AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mi
May 03, 2014 - June 13, 2014
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Eric,
I am not knowledgeable enough about the characteristics of a starter motor to answer.
In my circuit, any diode, zener or not, will short out a negative voltage.
A 16 volt zener will short out any positive voltage above 16. Attach your
latest circuit idea for others to comment on.
It would be interesting to learn more about starters, any induced voltages during
normal operations and also the voltage output and current capabilities of
a starter that remains engaged with the engine after starting.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422759#422759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
At 04:02 PM 5/3/2014, you wrote:
>
>Eric,
>I am not knowledgeable enough about the characteristics of a starter
>motor to answer. In my circuit, any diode, zener or not, will short
>out a negative voltage. A 16 volt zener will short out any positive
>voltage above 16. Attach your latest circuit idea for others to comment on.
> It would be interesting to learn more about starters, any induced
> voltages during normal operations and also the voltage output and
> current capabilities of a starter that remains engaged with the
> engine after starting.
Joe's circuit would be fine for fixtures with integrate
resistors . . . and in fact, it wouldn't need to be a zener.
The 'concern' is minor and speaks to the potential for a negative
going transient to punch the junction in the LED . . .
Now, given that LEDs with integral resistors abound in
other vehicular systems . . . and no doubt few if any
have a protection diode for the LED.
http://forums.matronics.com//files/led_102.jpg
If I were qualifying the LED fixture for use on aircraft,
I would be obligated to prove it invulnerable to both
positive and negative going spikes . . . albeit very short
ones . . . at voltages considerably greater than
the LED's reverse voltage stand-off characteristics.
For my purposes, I choose to simply include the diode and
not worry about it. The fact that we put such protection
in has more to do with legacy qualification philosophies that
go back 50+ years . . . but given that the LED is attached
to a starter motor terminal DOWNSTREAM of a starter contactor,
then the concerns are more profound. It's a simple experiment.
Just hook it up and see what happens. You're unlikely to have
BOTH a stuck starter contactor and a toasted LED in the same
event. If your bare-foot LED fixture stands up to the first
few dozen starts, it seem likely that a few hundreds more
is not going to be any more likely to toast it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lm7321 substitute |
At 11:31 AM 5/1/2014, you wrote:
>
>Earlier in the thread I saw a mention of a rail to rail input
>requirement. If that is still needed, note the common mode input
>voltage range of Vdd - 1.35 volts maximum for the TLV27x. Seems to
>indicate the input range is not really rail to rail and I'd expect
>the output to swing hard to the full on supply voltage whenever the
>input is within 1.35v of the supply voltage.
>
>Ken
Good catch . . . thought I had that covered. After several
asphalt meditations last week, I came to the conclusion
that while the rail-to-rail i/o buffer would offer
a 'simple' solution, it wasn't very elegant.
I'm working on a drawing that uses a R-t-R output op
amp in an inverting configuration which does two good
things for us. (1) We can add pots that set gain and
offset such that the builder can exploit ALL the
bars in the trim indicator display even if the pot doesn't
run full mechanical stroke and (2) we can drive any
number of indicators from the single amplifier.
Refresh my memory . . . does the orange lead on
a RayAllen bar graph display output 5 volts or something
else?
Ken, thanks for the heads-up . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Dual trim indicator buffer |
Here's the drawing I alluded to last night . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pdacqjp
Had a power failure yesterday afternoon which
led to a discovery that my AutoCAD backup feature
had not been set up on this machine . . . lost
90% of the work and had to put it back together
this morning.
Well considered critical review from kindred herders
of electrons is solicited and welcome.
This project could be laid up on a board that
would fit into a 15 pin d-sub housing. The pots
will allow adjustment of gain over a 1 to 2x range.
Offset is good for about 30% of range. This will
allow a builder to make the trim indicator display
full, as-installed stroke of the actuator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative battery technologies . . . |
The battery-buzz these days is focused on lithium . . .
and for good reason. They ARE lighter yet retain many
of the desirable qualities of a lead=acid battery
for engine cranking.
Another rising-star wannabe is a product by FireFly
Energy . . . an svrla battery that features a carbon foam
plate material with a advertised gee-whiz feature
of offering a lower weight replacement for the legacy
lead grids.
This is not a 'new' idea . . . I think the patents
have already been renewed once . . . but only recently
have potential consumers of this technology been able
to put their hands on real product.
http://tinyurl.com/kfzsj5p
This is a group 31 battery (read BIG) that weighed in
at 73.6 pounds and presented and open circuit voltage
of 13.09V at ~20C right out of the box. A 600A load
drops voltage to 9.30V. Therefor (13.1 - 9.30)/600 = 0.00633 Ohms
internal resistance. Okay, how about available capacity
under various loads?
Emacs!
When discharged at 5A, it took 20+ hours to take it down
to 10.0V. So one could say that the capacity of this
battery at 20-hour rate is over 100aH. Not bad for a
75# battery.
At higher rates, we see that the capacity drops off pretty
much like all other batteries . . . the 50A discharge
delivered only 80Ah . . . one might extrapolate from this
data that the battery's one-hour rate (as an aircraft battery
would clock in at about 65Ah. Again, not bad for a 12V,
75# battery.
From the data taken, we can estimate that a 24V cousin
of the same active materials would be slightly more than
the 75# due to addition of extra cell walls. The internal
resistance would go up by a factor of 4. Twice as many
half-sized cells in series.
A 4x increase in internal resistance would have a profound
effect on delivered capacity at the higher rates. In other
words, when sliced up and reassembled as a 24V battery, this
device would not be able to deliver 1/2 the one-hour rate
deduced above . . . it's more likely to be down to something
like 20Ah or so.
I'm going to see if I can model the 24v version and do
some predicted plots.
From the aircraft perspective, the 24v version would
be unable to start a turbine engine. While the capacity
is there at moderate discharge rates . . . internal
resistance kills its cranking abilities.
The plots above include some charging performance data
on a Schumacher XC75W picked up new at a Walmart store
a few weeks ago.
http://tinyurl.com/k7fatrm
On the outside of the box it says 3A charger/maintainer,
5A charger, 20A charger and 75A engine cranking output.
Okay, the first recharge cycle of the 100Ah "AGM" battery
under test produced the recharge curve in black. It
topped off at about 15.7 volts and had the battery 'wheezing'
from the vent valves.
The second recharge in the "GEL" mode produced the curve
in blue which topped off at 14.8 volts. MUCH better.
The third recharge in the "STD" mode produced the curve
in red which again topped off at 15.7 volts and squeezed
a few more molecules of disassociated hydrogen and oxygen
from the cell vents.
Clearly, this charger is not programmed for the advertised
service. Either I have a bad charger or Schumacher has
stubbed their toe. This is like finding a Fluke voltmeter
that's only good to 2% or so . . . I am told that Schumacher's
engineering staff is willing to talk. I'll be looking for
a contact in that venue to discuss my findings on this
particular Schumahcer product.
In the mean time, know that the 20A rate appears to be
a modulated 'peak' rate. Time to stuff 100Ah plus back
into this battery at the 20A setting on the charger
took 8+ hours. Not a big deal. It was reasonably expeditious
and didn't abuse the battery in the GEL mode . . . other
modes are yet to be explained/understood.
So what about these 'new' technologies? Mixed bag. Clearly
the carbon foam battery plate is not ready for prime-time
in aviation. Service in anything but moderate rate discharge
in RV's, boats, etc would be disappointing at anything over
.3C rates. Pretty sure I'm not ready to poke out $375 for
one of these things. Tho I AM glad my client was willing . . .
The charger was disappointing on two fronts. It's clearly
NOT a 20A fast charger. It's also unsuited to the tasks
advertised for maintenance of AGM/Flooded batteries. MUCH
too abusive.
A learned professor once opined "Numbers not accompanied
by degrees of uncertainty are meaningless" (Walter
Lewin). Another pretty sharp cookie was known to have
said, " . . . when you cannot measure [a thing], when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind . . ."(Lord Kelvin).
This is a good illustration of the difficulties encountered
by the CONSUMING community when factions of the SUPPLIER
community get into rock-throwing contests (Recall the
tiff that Odyssey got into with one of the battery maintainer
guys? I forget which). It would have been good and responsible
for both parties to publish the numbers instead of throwing
rocks with consumers caught in the middle.
Now that I have the numbers . . . I can go back to the folks
who have claimed certain kinds of performance based on
those numbers for clarification . . .
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
I have had an LED indicate "Gear in transit" for 10 years with no
protection....
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 3 May 2014 23:02, user9253 wrote:
>
> Eric,
> I am not knowledgeable enough about the characteristics of a starter motor
> to answer. In my circuit, any diode, zener or not, will short out a
> negative voltage. A 16 volt zener will short out any positive voltage
> above 16. Attach your latest circuit idea for others to comment on.
> It would be interesting to learn more about starters, any induced
> voltages during normal operations and also the voltage output and current
> capabilities of a starter that remains engaged with the engine after
> starting.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422759#422759
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Intercom to Radio Wiring |
| From: | Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com> |
This is a question regarding technique rather than specific equipment.
I'm about to start my third try to wire my 4 place intercom to my radio.
My goal is to get all the wires at the connector to actually look
semi-decent and not the fat-collection-of-rats-nest bundle that has
resulted from my first two attempts. It CAN be done, I've seen it. I
just don't know any of the secrets ... wondering what they are ?
Is there a technique or process/pattern to this ? With all the wires
coming in - 3 from each headset connection, 2 additional pair for ptt,
power and then the connections to the radio - there's gotta be something
I'm missing because I've seen it done nicely ...
I checked the aeroconnections site and used a couple of the tricks
there, but they really didn't get me very far.
Any advice other than hiring the task out ?
Thanks
--Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom to Radio Wiring |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Hi Ron, I ran into the same problem. This was my solution to combining the
left audio, right audio, and ground signals for the right front and rear
passengers:
http://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/P1010720.jpg
I brought all of the incoming wires into a regular machined-pin 25-pin
d-sub connector. Then I used an opposite-sex solder d-sub to make the one
shown in the picture. I soldered a little piece of wire across the
appropriate pins. I think in the final configuration I stripped a 5/8" or
so long piece off of the end of a longer wire, soldered the stripped part
across the cups, and then connected the other end of that wire to the
intercom input. This would be an option if you run out of pins. I didn't
take a picture of the final configuration, but I think I did run short of
pins on at least one of them. When it was done I potted the whole thing to
keep it from shorting.
As for the ptt and the rest, my intercom might have been a little bit
different. I had an input pin for each front seat occupant, so that when
the right front keys, only his mic goes to the radio, etc. Mine were also
only single wires- one end went to the intercom, then the other end went to
local ground after passing through the switch.
Another problem was turning big shields into wires that I could crimp into
machined pins. I used crimped on terminals of various types. If I had a
large size change, I might crimp a yellow "handshake" connector on the big
clump of shields, and then crimp a red one onto a single 22-gauge piece of
wire that went to the machined pin. Sometimes I would bring two large
clumps of shields into each end of a yellow splice, then stick a 22-gauge
wire in one of the ends along with the shields.
I'll not imply that the above is necessarily the best way- my mission
wasn't to win any awards, but just to have a reliable mode of
transportation- but so far it is all working just fine. In the end, I
wouldn't say it's a rat's nest (though some might), but perhaps more of a
bird's nest.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Ron Walker wrote:
>
> This is a question regarding technique rather than specific equipment.
>
> I'm about to start my third try to wire my 4 place intercom to my radio.
> My goal is to get all the wires at the connector to actually look
> semi-decent and not the fat-collection-of-rats-nest bundle that has
> resulted from my first two attempts. It CAN be done, I've seen it. I
> just don't know any of the secrets ... wondering what they are ?
>
> Is there a technique or process/pattern to this ? With all the wires
> coming in - 3 from each headset connection, 2 additional pair for ptt,
> power and then the connections to the radio - there's gotta be something
> I'm missing because I've seen it done nicely ...
>
> I checked the aeroconnections site and used a couple of the tricks
> there, but they really didn't get me very far.
>
> Any advice other than hiring the task out ?
>
> Thanks
>
> --Ron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
At 12:07 AM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>I have had an LED indicate "Gear in transit" for 10 years with no
>protection....
>
>Best...
>
Thanks Bob . . .I'm not surprised. Folks who don't
work up to their eyeballs in TC aviation have
some difficult grasping the significance of
the hat-dances we do to get a part holy-watered.
The control of emitted stresses and demonstrating
immunity to external stresses under DO160/MilSTD704
is a kind of 99+ percentile hedge against conditions
known to manifest in at least some situations.
There's an alternator regulator on Bonanzas and
Barons that NEVER saw the lights of a DO160
test lab. It was added to the airplane's TC
WWWAAaaayy back when . . . before Part 23
aviation got so tightly wrapped up in mandated
hat-dancing.
If the airframe manufacturer accomplished enough
testing on the airplane to demonstrate 99+
percent 'suitability to task' then the addition
was allowed.
This particular design has a vulnerability
to certain noises from brush bounce in alternators
that causes the OV protection to trip. Further,
there's a 1= percent probability that new
alternators of this vintage will exhibit
the noise.
Ever so often, on at least 3 occasions I was
involved in over the last 30 years, that
1 percent minus stress comes together with
a 1 percent minus vulnerability and you get
a rash of airplanes that can't be delivered
because the alternator(s) keep tripping off
line under certain conditions.
The obvious fix is to put a fully qualified,
regulator on. But with production
volumes so low, nobody is very excited about
launching in to a new design program . . .
even when I have the design already done!
So, a suitable 'band-aid' not unlike those
things we've resorted to for over a century
has erected a reasonable wall of separation
between the waring factions and all is now
serene in the universe.
What does this have to do with adding protection
to the LED indicators attached directly to
a bus-driven source?
Simply this: The probability that any given
led is going to get toasted by one of the
stresses predicted by DO160/MilSTD704 is
very low. But as experienced practitioners
of the design arts, probability does not
figure into robustness of a design.
DO160/MilSTD704 is not a probability
game, it's a robustness game.
As a matter of design goals, I recommend the diode
as depicted in the drawings. But as Bob (and no doubt
many others) has observed . . . Gee, been
doing this for years without the protection
and I've had no problems.
The lesson-learned here has nothing to
do with holding the LED-toasting dragons
at bay and leaving the pilot unaware of
a stuck contactor . . . it's about ROBUST
design that chooses to ignore low probability
events and design for worst case.
Here's where your failure mode effects analysis
tools come into play. Suppose the LED DOES
get toasted. How long will it take you to
discover that fact and what is the probability
that LED failure will be co-incident with
an LED-toasting dragon?
If your checklist for engine cranking
includes something like:
STARTER - Engage. Observe STARTER ENGAGED
light is illuminated.
When engine starts
STARTER - Disengage. Observe START ENGAGED
light is dark.
. . . and you're covered with the same
blanket that has enveloped many other
'unprotected' installations.
DO160/MilSTD704 robustness is but one of
many tools we can apply to reduction
of risk. Knowledge and understanding is
the most powerful of those tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom to Radio Wiring |
At 06:51 AM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>Hi Ron, I ran into the same problem. =C2 This was
>my solution to combining the left audio, right
>audio, and ground signals for the right front and rear passengers:
>
><http://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/P1010720.jpg>htt
p://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/P1010720.jpg
Looks like a good lick to me . . .
One of my pet peeves concerning the design of many
appliances is the dearth of pin-outs necessary
for graceful termination of wires in a common
installation.
Many times it's not a big deal to the next
larger size d-sub connector on the product to
assist the installer in termination of multiple
wires to grounds or paralleled loads.
Mr. Yates' solution is a rational and robust
solution to your installation problem . . .
perhaps a bit more 'bulk' than soldering
them into heat-shrink covered lumps . . . but
certainly more elegant in appearance and
maintainability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom to Radio Wiring |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
If your using Bob's technique to terminate the shields, make the pig tails long
enough so they are just outside the hood of the D-sub. The short length of un-shielded
wire should not cause any problem. You can also daisy chain all the
grounds into the minimum required number before it enters the hood. Otherwise
there may be too much bulk to get the hood on.
Tim
> On May 5, 2014, at 3:59 AM, Ron Walker wrote:
>
>
> This is a question regarding technique rather than specific equipment.
>
> I'm about to start my third try to wire my 4 place intercom to my radio.
> My goal is to get all the wires at the connector to actually look
> semi-decent and not the fat-collection-of-rats-nest bundle that has
> resulted from my first two attempts. It CAN be done, I've seen it. I
> just don't know any of the secrets ... wondering what they are ?
>
> Is there a technique or process/pattern to this ? With all the wires
> coming in - 3 from each headset connection, 2 additional pair for ptt,
> power and then the connections to the radio - there's gotta be something
> I'm missing because I've seen it done nicely ...
