AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mk
July 10, 2014 - August 05, 2014
>>> and why some things were done . . . waayyyyy back when.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm a vfr only pilot and am considering surface mounting an I-pad
mini on the dash as a backup. It would run Foreflight and communicate
with a Stratus Two. I've heard the pads tend to overheat and was
thinking about installing a cooling fan behind it in the panel. Do you
have any thoughts on this? What type fan should I use to avoid RFI,
etc? How many cfm? Do you have a simpler idea, or am I needlessly
worrying about the overheating problem?
>>>
>>> Folks on the List can better sources of information
>>> on this than I. I'm surprised about 'heat issues' . . .
>>> these things draw about 3-5 watts in operation, the
>>> vast majority of which gets turned into heat. Unless
>>> there are items with localized heat-dissipation issues
>>> (doubtful for a hand-held device), I would not expect
>>> there to be any problems for operational heating.
>>>
>>> However, these things are not designed to RESIDE on a
>>> panel of an airplane parked out in the sun. I sure
>>> wouldn't leave one in a parked airplane.
>>>
>>>> The other thing I was looking for was 12v usb port I could hardwire
near my panel (not a cigarette lighter adapter) so the pad would be
charged while in flight. Blue Sea makes usb ports for marine
application that looks good, but didn't know if you had any.
>>>
>>> That's a popular topic on the List. A number of
>>> builders have tried various commercial off the self
>>> 12v/USB power adapters with varying degrees of
>>> success. Depending on how handy you are with
>>> a soldering iron, you could craft an airplane-
>>> friendly, 14V to 5VUSB adapter starting with
>>> a reasonably robust assembly as a core . . .
>>> something like these . . .
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ovowqbu
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/px42t7f
>>>
>>>
>>> . . . mounted in a metal enclosure and fitted with
>>> sure-to-work filters and over-load protection.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, something like this . . .
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/pbvmbb3
>>>
>>> . . . might be just fine in terms of performance
>>> and noise . . . you'd just have to try it.
>>>
>>>> I also read your article on using shielded cable for the LIghtspeed
electronic ignition instead of the coax. The use of epoxy to seal the
wiring seemed like a pain and was wondering if using a tighter fitting,
larger shielded wire with shrink wrapping would be ok. Are the reasons
for not using larger cable expense, flexibility, and weight?
>>>
>>> Klaus had a cow when I wrote that article . . . seems
>>> that coax cable was necessary if the system were going
>>> to generate 2" long sparks between coil towers. Going
>>> to shielded wire dropped the output to 1.5" sparks.
>>> Still about 100x more than needed to make the engine run
>>> but I'll have to concede a 'drop in performance'.
>>>
>>> The original problem with coax was his recommendation
>>> for using RG-58 . . . with insulation that drips off
>>> the wire when you try to solder it. He has since revised
>>> his recommendation to RG-400 coax . . . modern, hi-temp
>>> insulation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
> ========================
===========
> ========================
===========
> ========================
===========
> ========================
===========
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
On 7/9/2014 5:16 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> I'm a vfr only pilot and am considering surface mounting an I-pad
>> mini on the dash as a backup. It would run Foreflight and
>> communicate with a Stratus Two. I've heard the pads tend to overheat
>> and was thinking about installing a cooling fan behind it in the
>> panel. Do you have any thoughts on this? What type fan should I use
>> to avoid RFI, etc? How many cfm? Do you have a simpler idea, or am
>> I needlessly worrying about the overheating problem?
>
As others have and will point out, you won't really want to 'hard mount'
your iPad but rather install it so it can removed and replaced as you
enter and exit the plane. Left in a closed cockpit in the sun they will
overheat. Practically speaking, I think you'll find that you'll want to
keep the iPad with you for Foreflight flight planning, weather checking
and general usage.
Many possible solutions. I used a RAM mount which let's you slip the
iPad in and out with just a bit of finger pressure. Having RAM mount on
a center console lets me have the iPad right over my lap - ideal for me.
Kitlog - O2 Console for RV10
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=8533&log=163121&row=2>
>
>> The other thing I was looking for was 12v usb port I could hardwire
>> near my panel (not a cigarette lighter adapter) so the pad would be
>> charged while in flight. Blue Sea makes usb ports for marine
>> application that looks good, but didn't know if you had any.
