
> a 500ohm resistor each?
>
>
>
> On 12/2/2013 4:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The two-resistor-mixer technique will work. You
> > may find it useful/necessary to fiddle the
> > the resistor sizes to get the volume you want
> > from each tone. Increasing the size of the resistor
> > decreases volume. When trying a different size
> > resistor, make about a 20% jump from the previous
> > value. 500 or even 510 are not real common. Start
> > with 470 ohms, 1/2w.
[Alan Hasbrouck]
Great news! I will start with 470 ohms on each of these two warning audios.
> >
> >
> > I also am a little troubled by the SkyView instructions for multiple
> > SV Screens, that CLEARLY state; to electrically connect both left and
> > right stereo outputs together at each screen connector (creating a
> > Mono output), PLUS to jumper across all screens. This is to ensure
> > that regardless of power to any screen, all audio warning will be
> > heard. This is not only clearly communicated, they provide an example
> > making clear all 4 audio outputs of a two screen system are twisted
> > together and fed to one input on the Intercom. Any comments regarding
> > this instruction?
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . are these warnings FROM the SkyView
> > instruments . . . and they are stereo?
[Alan Hasbrouck]
Yes, each SkyView has both left and right audio out connections. I have no
indication on how these outputs are actually used.
> >
> > You might go the resistor-mixer route here
> > too starting with 470 ohms in each of the feeds
> > brought together the OTHER un-switched input to
> > the PM3000.
> >
> > If push comes to shove, you can craft an
> > isolation amp from our DIY plans and ecb
> > or exploit a number of manufactured options.
> >
> > Bob . . .
[Alan Hasbrouck]
How would I determine what to use, if anything? Is there possibility of
damaging the PM-3000 if I get this wrong? Just to be clear, I pasted the
following directly from the latest SkyView manual:
The audio outputs on pins 13 and 31 (left and right, respectively) of the
display's D37 connector can drive audio panel or intercom auxiliary inputs.
When interfaced with such devices, they can generally be used with any input
designated as an auxiliary input without any external resistors or other
components needed between the SkyView and the intercom.
Use left and right audio outputs for stereo mode. If the audio panel or
intercom only supports mono input, short the left and right audio outputs
together and connect them to the mono input on the device. To minimize
noise, ensure that your SkyView audio ground and intercom or audio panel
ground are directly connected together, even though they nominally share a
common ground via other aircraft wiring (audio ground is pin 30 on the D37).
If there is more than one display on a SkyView network, you MUST connect all
displays' audio outputs to the same audio panel input to ensure that audio
is always heard. Electrically short the respective left and right outputs
together for stereo mode (i.e., left-to-left and right-to-right) or connect
all audio outputs together for mono mode. The same rule applies for audio
grounds.
> >
> The Skyview might have the series resistor already in its audio output
> circuit. That would make it very simple for the installer (supplying the
> summing resistors), and guarantee load fault protection for the audio amp.
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net |
Bob
I tried to reach you on the website but it still is not working. ( for me anyway
)
I sent you an e-mail and I don't know if you received it or not.
Here goes again.
I read your article on "Understanding DO-160" in Dec. 2013 Kitplanes.
About a year ago I was riding shotgun ( right seat observer ) for a friend in his
C-172 SP. He was trying to stay current on instruments and we were shooting
ILS's. He is a retired fighter pilot and had the cross hairs centered on the
approach. All of a sudden both the vertical and horizontal bars deflected like
the instrument lost power . About the time the bars hit the stops they returned
to the centered position as if noting happened. It started over and over with
a cadence or timing. I took off my headset and heard his phone ( in his shirt
pocket ) ringing in sync with the bars moving.
I think a lot of testing is needed before electronic devices are allowed on aircraft.
Being an old ham operator I know that transmitters emit harmonics that
can interfere with items that are no where near their own freg.
I hope the airlines electronics are better shielded than the 40 yr old C-172 we
were flying.
My $.02
Bobby Paulk
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Have there been any reported instances of noise from
> a fuel pump? Bob . . .
The Van's RV-12 kits comes with a capacitor and instructions for installing at
the electric fuel pump. See note in the middle of this page:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-12/31-05.pdf
I have not heard reports of audio noise from fuel pumps, but installed the capacitor
per instructions for my RV-12.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414776#414776
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> In any case, they've been installed on most if
> not all PM alternator systems and certainly
> don't hurt anything. But their benefits are
> not yet qualified. Bob . . .
Sacha's schematic has two of those 22,000 microfarad capacitors, one on each side
of the alternator relay. I questioned the need for two of them.
Bob, when you said the large electrolytic capacitor is problematic, did you mean
that they are prone to fail?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414778#414778
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
Hello "Old Bob",
I've got mine from PPA (a former Glastar builder) and they are in my
Glastar (highwing) warning me for unporting on a steep descent (3
minutes warning each side). I've bought again for my RV10 for exactly
the same reason.
http://www.pillarpointelectronics.com/sensors.html
Hope it helps some?
Cheers Werner
On 03.12.2013 02:30, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Charlie,
> The one I remember was built by a homebuilder and offered to the OBAM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
Good Morning Werner,
Great information.
As I told Rob, that is just what I remember.
Thank you very much.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/3/2013 10:16:19 A.M. Central Standard Time,
glastar(at)gmx.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider
Hello "Old Bob",
I've got mine from PPA (a former Glastar builder) and they are in my
Glastar (highwing) warning me for unporting on a steep descent (3
minutes warning each side). I've bought again for my RV10 for exactly
the same reason.
http://www.pillarpointelectronics.com/sensors.html
Hope it helps some?
Cheers Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Hi OB,
I used a Gems ELS 900 optic level sensor in a 1/4" npt Tee to prevent a transfer
pump from running dry. I used the output to trigger a relay controlling power
to the transfer pump. I clocked the installation so the sensor is 45 deg up
from level. No fuel in the line = no power to the pump. Works great
The ELS 900 is an older version of the Gems 14xxx series and comes in several
flavors of thread, material and current sinking capability. Mine's polysulfone
(OK with fuel) and I found it on Ebay for $5 :-). Wish I'd bought more.
Good luck,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414784#414784
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for your comments Bob. In effect I had not considered the mechanical s
uitability. I generally tend to like to do things with the simplest most com
monly available automotive type parts but maybe this is one case where it's s
imply not a good idea.
Sacha
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:49, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr
ic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes the Faston tabs are 3/8" instead of the regular 1/4". Here's a pic I t
ook yesterday but its not easy to see how the connections are made on the cu
be.
>> Sacha
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that he appears to be using something (on the left) that looks to me
like a battery contactor in lieu of a starter contactor. The master contact
or is the red "384" series cube on the right.
>
> I am not comfortable with the notion of tying
> 4AWG wires to these 70A plastic cube relays . . .
>
> Consider the terminals on a 70-series contactors
> . . . or any other "contactor". They are mechanically
> robust.
>
> <18a022d3.jpg>
>
> The whole idea behind terminal posts on a contactor
> is to provide rigidity . . . wiring induced bending
> and torque moments do not move the terminal . . .
> hence they do not affect contact alignment inside
> the contactor.
>
> Terminals on the plastic cube relays are simply
> held in place by virtue of the housing molded
> around them. I think if I were going to incorporate
> one of the 70A cubes into a system, I would wire
> with no greater than 6AWG and use welding cable
> at that (soft and flexible).
>
> The reasoning driving substitution of the plastic
> cube as a battery relay seems to be rooted in
> power consumption . . .
>
> The 'savings' between a cube (180mA) and a
> 70-series (700mA) coil current is only about
> 1/2 amps.
>
> Are you sure you NEED to save that 1/2A for
> other tasks? If 1/2A has so much influence
> on your load analysis, then perhaps you're
> proposed sources/loads are not practical.
>
> I suggest you consider finishing up the load
> analysis task before you commit to incorporation
> of an extra-ordinary substitution for a battery
> contactor with a known service history.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:08, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
> The presence of this capacitor MIGHT be of
> benefit when operating the system alternator-only
> but I've not accomplished any testing to explore
> or demonstrate this feature.
This is what the Rotax installation manual says, that the capacitor protects the
regulator in case the battery is taken offline.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
> I have not heard reports of audio noise from fuel pumps, but installed the capacitor
per instructions for my RV-12. Joe
I alway thought of the capacitor as being there to balance out the inductance of
the motor thus helping it to start and stop without creating large voltage drops
in the circuit. I suppose this might also be the rationale for the noise
reduction.
In my garden I have a 130 ft well with a large 230VAC electrical pump submersed
in the water at the bottom of the well. I can't remember the wattage, I think
it was around 1500W. I noticed that the electrician installed a capacitor in
parallel with the pump and I remember that it helped the starting of the pump.
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
On 12/3/2013 10:33 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> Hi OB,
> I used a Gems ELS 900 optic level sensor in a 1/4" npt Tee to prevent a transfer
pump from running dry. I used the output to trigger a relay controlling power
to the transfer pump. I clocked the installation so the sensor is 45 deg up
from level. No fuel in the line = no power to the pump. Works great
> The ELS 900 is an older version of the Gems 14xxx series and comes in several
flavors of thread, material and current sinking capability. Mine's polysulfone
(OK with fuel) and I found it on Ebay for $5 :-). Wish I'd bought more.
>
> Good luck,
> John
>
Hi John,
As I told Bob, I've had some of the Gems detectors in my parts drawer
for years, but have never tested them for flow detection. It's great to
hear that you've tested them & found that they work as flow sensors. Now
I know I won't be wasting my time when I install them. :-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
Capacitors are used to help start single phase AC motors.- They are used
to 'fake' a second phase to help the motor start turning.=0A=0ADC motors ar
e different animals and do not require starting capacitors.=0A=0ASometimes
very small capacitors are installed across DC motors to help filter the noi
se caused by brushes.=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Sac
ha =0ATo: "aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:09 AM=0ASubject:
Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on
.com>=0A=0A=0A> I have not heard reports of audio noise from fuel pumps, bu
t installed the capacitor per instructions for my RV-12. Joe=0A=0AI alway t
hought of the capacitor as being there to balance out the inductance of the
motor thus helping it to start and stop without creating large voltage dro
ps in the circuit.- I suppose this might also be the rationale for the no
ise reduction. =0A=0AIn my garden I have a 130 ft well with a large 230VAC
electrical pump submersed in the water at the bottom of the well. I can't r
emember the wattage, I think it was around 1500W.- I noticed that the ele
ctrician installed a capacitor in parallel with the pump and I remember tha
=====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cole-Hersee relay sticks |
At 11:42 PM 11/28/2013, you wrote:
>Does anyone have any quality control feedback for the EBay units Bob
>references. $9.95 is a very low price and I worry that these are
>cheap Chinese knock-offs.
What are the perceived risks? Starter contactors are generally not
strong drivers for safety of flight issues.
>I see in several Ford truck forums that there are many complaints
>about cheap Chinese parts. Most people in the Ford forums suggest
>going w/ Motorcraft/OEM parts at around $30.
>
>Is there any way to tell the difference between the cheapos & the real thing??
Not real sure what 'the real thing' would be.
I have taken some not-so-good examples of this
contactor apart . . . there were observable
differences . . . but I would be hard pressed
to tell you that these parts would not deliver
many YEARS of service on a vehicle that might
get cranked fewer times per year than your
car does in a month.
Obviously, price alone is not a fair indicator
of robustness and suitability to task. You
could go to a Ford dealership parts counter and
purchase a form-fit-function out of their inventory
but I wouldn't bet that it was going to be US
manufactured. It's less likely to be a really
poor specimine . . . those guys deal with local
customers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
At 07:58 PM 12/2/2013, you wrote:
>I did see this on the GEM site, but it's for 1/2" npt:
><http://www.gemssensors.com/en/Products/Flow/Flow-Switches/FS-600%20No-Moving-parts>http://www.gemssensors.com/en/Products/Flow/Flow-Switches/FS-600%20No-Moving-parts
These devices are pretty sophisticated with
a price to match.
If you want a go/no-go detection of fluid motion
you can set up a pair of self-heated thermistors in two legs
of a bridge. One thermistor is situated out in
the fluid flow path, the other is in the same liquid
but out of the flow path . . . like the side port of
a t-fitting.
The electronics needed to read the two thermistors
and detect flow is pretty simple. Radio Shack
jelly-bean parts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
>
>I thought about this a lot before I stuck all
>that stuff on the E-bus=85 strictly speaking I don=92t need:
>- Transponder/Alt encoder
>- Autopilot
>- AHRS
>- Cigar Lighter 12V and USB supplies
>But it=92s nice to be able to have them (e.g. if
>you=92re going to be landing in a field that=92s new
>to you, you can have the A/P on while you look
>at the chart, etc), so I figured I would leave
>them there and turn them off if necessary
>(except for the AHRS but that only consumes
>0.3A). Is this not advisable? (I=92m a low time
>PPL so I=92m completely open to suggestions in this area).
Do the load analysis with a consideration of how
you would maximize the utility of the battery's
stored energy toward a design goal. First, how
long would you like to operate battery only?
A lot of design decisions are made with no
more conviction to an idea than "this is better
than that" . . . but without quantification
as to how all the "betters" add up to meeting
a design goal. Folks who buy/fly TC aircraft are
relieved (or should I say deprived?) of that duty.
Folks paid to worry have decreed that John Q.
Public pilot is not properly prepared to accept
such responsiblity . . . so they say, "Don't worry
. . . we've taken care of all that worry stuff . . .
just memorize the holy-watered pilot's operating
handbook and all will be right with the universe."
> Consider re-assigning supply points for some
> of the items on the avionics bus.
Write you own 'stage play' or better yet 'cockpit
play' in which you are the star performer. Plan a
mission with the highest order of risk wherein loss of
engine driven electrical power would be the most perplexing.
It's interesting that MOST plane/pilot/mission
scenarios flown in both TC/OBAM aircraft seldom
elevate the importance of alternators and batteries
to levels of critical concern.
I cannot recall one instance in 33 years/1000+
hours as pilot where loss of an alternator was
more than an 'oh fooey!' event. I've personally experienced
one loss of alternator event on a cross-country
but completed both outbound and return legs battery-
only so the owner could deal with the broken alternator
on his own turf. That same trip also presented loss of
airspeed indicator (spider egg sack waaayyy back
in pitot tube). Both events presented a challenge
for assuming a new mode of operation. But both legs
were day-vmc ops in and out of uncontrolled
fields . . . I normally navigated with dual
AA powered, GPS315 receivers on the glare shield
. . . so no big deal.