>
> I checked the aeroconnections site and used a couple of the tricks
> there, but they really didn't get me very far.
>
> Any advice other than hiring the task out ?
>
> Thanks
>
> --Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intercom to Radio Wiring |
I totally agree. One of the benefits of packaging the audio products that I
have developed in d-sub backshells is that there are a lot more pins availa
ble for grounds. In fact, I usually reserve a whole row of pins for ground,
whether they are needed or not.
This simplifies installation and saves time and money.
The availability of a whole class of through-hole components that have a max
imum height sized to fit in these packages makes even small volume designs f
easible without having to resort to surface mount devices.
Cheers,
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
==========================
==========================
Sent from my iThing. It is responsible for all gramma and typo terrors.
> On May 5, 2014, at 6:46 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 06:51 AM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>> Hi Ron, I ran into the same problem. =C3=82 This was my solution to combi
ning the left audio, right audio, and ground signals for the right front and
rear passengers:
>>
>> http://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/P1010720.jpg
>
> Looks like a good lick to me . . .
>
> One of my pet peeves concerning the design of many
> appliances is the dearth of pin-outs necessary
> for graceful termination of wires in a common
> installation.
>
> Many times it's not a big deal to the next
> larger size d-sub connector on the product to
> assist the installer in termination of multiple
> wires to grounds or paralleled loads.
>
> Mr. Yates' solution is a rational and robust
> solution to your installation problem . . .
> perhaps a bit more 'bulk' than soldering
> them into heat-shrink covered lumps . . . but
> certainly more elegant in appearance and
> maintainability.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative battery technologies . . . |
_____
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, May 04, 2014 9:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternative battery technologies . . .
The battery-buzz these days is focused on lithium . . .
and for good reason. They ARE lighter yet retain many
of the desirable qualities of a lead=acid battery
for engine cranking.
Another rising-star wannabe is a product by FireFly
Energy . . . an svrla battery that features a carbon foam
plate material with a advertised gee-whiz feature
of offering a lower weight replacement for the legacy
lead grids.
This is not a 'new' idea . . . I think the patents
have already been renewed once . . . but only recently
have potential consumers of this technology been able
to put their hands on real product.
http://tinyurl.com/kfzsj5p
This is a group 31 battery (read BIG) that weighed in
at 73.6 pounds and presented and open circuit voltage
of 13.09V at ~20C right out of the box. A 600A load
drops voltage to 9.30V. Therefor (13.1 - 9.30)/600 = 0.00633 Ohms
internal resistance. Okay, how about available capacity
under various loads?
Emacs!
When discharged at 5A, it took 20+ hours to take it down
to 10.0V. So one could say that the capacity of this
battery at 20-hour rate is over 100aH. Not bad for a
75# battery.
At higher rates, we see that the capacity drops off pretty
much like all other batteries . . . the 50A discharge
delivered only 80Ah . . . one might extrapolate from this
data that the battery's one-hour rate (as an aircraft battery
would clock in at about 65Ah. Again, not bad for a 12V,
75# battery.
>From the data taken, we can estimate that a 24V cousin
of the same active materials would be slightly more than
the 75# due to addition of extra cell walls. The internal
resistance would go up by a factor of 4. Twice as many
half-sized cells in series.
A 4x increase in internal resistance would have a profound
effect on delivered capacity at the higher rates. In other
words, when sliced up and reassembled as a 24V battery, this
device would not be able to deliver 1/2 the one-hour rate
deduced above . . . it's more likely to be down to something
like 20Ah or so.
I'm going to see if I can model the 24v version and do
some predicted plots.
>From the aircraft perspective, the 24v version would
be unable to start a turbine engine. While the capacity
is there at moderate discharge rates . . . internal
resistance kills its cranking abilities.
The plots above include some charging performance data
on a Schumacher XC75W picked up new at a Walmart store
a few weeks ago.
http://tinyurl.com/k7fatrm
On the outside of the box it says 3A charger/maintainer,
5A charger, 20A charger and 75A engine cranking output.
Okay, the first recharge cycle of the 100Ah "AGM" battery
under test produced the recharge curve in black. It
topped off at about 15.7 volts and had the battery 'wheezing'
from the vent valves.
The second recharge in the "GEL" mode produced the curve
in blue which topped off at 14.8 volts. MUCH better.
The third recharge in the "STD" mode produced the curve
in red which again topped off at 15.7 volts and squeezed
a few more molecules of disassociated hydrogen and oxygen
from the cell vents.
Clearly, this charger is not programmed for the advertised
service. Either I have a bad charger or Schumacher has
stubbed their toe. This is like finding a Fluke voltmeter
that's only good to 2% or so . . . I am told that Schumacher's
engineering staff is willing to talk. I'll be looking for
a contact in that venue to discuss my findings on this
particular Schumahcer product.
In the mean time, know that the 20A rate appears to be
a modulated 'peak' rate. Time to stuff 100Ah plus back
into this battery at the 20A setting on the charger
took 8+ hours. Not a big deal. It was reasonably expeditious
and didn't abuse the battery in the GEL mode . . . other
modes are yet to be explained/understood.
So what about these 'new' technologies? Mixed bag. Clearly
the carbon foam battery plate is not ready for prime-time
in aviation. Service in anything but moderate rate discharge
in RV's, boats, etc would be disappointing at anything over
.3C rates. Pretty sure I'm not ready to poke out $375 for
one of these things. Tho I AM glad my client was willing . . .
The charger was disappointing on two fronts. It's clearly
NOT a 20A fast charger. It's also unsuited to the tasks
advertised for maintenance of AGM/Flooded batteries. MUCH
too abusive.
A learned professor once opined "Numbers not accompanied
by degrees of uncertainty are meaningless" (Walter
Lewin). Another pretty sharp cookie was known to have
said, " . . . when you cannot measure [a thing], when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind . . ."(Lord Kelvin).
This is a good illustration of the difficulties encountered
by the CONSUMING community when factions of the SUPPLIER
community get into rock-throwing contests (Recall the
tiff that Odyssey got into with one of the battery maintainer
guys? I forget which). It would have been good and responsible
for both parties to publish the numbers instead of throwing
rocks with consumers caught in the middle.
Now that I have the numbers . . . I can go back to the folks
who have claimed certain kinds of performance based on
those numbers for clarification . . .
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative battery technologies . . . |
Excellent study and report Bob. Thanks for sharing.
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, May 04, 2014 9:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternative battery technologies . . .
The battery-buzz these days is focused on lithium . . .
and for good reason. They ARE lighter yet retain many
of the desirable qualities of a lead=acid battery
for engine cranking.
Another rising-star wannabe is a product by FireFly
Energy . . . an svrla battery that features a carbon foam
plate material with a advertised gee-whiz feature
of offering a lower weight replacement for the legacy
lead grids.
This is not a 'new' idea . . . I think the patents
have already been renewed once . . . but only recently
have potential consumers of this technology been able
to put their hands on real product.
http://tinyurl.com/kfzsj5p
This is a group 31 battery (read BIG) that weighed in
at 73.6 pounds and presented and open circuit voltage
of 13.09V at ~20C right out of the box. A 600A load
drops voltage to 9.30V. Therefor (13.1 - 9.30)/600 = 0.00633 Ohms
internal resistance. Okay, how about available capacity
under various loads?
Emacs!
When discharged at 5A, it took 20+ hours to take it down
to 10.0V. So one could say that the capacity of this
battery at 20-hour rate is over 100aH. Not bad for a
75# battery.
At higher rates, we see that the capacity drops off pretty
much like all other batteries . . . the 50A discharge
delivered only 80Ah . . . one might extrapolate from this
data that the battery's one-hour rate (as an aircraft battery
would clock in at about 65Ah. Again, not bad for a 12V,
75# battery.
>From the data taken, we can estimate that a 24V cousin
of the same active materials would be slightly more than
the 75# due to addition of extra cell walls. The internal
resistance would go up by a factor of 4. Twice as many
half-sized cells in series.
A 4x increase in internal resistance would have a profound
effect on delivered capacity at the higher rates. In other
words, when sliced up and reassembled as a 24V battery, this
device would not be able to deliver 1/2 the one-hour rate
deduced above . . . it's more likely to be down to something
like 20Ah or so.
I'm going to see if I can model the 24v version and do
some predicted plots.
>From the aircraft perspective, the 24v version would
be unable to start a turbine engine. While the capacity
is there at moderate discharge rates . . . internal
resistance kills its cranking abilities.
The plots above include some charging performance data
on a Schumacher XC75W picked up new at a Walmart store
a few weeks ago.
http://tinyurl.com/k7fatrm
On the outside of the box it says 3A charger/maintainer,
5A charger, 20A charger and 75A engine cranking output.
Okay, the first recharge cycle of the 100Ah "AGM" battery
under test produced the recharge curve in black. It
topped off at about 15.7 volts and had the battery 'wheezing'
from the vent valves.
The second recharge in the "GEL" mode produced the curve
in blue which topped off at 14.8 volts. MUCH better.
The third recharge in the "STD" mode produced the curve
in red which again topped off at 15.7 volts and squeezed
a few more molecules of disassociated hydrogen and oxygen
from the cell vents.
Clearly, this charger is not programmed for the advertised
service. Either I have a bad charger or Schumacher has
stubbed their toe. This is like finding a Fluke voltmeter
that's only good to 2% or so . . . I am told that Schumacher's
engineering staff is willing to talk. I'll be looking for
a contact in that venue to discuss my findings on this
particular Schumahcer product.
In the mean time, know that the 20A rate appears to be
a modulated 'peak' rate. Time to stuff 100Ah plus back
into this battery at the 20A setting on the charger
took 8+ hours. Not a big deal. It was reasonably expeditious
and didn't abuse the battery in the GEL mode . . . other
modes are yet to be explained/understood.
So what about these 'new' technologies? Mixed bag. Clearly
the carbon foam battery plate is not ready for prime-time
in aviation. Service in anything but moderate rate discharge
in RV's, boats, etc would be disappointing at anything over
.3C rates. Pretty sure I'm not ready to poke out $375 for
one of these things. Tho I AM glad my client was willing . . .
The charger was disappointing on two fronts. It's clearly
NOT a 20A fast charger. It's also unsuited to the tasks
advertised for maintenance of AGM/Flooded batteries. MUCH
too abusive.
A learned professor once opined "Numbers not accompanied
by degrees of uncertainty are meaningless" (Walter
Lewin). Another pretty sharp cookie was known to have
said, " . . . when you cannot measure [a thing], when you
cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind . . ."(Lord Kelvin).
This is a good illustration of the difficulties encountered
by the CONSUMING community when factions of the SUPPLIER
community get into rock-throwing contests (Recall the
tiff that Odyssey got into with one of the battery maintainer
guys? I forget which). It would have been good and responsible
for both parties to publish the numbers instead of throwing
rocks with consumers caught in the middle.
Now that I have the numbers . . . I can go back to the folks
who have claimed certain kinds of performance based on
those numbers for clarification . . .
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom to Radio Wiring |
At 10:38 AM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>I totally agree. One of the benefits of packaging the audio
>products that I have developed in d-sub backshells is that there are
>a lot more pins available for grounds. In fact, I usually reserve a
>whole row of pins for ground, whether they are needed or not.
>
>This simplifies installation and saves time and money.
>
>The availability of a whole class of through-hole components that
>have a maximum height sized to fit in these packages makes even
>small volume designs feasible without having to resort to surface
>mount devices.
Isn't this business fun?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative battery technologies . . . |
At 10:41 AM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>Excellent study and report Bob. Thanks for sharing.
>
>Bevan
You're welcome. The next phase of the
study will involve disassembly of the
battery. We want to see if our 'predictors'
based on experience and deduction about this
technology were correct. About 8 years
ago we spent a little money getting
to know the designers a little better.
Funny thing about that physics-stuff . . .
you cannot shuffle the numbers and simple-
ideas at the convenience of marketing
department. Attempts to ignore -or-
shuffle can be embarrassing, expensive
and sometimes dangerous.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Joe and Bob,
I thought that an LED was a type of diode. It seems like one should not have to
stick a second diode on the circuit when using an LED.
For your review, here is an attachment of my solution. My engine/starter is in
a state of storage so the LED based circuit cannot be tested yet. I chickened
out and replaced the diode with a mini bulb. Seemed like the simplest way in my
case.
Thank you,
Eric Schlanser
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422865#422865
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/starter_warn_light_circuit3_451.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: trim indicator buffer |
> Well considered critical review from kindred herders
> of electrons is solicited and welcome.
I would add another 0.1 from pin 3 to ground, to keep noisy trim pots from making
the reading jumpy, and maybe another one between pins 2 and 6 to slow down
the op amp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
At 05:48 PM 5/5/2014, you wrote:
>
>Joe and Bob,
>
>I thought that an LED was a type of diode. It seems like one should
>not have to stick a second diode on the circuit when using an LED.
It IS a diode. It has ratings and limits like any other
diode. When caused to conduct current in a forward direction,
it exhibits a voltage drop quite a bit higher than power
steering or detection diodes . . . and it emits light while
doing it. Apply voltage in the reverse direction and
you not only get no light . . . you may punch out the
magic stuff between the terminals that emits the light.
Here's an exemplar set of plots on a bright, white LED.
http://tinyurl.com/q4f25xe
Emacs!
For a diode rated at 30 mA, one selects a resistor that
produces no more than 30 mA at maximum expected system
voltage (call it 15v). In the curve above we see that
voltage drop is 3.4V at 30 mA. (15-3.4)/.030 = 386
ohms. So the resistor to choose is no smaller than
this calculated value to stay below the diode's rated
maximum operating current.
Emacs!
Reverse voltage is another mater. Note that around
18volts, the current takes a sharp spike toward
very high . . . read damaged junction.
Now, the SOURCE of a reverse voltage in our applications
MUST be reactive. I.e., inductive response to rapid
drop in applied current . . . like a contactor opening
up. The inductive culprit is not necessarily a
DEVICE . . . even long wires between the battery
and the victim device can offer the inductive
storage need to offer a reverse voltage spike.
It WILL be short, it may not have much energy
in it . . . but it quite likely to exceed 18 volts.
Hence, legacy design goals include the addition of
a diode across the LED wired to conduct in case
such a led-killing dragon should come along.
Not saying it WILL . . . in fact, many builders
are flying 'unprotected' leds with no regrets.
There are Bonanzas with low probability of an
antagonist jumping up to irritate a less-than-
robust regulator . . . rare but not zero.
>
>
>For your review, here is an attachment of my solution. My
>engine/starter is in a state of storage so the LED based circuit
>cannot be tested yet. I chickened out and replaced the diode with a
>mini bulb. Seemed like the simplest way in my case.
Can you articulate the source of your 'fear?'
I thought that the explanations and experiences
shared here on the List would have assuaged your
concerns. By all means, use the LED without protection . . .
and simply watch it for failure. It's a no-risk
event easily spotted throughout its lifetime on
the airplane.
I'm concerned that you were offered 'too much'
information . . . that's always a risk in this
data exchange venue . . . it was never intended
to be a 'cook book . . . do this and trust
me'. But the fact that you 'chickened out' and
regressed to a legacy technology suggests that
the List did not serve you well.
Don't hesitate to bring perceptions of poor
service to my attention or anyone else's . . .
this List is all about reducing risk through
knowledge and understanding . . . not about
anointing any one process or technology.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> I thought that an LED was a type of diode. It seems like one should not have
to stick a second diode on the circuit when using an LED.
I do not think that either Bob or I recommending using a protection diode. I only
offered a circuit containing one to help answer the question. Actually, I
think that an incandescent lamp is more likely to fail than a LED.
I think an indicator light (if used) should be connected in parallel with the
starter motor, and not connected to the contactor coil. Then the lamp will illuminate
whenever the starter motor is rotating and for whatever reason. Someone
correct me if I am wrong.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422877#422877
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
At 05:59 AM 5/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > I thought that an LED was a type of diode. It seems like one
> should not have to stick a second diode on the circuit when using an LED.
>
>I do not think that either Bob or I recommending using a protection diode.
Correct. My assertions went to the point of
robust design goals. Here's how the protection
diode works should one choose to include it.
There are lots of airplanes flying with commerical
off the shelf, internally regulated alternators
too . . . without the legacy ov protection.
Again, builder's choice.
> I only offered a circuit containing one to help answer the
> question. Actually, I think that an incandescent lamp is more
> likely to fail than a LED.
Agreed although in this case were talking about
two different failure modes. Incandescent lamps
will wear out and are subject to vibration.
LEDs are essentially longer lived than the
airplane itself assuming that it's free
of all electrical over-stresses.