>
You might try experimental avionics supplier/builder Steinair. They
have a USB unit that mounts to the panel quite nicely and it works.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
Electrocution seems to be normal with these devices! Google "IPod electric shocks"
and see the many Apple Devotees who don't think it is a big deal. Some get
tingles across their ear-buds. Remarkable.
As for the one you tested, the transformer is always the problem. It looks like
there is room in there for a legal transformer. Double-bobbin is best.
I can't see how Apple doesn't have a class-action suit pending. Perhaps they are
using the Pinto lawsuit calculator--fixing 4.5 billion units vs X dead victims'
lawsuits per year...who probably were on Ecstasy and had weak hearts anyway.
Hmmmmm.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426425#426425
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Noisy USB Charger |
Thanks, Bob, for your thoughts on my experience with USB chargers that
produced noise on my comm radio. I bought the noisy charger from a
major supplier of airplane stuff and they are sending me a free
replacement. I'll give it a try.
In the meantime, I took your advice and tried a different brand of
charger. I bought it at Wal-Mart and I'm happy to report that it is
working fine. It is black, comes in a bubble pack, and can plug into
both a 120 VAC wall outlet and a 12 VDC cigar lighter outlet. It cost
less than $20. It has two, 2.1 amp USB receptacles.
Regarding the comments about iPads overheating, that is a common
problem. A good friend estimated that an iPad generates about 5 watts
in use and that the glass display, when exposed to direct sunlight,
absorbs the equivalent of 50 watts. I know from experience that at
17,000', where there isn't a lot of air to help cool it, my iPad shuts
down from overheating if I leave it exposed to direct sunlight for half
an hour.
There is also some belief that charging in flight adds to the heat load,
but I have not tested that.
So long as I don't put my iPad in the direct sun for half an hour, I
have no overheating problems. It also helps to remove the iPad from its
case to allow the aluminum back panel to dissipate heat.
Regarding panel mounting a USB charging port vs. a cigar lighter
receptacle, I went the cigar lighter route. Mainly it was because I
knew that some USB chargers were too noisy to use in an airplane and the
cigar lighter method makes it simple to swap one charger for another
until I find one that works. If I were going to hard wire a USB charger
in the panel, I would be sure to thoroughly test it before cutting holes
in the panel and soldering a bunch of wires.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/09/2014 06:40 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> I think you'll be unhappy with a panel mounted Ipad, they will heat soak from
the sun in a hurry and simply turn off. I use one however and love it, but I
stow it out of the sun (and thieves) view when parked and just set it on my legs
in flight.
> FWIW
> Tim
FWIW, I am very happy with my panel mounted iPad2, and have never had
any heat issues with it. I use a RAM mount so that I can easily remove
it and take it with me when not using the airplane.
Here are some old pics before my panel upgrade:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/ipad/
The new panel is still under construction, but here is a recent picture:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/install/photob-3181.jpg
The iPad will be mounted vertically (rather than horizontally as it was
in the previous pictures) and will be running WingX for moving map and
IFR charts.
You could easily mount a simple paper shade behind/above the iPad if you
needed to keep the sun off the backside.
-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/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I agree a ram mount would be fine, but mounted on the panel so you can't move it
to adjust for glare or direct sun was what I thought he had in mind. Also, if
you leave one in the sun with or even without the canopy closed, both of mine
will overheat and shut down. iPhone also for that matter.
Your mileage may vary!
Tim
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>
>> On 07/09/2014 06:40 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
>> I think you'll be unhappy with a panel mounted Ipad, they will heat soak from
the sun in a hurry and simply turn off. I use one however and love it, but I
stow it out of the sun (and thieves) view when parked and just set it on my legs
in flight.
>> FWIW
>> Tim
>
>
> FWIW, I am very happy with my panel mounted iPad2, and have never had
> any heat issues with it. I use a RAM mount so that I can easily remove
> it and take it with me when not using the airplane.
>
> Here are some old pics before my panel upgrade:
>
> http://deej.net/glastar/pics/ipad/
>
> The new panel is still under construction, but here is a recent picture:
>
> http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/install/photob-3181.jpg
>
> The iPad will be mounted vertically (rather than horizontally as it was
> in the previous pictures) and will be running WingX for moving map and
> IFR charts.