I have conducted numerous long-leg ops at night over
unfriendly terrain but never suffered the indignity
for loss of alternator. NONE of the airplanes I
was flying featured anything like an e-bus. I had
absolutely no idea as to the health of the battery
beyond the fact that it cranked the engine.
My personal plan-b calls for me to arrive at airport
of intended destination whether the panel was 'lit up'
or not.
Nonetheless, Hollywood playwrights, dark-n-stormy
night stories in the journals and exciting anecdotes
over beers (combined with our terrestrial perceptions
of batteries in general) give rise to worries about
both alternators and batteries.
Getting back to your particular study of options,
it would be well to set some design goals. What
battery only endurance would you like to strive for?
Given what you know about how the airplane will be
used, you might start with some notion of just how
long you'd like to operate battery only. About 1/4
of my use of winged machines calls for burning off
most of a full fuel load . . . so personally, my e-bus
operations would shoot for 3-4 hours as a design
goal. Your's may be less.
My plan-b flight bag hardware consists of GPS
receivers (two actually . . . I use them full time),
hand-held transceiver with vor/loc capabilities,
and a flashlight. Something you can do in your airplane
that I didn't get with a TC rental is connection
for your hand-held to the external antenna.
For the way I use airplanes, I enjoy a high order
probability that I'll get where I want to
go . . . whether I'm using an A-36 with lots of
stuff that doesn't work or a J-3 that didn't
have any stuff to begin with.
Okay, what are your personal design goals? Which
items on your panel will address your needs for
continued flight battery-only until destination
airport is in sight? What are the energy demands
for those items? How long do you want to run them?
You can certainly have other things on the e-bus
but items not needed for the en route, endurance
mode of flight should be fitted with on-off switches
so that you can shed those loads.
>
>By replaced, do you mean I should add a fuse
>between the Dynamo and the Voltage regulator? I
>don=92t currently have a fuse on the b-lead, I don=92t think.
What passes for a "b-lead" on the PM/R-R
system is that wire that runs from OUTPUT
terminal of the R-R, through the control
relay and to the system. Since it ties
directly to a battery-fed, fat-wire it's
a good idea to protect it at some level
well above the output capability of the
alternator. 30A fuse is a good choice.
>
>I=92m confused=85 I thought the b-lead is wire that
>goes between the dynamo and the voltage
>regulator. How can it be connected to the battery contactor?
No, the output from the dynamo is AC voltage
conducted to a controlled, full-wave rectifier
in the rectifier-regulator. The analogous
path in a wound-field alternator would be
wires between the stator windings and
a 3-phase rectifier array . . . all this
is INTERNAL to the legacy alternator.
>
>I incorporated them following the suggestions on
>the Infinity Grip order form
>(<http://www.infinityaerospace.com/gripwire.pdf>http://www.infinityaerospac
e.com/gripwire.pdf)
>and against the better judgment of my expert
>friend who helped me with the wiring. I
>thought it might be a good idea to have them
>handy in case of an engine failure in order to
>attempt a restart. But in hindsight, it was
>maybe not such a great idea. There is also the
>potential, any time the master is on on the
>ground, to accidentally hit the starter button and swing the prop.
The more I think about it, the more I
dislike putting all those functions on
the stick. Non-standard "conveniences" can
translate into un-intended consequences.
Further, the likelihood that a start-button on
the stick will ever be critical to saving
the day is exceedingly low if not zero.
If the engine quits at altitude, you've
got plenty of time to manage the situation
with the legacy suite of controls. If you're
so low that mere seconds count, then fiddling
with the engine is a distraction from the
prime directive of the day . . . endeavor
to walk away.
In a TC aircraft you will find some combination
of following buttons on the wheel or stick.
Trim: UP, DN, LT, RT
Push to Transmit
Push to Intercom
and MAYBE . . .
Master Disconnect that removes power to all motors
that drive flight surfaces.
Inadvertent operation of any of theses switches
does not create a hazard to sheet metal or
bones . . . nor do they depart from legacy
cockpit behaviors that are the stock and trade
of most pilots.
We still need a list of electro-whizzies in
your airplane that use power . . . and
partitioning of scenarios for when they are
expected to be in service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Registering a non-TC in the UK |
Tim Allen wrote:
>The strategy seems to be one of "when we have exhausted him with a
>long series of requests, he will go away, but we can never be
>accused of actually denying a request"
>
>Bear in mind that an administrator never lost his job for preventing
>something happening, but could loose employment by approving
>something which later turned out to be an embarrassment. They have
>no incentive to help you.
Tim's assertions brought to mind the words of
Alexis de Tocqueville committed to paper . . .
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in
its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then
extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of
society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and
uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic
characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man
is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom
forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting.
Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not
tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies
a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock
of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
Alexis reads like an individual who would offer some
really useful conversation over beer and burgers . . .
BTW, I'm presently taking a 20 hr class that purports to
'guide' interested individuals in the rigors of compliance
with yet another boat load of 'recommendations' (DO-330 and
331) piled on top of DO-178 which is up to revison C.
A sample quote from one of the reference documents:
To summarize, we found that analyzing the relationship between require-
ments coverage and model coverage provides a promising means of assessing
requirements quality. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this
approach is highly
dependent on the rigor and effectiveness of the coverage metrics
used, and aware-
ness of the pitfalls of structural coverage metrics is essential. For
instance, in this
experiment we found that the UFC metric was surprisingly sensitive to
the struc-
ture of the requirements, and one has to ensure that the requirements structure
does not hide the complexity of conditions for the metric to be effective.
Now THERE's a crystal clear illumination of the problem!
What was it de Tocqueville said?
"Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does
not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and
stupefies a people . . ."
Methinks he had it pegged 180+ years ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Jeff for shedding light on this. It still leaves a question mark over
Rotax's recommendation for installing a capacitor. Maybe I'll ask my German
speaking ex-Bosch engineer friend to give the Rotax headquarters a call. He
may be able to get some sense out of them or at least an indication of what
their rationale was when they included this recommendation in the manual.
On Dec 3, 2013, at 21:14, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Capacitors are used to help start single phase AC motors. They are used t
o 'fake' a second phase to help the motor start turning.
>
> DC motors are different animals and do not require starting capacitors.
>
> Sometimes very small capacitors are installed across DC motors to help fil
ter the noise caused by brushes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
> Sacha's schematic has two of those 22,000 microfarad capacitors, one on each
side of the alternator relay. I questioned the need for two of them.
Good eye. I should have seen that too. Yeah, if any capacitor is needed, one is
probably enough!
>
> Bob, when you said the large electrolytic capacitor is problematic, did you mean
that they are prone to fail?
No, I intended 'problematic' in that it's not clear that the capacitor is necessary
or functions as the various assertions suggest. I have run bench tests on
the B&C SD-8 alternator and found that adding the capacitor demonstrates no measurable
benefit.
The schematic for the B&C PM regulator-rectifier is not materially different than
the last one I saw for the Rotax-Ducatti R-R . . . the notion that adding a
capacitor 'protects' the regulator if the battery becomes disconnected is not
clear. I'm not suggesting that folks stop installing them . . . but given demonstrated
inability/unwillingness of proponents for adding the capacitor to explain
its function in demonstrable physics gives one pause to wonder.
I'd love to put one of the larger PM machines on the test bench with a Rotax-Ducatti
R-R and explore details of its performance . . . but I've got a lot of more
pressing goals right now.[/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414841#414841
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flow indicator |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
[quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Hi John,
[/quote]
As I told Bob, I've had some of the Gems detectors in my parts drawer
for years, but have never tested them for flow detection. It's great to
hear that you've tested them & found that they work as flow sensors. Now
I know I won't be wasting my time when I install them. :-)
Charlie[/quote]
Charlie,
One caveat is that the Gems sensor in my application indicates 'presence' but not
flow.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414852#414852
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, what's a PM machine?
Sacha
On Dec 4, 2013, at 16:00, "nuckollsr" wrote:
> I'd love to put one of the larger PM machines on the test bench with a Rotax-Ducatti
R-R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation |
on Z-16)
Permanent Magnet alternator.
Permanent magnets instead of a wire wound field coil.
On 04/12/2013 1:05 PM, Sacha wrote:
>
> Bob, what's a PM machine?
> Sacha
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Registering a non-TC in the UK |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
We think in similar ways Bob.
An aphorism I'm fond of is "forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission"
another is "rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of
wise men"
The problem comes when clever men (administrators and lawyers) are paid to
write rulebooks.
They never get fat from thin rulebooks, and have never been known to say
"these rules are enough. Our work is done. Make us redundant and we'll look
for other work...."
Especially over in 'Yurp, where the feeding frenzy is multiplied by the
number of languages involved.
Bill Allen
( not Tim Allen, - I have a cousin Tim, but he's a farmer :^)
On 4 December 2013 04:58, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> Tim Allen wrote:
>
>
> The strategy seems to be one of "when we have exhausted him with a long
> series of requests, he will go away, but we can never be accused of
> actually denying a request"
>
> Bear in mind that an administrator never lost his job for preventing
> something happening, but could loose employment by approving something
> which later turned out to be an embarrassment. They have no incentive to
> help you.
>
>
> Tim's assertions brought to mind the words of
> Alexis de Tocqueville committed to paper . . .
>
>
> *"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its
> powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends
> its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a
> network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the
> most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to
> rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent,
> and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly
> restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents
> existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates,
> extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to
> nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the
> government is the shepherd." * Alexis reads like an individual who would
> offer some
> really useful conversation over beer and burgers . . .
>
> BTW, I'm presently taking a 20 hr class that purports to
> 'guide' interested individuals in the rigors of compliance
> with yet another boat load of 'recommendations' (DO-330 and
> 331) piled on top of DO-178 which is up to revison C.
>
> A sample quote from one of the reference documents:
>
>
> *To summarize, we found that analyzing the relationship between require-
> ments coverage and model coverage provides a promising means of assessing
> requirements quality. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this approach is
> highly dependent on the rigor and effectiveness of the coverage metrics
> used, and aware- ness of the pitfalls of structural coverage metrics is
> essential. For instance, in this experiment we found that the UFC metric
> was surprisingly sensitive to the struc- ture of the requirements, and one
> has to ensure that the requirements structure does not hide the complexity
> of conditions for the metric to be effective. * Now THERE's a crystal
> clear illumination of the problem!
> What was it de Tocqueville said?
>
>
> *"Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not
> tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a
> people . . ." *Methinks he had it pegged 180+ years ago.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: kitfox /rotax 912 wiring diagram (variation on |
Z-16)
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> what's a PM machine?
Most likely Permanent Magnet alternator, aka dynamo.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=414864#414864
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin G3X Autopliot Auto Trim with Big Trim |
Motor
At 10:44 PM 11/26/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Any thoughts on using transistors in this setup instead of relays?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tim
>
>--------
>Tim Farrell
>Aircrafters
>831-722-9141
>
Tim, I thought I had responded to this. Are you
still interested in a solid state 'relay deck' for
this application?
Do you plan to have a "stick master disconnect"
switch?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Bob,=0A=0AI have been reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The
Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question.- (specifically Z-11, Z-12
, & Z-14)=0A=0AI notice that the 6 awg wire which connects the load side of
the Battery Contactor to the Main Power Distribution bus is not fused.-
That seems like an un-protected feeder and gives me a little heart burn.=0A
=0AI think of the Main Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs acr
oss the back of the breakers in my distribution panel which lives in my ins
trument panel.- With the Battery Contactor on the firewall, the run from
it to the distribution panel penetrates the firewall then snakes its way to
the back of my panel.- That #6 wire will be between 6 & 8 feet in length
.=0A=0AWhat happens if that wire gets into trouble along its route.- With
out a fuse it will get very hot and bad things will happen.=0A=0AI'm curiou
s about the criteria used in this design.- Perhaps I'm missing something?
=0A=0ATIA,=0A=0A-Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
At 11:00 PM 12/4/2013, you wrote:
Bob,
I have been reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The
Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question. (specifically Z-11,
Z-12, & Z-14)
I notice that the 6 awg wire which connects the load side of the
Battery Contactor to the Main Power Distribution bus is not
fused. That seems like an un-protected feeder and gives me a little
heart burn.
I think of the Main Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs
across the back of the breakers in my distribution panel which lives
in my instrument panel. With the Battery Contactor on the firewall,
the run from it to the distribution panel penetrates the firewall
then snakes its way to the back of my panel. That #6 wire will be
between 6 & 8 feet in length.
What happens if that wire gets into trouble along its route. Without
a fuse it will get very hot and bad things will happen.
I'm curious about the criteria used in this design. Perhaps I'm
missing something?
TIA,
-Jeff
Okay,
Get out your toolbox and take a position to contemplate this 'risky'
piece of wire. What process and tools are needed to 'get this wire
into trouble'? Yes, it's attached to a battery with potential for
spectacular fault currents, but so too is your propeller thrashing
around in the breeze with a potential for serious bodily harm.
It's easy to get bogged down worrying about things that have low to
exceedingly small probability of happening. This is a fundamental
component of Failure Modes Effects Analysis. The artfully crafted
FMEA not only considers "what happens if . . .?" you're well advised
to consider HOW that condition became a thing to consider in the
first place. The goal is to decide which has more value: (1)
protecting against a condition or (2) reducing probability of that
condition to an acceptably low value.
In the case of your fat-wire, which design goal offers the lowest
level of risk and greatest boost of system reliability? (1) protect
the wire loaded to some gawd-awful fault or (2) reduce probability of
such an event to levels that says your worry-capital is better
invested elsewhere? This thought process convinces us that building
a safety cage around the propeller is not a useful/necessary
expenditure of weight/cost/performance budget.
There are exposed conductors that run across the back of most circuit
breaker panels. These bus bars are legacy features of all manner of
vehicle not the least of which are airplanes. Is there value in
expending worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar? You can
answer this question with pretty simple observation and
contemplation. With a box full of tools at your disposal, what parts
of the airplane do you have to hammer, pry or saw in order to get
that bus bar . . . or your fat-wire into trouble?
Once those actions are discovered and evaluated, what is the
likelihood that such an event is going to befall the potential victim
over the lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that your
study will produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to
two categories: (1) there are no features of structure or installed
hardware likely to dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2)
Oops! Some feature of installation of the wire or surrounds has not
been installed with attention to good practices . . . and you're
going to fix it.