> I think an indicator light (if used) should be connected in
> parallel with the starter motor, and not connected to the contactor coil.
Good catch. I missed that feature. Yes,
the purpose of the light is to warn of
a stuck starter contactor. Hence, it
would be wired to the motor terminals.
> Then the lamp will illuminate whenever the starter motor is
> rotating and for whatever reason. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
=0A=0Acomments a the bottom...=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroe
lectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:33 AM=0ASubject:
Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from fai
, III" =0A=0AAt 05:59 AM 5/6/2014, you wrote
>=0A>=0A>=0A> > I thought that an LED was a type of diode. It seems like on
e =0A> should not have to stick a second diode on the circuit when using an
LED.=0A>=0A>I do not think that either Bob or I recommending using a prote
ction diode.=0A=0A- - - Correct. My assertions went to the point of
=0A- - - robust design goals. Here's how the protection=0A- - -
diode works should one choose to include it.=0A- - - There are lots
of airplanes flying with commerical=0A- - - off the shelf, internally
regulated alternators=0A- - - too . . . without the legacy ov protec
tion.=0A- - - Again, builder's choice.=0A=0A>- I only offered a ci
rcuit containing one to help answer the =0A> question.- Actually, I think
that an incandescent lamp is more =0A> likely to fail than a LED.=0A=0A-
- - Agreed although in this case were talking about=0A- - - two
different failure modes. Incandescent lamps=0A- - - will wear out and
are subject to vibration.=0A- - - LEDs are essentially longer lived
than the=0A- - - airplane itself assuming that it's free=0A- -
- of all electrical over-stresses.=0A=0A>- I think an indicator light
(if used) should be connected in =0A> parallel with the starter motor, and
not connected to the contactor coil.=0A=0A- - - Good catch. I missed
that feature. Yes,=0A- - - the purpose of the light is to warn of=0A
- - - a stuck starter contactor. Hence, it=0A- - - would be wir
ed to the motor terminals.=0A=0A=0A=0A>- Then the lamp will illuminate w
henever the starter motor is =0A> rotating and for whatever reason.- Some
one correct me if I am wrong.=0A=0AThe original drawing submitted by the or
iginal poster showed the light across=0Athe motor terminals of the starter.
=0A=0ACare must be taken to get on the correct terminal on the starter.-
If you get =0Aan indicator, LED or incandescent, across the starter "shift"
solenoid (that's=0Athe one built into the starter which engages the drive
pinion) you=0Awill indeed have a dragon by the tail.- The inductive kick
when the shift =0Asolenoid de-energizes is a flame-thrower.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob(s) and Joe,
It's not about poor "service" from this list. Quite the contrary. And the great
body of knowledge herein is why I came to this list to find out the answer to
my questions. I have learned so much here it's why I have been able to create
and wire my plane. Couldn't have done it without you.
Not having full understanding of an LED is why I used the mini bulb. Your explanations
made the use of the LED so much clearer that I could have used it had
I seen your posts before I chickened out and installed the mini bulb. When the
mini bulb fails, I'll try the LED. Although, the mini bulb has a 5k hours ave
life! Also, I was not able to test the LED by running the starter. Also, the
two original diagrams showing two different ways to add the diode to the circuit
had me wondering which was correct.
As far as monitoring the starter contactor rather than the terminals on the starter,
I have to say I followed an old drawing I had from the aeroelectric.com
site. It was
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Starter_Contactor/s702wire.jpg
When I search for it now, I find I am not able to access it. It was a picture of
an auto style start contactor with two large posts and two small posts. The
small posts were labelled S and I. The picture said the I post could be used
for a starter monitoring light. I'll agree the starter would be a better device
to monitor. THanks for the tips.
Eric Schlanser
.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422930#422930
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Time delay, flicker filter etc. |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
>
>
>>
>> A time constant of 2 second would be adequate I suppose.
>> Could some variation of the fuel level flicker filter do ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your suggestions, and keep on the good job
>
> Referring to the assembly details in . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nxmo3us
>
> That comparator only has about 0.5% hysteresis . . .
> try reducing the value of R108 down to 100K
> which will raise the hysteresis by a factor of ~5x
Hi Bob,
Thank you for responding.
What I did not state clearly is that somewhere along the build we
switched from Aeroelectric's battery management module to Perihelion's
because for some reasons we could not discover, the ABMM did not like
the presence of EV200 contactors.
Since the new battery management module is potted, I was wondering if a
proper filter could be devised as a "bolt-on" unit to be insered in
series on the sense - or the contactor actuation - side.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Time delay, flicker filter etc. |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thank you for responding.
>What I did not state clearly is that somewhere along the build we
>switched from Aeroelectric's battery management module to
>Perihelion's because for some reasons we could not discover, the
>ABMM did not like the presence of EV200 contactors.
>Since the new battery management module is potted, I was wondering
>if a proper filter could be devised as a "bolt-on" unit to be
>insered in series on the sense - or the contactor actuation - side.
oh . . . okay . . . wish we'd talked about
this earlier . . .
The EV200 contactors are known noise sources.
Not sure why, it's not difficult to control.
I think I've got a sample from the factory
around here somewhere. Might see if I can
get a peek at it in the lab with some really
good equipment.
In the mean time, I take it that the original
ABMM is no longer available. You'd have
to check with Eric on his recommendations
but I'm guessing that you might get away
with feeding the ABMM's + input terminal
through a diode (Schottky would be best
but not critical). Then put a capacitor
across the ABMM input power terminals . . .
something like 100uF. This would drive the
module at the higher voltage more consistent
with the peaks.
As an aside, I'm studying a line of rectifier
regulators for PM alternators, both single
and 3-phase, that are head-and-shoulders above
legacy technologies for voltage regulation
stability.
Further, they are thermally robust. The
Ducati R/R supplied with the Rotax engines
is pretty sorry compared to these new ones.
Just getting a REAL regulator on your airplane
may make Eric's ABMM happier too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from |
failing?
At 05:41 PM 5/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>Bob(s) and Joe,
>
>It's not about poor "service" from this list. Quite the contrary.
>And the great body of knowledge herein is why I came to this list to
>find out the answer to my questions. I have learned so much here
>it's why I have been able to create and wire my plane. Couldn't have
>done it without you.
> Not having full understanding of an LED is why I used the mini
> bulb. Your explanations made the use of the LED so much clearer
> that I could have used it had I seen your posts before I chickened
> out and installed the mini bulb. When the mini bulb fails, I'll try
> the LED. Although, the mini bulb has a 5k hours ave life! Also, I
> was not able to test the LED by running the starter. Also, the two
> original diagrams showing two different ways to add the diode to
> the circuit had me wondering which was correct.
I saw those . . . and didn't see a difference in them . . .
> As far as monitoring the starter contactor rather than the
> terminals on the starter, I have to say I followed an old drawing I
> had from the aeroelectric.com site. It was
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Starter_Contactor/s702wire.jpg
>
it's still there. it got filed under "Starter Contactors"
http://tinyurl.com/o5turon
>When I search for it now, I find I am not able to access it. It was
>a picture of an auto style start contactor with two large posts and
>two small posts. The small posts were labelled S and I. The picture
>said the I post could be used for a starter monitoring light. I'll
>agree the starter would be a better device to monitor. THanks for the tips.
The wiring suggested in S702wire.jpg might make more
sense if you saw the schematic . . .
Actually, the "I" terminal is just fine . . . that's a THIRD
stationary contact within the S702-1 contactor that duplicates
the connections between the two FAT terminals thusly . . .
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Single ground vs. distributed ground |
| From: | "Dragoon6" <adverb.elephant(at)gmail.com> |
Don,
I have a Glasair (i.e. all fiberglass) airplane, which I bought rather than built.
I am rewiring to install new equipment and I've discovered no less than 5
grounding locations. I have one (large) main ground bus, along with smaller ground
buses located in various regions behind the panel: one on the floor, one
on the pilot's side, one on the side of my nag/com stack, etc.
So long as these buses are connected and that you stay away from ground loops,
you should be fine with multiple grounds. My radios and such were fine before
I tore everything apart. The only issue I had was loose/improperly installed coax
connectors and a bum engine monitor.
Be sure to keep your maximum voltage drop to less than 0.5V (as per the AC 43.13-2B)
if you have a 14V system. I am increasing a few of my ground wires between
the various smaller ground buses or terminal blocks: maybe from a #14 AWG up
to a #12 or #10 AWG.
I run a 60A alternator and use #4 AWG for my battery and starter (long runs) but
a #6 AWG for my alternator line to the hot bus. My battery has two #4 AWG ground
lines, one running to the main ground bus while the other runs to the engine
case.
Moderation is always a plus, but having more than one ground bus in a glass airplane
is not the end of the world. Plan your layout well, as I can attest to the
fact that trying to track a rat's nest of wires after the fact is NOT fun.
Best wishes and have fun!
Travis
Los Alamos, NM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422938#422938
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms... |
| From: | "Dragoon6" <adverb.elephant(at)gmail.com> |
Hello,
I am looking for some (apparently) special coax connectors for my Apollo (now Garmin)
nav/coms. The old connectors are made by Delta Electronics Manufacturing
Corp., part number 4205018N995-000, and are slip-on on one side with a metal
flare to help guide the radio coax connector into place, then a center-wire solder
and twist-on shielding connection the other end. There are two rectangular
flanges for mounting to the nav/com tray.
I am told that these are standard for the older Apollo radios but they are somewhat
difficult to come by. If anyone is selling any or knows of anyone who has
any, i would appreciate it.
These connectors float on the tray, which also helps for easy alignment when sliding
the radio into the tray. I just need new connectors so I can switch to my
RG400 coax from the RG58. Let's see if I can add some photos.
--------
Travis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422941#422941
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094054_732.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094042_166.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094028_185.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094003_108.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms... |
Why go to all the bother of upgrading to RG400 for nav/coms?? They are
in the 108-137MHz range, where there is not much performance difference
between the RRG-58 and RG-400. Properly installed RG58 with decent
antennas can give over 100nm range. How much more do you need??
On 5/6/2014 9:12 PM, Dragoon6 wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for some (apparently) special coax connectors for my Apollo (now
Garmin) nav/coms. The old connectors are made by Delta Electronics Manufacturing
Corp., part number 4205018N995-000, and are slip-on on one side with a metal
flare to help guide the radio coax connector into place, then a center-wire
solder and twist-on shielding connection the other end. There are two rectangular
flanges for mounting to the nav/com tray.
>
> I am told that these are standard for the older Apollo radios but they are somewhat
difficult to come by. If anyone is selling any or knows of anyone who has
any, i would appreciate it.
>
> These connectors float on the tray, which also helps for easy alignment when
sliding the radio into the tray. I just need new connectors so I can switch to
my RG400 coax from the RG58. Let's see if I can add some photos.
>
> --------
> Travis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422941#422941
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094054_732.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094042_166.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094028_185.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20140504_094003_108.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
I have been engaged in a futile search trying to find the d-sub
connectors that go between a Gat 1 link trainer and it's recorder
and it's performance indicator.
The body of the male,pin, connector is part No. 200345-2 and I
think the socket part no. is 200346-2.
I need two female and three male sockets and the backshells
and fasteners that go with them. Does anyone know where I
might find these old connectors ?
____________________________________________________________
FREE Stock Report
How to Invest in the $70 Billion Bottled Water Boom
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/536a37a3a92c037a268cbst04vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis(at)charter.net> |
>
> I have been engaged in a futile search trying to find the d-sub
> connectors that go between a Gat 1 link trainer and it's recorder
> and it's performance indicator.
> The body of the male,pin, connector is part No. 200345-2 and I
> think the socket part no. is 200346-2.
> I need two female and three male sockets and the backshells
> and fasteners that go with them. Does anyone know where I
> might find these old connectors ?
D-subs have not changed much over many years.
If these are, in fact, D-subs you should be able
to identify them by the number of rows of pins
and number of pins. Go to your local Radio
Shack and they will probably have them.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Larry,=0A=0AI did a search on GAT-1 flight simulator and the search return
ed a number of links which could be of assistance. =C2-It included units
on e-Bay, boxes of manuals & spare parts, etc.=0A=0AGive that a try...=0A
Blue skies & tailwinds,=0ABob Borger=0AEuropa XS Tri, Rotax 914 w/ Interco
oler & Airmaster C/S Prop=0ALittle Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming AEIO-320 E
XP=0A3705 Lynchburg Dr.=0ACorinth, TX 76208-5331=0AH: 940-497-2123=0AC: 81
7-992-1117=0A=0AOn May 07, 2014, at 08:39 AM, Larry Mac Donald =0A=0AI have been engaged in a futile s
earch trying to find the d-sub =0Aconnectors that go between a Gat 1 link
trainer and it's recorder =0Aand it's performance indicator.=0AThe body of
the male,pin, connector is part No. 200345-2 and I=0Athink the socket par
t no. is 200346-2.=0AI need two female and three male sockets and the back
shells =0Aand fasteners that go with them. Does anyone know where I =0Amig
ht find these old connectors ?=0A_________________________________________
___________________=0AFREE Stock Report=0AHow to Invest in the $70 Billion
Bottled Water Boom=0Ahttp://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/536a37a3a92
========0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:39 AM 5/7/2014, you wrote:
>
>I have been engaged in a futile search trying to find the d-sub
>connectors that go between a Gat 1 link trainer and it's recorder
>and it's performance indicator.
>The body of the male,pin, connector is part No. 200345-2 and I
>think the socket part no. is 200346-2.
>I need two female and three male sockets and the backshells
>and fasteners that go with them. Does anyone know where I
>might find these old connectors ?
Actually, those are a pretty vintage connector. I
think the first time I saw them on a piece of avionics
they were called "Winchester" connectors. Amp took
them over as their "M" series and now they're TE
(Tyco Connectivity) parts and going obsolete.
Everything you wanted to know about these connectors
and mating parts is here
http://tinyurl.com/n5elt9t
Newark, Allied, Mouser et. als. may have some stocks.
Otherwise, your doomed to beating the bushes of
the obsolete and wayward parts brokers . . .
http://tinyurl.com/l32clrc
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms... |
At 11:12 PM 5/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am looking for some (apparently) special coax connectors for my
>Apollo (now Garmin) nav/coms. The old connectors are made by Delta
>Electronics Manufacturing Corp., part number 4205018N995-000, and
>are slip-on on one side with a metal flare to help guide the radio
>coax connector into place, then a center-wire solder and twist-on
>shielding connection the other end. There are two rectangular
>flanges for mounting to the nav/com tray.
>
>I am told that these are standard for the older Apollo radios but
>they are somewhat difficult to come by. If anyone is selling any or
>knows of anyone who has any, i would appreciate it.
>
>These connectors float on the tray, which also helps for easy
>alignment when sliding the radio into the tray. I just need new
>connectors so I can switch to my RG400 coax from the RG58. Let's see
>if I can add some photos.
Those are a real odd-ball tray connector for coax.
Most manufacturers went with the TED 9-29-10
connector . . . legend has it that they designed
that connector for Ed King waaaayyyy back when.
They became popular and were adopted by almost
everybody and are still in production.
http://tinyurl.com/ob7xtyq
I've never encountered the connector you've cited.
If you could get me some clearer photos, I'd like
to add them to the archives.
As to your particular question, are you replacing
RG58 because it's damaged or now too short? As
Kelly pointed out, unless there are mechanical
reasons for replacing the coax, performance gains
for replacing it are trivial.
Can you unscrew the cap on the back of the connector?
I think you'll find an access port to a soldered
connection to center conductor under that cap.
I note that the shield connection appears to be
the legacy BNC-style clamp-ring and gasket. With
some care on the workbench, you can salvage and
reinstall the old connector.
If coax replacement IS indicated, you can also
cut off the old RG58 to leave a 6" or so
flying lead which you can terminate with a cable
female BNC . . . then extend your new installation
from that point without risk to the old connector.
I'll bet that critter is not easy to find and
probably expensive if you do find it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms... |
Hi Bob,
I don't believe he's talking about those (king/icom/etc..)...I think
specifically the Delta P/N mentioned used by Apollo/UPSat/Garmin...which are
these (not my picture):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FBkFonYU8-0/UUHdBy2NWmI/AAAAAAAAHW0/FYiLVN28ZB0/s4
00/IMG_2594.JPG
As noted, you can easily install RG58 or RG400 into this connector and they
are reusable. They are rare because they are no longer in production, but
we have a slew of them in stock just due to normal business with these over
the years. What's harder to find is the little shoulder nuts that allow
those to float...we have to turn some down by hand on the lathe if we need
them!
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms...
-->
At 11:12 PM 5/6/2014, you wrote:
>
>
Those are a real odd-ball tray connector for coax.