>
> You could easily mount a simple paper shade behind/above the iPad if you
> needed to keep the sun off the backside.
>
> -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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Tablets as flight instruments |
At 05:40 PM 7/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>I think you'll be unhappy with a panel mounted Ipad, they will heat
>soak from the sun in a hurry and simply turn off. I use one however
>and love it, but I stow it out of the sun (and thieves) view when
>parked and just set it on my legs in flight.
>FWIW
>Tim
Tim's comments highlight the need to differentiate the two
energy sources of potential overheating. Given that these devices
draw about 1A at 5.0V (unless charging a dead battery), the
power going into internal heat-gain is only 5 watts. Bolt
a 5w resistor to a similarly sized sheet of aluminum, power
it up, an the piece of aluminum will get noticeably warmer
than ambient . . . but you can comfortably hold it. And so it would
be with your tablet. It is, after all, a hand-held device.
Even when charging a dead battery (perhaps 10W total draw)
a majority of the additional 5W goes into electrical->chemistry
conversion with perhaps a watt or less showing up as more
heat on the case.
But lay that same piece of aluminum out in the sun and
temperature rise is another matter entirely. It seems
well advised to have the handy device attached to the
panel only while in use . . . and perhaps stored in your
flight bag in the shade . . . or completely out of the
airplane.
To be sure, there are many examples of commercial-off-
the shelf products having truly amazing capability
to augment a pilot's tasks in the cockpit. But approach
with caution with an understanding that capability does
not correlate with reliability. If the desired capability
offers any risk for venturing into situations where
functionality is NECESSARY, then do your FMEA and ASSUME
the critter is going to go T.U. The reason for failure doesn't
matter. Have a Plan-B.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 wireing questions |
At 01:17 PM 7/10/2014, you wrote:
Hey Bob, I have your book Aeroelectric Connection 2005 and I am
building an RV-7. Great book by the way (I am a super beginner). I
am going to use your figure Z-11 generic light aircraft electrical
system diagram for pretty much all of my system but have a few questions.
I want a master switch and an avionics switch on my panel so I can
start my engine before I power up my avionics
Okay, why do you want to do this? No such feature is
suggested on any of the Z-figures . . . the value
for an avionics master switch was poorly perceived
when it was birthed (about 1968). Today, rudimentary
design skills make virtually every appliance
immune to what ever the system might throw at it . . .
including the cranking of engines.
Some readers have proffered the idea that turning
avionics loads off will enhance cranking performance. . .
an idea without foundation in physics for an airplane
with a properly maintained battery. If you're willing
to go flying with a battery that might not get the
engine started if it were presented with a few amps
additional load, then I suggest there's value in
a review of your design goals as they drive risks.
Don't get me wrong, if you WANT any switch in the
airplane for ANY purpose, fine by me. I suggest
there is value in understanding the exactly what
the switch will (or will not) do for you . . .
and how it figures into your assessment of risks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 wireing questions (OOPS) |
I hit the 'send' button too quick. Check out the articles
on avionics master switches at http://tinyurl.com/mr2jk8g
Also, I recommend you join us on the AeroElectric-List,
http://tinyurl.com/57wytb . . . it's a good thing to
share a conversation about such matters with lots of
other builders who may ponder such issues themselves . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------
At 01:17 PM 7/10/2014, you wrote:
Hey Bob, I have your book Aeroelectric Connection 2005 and I am
building an RV-7. Great book by the way (I am a super beginner). I
am going to use your figure Z-11 generic light aircraft electrical
system diagram for pretty much all of my system but have a few questions.
I want a master switch and an avionics switch on my panel so I can
start my engine before I power up my avionics
Okay, why do you want to do this? No such feature is
suggested on any of the Z-figures . . . the value
for an avionics master switch was poorly perceived
when it was birthed (about 1968). Today, rudimentary
design skills make virtually every appliance
immune to what ever the system might throw at it . . .
including the cranking of engines.
Some readers have proffered the idea that turning
avionics loads off will enhance cranking performance. . .
an idea without foundation in physics for an airplane
with a properly maintained battery. If you're willing
to go flying with a battery that might not get the
engine started if it were presented with a few amps
additional load, then I suggest there's value in
a review of your design goals as they drive risks.