This same analysis (and incorporation of lessons-learned) produced
the following excerpt from FAR23 for TC aircraft:
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.
The controlling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you're going to
manage the installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds such that
"no hazard is presented" by omission of a fuse or breaker.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Thank you for the explanation.- I get it - the assumption is: very low pr
obability of the wire getting into trouble assuming that it's well-installe
d w/ intelligence and craftsmanship.=0A=0ABut staying with the original the
me, is there any down side to putting a big current limiter (ANL?) in that
lead at its origin?=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0APS - I'm also thinking about ways to pr
otect that buss bar ;)=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From:
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectr
ic-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:54 AM=0ASubject
: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A =0A=0A--> Aero
Electric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com>=0A=0AAt 11:00 PM 12/4/2013, you wrote:=0ABob,=0A=0AI have b
een reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The Aeroelectric Conne
ction" and I have a question.- (specifically Z-11, Z-12, & Z-14)=0A=0AI n
otice that the 6 awg wire which connects the load side of the Battery Conta
ctor to the Main Power Distribution bus is not fused.- That seems like an
un-protected feeder and gives me a little heart burn.=0A=0AI think of the
Main Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs across the back of th
e breakers in my distribution panel which lives in my instrument panel.-
With the Battery Contactor on the firewall, the run from it to the distribu
tion panel penetrates the firewall then snakes its way to the back of my pa
nel.- That #6 wire will be between 6 & 8 feet in length.=0A=0AWhat happen
s if that wire gets into trouble along its route.- Without a fuse it will
get very hot and bad things will happen.=0A=0AI'm curious about the criter
ia used in this design.- Perhaps I'm missing something?=0A=0ATIA,=0A=0A-J
eff=0A=0AOkay,=0A=0AGet out your toolbox and take a position to contemplate
this 'risky' piece of wire. What process and tools are needed to 'get this
wire into trouble'? Yes, it's attached to a battery with potential for spe
ctacular fault currents, but so too is your propeller thrashing around in t
he breeze with a potential for serious bodily harm.=0A=0AIt's easy to get b
ogged down worrying about things that have low to exceedingly small probabi
lity of happening.- This is a fundamental component of Failure Modes Effe
cts Analysis.- The artfully crafted FMEA not only considers "what happens
if . . .?" you're well advised to consider HOW that condition became a thi
ng to consider in the first place. The goal is to decide which has more val
ue: (1) protecting against a condition or (2) reducing probability of that
condition to an acceptably low value.=0A=0AIn the case of your fat-wire, wh
ich design goal offers the lowest level of risk and greatest boost of syste
m reliability? (1) protect the wire loaded to some gawd-awful fault or (2)
reduce probability of such an event to levels that says your worry-capital
is better invested elsewhere?- This thought process convinces us that bui
lding a safety cage around the propeller is not a useful/necessary expendit
ure of weight/cost/performance budget.=0A=0AThere are exposed conductors th
at run across the back of most circuit breaker panels. These bus bars are l
egacy features of all manner of vehicle not the least of which are airplane
s. Is there value in expending worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar
? You can answer this question with pretty simple observation and contempla
tion. With a box full of tools at your disposal, what parts of the airplane
do you have to hammer, pry or saw in order to get that bus bar . . . or yo
ur fat-wire into trouble?=0A=0AOnce those actions are discovered and evalua
ted, what is the likelihood that such an event is going to befall the poten
tial victim over the lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that
your study will produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to tw
o categories: (1) there are no features of structure or installed hardware
likely to dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2) Oops! Some feature
of installation of the wire or surrounds has not been installed with attent
ion to good practices . . . and you're going to fix it.=0A=0AThis same anal
ysis (and incorporation of lessons-learned) produced the following excerpt
from FAR23 for TC aircraft:=0A=0A=0ASec. 23.1357- Circuit protective dev
ices.=0A=0A(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must
be=0Ainstalled in all electrical circuits other than--=0A=0A- - - -
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and=0A-
- - - (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
=0A=0A=0A=0AThe controlling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you
're going to manage the installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds su
ch that "no hazard is presented" by omission of a fuse or breaker.=0A=0A=0A
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Additional voltage drop and connections that could fail.
What size ANL would you propose?
A 200 amp ANL would start most engines but would it increase safety if
it limited a short to only 2 or 300 amps of arcing for only say 10 seconds?
A 200 amp arc will almost certainly melt airframe material which will
increase the arc length and self extinguish within that time frame anyway.
Ken
On 05/12/2013 11:20 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. I get it - the assumption is: very low
> probability of the wire getting into trouble assuming that it's
> well-installed w/ intelligence and craftsmanship.
>
> But staying with the original theme, is there any down side to putting a
> big current limiter (ANL?) in that lead at its origin?
>
> -Jeff
>
> PS - I'm also thinking about ways to protect that buss bar ;)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
>
> >
>
> At 11:00 PM 12/4/2013, you wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I have been reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The
> Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question. (specifically Z-11,
> Z-12, & Z-14)
>
> I notice that the 6 awg wire which connects the load side of the Battery
> Contactor to the Main Power Distribution bus is not fused. That seems
> like an un-protected feeder and gives me a little heart burn.
>
> I think of the Main Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs
> across the back of the breakers in my distribution panel which lives in
> my instrument panel. With the Battery Contactor on the firewall, the
> run from it to the distribution panel penetrates the firewall then
> snakes its way to the back of my panel. That #6 wire will be between 6
> & 8 feet in length.
>
> What happens if that wire gets into trouble along its route. Without a
> fuse it will get very hot and bad things will happen.
>
> I'm curious about the criteria used in this design. Perhaps I'm missing
> something?
>
> TIA,
>
> -Jeff
>
> Okay,
>
> Get out your toolbox and take a position to contemplate this 'risky'
> piece of wire. What process and tools are needed to 'get this wire into
> trouble'? Yes, it's attached to a battery with potential for spectacular
> fault currents, but so too is your propeller thrashing around in the
> breeze with a potential for serious bodily harm.
>
> It's easy to get bogged down worrying about things that have low to
> exceedingly small probability of happening. This is a fundamental
> component of Failure Modes Effects Analysis. The artfully crafted FMEA
> not only considers "what happens if . . .?" you're well advised to
> consider HOW that condition became a thing to consider in the first
> place. The goal is to decide which has more value: (1) protecting
> against a condition or (2) reducing probability of that condition to an
> acceptably low value.
>
> In the case of your fat-wire, which design goal offers the lowest level
> of risk and greatest boost of system reliability? (1) protect the wire
> loaded to some gawd-awful fault or (2) reduce probability of such an
> event to levels that says your worry-capital is better invested
> elsewhere? This thought process convinces us that building a safety
> cage around the propeller is not a useful/necessary expenditure of
> weight/cost/performance budget.
>
> There are exposed conductors that run across the back of most circuit
> breaker panels. These bus bars are legacy features of all manner of
> vehicle not the least of which are airplanes. Is there value in
> expending worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar? You can answer
> this question with pretty simple observation and contemplation. With a
> box full of tools at your disposal, what parts of the airplane do you
> have to hammer, pry or saw in order to get that bus bar . . . or your
> fat-wire into trouble?
>
> Once those actions are discovered and evaluated, what is the likelihood
> that such an event is going to befall the potential victim over the
> lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that your study will
> produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to two categories:
> (1) there are no features of structure or installed hardware likely to
> dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2) Oops! Some feature of
> installation of the wire or surrounds has not been installed with
> attention to good practices . . . and you're going to fix it.
>
> This same analysis (and incorporation of lessons-learned) produced the
> following excerpt from FAR23 for TC aircraft:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> The controlling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you're going to manage
> the installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds such that "no
> hazard is presentedution link below to find out more
> ronics.com/contribution"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribst ->
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> _ref="http://forums.matronics.com/"
> target="_blank">http://forums.matron==================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Ken,=0A=0AIn the circuit that I'm thinking about the ANL would not be in th
e starter circuit - only in the feed to the distribution panel and maybe in
the 60-80 amp range.=0A=0AI think voltage drop will be very minimal.- Ad
ditional failure points, sure, but if we are assuming quality components &
workmanship that risk is also minimal.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A______________
__________________=0A From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-lis
t(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:42 AM=0ASubject: Re:
AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectr
ic-List message posted by: Ken =0A=0AAdditional voltage
drop and connections that could fail.=0A=0AWhat size ANL would you propose
?=0AA 200 amp ANL would start most engines but would it increase safety if
=0Ait limited a short to only 2 or 300 amps of arcing for only say 10 secon
ds?=0AA 200 amp arc will almost certainly melt airframe material which will
=0Aincrease the arc length and self extinguish within that time frame anyw
ay.=0A=0AKen=0A=0AOn 05/12/2013 11:20 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A> Thank you
for the explanation.- I get it - the assumption is: very low=0A> probabil
ity of the wire getting into trouble assuming that it's=0A> well-installed
w/ intelligence and craftsmanship.=0A>=0A> But staying with the original th
eme, is there any down side to putting a=0A> big current limiter (ANL?) in
that lead at its origin?=0A>=0A> -Jeff=0A>=0A> PS - I'm also thinking about
ways to protect that buss bar ;)=0A>=0A> ---------------------------------
---------------------------------------=0A> *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, II
I" =0A> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.co
m=0A> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:54 AM=0A> *Subject:* Re: AeroEle
ctric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A>=0A> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"=0A> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric
.com >=0A>=0A> At 11:00 PM 12/4/2013,
you wrote:=0A> Bob,=0A>=0A> I have been reviewing some of the Z drawings i
n the back of "The=0A> Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question.- (
specifically Z-11,=0A> Z-12, & Z-14)=0A>=0A> I notice that the 6 awg wire w
hich connects the load side of the Battery=0A> Contactor to the Main Power
Distribution bus is not fused.- That seems=0A> like an un-protected feede
r and gives me a little heart burn.=0A>=0A> I think of the Main Power Distr
ibution bus as the bus bar which runs=0A> across the back of the breakers i
n my distribution panel which lives in=0A> my instrument panel.- With the
Battery Contactor on the firewall, the=0A> run from it to the distribution
panel penetrates the firewall then=0A> snakes its way to the back of my pa
nel.- That #6 wire will be between 6=0A> & 8 feet in length.=0A>=0A> What
happens if that wire gets into trouble along its route.- Without a=0A> f
use it will get very hot and bad things will happen.=0A>=0A> I'm curious ab
out the criteria used in this design.- Perhaps I'm missing=0A> something?
=0A>=0A> TIA,=0A>=0A> -Jeff=0A>=0A> Okay,=0A>=0A> Get out your toolbox and
take a position to contemplate this 'risky'=0A> piece of wire. What process
and tools are needed to 'get this wire into=0A> trouble'? Yes, it's attach
ed to a battery with potential for spectacular=0A> fault currents, but so t
oo is your propeller thrashing around in the=0A> breeze with a potential fo
r serious bodily harm.=0A>=0A> It's easy to get bogged down worrying about
things that have low to=0A> exceedingly small probability of happening.-
This is a fundamental=0A> component of Failure Modes Effects Analysis.- T
he artfully crafted FMEA=0A> not only considers "what happens if . . .?" yo
u're well advised to=0A> consider HOW that condition became a thing to cons
ider in the first=0A> place. The goal is to decide which has more value: (1
) protecting=0A> against a condition or (2) reducing probability of that co
ndition to an=0A> acceptably low value.=0A>=0A> In the case of your fat-wir
e, which design goal offers the lowest level=0A> of risk and greatest boost
of system reliability? (1) protect the wire=0A> loaded to some gawd-awful
fault or (2) reduce probability of such an=0A> event to levels that says yo
ur worry-capital is better invested=0A> elsewhere?- This thought process
convinces us that building a safety=0A> cage around the propeller is not a
useful/necessary expenditure of=0A> weight/cost/performance budget.=0A>=0A>
There are exposed conductors that run across the back of most circuit=0A>
breaker panels. These bus bars are legacy features of all manner of=0A> veh
icle not the least of which are airplanes. Is there value in=0A> expending
worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar? You can answer=0A> this quest
ion with pretty simple observation and contemplation. With a=0A> box full o
f tools at your disposal, what parts of the airplane do you=0A> have to ham
mer, pry or saw in order to get that bus bar . . . or your=0A> fat-wire int
o trouble?=0A>=0A> Once those actions are discovered and evaluated, what is
the likelihood=0A> that such an event is going to befall the potential vic
tim over the=0A> lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that you
r study will=0A> produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to tw
o categories:=0A> (1) there are no features of structure or installed hardw
are likely to=0A> dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2) Oops! Some
feature of=0A> installation of the wire or surrounds has not been installed
with=0A> attention to good practices . . . and you're going to fix it.=0A>
=0A> This same analysis (and incorporation of lessons-learned) produced the
=0A> following excerpt from FAR23 for TC aircraft:=0A>=0A>=0A> Sec. 23.1357
- Circuit protective devices.=0A>=0A> (a) Protective devices, such as fus
es or circuit breakers, must be=0A> installed in all electrical circuits ot
her than--=0A>=0A>- - - - - (1) Main circuits of starter motors u
sed during starting only; and=0A>- - - - - (2) Circuits in which
no hazard is presented by their omission.=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> The c
ontrolling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you're going to manage=0A> the
installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds such that "no=0A> hazard i
s presentedution link below to find out more=0A> ronics.com/contribution"
=0A> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribst ->=0A> http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0A> _ref="http://forums.matron
ics.com/"=0A> target="_blank">http://forums.matron=======
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Jeff
In that case if you decide to do it I'd suggest that something like a
maxi fuse would be more appropriate than a very slow acting ANL. I'd
still lean towards no protection but you are obviously more familiar
with your wire routing. I'd make sure that it isn't going to present a
major problem though if you get a nuisance trip after takeoff.
Ken
On 05/12/2013 12:03 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Ken,
>
> In the circuit that I'm thinking about the ANL would not be in the
> starter circuit - only in the feed to the distribution panel and maybe
> in the 60-80 amp range.
>
> I think voltage drop will be very minimal. Additional failure points,
> sure, but if we are assuming quality components & workmanship that risk
> is also minimal.
>
> -Jeff
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Ken
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
>
> >
>
> Additional voltage drop and connections that could fail.
>
> What size ANL would you propose?