Most manufacturers went with the TED 9-29-10
connector . . . legend has it that they designed
that connector for Ed King waaaayyyy back when.
They became popular and were adopted by almost
everybody and are still in production.
http://tinyurl.com/ob7xtyq
I've never encountered the connector you've cited.
If you could get me some clearer photos, I'd like
to add them to the archives.
As to your particular question, are you replacing
RG58 because it's damaged or now too short? As
Kelly pointed out, unless there are mechanical
reasons for replacing the coax, performance gains
for replacing it are trivial.
Can you unscrew the cap on the back of the connector?
I think you'll find an access port to a soldered
connection to center conductor under that cap.
I note that the shield connection appears to be
the legacy BNC-style clamp-ring and gasket. With
some care on the workbench, you can salvage and
reinstall the old connector.
If coax replacement IS indicated, you can also
cut off the old RG58 to leave a 6" or so
flying lead which you can terminate with a cable
female BNC . . . then extend your new installation
from that point without risk to the old connector.
I'll bet that critter is not easy to find and
probably expensive if you do find it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | stuck starter motor |
| From: | Janet Amtmann <jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com> |
If you put a lamp on the I terminal of the contactor it will indicate a
stuck contactor, and probably a running starter motor. If you put the bulb
across the starter, it will only indicate if the starter has voltage going
to it, i.e. stuck contactor. If the starter engagement device (Bendix) is
stuck to keep the motor running without the contactor being engaged there
will be no voltage generated unless it is a permanent magnet starter motor.
Unless the old Delco starter has enough residual magnetism (does it?) in
the field to light a bulb, be it an incandescent or and LED. I'll take the
connection to the I terminal, thank you.
Jurgen Amtmann, RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Special Coax Connectors: Apollo Nav/Coms... |
| From: | "Dragoon6" <adverb.elephant(at)gmail.com> |
Oh!!
Stein, can you send me that schematic in the background (installation instructions
for this Delta connector) of the image you attached to your reply? Knowing
the proper installation procedures would help if I have to re-use the old connectors.
>From your image I see that RG400 can, in fact, work in this style of connector.
That's very reassuring.
Rather than leave a pig tail of RG58 on the back of the tray, I'd rather go with
RG400 the whole way.
I've been busy and have not been able to locate any Delta Electronics Manufacturing
Corp. distributors: DEMC would not sell directly to me as I'm not a business.
Stein, if you know where I could get 4 to 6 of these connectors that would
be great. Just the installation instructions though would be a big plus.
Travis
Los Alamos, NM
adverb.elephant(at)gmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422982#422982
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys (Bob)
I see that Z11 is using a fuse block as opposed the CBs (no problem there), can
you tell me why the feed to the 5a CB has a fuse able link, why not use a fuse
in the distribution fuse block
Best regards
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422991#422991
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Ps: the 5amp CB did relate to the alternator feed circuit
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=422992#422992
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
At 06:09 AM 5/8/2014, you wrote:
Hi Guys (Bob)
I see that Z11 is using a fuse block as opposed the CBs (no problem
there), can you tell me why the feed to the 5a CB has a fuse able
link, why not use a fuse in the distribution fuse block
Best regards
John
The length of wire from fuse block feeder terminal
out to the circuit breaker is an EXTENSION of the
bus. In larger aircraft the bus feeders will sometimes
be protected by a VERY robust fusible device like
the ANN/ANL series of "current limiters" . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bu
http://tinyurl.com/lrjm5y3
http://tinyurl.com/k7o3l3q
Note that these devices, while 'rated' at some
value like 100A, they will CARRY 2x their
rated current almost indefinitely. At the
same time, when subjected to a hard fault
of 5 to 10x rated current, they open in tens
of milliseconds.
Legacy design goals for aircraft suggest that
this extension of the bus up to your panel
mounted circuit breaker needs a 'current limiter'
but not like the devices cited above. It's
much smaller and designed to protect the longer
run of wire to the breaker. Protection with
a response many times longer than the breaker
it feeds.
This question came up on the List a few years
ago . . .
Q: Drawing Z24 shows how to add an OV protection module for an
internally regulated power
supply. It requires the use of a 5A circuit breaker and also of a
fuselink attached to the main
connection of the main bus. The question: Can we replace the fuselink
by using one of the
outputs on the main bus protected by a larger fuse (say 15amps)? I
would like for sure the
breaker to let go before the fuse.
A: Some 5A breakers will open a 15A fuse. Fuses are MUCH faster than
breakers. This is
why I prefer the fusible link
The risks of positioning fuses upstream of breakers
is illustrated in the accident case I chronicled
here
http://tinyurl.com/msfmldj
and demonstrated here
http://tinyurl.com/ppdv5fg
The automotive world has used fusible links
in this capacity for decades and they've
served well in the capacity of mini-limiters.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | FYI - LMR195 coax |
I installed a new antenna on the roof yesterday
and wired it to the radio with LMR195 coax. While
this stuff has appealing performance specs, it is
NOT a drop-in-replacement for the legacy coaxes
that feature one or more braided outer conductors.
Emacs!
Unlike the RG142 illustrated above I found that the
braid wires on this coax are very small and few. The
coax's shield performance is bounded by the foil shield.
The outer braid is just a means by which connection can be made to
the foil and is relatively fragile compared to the
two heavy layers of braid in RG142/400
The installer must take extra care in the 3rd cut and
removal of the outer jacket so as not to damage
the braid.
Further, the 2nd cut designed to remove the shield
from a stub of center insulation is problematic.
Again, depth of cut and subsequent removal of the
foil shield (tightly bonded to the insulation)
is tricky.
I got my connectors installed and the feed line performs
as expected . . . but I would caution builders to work
with some scraps of this coax and some 'training
connectors' to refine their technique. I'll put
LMR195 coax termination on the list of comic books to be
crafted for the website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
So a ANL current limiter off the main battery protecting the whole system would
not be a bad idea ?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=423017#423017
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
At 01:21 PM 5/8/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>So a ANL current limiter off the main battery protecting the whole
>system would not be a bad idea ?
Not a bad idea . . . but not a good one either. Current
limiters have value for fault isolation in complex bus
structures . . . which are generally not found in Part
23 airplanes.
The fat wires between battery, main bus and starter
terminal are usually of such robustness that any
fault to ground would be more likely to burn a hole
in fault location as opposed to opening any limiter
in the path.
Single light TC aircraft have never been fitted with
such protection that I know of.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
=0A=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>=0ATo:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:32 PM=0AS
ubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fusable link=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-L
ist message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric
.com>=0A=0AAt 01:21 PM 5/8/2014, you wrote:=0A>--> AeroElectric-List messag
e posted by: "JOHN TIPTON" =0A>=0A>=0A>So a ANL c
urrent limiter off the main battery protecting the whole =0A>system would n
ot be a bad idea ?=0A=0A- Not a bad idea . . . but not a good one either
. Current=0A- limiters have value for fault isolation in complex bus=0A
- structures . . . which are generally not found in Part=0A- 23 airpl
anes.=0A=0A- The fat wires between battery, main bus and starter=0A-
terminal are usually of such robustness that any=0A- fault to ground wou
ld be more likely to burn a hole=0A- in fault location as opposed to ope
ning any limiter=0A- in the path.=0A=0ANot sure what that means... ???
- =0A=0AIf it is "robust" wouldn't it carry enough current to blow the li
miter?=0AAre you suggesting that "welding/burning" aluminum does not draw a
lot of current?=0AHave you ever tested that hypothesis?=0A=0AEven if some
of the above is true, a current limiter still could provide some protection
=0Afrom a "hard" fault, could it not?=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A- Single light
TC aircraft have never been fitted with=0A- such protection that I know
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Adm
=====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
>
>Not sure what that means... ???
>
>If it is "robust" wouldn't it carry enough current to blow the limiter?
>Are you suggesting that "welding/burning" aluminum does not draw a
>lot of current?
>Have you ever tested that hypothesis?
Actually, it doesn't. Recall the anecdote about
the C90 parting and elevator control cable with
a soft fault to a wire. A 40A breaker didn't trip
nor was the wire itself seriously damaged.
http://tinyurl.com/n3dqkb2
>Even if some of the above is true, a current limiter still could
>provide some protection
>from a "hard" fault, could it not?
Define 'hard' fault . . . and hypothesize how
one comes into existence.
What kind of circuit closure has to happen to
carry hundreds of amps of current? Consider
how a contactor is built specific to
that goal. Now, how does such a connection
happen along the pathway for a fat wire as
it travels about the airplane?
The #1 failure in wires is simple disconnect.
#2 is insulation failure by virtue of mechanical
intrusion . . . abrasion or sharp edge cutting
due to poor support combined with vibration.
What is the quality of first contact? It's tentative,
low force, high resistance event that produces
some arcing but is generally far short of that
required to put the wire at risk or even open
it's upstream current limiter.
Then there's the probability: #1 failure
is rare, #2 several magnitudes more rare, and
if a composite airplane, a few magnitudes more
rare yet.
The few times I've seen the result of a battery
cable insulation chaffing and taking the conductor
to ground, the fault self cleared when the offending
aluminum burned away. When breakers open in
airplanes, the most likely cause is failure
in the powered device . . . not because of
compromised insulation in the wire-run.
If you want to put a current limiter in your
battery line, by all means. I'm only suggesting
that your airplane will be one of a very few
in a constellation of tens of thousands.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | how to build a 16AWG fuse link |
I'm building a 16 AWG fuse link for a 12AWG wire (the one that goes from the
Alternator to the starter contactor in e.g. Z16M).
I was thinking of simply solder splicing a piece of 16AWG onto the end of
the 12AWG wire and heat-shrinking the whole thing. Is that correct or is
there anything else I need to know?
The link at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html says
"contact us for manufacturing larger fuselinks than 20AWG" so I was left
wondering.
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusable link |
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Friday, May 9, 2014 3:00 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re:
uckolls, III" =0A=0A=0A>=0A>Not sure what th
at means... ???=0A>=0A>If it is "robust" wouldn't it carry enough current t
o blow the limiter?=0A>Are you suggesting that "welding/burning" aluminum d
oes not draw a =0A>lot of current?=0A>Have you ever tested that hypothesis?
=0A=0A=0A- - Actually, it doesn't. Recall the anecdote about=0A- -
the C90 parting and elevator control cable with=0A- - a soft fault to a
wire. A 40A breaker didn't trip=0A- - nor was the wire itself seriousl
y damaged.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/n3dqkb2=0A=0A=0A>Even if some of the abo
ve is true, a current limiter still could =0A>provide some protection=0A>fr
om a "hard" fault, could it not?=0A=0A- - Define 'hard' fault . . . and
hypothesize how=0A- - one comes into existence.=0A=0ABob - I think you
side stepped the question...=0A=0A".. current limiter still could =0Aprovi
de some protection=0Afrom a "hard" fault, could it not? "=0A=0Aregardless o
f how the hard fault happens.=0A=0ALet's consider the worst case scenario w
here=0Awe have a crash and a hard-fault occurs.=0A=0A=0A=0A- - What kin
d of circuit closure has to happen to=0A- - carry hundreds of amps of c
urrent? Consider=0A- - how a contactor is built specific to=0A- - t
hat goal. Now, how does such a connection=0A- - happen along the pathwa
y for a fat wire as=0A- - it travels about the airplane?=0A=0A- - T
he #1 failure in wires is simple disconnect.=0A- - #2 is insulation fai
lure by virtue of mechanical=0A- - intrusion . . . abrasion or sharp ed
ge cutting=0A- - due to poor support combined with vibration.=0A- -
What is the quality of first contact? It's tentative,=0A- - low force,
high resistance event that produces=0A- - some arcing but is generally
far short of that=0A- - required to put the wire at risk or even open
=0A- - it's upstream current limiter.=0A=0A- - Then there's the pro
bability: #1 failure=0A- - is rare, #2 several magnitudes more rare, an
d=0A- - if a composite airplane, a few magnitudes more=0A- - rare y
et.=0A=0A- - The few times I've seen the result of a battery=0A- -
cable insulation chaffing and taking the conductor=0A- - to ground, the
fault self cleared when the offending=0A- - aluminum burned away. When
breakers open in=0A- - airplanes, the most likely cause is failure=0A
- - in the powered device . . . not because of=0A- - compromised in
sulation in the wire-run.=0A=0A- - If you want to put a current limiter
in your=0A- - battery line, by all means. I'm only suggesting=0A-
- that your airplane will be one of a very few=0A- - in a constellati
==============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: how to build a 16AWG fuse link |
At 08:09 AM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>I'm building a 16 AWG fuse link for a 12AWG wire (the one that goes from the
>Alternator to the starter contactor in e.g. Z16M).
>
>I was thinking of simply solder splicing a piece of 16AWG onto the end of
>the 12AWG wire and heat-shrinking the whole thing. Is that correct or is
>there anything else I need to know?
>
>The link at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html says
>"contact us for manufacturing larger fuselinks than 20AWG" so I was left
>wondering.
Solder and shrink would be fine. An alternative
would be a COTS automotive offering:
http://tinyurl.com/kuroczv
I'm going to revise that drawing in the future to put a
MAXI fuse holder or perhaps one of these
in that location.
http://tinyurl.com/kyu8huo
I've got some of these in surplus stock. I'll
mail you one if you want to go that route.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to lose both ignition systems? |
| From: | "Builder_Bill" <jonesw(at)mindspring.com> |
Hello Bob and AEC.
Can we re visit this one. I've read the NTSB accident natative, but I need a sketch
to follow this builders mistake.
Thanks, Bill
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 03:29 PM 8/29/2013, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob, I was at your seminar at EAA431Brodhead, WI this Spring.
> >
> > There was a discussion on an accident involving a Lancair Dual LSE
> > Ignition failure. I could not find it in a simple NSTB search
> > assuming I even have enough details right to do so.
> >
> > The builder had supplied each LSE from an independent source, but
> > failed to consider something else. Something about fuse & CB's in series maybe?
> >
> > Can you detail what happened to take down both LSE's? It's likely
> > that sketch will be necessary.
> >
> >
>
> Yes. That case settled a few weeks ago. I'm going to publish
> my reports and demonstration videos that were produced in
> support of the technical analysis. I need to 'sanitize' them
> a little so as to avoid causing unwarranted discomfort on
> the part of the participants.
>
> In any case, it is unlikely that anyone here on the
> List would repeat the error . . . an error that grew out
> of a combination of 'redundancy' features stacked on top
> of each other combined with a poor selection of components
> wherein both systems shared hardware in the power path.
>
> Run each ignition from a separate protective device on
> the battery bus . . . or separate battery busses if there
> are two batteries. Simple, direct, no shared hardware
> and truly redundant.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=423077#423077
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to lose both ignition systems? |
At 12:47 PM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello Bob and AEC.
>Can we re visit this one. I've read the NTSB accident natative, but
>I need a sketch to follow this builders mistake.
>
>Thanks, Bill
>
See N811HB at . . .
http://tinyurl.com/ky7szec
. . . for a detailed data dump
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: how to build a 16AWG fuse link |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Bob.
I was thinking a 30A slow blow fuse (they only exist in Maxi blade sizes) might
be appropriate but I can't find one here locally nor an appropriately sized fuse
holder.
I'd be happy to buy a couple off you if you have some spares (i say a couple as
I could use one on one of the circuits on my sailboat too).
> On May 9, 2014, at 18:07, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 08:09 AM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> I'm building a 16 AWG fuse link for a 12AWG wire (the one that goes from the
>> Alternator to the starter contactor in e.g. Z16M).
>>
>> I was thinking of simply solder splicing a piece of 16AWG onto the end of
>> the 12AWG wire and heat-shrinking the whole thing. Is that correct or is
>> there anything else I need to know?
>>
>> The link at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html says
>> "contact us for manufacturing larger fuselinks than 20AWG" so I was left
>> wondering.
>
> Solder and shrink would be fine. An alternative
> would be a COTS automotive offering:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kuroczv
>
> I'm going to revise that drawing in the future to put a
> MAXI fuse holder or perhaps one of these
> in that location.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kyu8huo
>
> I've got some of these in surplus stock. I'll
> mail you one if you want to go that route.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: how to build a 16AWG fuse link |
At 04:08 PM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob.
>I was thinking a 30A slow blow fuse (they only exist in Maxi blade
>sizes) might be appropriate but I can't find one here locally nor an
>appropriately sized fuse holder.
Doesn't need to be "slow blo" . . . unless they've
upsized your alternator, it's only good for about 20A,
A 30A fuse of any style would be find.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | When to use Shielded Wire? |
I am getting ready to purchase the wire for my project and need to know what wire
to purchase. I have read Bobs articles and plan to purchase 18 and 22 gauge
wire. I have an EFIS, Garmin 430, PS Engineering Audio Panel, and a KT76 transponder.