Don't get me wrong, if you WANT any switch in the
airplane for ANY purpose, fine by me. I suggest
there is value in understanding the exactly what
the switch will (or will not) do for you . . .
and how it figures into your assessment of risks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
DJ,
You need 10 lbs of ballast in the baggage to fly solo????! Where is your
battery mounted?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: sundry questions
On 07/09/2014 06:40 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> I think you'll be unhappy with a panel mounted Ipad, they will heat soak
from the sun in a hurry and simply turn off. I use one however and love it,
but I stow it out of the sun (and thieves) view when parked and just set it
on my legs in flight.
> FWIW
> Tim
FWIW, I am very happy with my panel mounted iPad2, and have never had
any heat issues with it. I use a RAM mount so that I can easily remove
it and take it with me when not using the airplane.
Here are some old pics before my panel upgrade:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/ipad/
The new panel is still under construction, but here is a recent picture:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/panel/install/photob-3181.jpg
The iPad will be mounted vertically (rather than horizontally as it was
in the previous pictures) and will be running WingX for moving map and
IFR charts.
You could easily mount a simple paper shade behind/above the iPad if you
needed to keep the sun off the backside.
-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/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 7/10/2014 7:33 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
> You need 10 lbs of ballast in the baggage to fly solo????! Where is your
> battery mounted?
>
Hi Bill,
No, I do not. My guess is the original builder didn't weigh the
plane properly, because when I used a set of calibrated scales to do it,
my results were somewhat different. No ballast needed other than my
butt in the front seat. :-)
Those are old pics taken shortly after I bought the plane a few
years ago, and that label hasn't been in the plane for a long time. Nice
catch though! :-)
-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/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 wireing questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Z-11 is a good choice. An avionics switch is not recommended because if it fails,
all of the avionics stop working. And any switch will eventually fail. I
would question the qualifications of anyone who warns about damaging voltage
spikes during engine start. Have they written a book on aircraft wiring? Dynon
states in their Pilots User Guide for both the D-180 and SkyView that it is
OK to have their units powered on during engine start.
The real problem during engine cranking is not voltage spikes, but rather voltage
slump, aka brownout. That is an annoyance, not a danger to avionics.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426498#426498
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <kleh(at)dialupatcost.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 wireing questions |
About once every 50 engine starts my Gemini ADI (glass stand alone ADI)
will freeze up. The only indication of that before takeoff is that the
gps heading does not change during taxi. For aircraft without brown out
protection, it might be convenient to have a switch of some kind, or an
accessible circuit breaker, to reboot any devices that don't have their
own on-off switch.
Sure the battery master will also do it but I choose not to test the
load dump capability of my internally regulated alternator, or my PM
alternator, by deliberately cycling the master with a running engine. My
John Deer PM regulator does not like load dumps.
Ken
On 11/07/2014 11:24 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Z-11 is a good choice. An avionics switch is not recommended because
> if it fails, all of the avionics stop working. And any switch will
> eventually fail. I would question the qualifications of anyone who
> warns about damaging voltage spikes during engine start. Have they
> written a book on aircraft wiring? Dynon states in their Pilots User
> Guide for both the D-180 and SkyView that it is OK to have their
> units powered on during engine start. The real problem during engine
> cranking is not voltage spikes, but rather voltage slump, aka
> brownout. That is an annoyance, not a danger to avionics. Joe
>
> -------- Joe Gores
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <decaclops(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeronautical idiosyncrasies |
I recently inspected an RV-6A with a vertical engine control setup
running from panel to fuel selector. This is per plans, though many have
dispensed with it and arranged their controls horizontally along the
bottom of the panel. This one had throttle at the top and mixture at the
bottom with carb heat in between. I noticed the non-standard setup and
it still got me. I did a run up and the engine quit when I thought I was
actuating carb heat. I'm sure it never happens to the owner because he's
used to it. A new owner would have to be wary until he got used to it.
I was once working on a one-off motorglider that had yet to fly and
found throttle, prop, and mixture all rigged backwards. People don't
always put a lot of thought into what they do. Best to be wary in a new
to you experimental. Remember the non-standard placement of fuel
selector (along with poor condition of same) that contributed to John
Denver's demise.
Ed Holyoke
On 7/8/2014 12:48 AM, GLEN MATEJCEK wrote:
>
>
> >Re:
> >
> >=C2 =C2 Yes, attention has been paid to human factors
> >=C2 =C2 in cockpit design and layout since day-one . . .