> A 200 amp ANL would start most engines but would it increase safety if
> it limited a short to only 2 or 300 amps of arcing for only say 10 seconds?
> A 200 amp arc will almost certainly melt airframe material which will
> increase the arc length and self extinguish within that time frame anyway.
>
> Ken
>
> On 05/12/2013 11:20 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> > Thank you for the explanation. I get it - the assumption is: very low
> > probability of the wire getting into trouble assuming that it's
> > well-installed w/ intelligence and craftsmanship.
> >
> > But staying with the original theme, is there any down side to putting a
> > big current limiter (ANL?) in that lead at its origin?
> >
> > -Jeff
> >
> > PS - I'm also thinking about ways to protect that buss bar ;)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >
> > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> > At 11:00 PM 12/4/2013, you wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > I have been reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The
> > Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question. (specifically Z-11,
> > Z-12, & Z-14)
> >
> > I notice that the 6 awg wire which connects the load side of the Battery
> > Contactor to the Main Power Distribution bus is not fused. That seems
> > like an un-protected feeder and gives me a little heart burn.
> >
> > I think of the Main Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs
> > across the back of the breakers in my distribution panel which lives in
> > my instrument panel. With the Battery Contactor on the firewall, the
> > run from it to the distribution panel penetrates the firewall then
> > snakes its way to the back of my panel. That #6 wire will be between 6
> > & 8 feet in length.
> >
> > What happens if that wire gets into trouble along its route. Without a
> > fuse it will get very hot and bad things will happen.
> >
> > I'm curious about the criteria used in this design. Perhaps I'm missing
> > something?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > -Jeff
> >
> > Okay,
> >
> > Get out your toolbox and take a position to contemplate this 'risky'
> > piece of wire. What process and tools are needed to 'get this wire into
> > trouble'? Yes, it's attached to a battery with potential for spectacular
> > fault currents, but so too is your propeller thrashing around in the
> > breeze with a potential for serious bodily harm.
> >
> > It's easy to get bogged down worrying about things that have low to
> > exceedingly small probability of happening. This is a fundamental
> > component of Failure Modes Effects Analysis. The artfully crafted FMEA
> > not only considers "what happens if . . .?" you're well advised to
> > consider HOW that condition became a thing to consider in the first
> > place. The goal is to decide which has more value: (1) protecting
> > against a condition or (2) reducing probability of that condition to an
> > acceptably low value.
> >
> > In the case of your fat-wire, which design goal offers the lowest level
> > of risk and greatest boost of system reliability? (1) protect the wire
> > loaded to some gawd-awful fault or (2) reduce probability of such an
> > event to levels that says your worry-capital is better invested
> > elsewhere? This thought process convinces us that building a safety
> > cage around the propeller is not a useful/necessary expenditure of
> > weight/cost/performance budget.
> >
> > There are exposed conductors that run across the back of most circuit
> > breaker panels. These bus bars are legacy features of all manner of
> > vehicle not the least of which are airplanes. Is there value in
> > expending worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar? You can answer
> > this question with pretty simple observation and contemplation. With a
> > box full of tools at your disposal, what parts of the airplane do you
> > have to hammer, pry or saw in order to get that bus bar . . . or your
> > fat-wire into trouble?
> >
> > Once those actions are discovered and evaluated, what is the likelihood
> > that such an event is going to befall the potential victim over the
> > lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that your study will
> > produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to two categories:
> > (1) there are no features of structure or installed hardware likely to
> > dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2) Oops! Some feature of
> > installation of the wire or surrounds has not been installed with
> > attention to good practices . . . and you're going to fix it.
> >
> > This same analysis (and incorporation of lessons-learned) produced the
> > following excerpt from FAR23 for TC aircraft:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > The controlling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you're going to manage
> > the installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds such that "no
> > hazard is presentedution link below to find out more
> > ronics.com/contribution"
> > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribst ->
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > _ref="http://forums.matronics.com/"
> >
> target="_blank">http://forums.matron==============p://www.matronics.com/contribution"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.nbsp; -Matt Dralle,
> List Atric-List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectrip; -->
> <http://forums.matron===================/>http:=======================
>
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>
> *
>
> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Ken,=0A=0AI think you put your finger on it - I'm interested in analyzing t
he potential for events which are non-catastrophic & transient in nature th
at might cause the fuse to pop un-necessarily (nuisance trip).=0A=0AI think
that's a pretty small universe and at the moment I can't think of an examp
le of such an event - perhaps that's because there are none.- I'm hoping
the brain trust on this list can think of such an event that I may be overl
ooking.=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From:
Ken =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thu
rsday, December 5, 2013 9:39 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotect
en =0A=0AJeff=0AIn that case if you decide to do it I'd
suggest that something like a =0Amaxi fuse would be more appropriate than
a very slow acting ANL. I'd =0Astill lean towards no protection but you are
obviously more familiar =0Awith your wire routing. I'd make sure that it i
sn't going to present a =0Amajor problem though if you get a nuisance trip
after takeoff.=0AKen=0A=0AOn 05/12/2013 12:03 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A> Ke
n,=0A>=0A> In the circuit that I'm thinking about the ANL would not be in t
he=0A> starter circuit - only in the feed to the distribution panel and may
be=0A> in the 60-80 amp range.=0A>=0A> I think voltage drop will be very mi
nimal.- Additional failure points,=0A> sure, but if we are assuming quali
ty components & workmanship that risk=0A> is also minimal.=0A>=0A> -Jeff=0A
>=0A> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---=0A> *From:* Ken =0A> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matron
ics.com=0A> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:42 AM=0A> *Subject:* Re: A
eroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A>=0A> --> AeroElectric
-List message posted by: Ken >=0A>=0A> Additional voltage drop and connections that could fail.=0A>
=0A> What size ANL would you propose?=0A> A 200 amp ANL would start most en
gines but would it increase safety if=0A> it limited a short to only 2 or 3
00 amps of arcing for only say 10 seconds?=0A> A 200 amp arc will almost ce
rtainly melt airframe material which will=0A> increase the arc length and s
elf extinguish within that time frame anyway.=0A>=0A> Ken=0A>=0A> On 05/12/
2013 11:20 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:=0A>- > Thank you for the explanation.
- I get it - the assumption is: very low=0A>- > probability of the wire
getting into trouble assuming that it's=0A>- > well-installed w/ intelli
gence and craftsmanship.=0A>- >=0A>- > But staying with the original th
eme, is there any down side to putting a=0A>- > big current limiter (ANL?
) in that lead at its origin?=0A>- >=0A>- > -Jeff=0A>- >=0A>- > PS
- I'm also thinking about ways to protect that buss bar ;)=0A>- >=0A>-
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
=0A>- > *From:* "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >=0A>- > *To:* aeroelectric-li
st(at)matronics.com=0A> =0A>- > *Sen
t:* Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:54 AM=0A>- > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric
-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A>- >=0A>- > --> AeroElectric-
List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"=0A>- > <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com =0A> >>=0A>- >
=0A>- > At 11:00 PM 12/4/2013, you wrote:=0A>- > Bob,=0A>- >=0A>- >
I have been reviewing some of the Z drawings in the back of "The=0A>- >
Aeroelectric Connection" and I have a question.- (specifically Z-11,=0A>
- > Z-12, & Z-14)=0A>- >=0A>- > I notice that the 6 awg wire which co
nnects the load side of the Battery=0A>- > Contactor to the Main Power Di
stribution bus is not fused.- That seems=0A>- > like an un-protected fe
eder and gives me a little heart burn.=0A>- >=0A>- > I think of the Mai
n Power Distribution bus as the bus bar which runs=0A>- > across the back
of the breakers in my distribution panel which lives in=0A>- > my instru
ment panel.- With the Battery Contactor on the firewall, the=0A>- > run
from it to the distribution panel penetrates the firewall then=0A>- > sn
akes its way to the back of my panel.- That #6 wire will be between 6=0A>
- > & 8 feet in length.=0A>- >=0A>- > What happens if that wire gets
into trouble along its route.- Without a=0A>- > fuse it will get very h
ot and bad things will happen.=0A>- >=0A>- > I'm curious about the crit
eria used in this design.- Perhaps I'm missing=0A>- > something?=0A>-
>=0A>- > TIA,=0A>- >=0A>- > -Jeff=0A>- >=0A>- > Okay,=0A>- >
=0A>- > Get out your toolbox and take a position to contemplate this 'ris
ky'=0A>- > piece of wire. What process and tools are needed to 'get this
wire into=0A>- > trouble'? Yes, it's attached to a battery with potential
for spectacular=0A>- > fault currents, but so too is your propeller thra
shing around in the=0A>- > breeze with a potential for serious bodily har
m.=0A>- >=0A>- > It's easy to get bogged down worrying about things tha
t have low to=0A>- > exceedingly small probability of happening.- This
is a fundamental=0A>- > component of Failure Modes Effects Analysis.- T
he artfully crafted FMEA=0A>- > not only considers "what happens if . . .
?" you're well advised to=0A>- > consider HOW that condition became a thi
ng to consider in the first=0A>- > place. The goal is to decide which has
more value: (1) protecting=0A>- > against a condition or (2) reducing pr
obability of that condition to an=0A>- > acceptably low value.=0A>- >
=0A>- > In the case of your fat-wire, which design goal offers the lowest
level=0A>- > of risk and greatest boost of system reliability? (1) prote
ct the wire=0A>- > loaded to some gawd-awful fault or (2) reduce probabil
ity of such an=0A>- > event to levels that says your worry-capital is bet
ter invested=0A>- > elsewhere?- This thought process convinces us that
building a safety=0A>- > cage around the propeller is not a useful/necess
ary expenditure of=0A>- > weight/cost/performance budget.=0A>- >=0A>-
> There are exposed conductors that run across the back of most circuit=0A
>- > breaker panels. These bus bars are legacy features of all manner of
=0A>- > vehicle not the least of which are airplanes. Is there value in
=0A>- > expending worry-capital on risk for faulting a bus bar? You can a
nswer=0A>- > this question with pretty simple observation and contemplati
on. With a=0A>- > box full of tools at your disposal, what parts of the a
irplane do you=0A>- > have to hammer, pry or saw in order to get that bus
bar . . . or your=0A>- > fat-wire into trouble?=0A>- >=0A>- > Once t
hose actions are discovered and evaluated, what is the likelihood=0A>- >
that such an event is going to befall the potential victim over the=0A>-
> lifetime of your airplane? It's fairly predicable that your study will=0A
>- > produce some combination of discoveries that fall in to two categori
es:=0A>- > (1) there are no features of structure or installed hardware l
ikely to=0A>- > dislodge and attack the potential victim; (2) Oops! Some
feature of=0A>- > installation of the wire or surrounds has not been inst
alled with=0A>- > attention to good practices . . . and you're going to f
ix it.=0A>- >=0A>- > This same analysis (and incorporation of lessons-l
earned) produced the=0A>- > following excerpt from FAR23 for TC aircraft:
=0A>- >=0A>- >=0A>- > Sec. 23.1357- Circuit protective devices.=0A>
- >=0A>- > (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, m
ust be=0A>- > installed in all electrical circuits other than--=0A>- >
=0A>- >- - - - - (1) Main circuits of starter motors used durin
g starting=0A> only; and=0A>- >- - - - - (2) Circuits in which
no hazard is presented by their omission.=0A>- >=0A>- > =0A>
- >=0A>- > The controlling idea here is 23.1357(a)(2) where you're goin
g to manage=0A>- > the installation of this 6AWG wire and its surrounds s
uch that "no=0A>- > hazard is presentedution link below to find out more
=0A>- > ronics.com/contribution"=0A>- > target="_blank">http://www.ma
tronics.com/contribst ->=0A>- > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl
ectric-List=0A>- > _ref="http://forums.matronics.com/"=0A>- >=0A> tar
get="_blank">http://forums.matron=============
=p://www.matronics.com/contribution"=0A> target="_blank">http://www.mat
ronics.nbsp;- - - - - - - -Matt Dralle,=0A> List Atric-List"
=0A> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectrip; -->
=0A> <http://forums.matron================
===/>http:===================
======0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> <http://forums.matronics.com/>=0A>
<http://forums.matronics.com/>=0A> =0A> =0A> <http://forums.matronics.com/>=0A>=0A> *=0A>
===============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
At 10:20 AM 12/5/2013, you wrote:
>Thank you for the explanation. I get it - the assumption is: very
>low probability of the wire getting into trouble assuming that it's
>well-installed w/ intelligence and craftsmanship.
>
>But staying with the original theme, is there any down side to
>putting a big current limiter (ANL?) in that lead at its origin?
>
>-Jeff
>
>PS - I'm also thinking about ways to protect that buss bar ;)
. . . as you wish.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
At 12:16 PM 12/5/2013, you wrote:
>Ken,
>
>I think you put your finger on it - I'm interested in analyzing the
>potential for events which are non-catastrophic & transient in
>nature that might cause the fuse to pop un-necessarily (nuisance trip).
>
>I think that's a pretty small universe and at the moment I can't
>think of an example of such an event - perhaps that's because there
>are none. I'm hoping the brain trust on this list can think of such
>an event that I may be overlooking.
Help me understand your concerns.
You have embarked on an analytical search for
transient events that might nuisance trip the
fuse. Is there not an equally useful activity
to identify events that might put the proposed
feeder at risk for burning in the first place?
That particular wire between battery feeders and
distribution busses has existed in perhaps a
quarter million production aircraft over the past
80+ years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted
with such protection.
Are you aware of facts that argue with the notion
that hard-faults capable of raising that 6AWG wire
to hazardous temperatures do not exist outside
the realm of poor installation practice?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Studies in the fine art of worrying |
Just received a heads-up on this new product . . .
Someone has apparently studied the state of current
arts for joining of wires (and protecting the joint)
and found the practice lacking.
http://tinyurl.com/kz5c48h
They've even produced a video . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kmdfygt
"When there is no margin for error" says the narrator,
this product is the right choice. What is not said
is that the use of the right crimp tool produces a
gas tight joint that does not improve with the addition
of solder.
Had they offered the crimp+solder process as a hedge
against poor selection of tools or technique, this would
begin to make sense.
In this case, the crimp tool is nothing more useful
to the process than fixturing the wire and terminal
while solder is applied to finish a task that the crimp
tool missed.
The promotional materials do not cite reliability and/or
service problems that begged for this solution. Nor
does it suggest that with more understanding and
exploitation of legacy materials and processes, the
"need" for this product becomes less convincing.