I will have electronic ignition and LED lights. My question is what
wire needs to be shielded and what wire doesnt need shielding? Is it better
to just use shielded wire on everything? Seems like extra weight. Is it better
to use shielded wire with numerous separate wires inside? or shielded wire
with a single wire inside the shielding?
Thanks for the help!
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: When to use Shielded Wire? |
At 10:58 PM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
I am getting ready to purchase the wire for my project and need to
know what wire to purchase. I have read Bob's articles and plan to
purchase 18 and 22 gauge wire. I have an EFIS, Garmin 430, PS
Engineering Audio Panel, and a KT76 transponder. I will have
electronic ignition and LED lights. My question is what wire needs
to be shielded and what wire doesn't need shielding? Is it better to
just use shielded wire on everything? Seems like extra weight. Is it
better to use shielded wire with numerous separate wires inside? or
shielded wire with a single wire inside the shielding?
Shielding of wires is the weakest of prophylactics
against propagation of noise . . . and then effective
on a very narrow range of antagonists.
If you run two wires side-by-side in the same bundle
wherein one wire carries something like millivolt levels
of audio from one box to the other (potential victim
wire) and the other wire carries some form of
electronic violence (potential antagonist wire) then
there is a potential for undesirable coupling of
energy from the former into the later.
Coupling in wire bundles predominates in two forms.
Magnetic and electro-static. If the electronic violence
is in the form of a high current where the antagonist
wire presents a strong local magnetic field, then
the effects of that field will be impressed upon the
victim wire "longitudinally".
The fix for this propagation mode is to break the
common longitudinal path (read ground loop) by means
of techniques like running potential victim signals
on twisted pairs . . .perhaps even transformer coupled
at one end. In other words, this propagation mode
is best broken by judicious architecture of the
victim's i/o ports.
If the electronic violence is in the form of high
voltage, fast rise-time wave-forms (like magneto
p-leads and strobe trigger pulses) then the
propagation mode becomes electro-static. The
insulation around antagonist and victim wires
become 'dielectric' components of a capacitor
Albeit a tiny capacitor, effects of the signals
on one wire can be impressed on top of the tiny
signals in the other.
This propagation mode can be broken by
shielding one or the other of the two wires.
It's best to shield the single antagonist (like the
p-lead) so that you don't have to shield a
hand-full of potential victims.
MIL-STD-704/DO-160 design goals dictate that a
product intended for installation on airplanes
demonstrate minimum levels of immunity to
external stresses along with limits to emitted
violence. Products qualified to these design
goals are expected to function in communal
harmony WITHOUT special attention from the
designers or installers of the system. I.e.
no automatic inclusion of EXTERNAL prophylactics
against propagation of noise.
In some few cases (like p-leads and strobe wiring)
electronic violence in the wires is a fundamental
component of that system's functionality. I.e.
it cannot be avoided. Hence, the learned designers
and installers of such systems will take judicious
steps to contain the noise. I.e. shielded wires
and/or p-lead filters installed at the magnetos.
Outside these special cases the system integrator.
YOU, is held harmless from the need to worry about
piling on more prophylactics against noise.
The numbers and brutishness of such systems
has been declining. "P-leads" from electronic
ignitions don't carry magneto-like trash.
LED strobes don't utilize fast-rise, HV
trigger pulses. Given these advances in
system features, I'd venture an assertion
that the value of shielding of any wires
in an airplane is minimal if not zero.
The short answer to you question is: Unless
called out on the installation drawings for
a device, you don't need to shield the wires.
Legacy practices for shielding wires in the
communication and navigation systems is a
hedge against poor practice in the design
or wiring of a potentially antagonistic
system that shares the wire bundle.
If it's not on the drawing, don't shield it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to lose both ignition systems? |
At 12:47 PM 5/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello Bob and AEC.
>Can we re visit this one. I've read the NTSB accident natative, but
>I need a sketch to follow this builders mistake.
Bill, I didn't remember that the file-set
I posted had a few of holes in it.
hit these three links . . .
http://tinyurl.com/kyfn4y2
http://tinyurl.com/lmbbrmg
and particularly . . . this one
http://tinyurl.com/k5593wo
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | 43o Card Edge Connector |
I'm looking for help on what orientation the card edge connector used
for shield termination on the back of a Garmin 430 should be inserted.
It's a Garmin 336-00029-00 or AMP 583853-4 card edge connector. It has a
"spring" side and a "barb" side. Not sure what to actually call them
and that's the best I can do. :)
Should the "barb" side face in, up, out or down in relation to the
termination block when inserting on the back of the 430?
Thanks,
-Sean
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 43o Card Edge Connector |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Can't answer your question, but FWIW, I don't use it. I really like Bob's avionics
ground bus, I use one mounted close to the back of the radio stack.
Tim
> On May 10, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for help on what orientation the card edge connector used for shield
termination on the back of a Garmin 430 should be inserted.
>
> It's a Garmin 336-00029-00 or AMP 583853-4 card edge connector. It has a "spring"
side and a "barb" side. Not sure what to actually call them and that's the
best I can do. :)
>
> Should the "barb" side face in, up, out or down in relation to the termination
block when inserting on the back of the 430?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 43o Card Edge Connector |
For those interested, I found the answer.
The "spring" side of the connector is oriented on the inside of the
termination block so it contacts the "card edge".
> Tim Andres
> May 10, 2014 at 7:26 PM
>
>
> Can't answer your question, but FWIW, I don't use it. I really like
> Bob's avionics ground bus, I use one mounted close to the back of the
> radio stack.
> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator Field Wiring Approaches |
I just noticed an interesting wiring difference between Tony Bingelis'
diagram on page 212 of Firewall Forward and the typical AeroElectric
diagram. I bring this up as an interesting learning opportunity.
On Z13-8 the 5A field breaker is fed from the main power bus.
On Tony's diagram, it is fed from the 60A alternator breaker. Z13-8
has replaced this with an ANL current limiter, which is not pertinent
to this discussion. The Z13-8 current limiter is located at the
starter contactor, which avoids bringing the 4AWG wiring into the
cockpit, which is obviously preferable.
To me, the biggest consequence of the Z13-8 approach is that if the
ANL current limiter blows, the regulator (sensing the sagging bus
voltage) will attempt to drive the alternator to full output, which
would be a "bad thing", since the output is likely shorted to ground.
With Tony's approach, the voltage sensing path is unbroken when the
60A breaker pops.
I say "bad thing", since I expect Bob to remind us the damages in this
situation are inadequately qualified, probably not life-threatening,
and besides, the alternator is self-limited to its maximum rating,
which will probably clear the short.
With Tony's approach, there would be much less of the "bad thing" :-)
However, to gain the advantage of Tony's approach, some disadvantages
must be accepted.
Since we prefer the ANL current limiter be connected as shown at the
starter contactor, it would mean we would have to run the wire from
the 5A field breaker through the firewall.
This would further mean more connections and more wire in the voltage
sensing path, resulting is less accurate voltage regulation.
Since the "bad thing" is not life-threatening, and extremely unlikely,
it makes sense to me to use the Z13-8 approach, which provides shorter
and more reliable wiring and better voltage regulation.
I will be interested in others opinions of the two approaches.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Wiring Approaches |
where can we see a drawing of Tony's design?=0A=0AIt's tough to discuss w/o
seeing the diagram...=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From:
Jeff Page =0ATo: Aero_Electric_List =0ASent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:17 AM=0ASubject: AeroElect
ric-List: Alternator Field Wiring Approaches=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: Jeff Page =0A=0AI just noticed an inte
resting wiring difference between Tony Bingelis'- =0Adiagram on page 212
of Firewall Forward and the typical AeroElectric- =0Adiagram.- I bring
this up as an interesting learning opportunity.=0A=0AOn Z13-8 the 5A field
breaker is fed from the main power bus.=0A=0AOn Tony's diagram, it is fed f
rom the 60A alternator breaker.- Z13-8- =0Ahas replaced this with an AN
L current limiter, which is not pertinent- =0Ato this discussion.- The
Z13-8 current limiter is located at the- =0Astarter contactor, which avoi
ds bringing the 4AWG wiring into the- =0Acockpit, which is obviously pref
erable.=0A=0ATo me, the biggest consequence of the Z13-8 approach is that i
f the- =0AANL current limiter blows, the regulator (sensing the sagging b
us- =0Avoltage) will attempt to drive the alternator to full output, whic
h- =0Awould be a "bad thing", since the output is likely shorted to groun
d.- =0AWith Tony's approach, the voltage sensing path is unbroken when th
e- =0A60A breaker pops.=0A=0AI say "bad thing", since I expect Bob to rem
ind us the damages in this- =0Asituation are inadequately qualified, prob
ably not life-threatening,- =0Aand besides, the alternator is self-limite
d to its maximum rating,- =0Awhich will probably clear the short.=0A=0AWi
th Tony's approach, there would be much less of the "bad thing" :-)=0A=0AHo
wever, to gain the advantage of Tony's approach, some disadvantages- =0Am
ust be accepted.=0A=0ASince we prefer the ANL current limiter be connected
as shown at the- =0Astarter contactor, it would mean we would have to run
the wire from- =0Athe 5A field breaker through the firewall.=0A=0AThis w
ould further mean more connections and more wire in the voltage- =0Asensi
ng path, resulting is less accurate voltage regulation.=0A=0ASince the "bad
thing" is not life-threatening, and extremely unlikely,- =0Ait makes sen
se to me to use the Z13-8 approach, which provides shorter- =0Aand more r
eliable wiring and better voltage regulation.=0A=0AI will be interested in
others opinions of the two approaches.=0A=0AJeff Page=0ADream Aircraft Tund
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
Guys,
Does anyone have a part number for a generic 'Ford' voltage regulator?
I know they are readily available in the US, but in the UK the first
question is always,
"What car does it come from...?"
When you can't provide a model & year, or a part number most parts store
guys give up.
They must be available if only we could figure out what to ask for!
Thanks in advance.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
Peter, I used a "VR166" voltage regulator with my 40A B&C alternator and bought
it from Amazon.com. Assuming this link is available in the UK, you can see it
here:
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Motor-Products-VR166-Regulator/dp/B000C805SW
Best,
Joe
Independence, OR
Peter Pengilly wrote, On 5/14/2014 12:52:
>
>
> Guys,
>
> Does anyone have a part number for a generic 'Ford' voltage regulator?
> I know they are readily available in the US, but in the UK the first
> question is always,
> "What car does it come from...?"
> When you can't provide a model & year, or a part number most parts store
> guys give up.
> They must be available if only we could figure out what to ask for!
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
Peter,
Are you looking for the old "mechanical" type or the newer solid state
model. . .??
If it is the newer integrated circuit type, here is my suggestion.
Take your old unit into a marine or truck type parts house. Show them the
unit ( remove any Cessna stickers off it ) and tell them that it is off a
boat. There is no parts references really for boats. A smart parts guy
will know the exact unit to pick. They usually also have a heavy duty unit.
I would op for that model as it will only be a few dollars more.
Last time I did this, it was a truck store. I started in with a mechanical
type reg. Asked for the newer style unit that was a direct plug
replacement. The parts guy knew what would work. He even offered to run
the new regulator on his shop equipment and check the control voltage.
Being a solid state unit, it is very easy to adjust this with the internal
pot.
David
_______________________________________________________________________-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 'Ford' Voltage regulator
>
>
> Guys,
>
> Does anyone have a part number for a generic 'Ford' voltage regulator?
> I know they are readily available in the US, but in the UK the first
> question is always,
> "What car does it come from...?"
> When you can't provide a model & year, or a part number most parts store
> guys give up.
> They must be available if only we could figure out what to ask for!
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
At 02:52 PM 5/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Guys,
>
>Does anyone have a part number for a generic 'Ford' voltage regulator?
>I know they are readily available in the US, but in the UK the first
>question is always,
>"What car does it come from...?"
>When you can't provide a model & year, or a part number most parts
>store guys give up.
>They must be available if only we could figure out what to ask for!
Yup . . . airplane parts business suffers
from the same malady . . . no part number
no part . . . assuming it's even in the system.
That's one regulator that has a 99% chance
of being 'correct' by simply observing it's
shape. If it looks like this
Emacs!
It's going to work.
Here's an array of options from a local US
supplier. Used 1980 Ford Fairmont as baseline
but if you look at other models over 1975-1990
model years, you find a similar array.
http://tinyurl.com/m7ke8p2
other examples:
http://tinyurl.com/od994zl
http://tinyurl.com/l6qm8js
http://tinyurl.com/m83q5q8
http://tinyurl.com/lro7dlh
Poke around on the 'net long enough and you'll
find this part offered on a dozen or more part numbers.
You should be able to pick one up for about $20-30 . . .
perhaps less.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
At 04:47 PM 5/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>Peter,
>
>Are you looking for the old "mechanical" type or the newer solid
>state model. . .??
>If it is the newer integrated circuit type, here is my suggestion.
>
>Take your old unit into a marine or truck type parts house. Show
>them the unit ( remove any Cessna stickers off it ) and tell them
>that it is off a boat. There is no parts references really for
>boats. A smart parts guy will know the exact unit to pick. They
>usually also have a heavy duty unit. I would op for that model as it
>will only be a few dollars more.
>
>Last time I did this, it was a truck store. I started in with a
>mechanical type reg. Asked for the newer style unit that was a
>direct plug replacement. The parts guy knew what would work. He
>even offered to run the new regulator on his shop equipment and
>check the control voltage. Being a solid state unit, it is very easy
>to adjust this with the internal pot.
Good data . . . with one caveat . . . not ALL
solid state replacements are not 'drop in'
replacements for the manner in which Cessna
used the "S" terminal and the o.v. module.
http://tinyurl.com/7g7mn6l
Tried the substitution on of our rental fleet
a/c at Benton and had an uncontrolled runaway
under some switch positions. Don't recall details
right now but do the substitution in a Cessna
with caution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Wiring Approaches |
At 01:17 PM 5/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>I just noticed an interesting wiring difference between Tony Bingelis'
>diagram on page 212 of Firewall Forward and the typical AeroElectric
>diagram. I bring this up as an interesting learning opportunity.
Would you scan the page and post it. Schematics
are the ultimate communications tools in such
discussions . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Wiring Approaches |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a link to one of Tony Bingelis' articles about electrical systems, although
not the one referenced by Jeff. See page 29.
http://spirit.eaa.org/apps/magazines/eaa_issues/magazine_199005.pdf
An interesting fact about this link is that the six digit number represents the
year and month of the Sport Aviation issue. One can change those dates to read
any issue in the archives.
Here is an article written in 1993 by Bob Nuckolls on pages 80 -83. http://spirit.eaa.org/apps/magazines/eaa_issues/magazine_199302.pdf
It is interesting to see that his drawings have evolved over the years.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=423304#423304
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Time delay, flicker filter etc. |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
> .... I take it that the original
> ABMM is no longer available. You'd have
> to check with Eric on his recommendations
> but I'm guessing that you might get away
> with feeding the ABMM's + input terminal
> through a diode (Schottky would be best
> but not critical). Then put a capacitor
> across the ABMM input power terminals . . .
> something like 100uF. This would drive the
> module at the higher voltage more consistent
> with the peaks.
Hi Bob,
Thank you once again for your response and advice.
The original ABMM may still be somewhere in a drawer, I'll try to
retrieve it.
Many many moons ago I crafted a little webpage on the subject :
http://contrails.free.fr/elec_lvwm_en.php
It could help to clarify things.
Will keep you posted on the result of the proposed mod.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Ford' Voltage regulator |
Thanks all for your suggestions - I'm looking for a solid state device
so will try this tack.
From Bob's links there is an ACDelco part that fits 2630 Fords, so that
may be worth a try!
Regards, Peter
On 14/05/2014 22:47, David Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Are you looking for the old "mechanical" type or the newer solid state
> model. . .??
> If it is the newer integrated circuit type, here is my suggestion.
>
> Take your old unit into a marine or truck type parts house. Show them
> the unit ( remove any Cessna stickers off it ) and tell them that it
> is off a boat. There is no parts references really for boats. A
> smart parts guy will know the exact unit to pick. They usually also
> have a heavy duty unit. I would op for that model as it will only be a
> few dollars more.
>
> Last time I did this, it was a truck store. I started in with a
> mechanical type reg. Asked for the newer style unit that was a direct
> plug replacement. The parts guy knew what would work. He even
> offered to run the new regulator on his shop equipment and check the
> control voltage. Being a solid state unit, it is very easy to adjust
> this with the internal pot.