> >
> >Just as a curious data point, in the WWII plane
> >I fly on the side throttles forward is more
> >power, props forward is more power, blowers
> >forward is more power, mixtures forward is
> >suddenly silent. =C2 Every departure requires a
> >quiet moment reviewing the several gotchas in
> >the cockpit lest reflex cause a debacle.
>
> Interesting! I've never encountered a 'variance'
> with so much perceived significance and
> potential risk.
>
> Which airplane?
>
>
> Bob . .
>
> Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon. There are other issues, as well... Alternate
> air forward is hot, and the landing gear and flap levers are
> identical and symmetrically located. Keeps you on your toes!
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 wireing questions |
At 10:58 AM 7/11/2014, you wrote:
>
>About once every 50 engine starts my Gemini ADI (glass stand alone
>ADI) will freeze up. The only indication of that before takeoff is
>that the gps heading does not change during taxi. For aircraft
>without brown out protection, it might be convenient to have a
>switch of some kind, or an accessible circuit breaker, to reboot any
>devices that don't have their own on-off switch.
The Gemini ADI installation manual does speak
to an ADI Master Switch downstream of a 1A
breaker. This is a very low power consumption
device!
How a bout a miniature, normally closed push button
next to the instrument in series with the power
input that would allow you to do a 'hard' reset?
>Sure the battery master will also do it but I choose not to test the
>load dump capability of my internally regulated alternator, or my PM
>alternator, by deliberately cycling the master with a running
>engine. My John Deer PM regulator does not like load dumps.
>Ken
Don't you have positive alternator control?
For a PM alternator, a set of relay contacts
in series with the AC output winding will
offer a way to shut it off without undue
stress.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Noisy USB Charger |
Hi Dennis,
In the meantime, I took your advice and tried a different brand of charger.
I bought it at Wal-Mart and I'm happy to report that it is working fine. It
is black, comes in a bubble pack, and can plug into both a 120 VAC wall
outlet and a 12 VDC cigar lighter outlet. It cost less than $20. It has
two, 2.1 amp USB receptacles.
Just for reference, can post a link to the item on Walmart.com? There are
dozens of UBS chargers there.
sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual master solenoids |
| From: | Tomhanaway <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com> |
Working my way through Nuckoll's Z-13 wiring diagram.
I'm building an 8-a VFR with single battery, single alternator.
I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because of the additional
wire runs it would create from the buss mounted close to the rear mounted
battery and difficulty accessing fuses for those wires.
I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of the starter solenoid
(always hot when master solenoid is hot).
Given this scenario, it seems that the really significant system weakness is the
failure of the master solenoid. I was thinking that a second master solenoid,
with a separate wire and switch, wired in parallel at the battery, would address
this issue.
Does this make sense or am I missing something obvious (or not so obvious)?
Thanks,
Tom H.
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
At 04:14 PM 7/12/2014, you wrote:
>
>Working my way through Nuckoll's Z-13 wiring diagram.
>I'm building an 8-a VFR with single battery, single alternator.
>
>I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because
>of the additional wire runs it would create from the buss mounted
>close to the rear mounted battery and difficulty accessing fuses for
>those wires.
That's not a "MAIN BUS" . . . it's the MAIN BATTERY
always-hot with exceedingly limited but often important
tasks in getting power distributed to your airplane.
GA airplanes have had always-hot busses since the
clock and hour-meter fuses were mounted right next
to the battery master contactor in the tail . . . in
Cessnas I worked on in 1965.
Study Z-13 again (or perhaps Z-11 which is a single
alternator version). Also the notes for the z-figures
along with the chapter on system reliability.
>I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of
>the starter solenoid (always hot when master solenoid is hot).
Not sure what's driving this . . . The Z-figures are
the culmination of over 45+ years experience in TC
aviation enhanced by 25+ years in OBAM aviation exploiting
the freedoms not enjoyed by TC aviation . . . to craft an
architecture that meets YOUR mission requirements . . .
not those of a bureaucracy most of whom do not build or
fly airplanes.
>Given this scenario, it seems that the really significant system
>weakness is the failure of the master solenoid. I was thinking that
>a second master solenoid, with a separate wire and switch, wired in
>parallel at the battery, would address this issue.