Throughout the OBAM aviation forums there are examples
of advice to 'crimp and then solder' for improved
joint integrity. This company has taken that advice to
an new level . . . and perhaps fueled the fires of
new constellation worries amongst our brothers.
Without a doubt, this product offers an opportunity
for improved integrity of joints which are the outcome
of under-educated or careless craftsmanship. Perhaps the
accident chronicled here http://tinyurl.com/mwbk9qs
would not have happened had terminals/wires cited in last
paragraphs of page 3 had be crimped+soldered with this
not so revolutionary new product.
The point of this missive is to re-enforce the idea that
system reliability will be greatest when the designer/
builder possesses a degree of understanding about the
simple-ideas that make all the pieces fit and perform
with confidence. This understanding cannot be secured
from a simple review of promotional literature and data
sheets for products . . . the greatest reliability
doesn't come off the display racks in a blister-pak.
I would not discourage anyone from exploiting such
a product if their budget is not strained . . . without
a doubt, the product performs as advertised. But just
as we've discussed $high$ contactors and fuses in
bus feeders, the question to be asked and answered,
do understanding and rudimentary skills make this
unnecessary or a poor return on investment?
As a side note, in the Utopian lead-free world, what
is the melting temp for the solder? I note that they
did not use a heat-gun but a butane flame, easier
to 'point' the energy but also MUCH hotter. Most
insulations outside the aviation community are
gong to be pretty stressed at temperatures required
to flow lead-free solders which melt at about 100F
hotter than 63/37 tin-lead.
It takes a whole new skill set to apply these
terminals with results that match the demonstration
video . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Bob,=0A=0ANot sure I would call them "concerns".- It's more like playing
what-if =0Abased upon my experience in other environments.=0A=0AIn other el
ectrical realms: marine, residential, commercial, and I =0Aworked on a few
high-end motor homes, having an un-protected =0Afeeder would be frowned upo
n (or in varying degrees of =0Adisapproval: considered negligent, unwise, "
against code", etc.)- =0AThat experience permeates my system design proce
ss. =0A=0A=0AIs there not an equally useful activity to identify events tha
t might put theproposedfeeder at risk for burning in the first place?=0A=0A
Certainly, but that doesn't mean that one should not engage =0A=0Ain explor
ing all options and possibilities.=0A=0A=0AAre you aware of facts that argu
e with the notion that hard-faults capable of raising that 6AWG wire to ha
zardous temperatures do not exist outside the realm of poor installation p
ractice?=0A=0AI am not.- But my ignorance of such information does not me
an =0A=0Athat it does not exist.=0A=0AThat particular wire between battery
feeders and distribution busses has existed in perhaps a quarter million p
roduction aircraft over the past 80+ years and to my knowledge, has never
been fitted with such protection.=0A=0AI find that fascinating...=0A=0A=0AI
n my relatively simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the feeder =0A=0Ain
question to have little or no down side and potentially huge =0A=0Aupside
- preventing an in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight fires)=0A=0A=0ASo t
he downside is that there could be some innocuous event =0A=0Athat I am una
ware of which pops the proposed big fuse =0A=0Aunnecessarily.- (sounds a
little ridiculous, but carry on...)=0AI can't think of anything like that b
ut I'm not a genius so I =0A=0Athought I'd throw it out to The List to see
if its collective =0A=0Awisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.
=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@mat
ronics.com =0ASent: Friday, December 6, 2013 5:18 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroEle
ctric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AAt 12:16 PM 12/5/2013, you wrote:=0A> Ken,=0A> =0A> I think you put
your finger on it - I'm interested in analyzing the potential for events w
hich are non-catastrophic & transient in nature that might cause the fuse t
o pop un-necessarily (nuisance trip).=0A> =0A> I think that's a pretty smal
l universe and at the moment I can't think of an example of such an event -
perhaps that's because there are none.- I'm hoping the brain trust on th
is list can think of such an event that I may be overlooking.=0A=0A- Hel
p me understand your concerns.=0A=0A- You have embarked on an analytical
search for=0A- transient events that might nuisance trip the=0A- fus
e. Is there not an equally useful activity=0A- to identify events that m
ight put the proposed=0A- feeder at risk for burning in the first place?
=0A=0A- That particular wire between battery feeders and=0A- distribu
tion busses has existed in perhaps a=0A- quarter million production airc
raft over the past=0A- 80+ years and to my knowledge, has never been fit
ted=0A- with such protection.=0A=0A- Are you aware of facts that argu
e with the notion=0A- that hard-faults capable of raising that 6AWG wire
=0A- to hazardous temperatures do not exist outside=0A- the realm of
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
>
>That particular wire between battery feeders and distribution busses
>has existed in perhaps a quarter million production aircraft over
>the past 80+ years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with
>such protection.
>
>I find that fascinating...
>
>In my relatively simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the feeder
>in question to have little or no down side and potentially huge
>upside - preventing an in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight fires)
Consider the consequences of opening that fuse
(or any other event causing that pathway to open)
in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the panel.
I.e. single point of failure for all accessories.
Yeah but . . . if the fuse opens, then there was
something 'wrong'.
Yes, but what? The FEMA process calls for hypothesizing
every kind of event that can open the fuse and either (1)
crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing the risk.
>So the downside is that there could be some innocuous event
>that I am unaware of which pops the proposed big fuse
>unnecessarily. (sounds a little ridiculous, but carry on...)
>I can't think of anything like that but I'm not a genius so I
>thought I'd throw it out to The List to see if its collective
>wisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.
We have a huge data base from which to conduct that
assessment not the least of which are big bunches of
airplanes smaller bunches of qualification studies
and relatively tiny bunches of incidences that bent
aluminum and maybe even broke bones.
The NTSB narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h
Do a random search of FINAL REPORTS with your senses
attuned to causation with roots in human failings
(either in operation, maintenance or design) and those
which have causation in some physical failure
mechanism.
Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into
the second category for causation and will be a
minuscule portion of the whole . . . and
of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even
smaller.
In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and
probably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've
observed only two incidences of a popped breaker in
flight. NEITHER of those cases had root cause in a
wire faulted to ground - the fault needed to open
your proposed fuse.
The foundation for moving circuit protection off
the panel and reverting back to fuses is predicated
on similar experiences by thousands of other pilots.
Experiences suggesting that dedicating dollars, panel
space, weight and fabrication time to a breaker-panel
is not a good return on investment.
Bottom line is that you're many, many times more
likely to have a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
far removed from a hard ground fault on your 6AWG
bus feeder . . . and THAT because you didn't conduct
due diligence in its installation.
Same thing applies to torque on your prop bolts,
replacing a tire that's flopping cordage, taking
an extra close look at forecasts during icing season,
and a host of things we do that go to reducing
risk.
In the case of the bus feeder, the risks are not
so much to the wire as to the thing the wire touches.
Case in point: C90 on short final experiences disconnect
of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim commands and power to
execute go-around, assesses the condition and successfully
lands the airplane with rudder, trim and power.
Pulling up floorboards in the cockpit revealed a 40A
protected feeder to the windshield de-ice inverter
had been mis-positioned against the elevator control
cable during a maintenance operation. Over what had to
be many hours of operation, motion of the cable wore
through the insulation bringing the cable into contact
with the hot wire. The arcing and sparking was of
insufficient intensity to come to attention of crew
in spite of the fact that it was going on virtually
under their feet.
The copper wire was barely damaged. The breaker never
popped while the elevator cable eventually eroded through
and parted. Compare thermal properties of copper versus
steel . . . this explains why the best steel safes have
intermediate layers of copper in their construction. It's
EASY to burn through steel . . . next to impossible on copper.
This narrative explains the high order probability that
even if you DID get your 6AWG feeder faulted to
ground, it's most likely to be a soft fault that
burns a hole in your airplane while doing little
damage to the wire . . . and certainly far short of
getting it to smoke and/or open a fuse/breaker.
Adding 'protection' to this pathway doubles the
number of joints in the pathway and adds nothing
demonstrable in terms of fault response . . . which
is why the spam-can builders don't do it either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Bob, =0A=0AOk, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play th
e Devil's Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.=0A=0ASeveral years ago in Germ
any Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he looses his pen.- He finishes h
is flight but forgets to recover the pen.- A few days later Pilot B takes
the plane through several aerobatic maneuvers which dislodge the pen from
where it was hiding and wedge it between the buss on the back of the breake
rs and the airframe causing a fault to ground.- Smoke in the cockpit, pan
ic, denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right thing and kills the m
aster, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy ending.- Good News: eng
ine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps running:)=0A=0ABad News: The
plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder melted other wires
in the loom.- Sure, no one died but I certainly don't want to be Pilot B!
- If that feeder had been fused there would have been no smoke and no dam
age to wiring.=0A=0A=0AThe point is that simply installing the feeder w/ ca
re & craftsmanship may not be enough.- No matter how well that feeder was
installed, it would have made no difference in this scenario.- Unforesee
n circumstances could make for a bad day for your electrical system.- It
may be impossible to foresee all possible bad scenarios so we want the desi
gn of the system to be as fault tolerant as possible.=0A=0A=0APerhaps putti
ng a fuse in the feed line may be a "belt & suspenders" approach but I stil
l don't see a real down side and, like I mentioned earlier, I sure don't wa
nt to be Pilot B.=0A=0ABTW Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able to ex
plore & discuss these issues in cordial & intelligent ways - whether or not
there's a right or wrong answer, I always learn something.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A
=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III
" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0A
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 10:29 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: U
nprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message post
ed by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0A=0A>
=0A> That particular wire between battery feeders and distribution busses h
as existed in perhaps a quarter million production aircraft over the past 8
0+ years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with such protection.
=0A> =0A> I find that fascinating...=0A> =0A> In my relatively simple mind
I consider adding a fuse to the feeder=0A> in question to have little or no
down side and potentially huge=0A> upside - preventing an in-flight fire.
(not a fan of in-flight fires)=0A=0A- Consider the consequences of openi
ng that fuse=0A- (or any other event causing that pathway to open)=0A-
in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the panel.=0A- I.e. single p
oint of failure for all accessories.=0A=0A- Yeah but . . . if the fuse o
pens, then there was=0A- something 'wrong'.=0A=0A- Yes, but what?-
The FEMA process calls for hypothesizing=0A- every kind of event that ca
n open the fuse and either (1)=0A- crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing
the risk.=0A=0A=0A> So the downside is that there could be some innocuous e
vent=0A> that I am unaware of which pops the proposed big fuse=0A> unnecess
arily.- (sounds a little ridiculous, but carry on...)=0A> I can't think o
f anything like that but I'm not a genius so I=0A> thought I'd throw it out
to The List to see if its collective=0A> wisdom knows about something I ma
y have overlooked.=0A=0A- We have a huge data base from which to conduct
that=0A- assessment not the least of which are big bunches of=0A- ai
rplanes smaller bunches of qualification studies=0A- and relatively tiny
bunches of incidences that bent=0A- aluminum and maybe even broke bones
.=0A=0A- The NTSB narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible=0A- h
ere . . .=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h=0A=0A- Do a random search of F
INAL REPORTS with your senses=0A- attuned to causation with roots in hum
an failings=0A- (either in operation, maintenance or design) and those
=0A- which have causation in some physical failure=0A- mechanism.=0A
=0A- Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into=0A- the se
cond category for causation and will be a=0A- minuscule portion of the w
hole . . . and=0A- of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even=0A-
smaller.=0A=0A- In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and=0A- pr
obably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've=0A- observed only two in
cidences of a popped breaker in=0A- flight. NEITHER of those cases had r
oot cause in a=0A- wire faulted to ground - the fault needed to open=0A
- your proposed fuse.=0A=0A- The foundation for moving circuit protec
tion off=0A- the panel and reverting back to fuses is predicated=0A-
on similar experiences by thousands of other pilots.=0A- Experiences sug
gesting that dedicating dollars, panel=0A- space, weight and fabrication
time to a breaker-panel=0A- is not a good return on investment.=0A=0A
- Bottom line is that you're many, many times more=0A- likely to have
a bad day in the cockpit for reasons=0A- far removed from a hard ground
fault on your 6AWG=0A- bus feeder . . . and THAT because you didn't con
duct=0A- due diligence in its installation.=0A=0A- Same thing applies
to torque on your prop bolts,=0A- replacing a tire that's flopping cord
age, taking=0A- an extra close look at forecasts during icing season,=0A
- and a host of things we do that go to reducing=0A- risk.=0A=0A-
In the case of the bus feeder, the risks are not=0A- so much to the wire
as to the thing the wire touches.=0A=0A- Case in point:- C90 on short
final experiences disconnect=0A- of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim co
mmands and power to=0A- execute go-around, assesses the condition and su
ccessfully=0A- lands the airplane with rudder, trim and power.=0A=0A-
Pulling up floorboards in the cockpit revealed a 40A=0A- protected feed
er to the windshield de-ice inverter=0A- had been mis-positioned against
the elevator control=0A- cable during a maintenance operation. Over wha
t had to=0A- be many hours of operation, motion of the cable wore=0A-
through the insulation bringing the cable into contact=0A- with the hot
wire. The arcing and sparking was of=0A- insufficient intensity to come
to attention of crew=0A- in spite of the fact that it was going on virt
ually=0A- under their feet.=0A=0A- The copper wire was barely damaged
. The breaker never=0A- popped while the elevator cable eventually erode
d through=0A- and parted. Compare- thermal properties of copper versus
=0A- steel . . . this explains why the best steel safes have=0A- inte
rmediate layers of copper in their construction. It's=0A- EASY to burn t
hrough steel . . . next to impossible on copper.=0A=0A- This narrative e
xplains the high order probability that=0A- even if you DID get your 6AW
G feeder faulted to=0A- ground, it's most likely to be a soft fault that
=0A- burns a hole in your airplane while doing little=0A- damage to t
he wire . . . and certainly far short of=0A- getting it to smoke and/or
open a fuse/breaker.=0A=0A- Adding 'protection' to this pathway doubles
the=0A- number of joints in the pathway and adds nothing=0A- demonstr
able in terms of fault response . . . which=0A- is why the spam-can buil
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Hi Jeff,
Interesting story. My take on this is simply a question of 'risk
management'. Lets say that ALL planes that do not have this 'extra fuse' now
suddenly get this 'extra fuse' .. do you think the risk is higher that
something goes wrong with the fuse .. the extra connectors to fit the fuse
.. how the fuse is fitted .. how it is potentially fitted incorrectly etc...