> David
>
> _______________________________________________________________________-
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Pengilly"
>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:52 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 'Ford' Voltage regulator
>
>
>>
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Does anyone have a part number for a generic 'Ford' voltage regulator?
>> I know they are readily available in the US, but in the UK the first
>> question is always,
>> "What car does it come from...?"
>> When you can't provide a model & year, or a part number most parts
>> store guys give up.
>> They must be available if only we could figure out what to ask for!
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Equipping experimental for IFR |
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote: =9C.... trying to learn.=9D
I really appreciate it when an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft
builder or owner comes out with an attitude like that =93 way to
go!
Some time back I created the attached document to help answer questions
like yours. It has been published in Kitplanes magazine.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
=98OC=99 Baker
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
==================
Subject: Avionics-List: Equipping experimental for IFR
From: "curts63" <curt.stein(at)verizon.net>
I"m new to owning a plane and trying to learn. I bought a used
experimental plane.
The panel includes an MGL Voyager EFIS, Backup airspeed, Backup
altimeter,
Garmin 430W, Garmin GTX-327, Garmin 240 audio panel, and a Navworx
ADS-B.
The Voyager has the horizon, slip skid ball, compass, altimeter,
airspeed, OAT,
clock, timer, oil temp, oil pressure, RPM, CDI, glideslope, autopilot,
and more.
My question is, what is the required equipment for IFR and what testing
has to
be done prior to filing and flying?
Any insight and guidance is greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Microphone Question |
At 05:11 PM 5/14/2014, you wrote:
Hi,
Found your page on the web -- very helpful, thanks.
I'm trying to find a way to use a Lectrosonics HM162MC Noise
Cancelling Microphone
(http://www.fullcompass.com/product/348924.html) in my Piper Dakota.
The mic comes with a 2.5mm 2 conductor plug.
I've looked everywhere for converters, but they do not exist. I'm
happy to make one myself. The question is the wiring:
Do I wire the tip from the 2 conductor 2.5mm plug to the ring of the
3 conductor .206" plug, and the sleeve of the 2.5mm to the sleeve of
the .206" plug? Do I leave the tip not connected (so that my PTT still works)?
Any recommendations on a source for .206" plugs? Will this work?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PHILMORE-3-16-206-MIKE-MICROPHONE-PLUG-FOR-COLLINS-DRAKE-AVIATION-524WT-/150998288305
No. Aviation communications systems are unique
amongst the constellation of ways that people talk
to each other.
The first transmitters to go into airplanes used
the same kind of microphone as telephones. Carbon
granule. Simple, rugged, but needed to be POWERED
by a voltage applied to the microphone audio line
from within the transmitter.
To this day, aviation microphones still supply
power out to the mic . . . the transducer is no
longer filled with carbon granules but it IS
fitted with some form of active electronics
designed to amplify the microphone's inherently
tiny signal up to a level commensurate with the
legacy carbon mic output. On the order of 1 volt
peak to peak.
Here's an example of a modern non-carbon microphone
adapted to aviation service
http://tinyurl.com/qf2nqhl
Here's an in-depth explanation of the world
of aviation microphones
http://tinyurl.com/mffn8pm
The data sheet for your microphone says it's 'electret'
and speaks to requirements for a bias voltage. But
it doesn't give us output voltage and impedance
levels. It's sure to require more than a simple
wiring adapter . . . some electronics are needed
to let it masquerade as an 1950's carbon mic for aircraft.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Equipping experimental for IFR |
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote:
1) Does it have to be field tested/certified prior to IFR flight .....?
a) Lets take the certified part first. This extract:
Fly WAAS Approaches
GNS 430W comes with built-in WAAS navigation capabilities. It is approved to
fly LPV glideslope approaches without reference to ground-based navaids of
any kind. Featuring an advanced 15-channel receiver capable of five position
updates per second, GNS 430W meets the FAA's stringent TSO C146a standards
for WAAS "sole means" navigation providing vertical and lateral approach
guidance into thousands of U.S. airports previously inaccessible in IFR
conditions.
copied from a Garmin page shows that the 430W is fully compliant with TSO
C146a for sole means navigation including precision approaches. No further
certification in the field is needed.
b) Regarding field testing: There are no provisions in the federal
regulatory system for the FAA to field test the avionics installation in
your EAB aircraft. One may turn to an FAA approved MRO (Maintenance and
Repair Organization) for such field testing, but that organization is
obligated to comply with some regulatory provisions established for type
certificated aircraft which do not apply to your EAB. In the MRO's misguided
attempts to comply with type certificated aircraft criteria in regard to
your EAB you can wind up with a real (and expensive) mess on your hands.
So my recommendation is that you use an FAA approved MRO for the bench
testing and repair of your individual avionics components when required, but
do not attempt to have them field test any EAB entire avionics installation.
b) .... does it need to be certified on an ongoing interval,...
No regulatory recertification for the 430W is required, but there are the
issues of navigation data base and software updates:
a) Navigation Data Base Updates: This can be an ongoing chore / expense
depending upon how you approach it. The ultimate (and most expensive)
navigation data base update solution is to have a Jeppesen subscription that
provides one an appropriate geographic navigation data base update every 26
days that you must download with your computer onto the navigation data base
card for your 430W and then install in the unit. An alternative is to call
Jeppesen to order and install a one time navigation data base download when
you see the need.
b) Software Updates: If you poke around digitally inside your 430W you will
discover an amazingly large number of different software programs that
control the various aspects of that box. You can write down the identity,
including the version, of each of those software programs and carry it off
to a nearby qualified Garmin dealer / servicing facility. They can check
their Garmin files to see if there are any available updates to those
software programs. Those updates will fall into categories such as mandatory
(in Garmins opinion) or sort of nice to have. Use your judgment as to
whether you want to go to the effort / expense to have any software updates
done.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC'
====================================================================================
From: Curt
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Equipping experimental for IFR
Owen, Thank you for the equipment list, that helps with whats needed for
flight rules. The one outstanding question is with the Garmin 430W. Does
it have to be field tested/certified prior to IFR flight and does it need to
be certified on an ongoing interval, like the transponder?
Sincerely,
Curt Stein
====================================================
From: Owen Baker [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:08 AM
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Equipping experimental for IFR
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote: .... trying to learn.
I really appreciate it when an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft
builder or owner comes out with an attitude like that way to go!
Some time back I created the attached document to help answer questions like
yours. It has been published in Kitplanes magazine.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
OC Baker
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
====================================================================
Subject: Avionics-List: Equipping experimental for IFR
From: "curts63" <curt.stein(at)verizon.net>
I"m new to owning a plane and trying to learn. I bought a used experimental
plane.
The panel includes an MGL Voyager EFIS, Backup airspeed, Backup altimeter,
Garmin 430W, Garmin GTX-327, Garmin 240 audio panel, and a Navworx ADS-B.
The Voyager has the horizon, slip skid ball, compass, altimeter, airspeed,
OAT,
clock, timer, oil temp, oil pressure, RPM, CDI, glideslope, autopilot, and
more.
My question is, what is the required equipment for IFR and what testing has
to
be done prior to filing and flying?
Any insight and guidance is greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Equipping experimental for IFR |
OC,
Where do I find the procedures to "poke around digitally inside your 430W"?
I would like to check to see what software is loaded in my unit.
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:42 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Equipping experimental for IFR
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote:
1) "Does it have to be field tested/certified prior to IFR flight .....?"
a) Let's take the "certified" part first. This extract:
"Fly WAAS Approaches
GNS 430W comes with built-in WAAS navigation capabilities. It is approved to
fly LPV "glideslope" approaches without reference to ground-based navaids of
any kind. Featuring an advanced 15-channel receiver capable of five position
updates per second, GNS 430W meets the FAA's stringent TSO C146a standards
for WAAS "sole means" navigation - providing vertical and lateral approach
guidance into thousands of U.S. airports previously inaccessible in IFR
conditions."
copied from a Garmin page shows that the 430W is fully compliant with TSO
C146a for "sole means" navigation including precision approaches. No further
certification in the field is needed.
b) Regarding field testing: There are no provisions in the federal
regulatory system for the FAA to field test the avionics installation in
your EAB aircraft. One may turn to an FAA approved MRO (Maintenance and
Repair Organization) for such field testing, but that organization is
obligated to comply with some regulatory provisions established for type
certificated aircraft which do not apply to your EAB. In the MRO's misguided
attempts to comply with type certificated aircraft criteria in regard to
your EAB you can wind up with a real (and expensive) mess on your hands.
So my recommendation is that you use an FAA approved MRO for the bench
testing and repair of your individual avionics components when required, but
do not attempt to have them field test any EAB entire avionics installation.
b) ".... does it need to be certified on an ongoing interval,..."
No regulatory recertification for the 430W is required, but there are the
issues of navigation data base and software updates:
a) Navigation Data Base Updates: This can be an ongoing chore / expense
depending upon how you approach it. The ultimate (and most expensive)
navigation data base update solution is to have a Jeppesen subscription that
provides one an appropriate geographic navigation data base update every 26
days that you must download with your computer onto the navigation data base
card for your 430W and then install in the unit. An alternative is to call
Jeppesen to order and install a one time navigation data base download when
you see the need.
b) Software Updates: If you poke around digitally inside your 430W you will
discover an amazingly large number of different software programs that
control the various aspects of that box. You can write down the identity,
including the version, of each of those software programs and carry it off
to a nearby qualified Garmin dealer / servicing facility. They can check
their Garmin files to see if there are any available updates to those
software programs. Those updates will fall into categories such as mandatory
(in Garmin's opinion) or sort of nice to have. Use your judgment as to
whether you want to go to the effort / expense to have any software updates
done.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC'
===========================================================================
========
From: Curt
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Equipping experimental for IFR
Owen, Thank you for the equipment list, that helps with what's needed for
flight rules. The one outstanding question is with the Garmin 430W. Does
it have to be field tested/certified prior to IFR flight and does it need to
be certified on an ongoing interval, like the transponder?
Sincerely,
Curt Stein
====================================================
From: Owen Baker [mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:08 AM
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Equipping experimental for IFR
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote: ".... trying to learn."
I really appreciate it when an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft
builder or owner comes out with an attitude like that - way to go!
Some time back I created the attached document to help answer questions like
yours. It has been published in Kitplanes magazine.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC' Baker
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
====================================================================
Subject: Avionics-List: Equipping experimental for IFR
From: "curts63" <curt.stein(at)verizon.net>
I"m new to owning a plane and trying to learn. I bought a used experimental
plane.
The panel includes an MGL Voyager EFIS, Backup airspeed, Backup altimeter,
Garmin 430W, Garmin GTX-327, Garmin 240 audio panel, and a Navworx ADS-B.
The Voyager has the horizon, slip skid ball, compass, altimeter, airspeed,
OAT,
clock, timer, oil temp, oil pressure, RPM, CDI, glideslope, autopilot, and
more.
My question is, what is the required equipment for IFR and what testing has
to
be done prior to filing and flying?
Any insight and guidance is greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Equipping experimental for IFR |
5/16/2014
Hello Curt, You wrote:
1) "There are no mandatory tests like you would see in the VOR area where
you're required to check the accuracy?"
I am aware of no regulatory mandatory requirement to check the GPS accuracy
performance of a Garmin 430W prior to filing and flying IFR. You may wish to
check into the subject of RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring).
2) "So in conclusion, the 430w does not need any kind of test prior to using
it in IFR conditions?"**
As you imply in 1 above, if you are using the VOR capability of the 430W for
IFR navigation then you must comply with 14 CFR 91.171.
3) "You don't need a signed flight manual supplement to go along with the
POH?"
Here you are treading into the area of trying to super impose regulatory
requirements established by the FAA for type certificated aircraft onto the
far thinner regulatory arena that EAB aircraft operate in. Where is the
regulation that requires a POH for an EAB aircraft? Where is the regulation
that says who is authorized to sign the flight manual supplement for an EAB
aircraft POH?##
4) "I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me."
It is my pleasure, sir.
5) "Thanks again for your assistance."
You are welcome any time.
'OC'
**PS: I would recommend extensive practice under VFR in VMC conditions with
your aircraft's avionics installation before venturing into IFR under IMC
conditions.
##PS: I am not saying that a good POH / supplement is not needed for safe
flight in EAB aircraft, just that the FAA does not mandate those items by
regulations and it is up to the builder / pilot of the EAB aircraft to
create what is needed for safe flight for him and his aircraft.
=======================================================
From: Curt
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: Equipping experimental for IFR
Owen,
So in conclusion, the 430w does not need any kind of test prior to using it
in IFR conditions? There are no mandatory tests like you would see in the
VOR area where you're required to check the accuracy? You don't need a
signed flight manual supplement to go along with the POH?
I do know about the monthly nav data updates from Jeppesen. I did purchase
the expensive annual update package for my intended area of flying.
Thanks again for your assistance. I really appreciate you taking the time
to educate me.
Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 430W Software |
5/17/2014
Hello Bill Bradbury, Start with getting a copy of the 400W Series Pilot
Guide & Reference and sitting down in front of an installed 430W. (The
trainer version that I have installed on my computer will not allow me
to check its installed software.)
Using this Guide you can:
1) On page 149 select the AUX Page Group.
2) On page 149 select the Utility Page.
3) On page 158 select the Software Versions Page.
4) On page 164 see a discussion of the Software / Database Versions.
I found eight different sets of software and their versions on my 430W:
MAIN 2.0, GPS 2.4, COM 4.00, VLOC 2.06, G/S 2.03, IOFPGA 2.2, STAGE 1
2.01, and STAGE 2 2.00.
I carried this listing over to our local qualified Garmin dealer /
servicer and asked them to tell me if I was up to date. After a fair
amount of struggle and searching they told me that:
MAIN is required to be updated to 3.30 with an optional update to 5.3.
GPS is required to be updated to 3.20 with and optional update to 5.0.
Since I am not currently using my 430W for IFR flight purposes I am
deferring any software updates until that need arises.
I hope that this helps. Any other questions?
=98OC=99 Baker
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
==============
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Equipping experimental for IFR
OC,
Where do I find the procedures to "poke around digitally inside your
430W"?
I would like to check to see what software is loaded in my unit.
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Equipping experimental for IFR |
5/17/2014
Hello Curt Stein, You wrote:
1) =9CIn the case of the pitot static and transponder, they get
tested every
24 months. Is this test different for VFR versus IFR?=9D
The answer to your question is found in 14 CFR Sections 91.411 and
91.413 that require these inspections, and the related Appendices E and
F of Part 43. (All available at the FAA web site.)
A) 91.411 applies to any operation under IFR in controlled airspace.
B) 91.413 is a bit more complicated. Please see that section and its
referenced section 91.215 for details.
C) It is unfortunate that the term =9Cpitot static and transponder
checks=9D has come into common use when describing the tests
required by 91.411 and 91.413. A review of those sections and the
relevant appendicies of Part 43 shows that no test of the pitot system
is required, but that extensive and detailed tests of the static system
and transponder are required to include the altimeter viewed by the
pilot, and the automatic altitude reporting system which consists of the
encoder and the transponder.
I guess that we are just stuck with that unfortunate common terminology,
but I strongly urge all EAB builders and pilots to become familiar with
the actual requirements of the regulations, including the technicians
and organizations that are permitted / required to perform the tests
involved.
2) =9CIs it required to have a backup instruments to the EFIS ? I
know it's the better
practice to have those, but are they required in experimental?=9D
The regulatory requirements for EAB instruments have been covered in our
previous exchange postings and the attached document.
=98OC=99
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
================
Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Equipping experimental for IFR
From: "curts63" <curt.stein(at)verizon.net>
Ok, thanks. In the case of the pitot static and transponder, they get
tested every
24 months. Is this test different for VFR versus IFR?
For the Garmin 430W, I've heard that this requires a ground test and
flight test?
Is this something that needs to be repeated on a standard interval?
Is it required to have a backup instruments to the EFIS ? I know it's
the better
practice to have those, but are they required in experimental?
Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lm7321 substitute |
I'm working on a drawing that uses a R-t-R output op
amp in an inverting configuration which does two good
things for us. (1) We can add pots that set gain and
offset such that the builder can exploit ALL the
bars in the trim indicator display even if the pot doesn't
run full mechanical stroke and (2) we can drive any
number of indicators from the single amplifier.
---------------
Sorry I dropped the ball on this. I'm wrestling with
a computer with a dying operating system . . . it's
had some 'quirks' for a couple years but I'm now
contemplating a new build with Win7 . . . not exactly
the way I'd like to blow away a day's worth of praying
over a new computer!
In any case, here's the drawing
http://tinyurl.com/nmftvll
By eliminating the not-well-considered goal of
rail-to-rail input and output, crafting an inverting
amplifier with R-t-R output offers some features
cited above that seem to make it a better approach.