>
>Does this make sense or am I missing something obvious (or not so obvious)?
It's not clear that you understand the philosophy behind
the various architectures and functionality of their
several features.
Suggest you PLAN for Z-13/8 by having all the WIRES
in place to have a second alternator . . . unless you're
going to have a vacuum pump, the consider NOT plugging
a perfectly good source of mechanical energy with a
cover plate.
Print out copies of http://tinyurl.com/7jqypwj one for
each bus. It generally takes three.
List each load services by the various busses along
with their magnitudes and flight configurations that
the loads are expected/necessary.
You may not need a battery bus . . . but get all your
loads defined first . . . then decide what bus
structures are needed.
Do you plan any sort of electronic ignition. The
RV8 is low wing so you no doubt have electric
fuel pumps. Does any of your proposed electrics
need memory keep-alive power? I single alternator,
what's your goal for battery-only endurance? The
load analysis study will let you set necessary battery
size based on predicted loads. There's lot of
sifting of requirements that will drive what
gets powered from which busses.
Go with Z-13/8 with second 4-pound alternator
and your alternator-out endurance deliberations
get a WHOLE LOT easier.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
TOM,
Then you may as well have two of everything.
Remember the cardinal rule..." build in simplicity and lightness"
Bob Verwey
On 12 Jul 2014 11:22 PM, "Tomhanaway" wrote:
> >
>
> Working my way through Nuckoll's Z-13 wiring diagram.
> I'm building an 8-a VFR with single battery, single alternator.
>
> I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because of the
> additional wire runs it would create from the buss mounted close to the
> rear mounted battery and difficulty accessing fuses for those wires.
>
> I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of the
> starter solenoid (always hot when master solenoid is hot).
>
> Given this scenario, it seems that the really significant system weakness
> is the failure of the master solenoid. I was thinking that a second master
> solenoid, with a separate wire and switch, wired in parallel at the
> battery, would address this issue.
>
> Does this make sense or am I missing something obvious (or not so obvious)?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom H.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | Tomhanaway <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com> |
I understand that but it doesn't answer my question.
Is there anything from an electrical point of view that keeps this from work
ing. I.e., the backup master solenoid would have 12 vdc at both terminals wh
enever the primary master solenoid is turned on even if the aux master solen
oid switch is not on. My goal is to have the aux solenoid sitting idle unle
ss activated by a switch.
Tom
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 13, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> TOM,
> Then you may as well have two of everything.
>
> Remember the cardinal rule..." build in simplicity and lightness"
>
> Bob Verwey
>
>> On 12 Jul 2014 11:22 PM, "Tomhanaway" wrote:
m>
>>
>> Working my way through Nuckoll's Z-13 wiring diagram.
>> I'm building an 8-a VFR with single battery, single alternator.
>>
>> I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because of the
additional wire runs it would create from the buss mounted close to the rea
r mounted battery and difficulty accessing fuses for those wires.
>>
>> I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of the sta
rter solenoid (always hot when master solenoid is hot).
>>
>> Given this scenario, it seems that the really significant system weakness
is the failure of the master solenoid. I was thinking that a second master s
olenoid, with a separate wire and switch, wired in parallel at the battery, w
ould address this issue.
>>
>> Does this make sense or am I missing something obvious (or not so obvious
)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom H.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> ric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectr
ic-List
>> ==========
>> MS -
>> k">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> e -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
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: | Ken <kleh(at)dialupatcost.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
I don't see a problem with a dual master although I wonder if it really
achieves your goal or achieves it as elegantly as one of the Z
architectures. The failures of contactors that I've seen are failures to
activate not failures during flight. I do agree that any truly essential
system such as engine power should not be tied to a single contactor but
the battery buss and/or essential buss concept seem like a better
solution where applicable. Don't forget that a backup has little value
unless tested regularly. For example, I test my backup EFI during taxi
on every flight and it has always worked perfectly. I happened to test
it in flight yesterday and discovered that it has started to miss at
high power which pretty much means it has been useless dead weight for
some undetermined length of time as I do not often test it at high power
settings.
Ken
On 13/07/2014 6:55 AM, Tomhanaway wrote:
> I understand that but it doesn't answer my question.