IF .. the only case of 'something bad happened because this wire is not
fused' is the incident that you mention below .. Well ... what do you think
is more likely to happen ....
Something wrong will all the 1000 of planes that now have 'one more part
that can go wrong' i.e. the extra fuse ... or a pen or something else
lodging against the bus and shorting to ground ?
On YOUR plane ... how easy is it for anything to actually lodge in the same
place ? Suggest looking at best way to prevent something to lodge and short
.. than to add something that has never been seen a 'required' before ....
I agree that there are very few things that are absolutely right or
absolutely wrong .. (apart from when at school ;-) ...then everything was
always very black and white ..
The more you can 'remove from the plane' the less you have that can go wrong
... what you are 'left with' ...well .. you just need to analyze the risk
and what happens when it fail .. can you reduce the risk ... without adding
another risk ..
The following is not related to aircrafts .. but I like to use it to make
people thing about risk .. and how to reduce accidents .... I have no idea
if it would work .. but you could argue the case ..
The general thought of car safety is to add more things .. seat belts -
airbags - crumble zones etc etc.. list goes on and on ...
The net results is that we tend to drive faster .. We have more accidents ..
maybe less people would die .. but then compared to what ?
Here is my idea for the ultimate car safety device .. You remove seat belts
and you make it a legal requirement that ALL steering wheels must have a 6"
spike mounted in the centre .. pointing straight at your chest .. (and NO ..
you can not wear a bullet proof west :-) ..)
Now you know ... if you do not drive very carefully, no hard braking etc...
... you are not going to last very long are you ? Looking at that 6" spike
at the steering wheel.
Sure some people will die ..and some people who are driving very carefully
will be hit by someone who does not ... But will the OVERALL number of
accidents go up or go down ??
:-)
Enjoy the weekend ! I
Jan
PS : will not be fitting a fuse on that wire ... But I will look very very
closely at how it is run .....
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Luckey
Sent: 07 December 2013 01:38
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
Bob,
Ok, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the Devil's
Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.
Several years ago in Germany Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he looses
his pen. He finishes his flight but forgets to recover the pen. A few days
later Pilot B takes the plane through several aerobatic maneuvers which
dislodge the pen from where it was hiding and wedge it between the buss on
the back of the breakers and the airframe causing a fault to ground. Smoke
in the cockpit, panic, denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right
thing and kills the master, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy
ending. Good News: engine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps
running:)
Bad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder melted
other wires in the loom. Sure, no one died but I certainly don't want to be
Pilot B! If that feeder had been fused there would have been no smoke and
no damage to wiring.
The point is that simply installing the feeder w/ care & craftsmanship may
not be enough. No matter how well that feeder was installed, it would have
made no difference in this scenario. Unforeseen circumstances could make
for a bad day for your electrical system. It may be impossible to foresee
all possible bad scenarios so we want the design of the system to be as
fault tolerant as possible.
Perhaps putting a fuse in the feed line may be a "belt & suspenders"
approach but I still don't see a real down side and, like I mentioned
earlier, I sure don't want to be Pilot B.
BTW Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able to explore & discuss these
issues in cordial & intelligent ways - whether or not there's a right or
wrong answer, I always learn something.
-Jeff
_____
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
>
>
> That particular wire between battery feeders and distribution busses has
existed in perhaps a quarter million production aircraft over the past 80+
years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with such protection.
>
> I find that fascinating...
>
> In my relatively simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the feeder
> in question to have little or no down side and potentially huge
> upside - preventing an in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight fires)
Consider the consequences of opening that fuse
(or any other event causing that pathway to open)
in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the panel.
I.e. single point of failure for all accessories.
Yeah but . . . if the fuse opens, then there was
something 'wrong'.
Yes, but what? The FEMA process calls for hypothesizing
every kind of event that can open the fuse and either (1)
crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing the risk.
> So the downside is that there could be some innocuous event
> that I am unaware of which pops the proposed big fuse
> unnecessarily. (sounds a little ridiculous, but carry on...)
> I can't think of anything like that but I'm not a genius so I
> thought I'd throw it out to The List to see if its collective
> wisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.
We have a huge data base from which to conduct that
assessment not the least of which are big bunches of
airplanes smaller bunches of qualification studies
and relatively tiny bunches of incidences that bent
aluminum and maybe even broke bones.
The NTSB narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h
Do a random search of FINAL REPORTS with your senses
attuned to causation with roots in human failings
(either in operation, maintenance or design) and those
which have causation in some physical failure
mechanism.
Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into
the second category for causation and will be a
minuscule portion of the whole . . . and
of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even
smaller.
In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and
probably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've
observed only two incidences of a popped breaker in
flight. NEITHER of those cases had root cause in a
wire faulted to ground - the fault needed to open
your proposed fuse.
The foundation for moving circuit protection off
the panel and reverting back to fuses is predicated
on similar experiences by thousands of other pilots.
Experiences suggesting that dedicating dollars, panel
space, weight and fabrication time to a breaker-panel
is not a good return on investment.
Bottom line is that you're many, many times more
likely to have a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
far removed from a hard ground fault on your 6AWG
bus feeder . . . and THAT because you didn't conduct
due diligence in its installation.
Same thing applies to torque on your prop bolts,
replacing a tire that's flopping cordage, taking
an extra close look at forecasts during icing season,
and a host of things we do that go to reducing
risk.
In the case of the bus feeder, the risks are not
so much to the wire as to the thing the wire touches.
Case in point: C90 on short final experiences disconnect
of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim commands and power to
execute go-around, assesses the condition and successfully
lands the airplane with rudder, trim and power.
Pulling up floorboards in the cockpit revealed a 40A
protected feeder to the windshield de-ice inverter
had been mis-positioned against the elevator control
cable during a maintenance operation. Over what had to
be many hours of operation, motion of the cable wore
through the insulation bringing the cable into contact
with the hot wire. The arcing and sparking was of
insufficient intensity to come to attention of crew
in spite of the fact that it was going on virtually
under their feet.
The copper wire was barely damaged. The breaker never
popped while the elevator cable eventually eroded through
and parted. Compare thermal properties of copper versus
steel . . . this explains why the best steel safes have
intermediate layers of copper in their construction. It's
EASY to burn through steel . . . next to impossible on copper.
This narrative explains the high order probability that
even if you DID get your 6AWG feeder faulted to
ground, it's most likely to be a soft fault that
burns a hole in your airplane while doing little
damage to the wire . . . and certainly far short of
getting it to smoke and/or open a fuse/breaker.
Adding 'protection' to this pathway doubles the
number of joints in the pathway and adds nothing
demonstrable in terms of fault response . . . which
is why the spam-can builders don't do it either.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lista
href="http://forums.matronics.com/"
target="_blank">http://forums.mat===================
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Hi
Jeff,
Interesting story. My take
on this
is simply a question of ‘risk management’. Lets say that
ALL planes
that do not have this ‘extra fuse’ now suddenly get this
‘extra
fuse’ .. do you think the risk is higher that something goes
wrong with
the fuse .. the extra connectors to fit the fuse .. how the fuse is
fitted ..
how it is potentially fitted incorrectly
etc…
IF .. the only case of
‘something
bad happened because this wire is not fused’ is the incident that
you mention
below .. Well … what do you think is more likely to happen
….
Something wrong will all the 1000
of
planes that now have ‘one more part that can go wrong’ i.e.
the
extra fuse … or a pen or something else lodging against the
bus and
shorting to ground ?
On YOUR plane … how easy is
it for
anything to actually lodge in the same place ? Suggest looking at
best
way to prevent something to lodge and short .. than to add something
that has
never been seen a ‘required’ before
….
I agree that there are very few
things
that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong .. (apart from when at
school ;-)
…then everything was always very black and white
..
The more you can ‘remove
from the
plane’ the less you have that can go wrong … what you are
‘left
with’ …well .. you just need to analyze the risk and what
happens
when it fail .. can you reduce the risk … without adding another
risk ..
The following is not related to
aircrafts
.. but I like to use it to make people thing about risk .. and how to
reduce accidents
…. I have no idea if it would work .. but you could argue
the case
..
The general thought of car safety
is to
add more things .. seat belts – airbags – crumble zones etc
etc..
list goes on and on …
The net results is that we tend to
drive
faster .. We have more accidents .. maybe less people would die .. but
then
compared to what ?
Here is my idea for the ultimate
car
safety device .. You remove seat belts and you make it a legal
requirement that
ALL steering wheels must have a 6” spike mounted in the centre ..
pointing straight at your chest .. (and NO .. you can not wear a bullet
proof
west J ..)
Now you know … if you do not
drive
very carefully, no hard braking etc… … you are not going to
last
very long are you ? Looking at that 6” spike at the steering
wheel.
Sure some people will die ..and
some people
who are driving very carefully will be hit by someone who does not
…
But will the OVERALL number of accidents go up or go down
??
J
Enjoy the weekend ! I
Jan
PS : will not be fitting a fuse on
that
wire … But I will look very very closely at how it is run
…..
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Luckey
Sent: 07 December 2013
01:38
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re:
AeroElectric-List:
Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
Bob,
Ok, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the
Devil's
Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.
Several years ago in Germany Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he
looses his
pen. He finishes his flight but forgets to recover the pen.
A few
days later Pilot B takes the plane through several aerobatic maneuvers
which
dislodge the pen from where it was hiding and wedge it between the buss
on the
back of the breakers and the airframe causing a fault to ground.
Smoke in
the cockpit, panic, denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right
thing and
kills the master, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy
ending. Good
News: engine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps running:)
Bad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder
melted
other wires in the loom. Sure, no one died but I certainly don't
want to
be Pilot B! If that feeder had been fused there would have been
no smoke
and no damage to wiring.
The
point is that simply installing the feeder w/ care & craftsmanship
may not
be enough. No matter how well that feeder was installed, it would
have
made no difference in this scenario. Unforeseen circumstances
could make
for a bad day for your electrical system. It may be impossible to
foresee
all possible bad scenarios so we want the design of the system to be as
fault
tolerant as possible.
Perhaps
putting a fuse in the feed line may be a "belt &
suspenders"
approach but I still don't see a real down side and, like I mentioned
earlier,
I sure don't want to be Pilot B.
BTW
Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able
to
explore & discuss these issues in cordial & intelligent ways -
whether
or not there's a right or wrong answer, I always learn
something.
From: "Robert
L.
Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December
6, 2013
10:29 AM
Subject: Re:
AeroElectric-List:
Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III"
<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectr
ic.com>
>
> That particular wire between battery feeders and distribution
busses has
existed in perhaps a quarter million production aircraft over the past
80+
years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with such
protection.
>
> I find that fascinating...
>
> In my relatively simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the
feeder
> in question to have little or no down side and potentially
huge
> upside - preventing an in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight
fires)
Consider the consequences of opening that fuse
(or any other event causing that pathway to open)
in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the panel.
I.e. single point of failure for all accessories.
Yeah but . . . if the fuse opens, then there was
something 'wrong'.
Yes, but what? The FEMA process calls for
hypothesizing
every kind of event that can open the fuse and either (1)
crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing the risk.
> So the downside is that there could be some innocuous event
> that I am unaware of which pops the proposed big fuse
> unnecessarily. (sounds a little ridiculous, but carry
on...)
> I can't think of anything like that but I'm not a genius so I
> thought I'd throw it out to The List to see if its collective
> wisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.
We have a huge data base from which to conduct that
assessment not the least of which are big bunches of
airplanes smaller bunches of qualification studies
and relatively tiny bunches of incidences that bent
aluminum and maybe even broke bones.
The NTSB narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h>
Do a random search of FINAL REPORTS with your senses
attuned to causation with roots in human failings
(either in operation, maintenance or design) and those
which have causation in some physical failure
mechanism.
Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into
the second category for causation and will be a
minuscule portion of the whole . . . and
of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even
smaller.
In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and
probably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've
observed only two incidences of a popped breaker in
flight. NEITHER of those cases had root cause in a
wire faulted to ground - the fault needed to open
your proposed fuse.
The foundation for moving circuit protection off
the panel and reverting back to fuses is predicated
on similar experiences by thousands of other pilots.
Experiences suggesting that dedicating dollars, panel
space, weight and fabrication time to a breaker-panel
is not a good return on investment.
Bottom line is that you're many, many times more
likely to have a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
far removed from a hard ground fault on your 6AWG
bus feeder . . . and THAT because you didn't conduct
due diligence in its installation.
Same thing applies to torque on your prop bolts,
replacing a tire that's flopping cordage, taking
an extra close look at forecasts during icing season,
and a host of things we do that go to reducing
risk.
In the case of the bus feeder, the risks are not
so much to the wire as to the thing the wire touches.
Case in point: C90 on short final experiences
disconnect
of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim commands and power to
execute go-around, assesses the condition and successfully
lands the airplane with rudder, trim and power.
Pulling up floorboards in the cockpit revealed a 40A
protected feeder to the windshield de-ice inverter
had been mis-positioned against the elevator control
cable during a maintenance operation. Over what had to
be many hours of operation, motion of the cable wore
through the insulation bringing the cable into contact
with the hot wire. The arcing and sparking was of
insufficient intensity to come to attention of crew
in spite of the fact that it was going on virtually
under their feet.
The copper wire was barely damaged. The breaker never
popped while the elevator cable eventually eroded through
and parted. Compare thermal properties of copper
versus
steel . . . this explains why the best steel safes have
intermediate layers of copper in their construction. It's
EASY to burn through steel . . . next to impossible on
copper.
This narrative explains the high order probability that
even if you DID get your 6AWG feeder faulted to
ground, it's most likely to be a soft fault that
burns a hole in your airplane while doing little
damage to the wire . . . and certainly far short of
getting it to smoke and/or open a fuse/breaker.
Adding 'protection' to this pathway doubles the
number of joints in the pathway and adds nothing
demonstrable in terms of fault response . . . which
is why the spam-can builders don't do it either.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lista
href="http://forums.matronics.com/"
target="_blank">http://forums.mat========
============
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
www.mypilotstore.com
www.mrrace.com
http://www.matronics.com/
contribution
http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
OTOH with Blue Sea type remote fuse panels installed at the battery, I
have no exposed bus bars. Feeders to the fuse panels are a couple of
inches long but not exposed. My starter feeder is hot when the master is
on but no big deal turning off the master in flight for me if need be.