Further, all the parts are available as thru-hole.
This would be a candidate for packaging in a 15-pin
d-sub housing which is what I've illustrated
with pin numbers arbitrarily assigned to a board-edge
connector . . . obviously, one might perf-board this
circuit as well . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | KN-53 Installation Manual |
I'm looking for a pin-out guide or an installation manual for a KN-53 Nav
Receiver.
Thanks,
Jerry Folkerts
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Stecher" <mrcc1234(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Schematic Z-17 questions |
I am rewiring a VeriEze (with O-200A) and putting in a new panel.
Weight is always a factor and I am trying to keep it light, but after
discussions with the gang, I am now convinced that a starting system (vs
prop start) is next to mandatory.
So the simplest system that meets this need is the Z-17 design, but I would
like to use the B&C 200G (12amp) alternator instead of the SD8 (noted in the
diagram).
Is it a drop in substitute without modification to the wiring diagram?
And is the 4AWG wiring for starting and primary ground wires still
sufficient?
Thanks,
Matt Stecher
VariEze N54EG rebuild
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
At 01:21 PM 5/18/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>I am rewiring a VeriEze (with O-200A) and putting in a new panel.
>
>Weight is always a factor and I am trying to keep it light, but after
>discussions with the gang, I am now convinced that a starting system (vs
>prop start) is next to mandatory.
>
>So the simplest system that meets this need is the Z-17 design, but I would
>like to use the B&C 200G (12amp) alternator instead of the SD8 (noted in the
>diagram).
The SD-8 and the 200G are interchangeable schematic
wise. Are you going with light weight starter too?
Are you vfr and keeping magnetos? If so, you COULD
consider a really light lithium battery mounted
aft such that all your fat wires are short.
>Is it a drop in substitute without modification to the wiring diagram?
Yes . . .
>And is the 4AWG wiring for starting and primary ground wires still
>sufficient?
Might even drop to 6AWG if the leads were short as
hypothesized above . . .
But if your battery has to go up front, you can probably
get by with 4AWG in warm weather country . . . which
may be a given with the VeriEze . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KN-53 Installation Manual |
At 09:41 AM 5/18/2014, you wrote:
>I'm looking for a pin-out guide or an installation manual for a
>KN-53 Nav Receiver.
>Thanks,
>Jerry Folkerts
The only think I have in my library is the pinout drawing
http://tinyurl.com/png9tws
Somebody here on the List may be able to help further . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Strobe Switch - New evidence |
Bob, et. al.,
Once again my strobes quit working. Suspecting another Carling switch failure,
that's what I checked first. To my surprise, the switch and its connections were
pristine. However, the other end of the power line, a Molex connector at the
Whelen Strobe Power Pack, was the problem. The power pin had overheated to the
point where the Molex connector was blackened and melted around the pin. The
other pin on the connector, a ground wire, was not affected. Replaced the Molex
and the system is back in operation. The mystery deepens.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Switch - New evidence |
>
> Once again my strobes quit working. Suspecting another Carling switch
> failure, that's what I checked first. To my surprise, the switch and its
> connections were pristine. However, the other end of the power line, a
> Molex connector at the Whelen Strobe Power Pack, was the problem. The
> power pin had overheated to the point where the Molex connector was
> blackened and melted around the pin. The other pin on the connector, a
> ground wire, was not affected. Replaced the Molex and the system is back
> in operation. The mystery deepens.
Did you check the old connector to see if (1) there
were any broken strands on the connector going into
either side? (2) Were the wires on the pins
stripped properly and a nice gas tight crimped
connection? (3) Did there appear to be any corrosion
on the pins? Sometimes it is difficult to see these things
after the connection is burned up, but it is worth a look.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Switch - New evidence |
Not a mystery at all. The strobe power pack is a constant-power device, which
means that as the input voltage drops, the load current increases. If you have
a resistive switch or connection, you'll get what's called 'thermal runaway'.
This leads to burnt or charred switches, contacts or connectors.
When I first discovered the problem about 7 years ago, It was the Carling switch
rivets that were the root cause, but any deteriorating contact can cause it.
Make it an annual inspection item for the strobe connectors and switches. Check
your landing and taxi light circuits as well.
Vern
===================================================
Sent from my iThing. It is responsible for all gramma and typo terrors.
> On May 19, 2014, at 7:01 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
>
> Bob, et. al.,
>
> Once again my strobes quit working. Suspecting another Carling switch failure,
that's what I checked first. To my surprise, the switch and its connections
were pristine. However, the other end of the power line, a Molex connector at
the Whelen Strobe Power Pack, was the problem. The power pin had overheated to
the point where the Molex connector was blackened and melted around the pin.
The other pin on the connector, a ground wire, was not affected. Replaced the
Molex and the system is back in operation. The mystery deepens.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Switch - New evidence |
Not sure what strobe power supply you are using but I changed from one
that many homebuilders were using (Plane Power?) to a Nova Electronics
XPAK604X unit. It looks and mounts just like my old unit but it
separates the switch from the power circuit with what I assume is an
internal relay.
I burned out a switch terminal on my original installation. I didn't
fully understand the reasons but I swapped the original out for the Nova
unit. It significantly shortened the power leads from over 10 feet to
<2' (RV10).
Just a thought.
On 5/19/2014 10:01 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> Bob, et. al.,
>
> Once again my strobes quit working. Suspecting another Carling switch failure,
that's what I checked first. To my surprise, the switch and its connections
were pristine. However, the other end of the power line, a Molex connector at
the Whelen Strobe Power Pack, was the problem. The power pin had overheated to
the point where the Molex connector was blackened and melted around the pin.
The other pin on the connector, a ground wire, was not affected. Replaced the
Molex and the system is back in operation. The mystery deepens.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
At 10:27 AM 5/19/2014, you wrote:
>You mention a light weight lithium battery. This is the second time
>I have seen something about use of lithium batteries in airplanes. I
>would like to hear more about things like reliability, things to be
>aware of, the actual storage capacity (rather than just cranking
>amps) and of course, after the 787 battery issues, fire potential.
>The idea using a 3 or 4 pound battery is very appealing.
There's a 4-part series coming out in Kitplanes
about batteries with an emphasis on evaluation of
lithium products for suitability to task in aircraft.
Turns out that not all lithium products are the
same . . . and it goes deeper than selection of
the least-hazardous chemistry.
MOST commercial off the shelf examples have no
battery management system yet they claim to be
drop-in replacements for lead-acid. The claims
go even further to suggest that a 3# lithium battery
has an 18 ah 'lead acid equivalency' . . . when
the 18 ah battery weighs in at 15 pounds or more.
"Lead acid equivalency" speaks to engine cranking
ability and glosses over shortfalls in CAPACITY.
For a vfr airplane having an engine that is free
of electrical dependencies, one may down-size a
battery with little attention to capacity. If getting
the engine started is your only concern, then the
lithium chemistry can offer some enticing weight
savings.
But if you have any concerns for battery-only
endurance, then be sure the device you pick
has the capacity to meet your alternator-out
endurance requirements.
It also turns out that optimal battery service
life is achieved by cycling the battery's level
of charge between 30 and 90%. By artificially
limiting available energy on a cycle-by-cycle
basis (most hybrid cars do this), then they
battery can last a long time.
Ideally, one never runs the ship's battery
down . . . but it's there if you need it.
So if you set the bus voltage to limit the
battery to 90% of maximum capacity, then
it should last a long time.
But if you ever run it down on purpose or
accidently . . . then maximizing the battery's
serviceability usually calls for recharging
with a battery management system (BMS).
Folks flying the simpler, day-vfr airplanes are
encouraged to experiment with the current offerings
of lithium technology
http://tinyurl.com/nlamrrw
This battery claims to crank as well as a 16-18
a.h lead-acid at one 6th the weight. At that price,
it almost certainly has no internal BMS.
On the other hand, this 2.2 pound battery claims
400+ amps cranking ability . . . and I believe
it is fitted with a full-time, capable battery
management system.
http://tinyurl.com/lcegge5
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
There is also a gotcha in cold weather with lithium batteries - they
don't work well (sorry I can't be specific to the type). When the
battery has cold soaked at around freezing it will hardly turn over an
O-360. But, a minute or two after an attempted start - I'm told 5
seconds of trying and barely cranking - the battery will have warmed
itself up and happily spins the engine into life.
Batteries on the firewall will probably be happy for the rest of the day
(and also respond to the hair dryer in the oil door trick for 10 minutes
while pre-flighting). Batteries in the aft fuselage will require the
'failed start' technique each time. No very scientific data or
information on a minimum temperature when this technique doesn't work.
Peter
On 19/05/2014 20:27, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 10:27 AM 5/19/2014, you wrote:
>> You mention a light weight lithium battery. This is the second time I
>> have seen something about use of lithium batteries in airplanes. I
>> would like to hear more about things like reliability, things to be
>> aware of, the actual storage capacity (rather than just cranking
>> amps) and of course, after the 787 battery issues, fire potential.
>> The idea using a 3 or 4 pound battery is very appealing.
>
> There's a 4-part series coming out in Kitplanes
> about batteries with an emphasis on evaluation of
> lithium products for suitability to task in aircraft.
>
> Turns out that not all lithium products are the
> same . . . and it goes deeper than selection of
> the least-hazardous chemistry.
>
> MOST commercial off the shelf examples have no
> battery management system yet they claim to be
> drop-in replacements for lead-acid. The claims
> go even further to suggest that a 3# lithium battery
> has an 18 ah 'lead acid equivalency' . . . when
> the 18 ah battery weighs in at 15 pounds or more.
>
> "Lead acid equivalency" speaks to engine cranking
> ability and glosses over shortfalls in CAPACITY.
> For a vfr airplane having an engine that is free
> of electrical dependencies, one may down-size a
> battery with little attention to capacity. If getting
> the engine started is your only concern, then the
> lithium chemistry can offer some enticing weight
> savings.
>
> But if you have any concerns for battery-only
> endurance, then be sure the device you pick
> has the capacity to meet your alternator-out
> endurance requirements.
>
> It also turns out that optimal battery service
> life is achieved by cycling the battery's level
> of charge between 30 and 90%. By artificially
> limiting available energy on a cycle-by-cycle
> basis (most hybrid cars do this), then they
> battery can last a long time.
>
> Ideally, one never runs the ship's battery
> down . . . but it's there if you need it.
> So if you set the bus voltage to limit the
> battery to 90% of maximum capacity, then
> it should last a long time.
>
> But if you ever run it down on purpose or
> accidently . . . then maximizing the battery's
> serviceability usually calls for recharging
> with a battery management system (BMS).
>
> Folks flying the simpler, day-vfr airplanes are
> encouraged to experiment with the current offerings
> of lithium technology
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nlamrrw
>
> This battery claims to crank as well as a 16-18
> a.h lead-acid at one 6th the weight. At that price,
> it almost certainly has no internal BMS.
>
> On the other hand, this 2.2 pound battery claims
> 400+ amps cranking ability . . . and I believe
> it is fitted with a full-time, capable battery
> management system.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lcegge5
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Stecher" <mrcc1234(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
Thanks for your responses Bob,
I have purchased an Aerovolts 12 cell lithium battery to give a try. It is
billed as the choice for cranking an O-200 and is 4.4"x3.4"x4" and 2.5 lbs.
I am shooting for an aft installation and as you said that will let me keep
my heavy wires short. I would like to put it in the main spar, but not sure
about drilling holes in it to run the wires out or for mounting the battery.
If that does not work I am looking at the hell hole above the landing gear
attachment.
If the aft locations prove more trouble than they are worth than I am
looking at the traditional battery spot in the nose and 2AWG wires. It warm
most of the time here near Houston, but we do get a week or two worth of
almost cold weather.
Regards,
Matt Stecher
Katy TX
Varieze N54EG rebuild
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Schematic Z-17 questions
At 01:21 PM 5/18/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>I am rewiring a VeriEze (with O-200A) and putting in a new panel.
>
>Weight is always a factor and I am trying to keep it light, but after
>discussions with the gang, I am now convinced that a starting system
>(vs prop start) is next to mandatory.
>
>So the simplest system that meets this need is the Z-17 design, but I
>would like to use the B&C 200G (12amp) alternator instead of the SD8
>(noted in the diagram).
The SD-8 and the 200G are interchangeable schematic
wise. Are you going with light weight starter too?
Are you vfr and keeping magnetos? If so, you COULD
consider a really light lithium battery mounted
aft such that all your fat wires are short.
>Is it a drop in substitute without modification to the wiring diagram?
Yes . . .
>And is the 4AWG wiring for starting and primary ground wires still
>sufficient?
Might even drop to 6AWG if the leads were short as
hypothesized above . . .
But if your battery has to go up front, you can probably
get by with 4AWG in warm weather country . . . which
may be a given with the VeriEze . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
At 09:33 PM 5/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for your responses Bob,
>
>I have purchased an Aerovolts 12 cell lithium battery to give a try. It is
>billed as the choice for cranking an O-200 and is 4.4"x3.4"x4" and 2.5 lbs.
Hmmmm . . . I'd sure like to do a family of
cap check curves on it . . .
I've looked over their website. They seem to offer
a 'special charger' for 'improved life' but also
says 'no special charger necessary'.
Did any paperwork come with the battery that
cautions about deep discharge and/or making sure
the bus voltage is not too high?
>I am shooting for an aft installation and as you said that will let me keep
>my heavy wires short. I would like to put it in the main spar, but not sure
>about drilling holes in it to run the wires out or for mounting the battery.
>If that does not work I am looking at the hell hole above the landing gear
>attachment.
>
>If the aft locations prove more trouble than they are worth than I am
>looking at the traditional battery spot in the nose and 2AWG wires. It warm
>most of the time here near Houston, but we do get a week or two worth of
>almost cold weather.
4AWG is about 300 micro-ohms per foot WARM (160F
from cranking). Assuming 24' round trip, a 200A
cranking current will toss off 1.44 volts in the
wire. 2AWG is 200 micro-ohms per foot and wouldn't
warm up as much . . . so figure about 0.9 volts
in wire drop for a net savings of about 0.5 volts
out of a total of 9-10 volts at the starter motor
terminals. 4AWG would probably be fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Z-17 questions |
| From: | Michael Garmon <michaelagarmon(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Need picture for product display at OSH2014 |
Still looking for a nose-on shot of a OBAM
aircraft . . . probably tricycle gear . . .
looking right down the center of spinner.
Need to see it all out to wing tips. 1024 x 768
resolution or better would be nice too. Selected
a/c will figure in table top display of the
programmable wig-wag flasher we did here on
the List as an open source project last year.
It's going to be the first AeroElectric Connection
product to be added to B&C's stable of offerings.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Schematic Z-17 questions |
At 06:06 PM 5/19/2014, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob. Good info and I will watch for the Kitplanes articles. I
>hear your concern about capacity and I was wondering about that. I
>am thinking about an electrically dependent airplane with EFII but
>also thinking about two alternators like your figure Z-13/8.
Z-13/8 (or similar) is probably the-best-
we-know-how-to-do for the down-sizing of
battery capacity.
I think I recall writing that mounting the
SD-8 alternator on the vacated vacuum pump
pad validates common practice in both the
automotive and light aircraft worlds of
flogging the battery until it simply won't
crank the engine any more.
When your airplane is fitted with THREE sources
of energy of which only one is a battery, then
you're firmer ground in spite of a flagging
battery.
By extension we can assert that once the battery
is relieved of duties for flight in an endurance
mode, then the battery can be (1) routinely flogged
to death or (2) down-sized as long as it still
cranks the engine.
But we're still not very smart with respect to
cost of ownership for these little power-houses.
The satisfaction of having saved a few pounds
may flag in the face of extra-ordinary maintenance
to protect their easily insulted physics.
In one of the Kitplanes articles I posed a question
along the lines: "Okay you've shed 10 pounds of
empty weight and freed up 30 cubic inches of volume.
How will you used those newly acquired assets?
Store sandwiches in the newly opened volume?
Will a ten pound delta get you off fields you
could not operate out of before . . . can you
now climb over taller mountains?"
Burt Rutan told us that it takes about 5 pounds
of fuel to carry one pound of airplane around
the world. So leaving 1 pound behind gave them
either 6# lighter gross at t/o . . . or freed
up nearly a gallon of gas for end of flight
endurance . . . which in that airplane was about
100 miles!
Those are the discussions and experiments we can
be doing amongst members of the List . . . and
Kitplanes offers us a forum to share our findings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need picture for product display at OSH2014 |
At 06:01 PM 5/21/2014, you wrote:
>Not a very interesting background, but is this what you want?