>
> Is there anything from an electrical point of view that keeps this from
> working. I.e., the backup master solenoid would have 12 vdc at both
> terminals whenever the primary master solenoid is turned on even if the
> aux master solenoid switch is not on. My goal is to have the aux
> solenoid sitting idle unless activated by a switch.
>
> Tom
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 13, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Bob Verwey > wrote:
>
>> TOM,
>> Then you may as well have two of everything.
>>
>> Remember the cardinal rule..." build in simplicity and lightness"
>>
>> Bob Verwey
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2014 11:22 PM, "Tomhanaway" > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> Working my way through Nuckoll's Z-13 wiring diagram.
>> I'm building an 8-a VFR with single battery, single alternator.
>>
>> I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because
>> of the additional wire runs it would create from the buss mounted
>> close to the rear mounted battery and difficulty accessing fuses
>> for those wires.
>>
>> I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of
>> the starter solenoid (always hot when master solenoid is hot).
>>
>> Given this scenario, it seems that the really significant system
>> weakness is the failure of the master solenoid. I was thinking
>> that a second master solenoid, with a separate wire and switch,
>> wired in parallel at the battery, would address this issue.
>>
>> Does this make sense or am I missing something obvious (or not so
>> obvious)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom H.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
On Jul 13, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Tomhanaway wrote:
> Is there anything from an electrical point of view that keeps this from working.
There is no electrical reason why your idea won't work but why do it? Master solenoids
don't typically fail in-flight. They typically don't fail at all if
installed as Bob suggests, unless the posts are tightened incorrectly and twist
the internal contacts. If one does fail, you can find a replacement at a FLAPS.
If your engine has magnetos, an inflight failure won't matter. If you are
using EIs, you'll probably have ignition power straight off the battery so
it still won't matter.
Put the cost and the weight-cost of an additional heavy solenoid, additional foot
or so of heavy AWG 2-4 wire, additional panel switch and wiring against the
low chance you'll ever need it.
-Kent
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
At 06:47 AM 7/13/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>
>On Jul 13, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Tomhanaway wrote:
>
> > Is there anything from an electrical point of view that keeps
> this from working.
>
>There is no electrical reason why your idea won't work but why do
>it? Master solenoids don't typically fail in-flight.
. . . and even if they did, the battery-bus/e-bus
architectures are crafted to keep things comfortable
in the cockpit even if it DID fail . . . in fact,
the germinating idea behind the dual-feedpath e-bus
was to facilitate a deliberate opening of the
battery master contactor as part of load shedding
protocol for battery-only operations.
Suggest you do your own failure mode effects
analysis where you consider the risks for a
failure of any single component of your electrical
system. If you discover a failure that puts
comfortable termination of flight at risk,
then let's talk about it. I'm certain
that with judicious selection of accessories
and distribution of power, you can craft
a system where worries about the battery master
contactor are at the bottom of the risk assessment
list.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gilliatt <jim.gilliatt(at)att.net> |
Hi All,
I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder,
a Dynon EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a
Continental IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this
configuration? It has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the
installation manuals, and they are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am
floundering around like a beginner, which I am. I may have bitten off
more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll it give up.
At least I'm learning a whole lot.
Thanks,
Jim Gilliatt
Rhode Island
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi
I take it that 8.33 radios, and mode S transponders are not a (I presume your in)
USA requirement for new fits
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:21 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a Dynon
EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental IO240.
Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration? It
has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and they
are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
> Thanks,
> Jim Gilliatt
> Rhode Island
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gilliatt <jim.gilliatt(at)att.net> |
Hi John,
Not to my knowledge, and I have talked to many people who are well aware
of the requirements.
I hope I'm not showing my ignorance here.
Jim
On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I take it that 8.33 radios, and mode S transponders are not a (I presume your
in) USA requirement for new fits
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:21 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a Dynon
EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental
IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration? It
has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and they
are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
>> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
>> Thanks,
>> Jim Gilliatt
>> Rhode Island
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
You are so lucky Jim: over here (UK/Europe) we have to fit to new builds 8.33 radios,
and Mode S transponders, and all aircraft by the end of 2015 are to be
so equipped - a lot of surplus equipment will be available !!!
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:45 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
> Not to my knowledge, and I have talked to many people who are well aware of the
requirements.
> I hope I'm not showing my ignorance here.