So no exposed always hot feeders and no CB's cluttering up the
instrument panel.
Ken
On 06/12/2013 8:38 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Ok, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the
> Devil's Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.
>
> Several years ago in Germany Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he
> looses his pen. He finishes his flight but forgets to recover the pen.
> A few days later Pilot B takes the plane through several aerobatic
> maneuvers which dislodge the pen from where it was hiding and wedge it
> between the buss on the back of the breakers and the airframe causing a
> fault to ground. Smoke in the cockpit, panic, denial, etc but
> eventually Pilot B does the right thing and kills the master, lands
> plane, changes underwear, semi-happy ending. Good News: engine not
> electrically-dependent so engine keeps running:)
>
> Bad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder
> melted other wires in the loom. Sure, no one died but I certainly don't
> want to be Pilot B! If that feeder had been fused there would have been
> no smoke and no damage to wiring.
>
> The point is that simply installing the feeder w/ care & craftsmanship
> may not be enough. No matter how well that feeder was installed, it
> would have made no difference in this scenario. Unforeseen
> circumstances could make for a bad day for your electrical system. It
> may be impossible to foresee all possible bad scenarios so we want the
> design of the system to be as fault tolerant as possible.
>
> Perhaps putting a fuse in the feed line may be a "belt & suspenders"
> approach but I still don't see a real down side and, like I mentioned
> earlier, I sure don't want to be Pilot B.
>
> BTW Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able to explore & discuss
> these issues in cordial & intelligent ways - whether or not there's a
> right or wrong answer, I always learn something.
>
> -Jeff
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If there is a concern about the main feeder shorting to ground, how about making
sure that does not happen instead of adding a fuse? The feeder could be double
insulated where it passes through the firewall. The circuit breaker bus bar
can be insulated. Or better yet, use an insulated fuse block with no exposed
bus.
Even if the main feeder was protected with a fuse, there is no guarantee that
the fuse will blow in the event of a short circuit. Large fuses are difficult
to blow. Many times a short circuit will arc and burn away metal until the
short clears itself, without blowing a fuse.
It is good to question why something has always been done a certain way. On
the other hand, it is hard to argue with success.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=415046#415046
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
At 07:38 PM 12/6/2013, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Ok, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the
>Devil's Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.
>
>Several years ago in Germany Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he
>looses his pen. He finishes his flight but forgets to recover the
>pen. A few days later Pilot B takes the plane through several
>aerobatic maneuvers which dislodge the pen from where it was hiding
>and wedge it between the buss on the back of the breakers and the
>airframe causing a fault to ground. Smoke in the cockpit, panic,
>denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right thing and kills
>the master, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy ending. Good
>News: engine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps running:)
>
>Bad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder
>melted other wires in the loom. Sure, no one died but I certainly
>don't want to be Pilot B! If that feeder had been fused there would
>have been no smoke and no damage to wiring.
Okay! A hypothesis. This is step-one in the conduct
of an FMEA for a unique event. Let's apply what we know
about the nature of things and machines to expand our
understanding of this hypothesis and to craft a
reasoned reaction to the result.
I am skeptical of this story based on the limited
data offered . . . which is not unusual. 99.9% of
what I call dark-n-stormy-night stories in the journals
are long on story value and short on data . . . the
narrative of this incident is no different.
Let us consider the processes we have evolved for
the purpose of making secure connections between
fat-wires and some terminus . . . usually a threaded
fastener.
The design goal is to achieve a sub-milliohm connection
between all conductors such that temperature rise at
the connections does not contribute to long term effects
of accelerated corrosion and ultimate failure of the
joint.
I have seen numerous examples of failure-to-implement-
good-practice as manifest by studs burned off, nuts
arc welded to studs, terminals damaged beyond serviceable
condition, etc. Except for the effects of localize heating
at the failed joint, the WIRE crimped into that terminal
was not affected. This is because the dissipation of energy
occurs at the POINT OF HIGHEST RESISTANCE in the loop.
Do the study sometime to figure out why a long piece
of wire suspended between two terminals always burns through
near the center every time.
Okay, consider the rogue debris looking for a place to
do mischief. Aha! exposed bus bar and bare airframe . . .
ideal. Consider the mechanism that brings a metallic
pen into contact with bus and airframe with such conductive
integrity that it places a span of wire at risk . . .
and outlasts the wire during the ensuing contest of
smoke and fire.
The pen would have to (1) possess conductivity capabilities
on a par or better than the at-risk wire and (2) be
held in contact with bus and airframe with sub-milliohm
integrity for a length of time necessary to heat other
components to destructive temperatures.
Another question arising from the narrative is based on
the statement: "The plane requires some serious re-wire
because the feeder melted other wires in the loom."
Again, how did the rogue debris achieve conductive
integrity that had to be a small fraction of that
for the wire(s) being overloaded?
Risks to underwear not withstanding, this pilot's airplane
was obviously wired with attention to the needs of an
electrically dependent engine that was not influenced
by the position of the master switch.
This story yields to a simple study of "where does
the energy go?" Another example: I remember 1969 when
Gordon Wood put a peak-measuring voltmeter on the coil of a
contactor and discovered, "Great galloping gremlins
Batman! Did you see that?"
Yes, discovery of those numbers in a system fitted with
newly minted, solid state radios gave rise for much
concern. But as Gordon deduced (and we've confirmed
in recent years) the energy did not propagate out
onto the bus and is of greatest risk to the controlling
device (master and starter switches). Further, adding
the $1 diode across the coil put that dragon to bed
forever.
Details of simple-ideas aside, the hypothesis you proffered
is a valid component of the FMEA process. It highlighted
something I neglected to included in my earlier
listing of potential risks to pieces of the airplane
with secondary risks to exposed conductors. I neglected
to include loose articles.
The FMEA has to consider not only the details of
how the risks stack together but the environment in
which they occur. Our el-cheepo aerial targets at
Beech were heavily controlled for high reliability (low
risk) missions. Why all the fuss? It's not a man-rated
piece of hardware and expendable. Easy. The $ expended
to set up a mission in which this target would be used
was huge. It orchestrated movements of ships a sea,
flights of training aircraft, called for an accurate
launch of the target from 50,000ft and M1.5 to fly down
a precise track, etc. The expenditures of mission
resources far exceeded the price of our little piece
of throw-away hardware by factors of 1000:1.
Okay, back to your proposed project and concerns for
system reliability. It's not a man-rated weapon so
those sorts of issues don't apply. Do you plan to
conduct negative-g aerobatics wherein loose items
would become a consideration? It would be interesting
if we could search the accident database looking for
incidents where loose articles were major players
in the evolution or outcome of an event. But
for sure, GA aircraft from C-150 to G-5 are seldom
involved in negative-g events . . . and when they
are . . . it's probably not a piece of loose hardware
that drives the outcome.
I advise caution for incorporating 'common knowledge'
into one's deliberations that will burden empty weight, time,
and dollars to reduce risks. You can do a Google search
on my website for these statements:
"I had a Seawind in here yesterday with lots of tiny breakers that
pop all the time. Was a real hassle to work on. Just because a 3 amp
fuse won't blow until it gets to 4 amps isn't the point (which is
known by everyone who deal with these things)"
"Main power bus is fused at 35 Amperes"
"Remember, a fuse or breaker won't hold above 80% of what it says on
the nameplate; so a 50 Amp breaker will pop at 40 amps after 20 or 30 minutes."
. . . which are a small sample of what was widely
distributed as useful information . . . and made yours
truly the target of incoming sand and tomatoes
pitched by acolytes of the author when I questioned the
simple-ideas that supported his statements.
Don't give up on this my friend. If there's a risk yet
un-identified, we all have an interest in knowing what
it is and deducing a mitigating response. At the same
time, be a good scientist. Exploit those recipes for
success with good track records but remain eternally
skeptical of that which is assumed to be valid. The simple-
ideas from which a recipe is crafted are inviolate and
unchanging. It's our skill and understanding of how those
simple-ideas fit together that can get wobbly. They
are always worthy of either re-validation or discounted for
something better.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
>
>Here is my idea for the ultimate car safety
>device .. You remove seat belts and you make it
>a legal requirement that ALL steering wheels
>must have a 6=94 spike mounted in the centre ..
>pointing straight at your chest .. (and NO ..
>you can not wear a bullet proof west J ..)
>
>Now you know =85 if you do not drive very
>carefully, no hard braking etc=85 =85 you are not
>going to last very long are you ? Looking at
>that 6=94 spike at the steering wheel.
>
>Sure some people will die ..and some people who
>are driving very carefully will be hit by
>someone who does not =85 But will the OVERALL
>number of accidents go up or go down ??
Excellent question!
An illuminating peek into the innate perversity of
the human condition. I spent a number of years in
the investigation and modeling of events surrounding
accidents at railroad grade crossings. Cross-bucks
are mandated at every crossing. Some crossings get
lights. Some get lights and gates. The budget for
upgrading safety hardware at the crossing was limited
so only the worst crossings got the full treatment.
It was interesting to note that after gates were
installed at crossings with the highest accident
rates, number of accidents at the crossing only
dropped by half.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R. curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
It was interesting to note that after gates were
installed at crossings with the highest accident
rates, number of accidents at the crossing only
dropped by half
You reach a point of no return when you try
to protect people from themselves and their
own stupidity. Granted, some things can
not be avoided, but we now live in a society
where responsibility belongs to someone
else.
Roger
--
Do you have a slow PC=3F Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfi
ghter=3Fcid=sigen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Jan,=0A=0AI'm not sure if you are being serious in this quote (perhaps you
were being facetious?):=0AThe general thought of car safety is to=0Aadd mor
e things .. seat belts =93 airbags =93 crumble zones etc etc..
=0Alist goes on and on =0A=C2-=0AThe net results is that we tend
to drive=0Afaster .. We have more accidents .. maybe less people would die
.. but then=0Acompared to what ? =0A=0AIf you are suggesting that technolo
gy has not made cars safer, that would be an inaccurate assertion.=C2- Th
e advances in motor vehicle safety that you cite have increased safety trem
endously.=C2- See: =0A=0A=0Ahttp://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
=0A=0AAccident rates have plummeted over the past 20 years despite large in
creases in the number of vehicles.=C2- Automotive safety is fantastic exa
mple of making things safer by applying technology.=0A=0A=0A...=0A=0A=0A___
_____________________________=0A From: jan <jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk>=0ATo: a
eroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 3:22 AM
=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A =0A
=0A=0A =0AHi Jeff,=0A=C2-=0AInteresting story.=C2- My take on this=0Ais
simply a question of =98risk management=99. Lets say that ALL
planes=0Athat do not have this =98extra fuse=99 now suddenly ge
t this =98extra=0Afuse=99 .. do you think the risk is higher th
at something goes wrong with=0Athe fuse .. the extra connectors to fit the
fuse .. how the fuse is fitted ..=0Ahow it is potentially fitted incorrectl
y etc=0A=C2-=0AIF .. the only case of =98something=0Abad h
appened because this wire is not fused=99 is the incident that you me
ntion=0Abelow .. Well what do you think is more likely to happen
.=0A=C2-=0ASomething wrong will all the 1000 of=0Aplanes that no
w have =98one more part that can go wrong=99 i.e. the=0Aextra f
use =C2- or a pen or something else lodging against the bus and
=0Ashorting to ground ?=0A=C2-=0AOn YOUR plane how easy is it f
or=0Aanything to actually lodge in the same place ?=C2- Suggest looking a
t best=0Away to prevent something to lodge and short .. than to add somethi
ng that has=0Anever been seen a =98required=99 before
.=0A=C2-=0AI agree that there are very few things=0Athat are absolutely r
ight or absolutely wrong .. (apart from when at school ;-)=0Athen
everything was always very black and white ..=0A=C2-=0AThe more you can
=98remove from the=0Aplane=99 the less you have that can go wro
ng what you are =98left=0Awith=99 well .. yo
u just need to analyze the risk and what happens=0Awhen it fail .. can you
reduce the risk without adding another risk .. =0A=C2-=0AThe fo
llowing is not related to aircrafts=0A.. but I like to use it to make peopl
e thing about risk .. and how to reduce accidents=0A.=C2- I have
no idea if it would work .. but you could argue the case=0A..=0A=C2-=0AT
he general thought of car safety is to=0Aadd more things .. seat belts
=93 airbags =93 crumble zones etc etc..=0Alist goes on and on
=0A=C2-=0AThe net results is that we tend to drive=0Afaster .. We h
ave more accidents .. maybe less people would die .. but then=0Acompared to
what ? =0A=C2-=0AHere is my idea for the ultimate car=0Asafety device ..