EXACTLY! Thanks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aerovoltz and Starter Draw (was Z-17 Schematic) |
| From: | Matt Stecher <mrcc1234(at)sbcglobal.net> |
The Aerovoltz is in the mail as they say and I can report the details as soon as
I get it.
You probably spell out how to build the cap check curves in your book so I will
look into that.
Good to know that 4awg should be sufficient at least that saves a little weight.
I was having trouble figuring out how much current to assume was being drawn
during a cold start to base the wire size calc on.
Thanks,
Matt
> At 09:33 PM 5/20/2014, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your responses Bob,
>>
>> I have purchased an Aerovolts 12 cell lithium battery to give a try. It is
>> billed as the choice for cranking an O-200 and is 4.4"x3.4"x4" and 2.5 lbs.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'd sure like to do a family of
> cap check curves on it . . .
>
> I've looked over their website. They seem to offer
> a 'special charger' for 'improved life' but also
> says 'no special charger necessary'.
>
> Did any paperwork come with the battery that
> cautions about deep discharge and/or making sure
> the bus voltage is not too high?
>
>
>> I am shooting for an aft installation and as you said that will let me keep
>> my heavy wires short. I would like to put it in the main spar, but not sure
>> about drilling holes in it to run the wires out or for mounting the battery.
>> If that does not work I am looking at the hell hole above the landing gear
>> attachment.
>>
>> If the aft locations prove more trouble than they are worth than I am
>> looking at the traditional battery spot in the nose and 2AWG wires. It warm
>> most of the time here near Houston, but we do get a week or two worth of
>> almost cold weather.
>
> 4AWG is about 300 micro-ohms per foot WARM (160F
> from cranking). Assuming 24' round trip, a 200A
> cranking current will toss off 1.44 volts in the
> wire. 2AWG is 200 micro-ohms per foot and wouldn't
> warm up as much . . . so figure about 0.9 volts
> in wire drop for a net savings of about 0.5 volts
> out of a total of 9-10 volts at the starter motor
> terminals. 4AWG would probably be fine.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerovoltz and Starter Draw (was Z-17 Schematic) |
At 07:45 PM 5/21/2014, you wrote:
>In
>
>The Aerovoltz is in the mail as they say and I can report the
>details as soon as I get it.
>You probably spell out how to build the cap check curves in your
>book so I will look into that.
Actually the task is a bit more complicated. I did a report
on a 'leading technology' battery
http://tinyurl.com/qe6yy6c
to explore its performance numbers. Turns out to
be a pretty good 100AH battery for an RV or
some such . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nf47dgk
. . . but demonstrates 0.0063 ohms
internal resistance. A 24-volt incarnation of
this same battery would give us about 38AH at the
1-hour rate in an airplane . . . but would
have 0.024 ohms internal resistance! It wouldn't
crank its way out of a wet paper sack.
Gathering this class of data takes some test
equipment. If you would volunteer your battery
to receive about 4 charge-recharge cycles in accordance
with manufacturer's recommendations for the
test, I'd be pleased to gather and publish the
data to the OBAM aviation community.
>Good to know that 4awg should be sufficient at least that saves a
>little weight. I was having trouble figuring out how much current to
>assume was being drawn during a cold start to base the wire size calc on.
Inrush can be higher but a 200A average cranking
effort is about right . . . and by "cold" we mean
below freezing when you probably wouldn't want
to go flying anyhow. As I recall, cabin heat in
that airplane is . . . shall we say . . . marginal?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
I'm trying to decide on a battery. Many people are using the Odyssey
PC680 with good results. It is a somewhat expensive battery:
http://www.apexbattery.com/odyssey-pc680-marine-battery-marine-batteries-odyssey-marine-batteries.html?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=18283950120&gclid=CIaiifviv74CFXRo7AodqxYANA
In our UPS units we use a UB12180 battery (or equivalent), which is 1/3
the cost of the PC680 and has better specs:
http://www.apexbattery.com/abiomed-bvs-5000-biventricular-support-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-abiomed-batteries.html
Are there any reasons why I should not be using this battery in my
aircraft?
My battery is mounted in the tail section, and it is not exposed to the
direct heat and vibration of the engine compartment, if that makes any
difference.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
On 5/22/2014 12:13 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> I'm trying to decide on a battery. Many people are using the Odyssey
> PC680 with good results. It is a somewhat expensive battery:
>
> http://www.apexbattery.com/odyssey-pc680-marine-battery-marine-batteries-odyssey-marine-batteries.html?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=18283950120&gclid=CIaiifviv74CFXRo7AodqxYANA
>
> In our UPS units we use a UB12180 battery (or equivalent), which is 1/3
> the cost of the PC680 and has better specs:
>
> http://www.apexbattery.com/abiomed-bvs-5000-biventricular-support-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-abiomed-batteries.html
>
> Are there any reasons why I should not be using this battery in my
> aircraft?
>
> My battery is mounted in the tail section, and it is not exposed to the
> direct heat and vibration of the engine compartment, if that makes any
> difference.
>
> -Dj
>
I did some digging a few years ago, & it seems that UPS and
wheelchair/scooter batteries' chemistry is tweaked a bit differently
from starting batteries. They are intended to be discharged somewhat
slower, with deeper discharge (think 'marine' battery), but struggle a
bit to deliver high short term bursts of energy, like you need to start
a big engine. The easy way to spot the difference (if you can get full
specs) is to compare the internal resistance numbers. For starting,
lower is better. Another, less reliable way is to just look at the
terminals. Many UPS batteries have terminals that are much too small to
handle 200+ amps. I've been using 'brand-x' batteries in my planes for
many years, & my experience is that some of the 18 AH rated batteries
like the one you linked might struggle just a bit with a higher
compression a/c engine, but you can usually buy a 20AH or 22AH model
from the same series with almost identical case size, & it will provide
almost enough 'grunt' to taxi the plane with the starter. :-) Price is
still much lower than the Odyssey. Model number will be something like
'12200' or '12220' instead of 12180 (the 18 indicated the AH rating).
Most on-line battery sales operations now sell 'brand x'
motorcycle/watercraft/etc starting batteries that are drop-in
replacements for the Odyssey; that's the easiest way to get a suitable
substitute at a lower price.
FWIW,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
In our UPS units we use a UB12180 battery (or equivalent), which is 1/3
the cost of the PC680 and has better specs:
http://www.apexbattery.com/abiomed-bvs-5000-biventricular-support-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-abiomed-batteries.html
Are there any reasons why I should not be using this battery in my aircraft?
None that I can think of . . . without a doubt
the freshly installed battery will perform
satisfactorily. The 18 Ah battery and form-factor
have proven adequate to a huge segment
of OBAM aircraft. The question that nobody can
answer is cost of ownership for this battery.
Figure sale price + shipping + maintenance costs
for the less expensive battery. Is it likely that
the more expensive battery will have a lower cost
per flight hour than 3x the cheaper one? Probably
not. 2x the cheaper one? Again, probably not. But
that assertion is not supported with any data for
either robustness + your working environment +
possibly replacing the battery after cap-checks
show it to be unsuitable for further flight.
The risks are low. Try the less expensive battery
and keep notes. Without having hard numbers on
relative performance to stack against numbers for
how YOU need to use the battery, nobody has the
tools to either recommend or discourage the
experiment.
Let us know what you decide and what you find out
in a year or so. Got a load tester? You might want
to own one of these things.
http://tinyurl.com/3gnnwrt
This modern incarnation of 1930's technology is to
batteries as a hammer is to nails.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
DJ,=0A=0AI wonder if those stats for the cheaper battery are a little "opti
mistic"?=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Dj
Merrill =0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Thu
rsday, May 22, 2014 10:13 AM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Battery choice
t>=0A=0A--- I'm trying to decide on a battery.- Many people are usi
ng the Odyssey=0APC680 with good results.- It is a somewhat expensive bat
tery:=0A=0Ahttp://www.apexbattery.com/odyssey-pc680-marine-battery-marine-b
atteries-odyssey-marine-batteries.html?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium
=adwords&id=18283950120&gclid=CIaiifviv74CFXRo7AodqxYANA=0A=0A--
- In our UPS units we use a UB12180 battery (or equivalent), which is 1/3
=0Athe cost of the PC680 and has better specs:=0A=0Ahttp://www.apexbattery.
com/abiomed-bvs-5000-biventricular-support-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteri
es-abiomed-batteries.html=0A=0A--- Are there any reasons why I should
not be using this battery in my=0Aaircraft?=0A=0A--- My battery is m
ounted in the tail section, and it is not exposed to the=0Adirect heat and
vibration of the engine compartment, if that makes any=0Adifference.=0A=0A-
Dj=0A=0A-- =0ADj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87=0ASportsman 2+2 Builde
r #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/=0AGlastar Flyer N866RH - http:/
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 5/22/2014 1:56 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> but you can usually buy a 20AH or 22AH model from the same series with
> almost identical case size, & it will provide almost enough 'grunt' to
> taxi the plane with the starter. :-) Price is still much lower than
> the Odyssey. Model number will be something like '12200' or '12220'
> instead of 12180 (the 18 indicated the AH rating).
Charlie,
Good advice, thanks!
$44 including shipping from Amazon for the UB12220 battery, 12v 22Ah in
the same form factor.
A plus is that it is 9 lbs lighter than the 25 Ah battery it will be
replacing (a B and C model BC110-1).
Bob,
I will report back to the list as to how it performs. I have a low
compression 150hp Lycoming O-320 with a light weight starter, so it
should hopefully turn it over with no difficulty.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | non-PC680 battery experience |
At original build, I also was looking at less-expensive alternatives to
the PC680, especially since I have an electrically dependent Corvair
engine and am using the 2-battery+PM alternator approach espoused by
Bob, where I change the primary (starting) battery every year and keep
last year=92s starting battery as the #2. So I purchased two fresh
Universal Power UB12220 batteries from a local distributor.
After about 7 months, I began having trouble with the primary battery
cranking the very light, very easy to crank 190 c.i. engine. It got
worse quickly and by the 8th month, I had replaced it with a PC680. At
the annual, I moved that one to the #2 and put another PC680 in the #1
slot. No troubles since.
I noted, in post-change research, that the specs for the UB12220 list
the charging temp range as 0=B0-40=B0C and the discharging range as
-15=B0-45=B0C. The storage limits are -15=B0-40=B0C. I operate out of
Mesa, AZ
and my son lives in Avon, CO, so I can guarantee that I exceeded those
limits on both ends, but probably the worst effect was on the high end.
With the #2 battery on the firewall, I bet it regularly sees 65=B0+,
even
in its insulated bracket. Heck, even for the #1 under the copilot=92s
seat, we have ramp and hangar temps over 50=B0C for a good portion of
the
summer.
So my purely anecdotally-based advice is to stick with batteries
designed for motor vehicle use, especially if you have an electrically
dependent airplane. If it=92ll survive on a Harley, it=92ll survive on
your
plane. The $80/year cost delta is pretty insignificant when you compare
it to everything else. FWIW,
Andy
------------------------
Andy Elliott, CL:480-695-9568
N601GE/Z601XLb/TD/Corvair
601 hrs since 11/08
<http://servi-aero.com/n601ge/4sale/> Web Site Link
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: non-PC680 battery experience |
Another anecdote as to "RV" type batteries: When I first bought my
Pacer 22 years ago, the aircraft batteries I was using would only last a
year. Plus, outgassing from the battery was eating up my battery box
every 3 or 5 months. A good friend of mine advised me to buy a good,
five year RV battery - almost exactly the same size as the aircraft
battery I had been using, but with better cranking power....he had
several airplanes and was using them in all of them. Now, I know this
wasn't a "legal" installation, but I was sick of battery problems. That
first RV battery lasted 6 years, was still cranking the airplane when I
took it out, and lasted another couple of years in my lawnmower. In 20
years, I bought four batteries at around $55 to $60, all sealed type
batteries. Except for one battery that was allowed to sit to long in a
discharged state, none failed, but were replaced because of age. Using
those batteries put an end to the outgassing and corrosion in the
battery box, gave me reliable cranking power, and when camping, I ran my
CPAP machine off of the battery. The battery still had enough power to
crank the engine the next day. For their size, they are heavy, but have
been the best solution for my use. When I sold my Pacer, the new owner
installed one of the new lightweight batteries before we flew to Alaska.
It worked fine in warm weather, but would not stand up to the cold when
winter came. My new project is underway and is an experimental. I will
again be using an RV battery, as they have been the best spark for my
buck to this point. I will likely install two batteries in the project,
which will be a back country airplane....both under the front seat right
on the CG, as I will be using the aux battery to power my CPAP machine.
M. Haught
On May 23, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote:
> At original build, I also was looking at less-expensive alternatives
to the PC680, especially since I have an electrically dependent Corvair
engine and am using the 2-battery+PM alternator approach espoused by
Bob, where I change the primary (starting) battery every year and keep
last year=92s starting battery as the #2. So I purchased two fresh
Universal Power UB12220 batteries from a local distributor.
> After about 7 months, I began having trouble with the primary
battery cranking the very light, very easy to crank 190 c.i. engine. It
got worse quickly and by the 8th month, I had replaced it with a PC680.
At the annual, I moved that one to the #2 and put another PC680 in the
#1 slot. No troubles since.
> I noted, in post-change research, that the specs for the UB12220
list the charging temp range as 0=B0-40=B0C and the discharging range as
-15=B0-45=B0C. The storage limits are -15=B0-40=B0C. I operate out of
Mesa, AZ and my son lives in Avon, CO, so I can guarantee that I
exceeded those limits on both ends, but probably the worst effect was on
the high end. With the #2 battery on the firewall, I bet it regularly
sees 65=B0+, even in its insulated bracket. Heck, even for the #1 under
the copilot=92s seat, we have ramp and hangar temps over 50=B0C for a
good portion of the summer.
> So my purely anecdotally-based advice is to stick with batteries
designed for motor vehicle use, especially if you have an electrically
dependent airplane. If it=92ll survive on a Harley, it=92ll survive on
your plane. The $80/year cost delta is pretty insignificant when you
compare it to everything else. FWIW,
> Andy
> ------------------------
> Andy Elliott, CL:480-695-9568
> N601GE/Z601XLb/TD/Corvair
> 601 hrs since 11/08
> Web Site Link
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: non-PC680 battery experience |
>
> So my purely anecdotally-based advice is to stick with batteries
> designed for motor vehicle use, especially if you have an
> electrically dependent airplane. If it'll survive on a Harley,
> it'll survive on your plane. The $80/year cost delta is pretty
> insignificant when you compare it to everything else. FWIW,
Thanks Andy . . . good information.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: non-PC680 battery experience |
> I will again be using an RV battery, as they have been the best
> spark for my buck to this point. I will likely install two
> batteries in the project, which will be a back country
> airplane....both under the front seat right on the CG, as I will be
> using the aux battery to power my CPAP machine.
>
>M. Haught
When you say "RV" battery, I presume you're making
reference to batteries tailored to deep cycle service
in recreational vehicles . . . and yes, in the modern
sealed, recombinant gas architecture, they should
be very long lived in a light duty-cycle service
like a light airplane.
The elegant solution for batteries in airplanes
is the product of a talented hat-dance around the
features that drive weight, capacity and load-dumping
ability. Ask Skip Koss about the music to which
Concorde dances in the evolution of their products
for aircraft.
Earlier this week I mentioned an "RV" battery I
was testing . . . a battery supposedly fitted with
a leading edge technology that would reduce weight
while at least not degrading capacity per unit
volume and internal impedance . . . like grunting
an over the road diesel engine to life.
The thing I tested is an okay battery for capacity.
100 amp-hours plus at 20 hour rate, probably 75 amp-
hours at a 1 hour rate. But it's ability to crank
engines is problematic. In fact, a 24 volt incarnation
of this product wouldn't get the typical piston engine
airplane started.
Now, it may well be a great RV battery in terms
of service life . . . I'm not going to test
for that. But your narrative underscores the uncertainty
one experiences when staring at one of these things
attempting to answer the question: "Should I use
this in my airplane?"
Emacs!
'
Bottom line is that I don't have a clue . . . just as
that Firefly battery came in a nice, colorful plastic
case and proved that it would run my ham-rig for
perhaps months on one charge, there was no way to know
its true suitability to task without (1) testing and/
or (2) real-life feedback.
Few manufacturers offer the hard-data offered by
our legacy suppliers of known performance like
Hawker-Enersys and Concorde. That doesn't mean
one should avoid alternatives but do conduct
the experiments at minimum risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire tag ID needed |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Anyone know a source for these? Looks like the fastest way to label wires 'o
n the fly'. It's on a wire for a Garmin 327 xponder I bought used.
Thanks,
Charlie
Sent from my iPhone