You remove seat belts and you make it a legal requirement that=0AALL steer
ing wheels must have a 6=9D spike mounted in the centre ..=0Apointing
straight at your chest .. (and NO .. you can not wear a bullet proof=0Awes
t J..)=0A=C2-=0ANow you know if you do not drive=0Avery careful
ly, no hard braking etc you are not going to last=0Avery
long are you ? Looking at that 6=9D spike at the steering wheel.=0A
=C2-=0ASure some people will die ..and some people=0Awho are driving very
carefully will be hit by someone who does not =C2-=0ABut will t
he OVERALL number of accidents go up or go down ??=0A=C2-=0AJ=0A=C2-=0A
Enjoy the weekend !=C2- I =0A=C2-=0AJan=0A=C2-=0APS : will not be fit
ting a fuse on that=0Awire =C2- But I will look very very closel
y at how it is run ..=0A=C2-=0A=0A______________________________
__=0A =0AFrom:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-
aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Luckey=0ASent: 0
7 December 2013 01:38=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re:
AeroElectric-List:=0AUnprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A=C2-=0ABob, =0A
=0AOk, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the Devil'
s=0AAdvocate/Worst Case Scenario game.=0A=0ASeveral years ago in Germany Pi
lot A was flying an Extra 300 and he looses his=0Apen.=C2- He finishes hi
s flight but forgets to recover the pen.=C2- A few=0Adays later Pilot B t
akes the plane through several aerobatic maneuvers which=0Adislodge the pen
from where it was hiding and wedge it between the buss on the=0Aback of th
e breakers and the airframe causing a fault to ground.=C2- Smoke in=0Athe
cockpit, panic, denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right thing an
d=0Akills the master, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy ending.=C2
- Good=0ANews: engine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps running:
)=0A=0ABad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder
melted=0Aother wires in the loom.=C2- Sure, no one died but I certainly
don't want to=0Abe Pilot B!=C2- If that feeder had been fused there would
have been no smoke=0Aand no damage to wiring.=0A=C2-=0AThe=0Apoint is th
at simply installing the feeder w/ care & craftsmanship may not=0Abe enough
.=C2- No matter how well that feeder was installed, it would have=0Amade
no difference in this scenario.=C2- Unforeseen circumstances could make
=0Afor a bad day for your electrical system.=C2- It may be impossible to
foresee=0Aall possible bad scenarios so we want the design of the system to
be as fault=0Atolerant as possible.=0A=C2-=0APerhaps=0Aputting a fuse in
the feed line may be a "belt & suspenders"=0Aapproach but I still don't se
e a real down side and, like I mentioned earlier,=0AI sure don't want to be
Pilot B.=0A=C2-=0ABTW Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able to=0Aex
plore & discuss these issues in cordial & intelligent ways - whether=0Aor n
ot there's a right or wrong answer, I always learn something.=0A=C2-=0A-J
eff=0A=C2-=0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:"Robert L.=0A
Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matr
onics.com =0ASent: Friday, December 6, 2013=0A10:29 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroE
lectric-List:=0AUnprotected Feeder in Z Drawings=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"=0A<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.
com>=0A=0A=0A> =0A> That particular wire between battery feeders and distri
bution busses has=0Aexisted in perhaps a quarter million production aircraf
t over the past 80+=0Ayears and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with
such protection.=0A> =0A> I find that fascinating...=0A> =0A> In my relati
vely simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the feeder=0A> in question to
have little or no down side and potentially huge=0A> upside - preventing an
in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight fires)=0A=0A=C2- Consider the co
nsequences of opening that fuse=0A=C2- (or any other event causing that p
athway to open)=0A=C2- in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the pane
l.=0A=C2- I.e. single point of failure for all accessories.=0A=0A=C2- Y
eah but . . . if the fuse opens, then there was=0A=C2- something 'wrong'.
=0A=0A=C2- Yes, but what?=C2- The FEMA process calls for hypothesizing
=0A=C2- every kind of event that can open the fuse and either (1)=0A=C2
- crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing the risk.=0A=0A=0A> So the downsid
e is that there could be some innocuous event=0A> that I am unaware of whic
h pops the proposed big fuse=0A> unnecessarily.=C2- (sounds a little ridi
culous, but carry on...)=0A> I can't think of anything like that but I'm no
t a genius so I=0A> thought I'd throw it out to The List to see if its coll
ective=0A> wisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.=0A=0A=C2-
We have a huge data base from which to conduct that=0A=C2- assessment not
the least of which are big bunches of=0A=C2- airplanes smaller bunches o
f qualification studies=0A=C2- and relatively tiny bunches of incidences
that bent=0A=C2- aluminum and maybe even broke bones.=0A=0A=C2- The NTS
B narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible=0A=C2- here . . .=0A=0Aht
tp://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h=0A=0A=C2- Do a random search of FINAL REPORTS wi
th your senses=0A=C2- attuned to causation with roots in human failings
=0A=C2- (either in operation, maintenance or design) and those=0A=C2- w
hich have causation in some physical failure=0A=C2- mechanism.=0A=0A=C2
- Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into=0A=C2- the seco
nd category for causation and will be a=0A=C2- minuscule portion of the w
hole . . . and=0A=C2- of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even=0A
=C2- smaller.=0A=0A=C2- In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and
=0A=C2- probably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've=0A=C2- observ
ed only two incidences of a popped breaker in=0A=C2- flight. NEITHER of t
hose cases had root cause in a=0A=C2- wire faulted to ground - the fault
needed to open=0A=C2- your proposed fuse.=0A=0A=C2- The foundation for
moving circuit protection off=0A=C2- the panel and reverting back to fuse
s is predicated=0A=C2- on similar experiences by thousands of other pilot
s.=0A=C2- Experiences suggesting that dedicating dollars, panel=0A=C2-
space, weight and fabrication time to a breaker-panel=0A=C2- is not a goo
d return on investment.=0A=0A=C2- Bottom line is that you're many, many t
imes more=0A=C2- likely to have a bad day in the cockpit for reasons=0A
=C2- far removed from a hard ground fault on your 6AWG=0A=C2- bus feede
r . . . and THAT because you didn't conduct=0A=C2- due diligence in its i
nstallation.=0A=0A=C2- Same thing applies to torque on your prop bolts,
=0A=C2- replacing a tire that's flopping cordage, taking=0A=C2- an extr
a close look at forecasts during icing season,=0A=C2- and a host of thing
s we do that go to reducing=0A=C2- risk.=0A=0A=C2- In the case of the b
us feeder, the risks are not=0A=C2- so much to the wire as to the thing t
he wire touches.=0A=0A=C2- Case in point:=C2- C90 on short final experi
ences disconnect=0A=C2- of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim commands and
power to=0A=C2- execute go-around, assesses the condition and successfull
y=0A=C2- lands the airplane with rudder, trim and power.=0A=0A=C2- Pull
ing up floorboards in the cockpit revealed a 40A=0A=C2- protected feeder
to the windshield de-ice inverter=0A=C2- had been mis-positioned against
the elevator control=0A=C2- cable during a maintenance operation. Over wh
at had to=0A=C2- be many hours of operation, motion of the cable wore=0A
=C2- through the insulation bringing the cable into contact=0A=C2- with
the hot wire. The arcing and sparking was of=0A=C2- insufficient intensi
ty to come to attention of crew=0A=C2- in spite of the fact that it was g
oing on virtually=0A=C2- under their feet.=0A=0A=C2- The copper wire wa
s barely damaged. The breaker never=0A=C2- popped while the elevator cabl
e eventually eroded through=0A=C2- and parted. Compare=C2- thermal prop
erties of copper versus=0A=C2- steel . . . this explains why the best ste
el safes have=0A=C2- intermediate layers of copper in their construction.
It's=0A=C2- EASY to burn through steel . . . next to impossible on coppe
r.=0A=0A=C2- This narrative explains the high order probability that=0A
=C2- even if you DID get your 6AWG feeder faulted to=0A=C2- ground, it'
s most likely to be a soft fault that=0A=C2- burns a hole in your airplan
e while doing little=0A=C2- damage to the wire . . . and certainly far sh
ort of=0A=C2- getting it to smoke and/or open a fuse/breaker.=0A=0A=C2-
Adding 'protection' to this pathway doubles the=0A=C2- number of joints
in the pathway and adds nothing=0A=C2- demonstrable in terms of fault res
ponse . . . which=0A=C2- is why the spam-can builders don't do it either.
=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2- Bob . . . =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElec
tric-Lista=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com/"=0Atarget="_blank">http
://forums.mat====================
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0Awww.aeroelectric.com=0Awww.buildersbook
s.com=0Awww.homebuilthelp.com=0Awww.mypilotstore.com=0Awww.mrrace.com=0Ahtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Aer
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings |
Jeff,
:-)
Of course I rather have a crash in a car that has seat belts (as I always
wear them ....)
My point is that we add technical things ... to 'protect us' ... We could
be equally safe if we took responsibility and drove in such a way that we
did not have accidents - or at least had a lot less ..
Jan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Luckey
Sent: 07 December 2013 21:22
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
Jan,
I'm not sure if you are being serious in this quote (perhaps you were being
facetious?):
The general thought of car safety is to add more things .. seat belts -
airbags - crumble zones etc etc.. list goes on and on ...
The net results is that we tend to drive faster .. We have more accidents ..
maybe less people would die .. but then compared to what ?
If you are suggesting that technology has not made cars safer, that would be
an inaccurate assertion. The advances in motor vehicle safety that you cite
have increased safety tremendously. See:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Accident rates have plummeted over the past 20 years despite large increases
in the number of vehicles. Automotive safety is fantastic example of making
things safer by applying technology.
...
_____
From: jan <jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 3:22 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
Hi Jeff,
Interesting story. My take on this is simply a question of 'risk
management'. Lets say that ALL planes that do not have this 'extra fuse' now
suddenly get this 'extra fuse' .. do you think the risk is higher that
something goes wrong with the fuse .. the extra connectors to fit the fuse
.. how the fuse is fitted .. how it is potentially fitted incorrectly etc...
IF .. the only case of 'something bad happened because this wire is not
fused' is the incident that you mention below .. Well ... what do you think
is more likely to happen ....
Something wrong will all the 1000 of planes that now have 'one more part
that can go wrong' i.e. the extra fuse ... or a pen or something else
lodging against the bus and shorting to ground ?
On YOUR plane ... how easy is it for anything to actually lodge in the same
place ? Suggest looking at best way to prevent something to lodge and short
.. than to add something that has never been seen a 'required' before ....
I agree that there are very few things that are absolutely right or
absolutely wrong .. (apart from when at school ;-) ...then everything was
always very black and white ..
The more you can 'remove from the plane' the less you have that can go wrong
... what you are 'left with' ...well .. you just need to analyze the risk
and what happens when it fail .. can you reduce the risk ... without adding
another risk ..
The following is not related to aircrafts .. but I like to use it to make
people thing about risk .. and how to reduce accidents .... I have no idea
if it would work .. but you could argue the case ..
The general thought of car safety is to add more things .. seat belts -
airbags - crumble zones etc etc.. list goes on and on ...
The net results is that we tend to drive faster .. We have more accidents ..
maybe less people would die .. but then compared to what ?
Here is my idea for the ultimate car safety device .. You remove seat belts
and you make it a legal requirement that ALL steering wheels must have a 6"
spike mounted in the centre .. pointing straight at your chest .. (and NO ..
you can not wear a bullet proof west :-) ..)
Now you know ... if you do not drive very carefully, no hard braking etc...
... you are not going to last very long are you ? Looking at that 6" spike
at the steering wheel.
Sure some people will die ..and some people who are driving very carefully
will be hit by someone who does not ... But will the OVERALL number of
accidents go up or go down ??
:-)
Enjoy the weekend ! I
Jan
PS : will not be fitting a fuse on that wire ... But I will look very very
closely at how it is run .....
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Luckey
Sent: 07 December 2013 01:38
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
Bob,
Ok, I don't disagree w/ any of the points made but let's play the Devil's
Advocate/Worst Case Scenario game.
Several years ago in Germany Pilot A was flying an Extra 300 and he looses
his pen. He finishes his flight but forgets to recover the pen. A few days
later Pilot B takes the plane through several aerobatic maneuvers which
dislodge the pen from where it was hiding and wedge it between the buss on
the back of the breakers and the airframe causing a fault to ground. Smoke
in the cockpit, panic, denial, etc but eventually Pilot B does the right
thing and kills the master, lands plane, changes underwear, semi-happy
ending. Good News: engine not electrically-dependent so engine keeps
running:)
Bad News: The plane requires some serious re-wire because the feeder melted
other wires in the loom. Sure, no one died but I certainly don't want to be
Pilot B! If that feeder had been fused there would have been no smoke and
no damage to wiring.
The point is that simply installing the feeder w/ care & craftsmanship may
not be enough. No matter how well that feeder was installed, it would have
made no difference in this scenario. Unforeseen circumstances could make
for a bad day for your electrical system. It may be impossible to foresee
all possible bad scenarios so we want the design of the system to be as
fault tolerant as possible.
Perhaps putting a fuse in the feed line may be a "belt & suspenders"
approach but I still don't see a real down side and, like I mentioned
earlier, I sure don't want to be Pilot B.
BTW Bob (and all) I certainly enjoy being able to explore & discuss these
issues in cordial & intelligent ways - whether or not there's a right or
wrong answer, I always learn something.
-Jeff
_____
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unprotected Feeder in Z Drawings
>
>
> That particular wire between battery feeders and distribution busses has
existed in perhaps a quarter million production aircraft over the past 80+
years and to my knowledge, has never been fitted with such protection.
>
> I find that fascinating...
>
> In my relatively simple mind I consider adding a fuse to the feeder
> in question to have little or no down side and potentially huge
> upside - preventing an in-flight fire. (not a fan of in-flight fires)
Consider the consequences of opening that fuse
(or any other event causing that pathway to open)
in a TC aircraft. You loose EVERYTHING on the panel.
I.e. single point of failure for all accessories.
Yeah but . . . if the fuse opens, then there was
something 'wrong'.
Yes, but what? The FEMA process calls for hypothesizing
every kind of event that can open the fuse and either (1)
crafting a plan-b or (2) suppressing the risk.
> So the downside is that there could be some innocuous event
> that I am unaware of which pops the proposed big fuse
> unnecessarily. (sounds a little ridiculous, but carry on...)
> I can't think of anything like that but I'm not a genius so I
> thought I'd throw it out to The List to see if its collective
> wisdom knows about something I may have overlooked.
We have a huge data base from which to conduct that
assessment not the least of which are big bunches of
airplanes smaller bunches of qualification studies
and relatively tiny bunches of incidences that bent
aluminum and maybe even broke bones.
The NTSB narrative on aircraft accidents is accessible
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pqcdj4h
Do a random search of FINAL REPORTS with your senses
attuned to causation with roots in human failings
(either in operation, maintenance or design) and those
which have causation in some physical failure
mechanism.
Instances that speak to any electrical will fall into
the second category for causation and will be a
minuscule portion of the whole . . . and
of those, faulting of a wire to ground is even
smaller.
In 40 years of flying, 1000+ hrs as pilot and
probably another 2000 as passenger/observer, I've
observed only two incidences of a popped breaker in
flight. NEITHER of those cases had root cause in a
wire faulted to ground - the fault needed to open
your proposed fuse.
The foundation for moving circuit protection off
the panel and reverting back to fuses is predicated
on similar experiences by thousands of other pilots.
Experiences suggesting that dedicating dollars, panel
space, weight and fabrication time to a breaker-panel
is not a good return on investment.
Bottom line is that you're many, many times more
likely to have a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
far removed from a hard ground fault on your 6AWG
bus feeder . . . and THAT because you didn't conduct
due diligence in its installation.
Same thing applies to torque on your prop bolts,
replacing a tire that's flopping cordage, taking
an extra close look at forecasts during icing season,
and a host of things we do that go to reducing
risk.
In the case of the bus feeder, the risks are not
so much to the wire as to the thing the wire touches.
Case in point: C90 on short final experiences disconnect
of elevator cables. Pilot uses trim commands and power to
execute go-around, assesses the condition and successfully
November 23, 2013 - December 07, 2013
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mc