> Jim
>
>> On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I take it that 8.33 radios, and mode S transponders are not a (I presume your
in) USA requirement for new fits
>>
>> John
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ----x--O--x----
>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:21 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a
Dynon EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental
IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration? It
has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and they
are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
>>> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jim Gilliatt
>>> Rhode Island
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomhanaway <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com> |
If you don't find what you want, contact SteinAir.com and tell them exactly what
instruments you'll be installing. They will provide a complete schematic showing
where each wire connects to each pin. Great company to do business with.
Worth it's weight in gold for those doing their own wiring. Plus, it gives you
and any future operator a reference chart for the future.
I made a copy of mine and marked off each wire as I installed them
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 13, 2014, at 12:21 PM, John Tipton wrote:
>
>
> You are so lucky Jim: over here (UK/Europe) we have to fit to new builds 8.33
radios, and Mode S transponders, and all aircraft by the end of 2015 are to be
so equipped - a lot of surplus equipment will be available !!!
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:45 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>> Not to my knowledge, and I have talked to many people who are well aware of
the requirements.
>> I hope I'm not showing my ignorance here.
>> Jim
>>
>>> On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I take it that 8.33 radios, and mode S transponders are not a (I presume your
in) USA requirement for new fits
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> ----x--O--x----
>>>
>>>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:21 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a
Dynon EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental
IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration?
It has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and
they are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
>>>> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jim Gilliatt
>>>> Rhode Island
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Jim,
To connect your equipment just take it one step at a time. Draw wiring
diagrams to figure out what needs to go where and then talk to your
local technical counsellor to understand how it all wires together.
Reading Bob's book (the Aeroelectric Connection) is also one of the best
ways to better understand the 'Greek'.
Start radios, leave the Dynon till later, and begin with the power and
grounds. Figure out the current draw and the size of the fuses. Ask
yourself the following questions, and keep asking until you have figured
out what is required to provide all the functions you plan to use.
Identify the pin number on the connector of the source device and where
that signal will go to on the receiving box (connector and pin number).
How will you provide the altitude information to the KT76A? Do you have
an encoder or do you plan to use the Dynon?
Do you plan to use the VOR in the KX155?
Besides the KX155 what audio inputs do you plan to the intercom?
What are you doing for a GPS? Does the EFIS need a GPS input?
We were all a beginner at one point, this stuff is not intuitive to
most, you haven't bitten off more than you can chew - just take it one
bite at a time. There are enough folks here who understand 'Greek' to
help you figure it all out.
Peter
On 13/07/2014 16:21, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A
> transponder, a Dynon EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox
> Series 7 with a Continental IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring
> diagram for this configuration? It has to be plain to a 6 year old;
> I have all the installation manuals, and they are mostly Greek to the
> uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner, which I am. I
> may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's uncle
> if I'll it give up.
> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
> Thanks,
> Jim Gilliatt
> Rhode Island
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
IMO the audio panel to NAV/ comm harness is where you'll most likely have trouble,
but it's easy to make once you have the info you need. PSE once had a .ppt
on their website depicting how to build that harness. I notice they took it
down and I know they won't warrant their panels unless a harness is purchased
from a dealer. I have a copy of that ppt if needed.
Bob's cartoons showing how to treat the shields and daisy chain them is good info
for you, and you need to understand shields are not used for anything but shields,
so no audio on them and they ground at one end only to prevent ground
loops. The other thing you'll run into is differing terminology between the various
brands, especially "audio low" .
The Dynon is pretty much self contained with no remote magnetometers or AHRS units,
so that simplifies things also. You'll have to plow through each install
manual several times and make some inquiries when you can't figure it out, but
it's all there.
I have my schematic for a 5000EX to Garmin stack, if you would like a copy it may
get you started in designing yours. Or maybe someone has the same equipment
as you and can supply a drawing.
One tip on the audio harness, since all the shields terminate at the audio panel,
you'll have to terminate those to wire and then D-sub pins per Bob's pics or
the .ppt. There may be too many to get them into the connector shells so you
may want to make those terminations a bit longer so all the splices can be just
outside the shell.
Pm if interested in the drawings or ppt.
Tim
> On Jul 13, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
>
> Jim,
>
> To connect your equipment just take it one step at a time. Draw wiring diagrams
to figure out what needs to go where and then talk to your local technical
counsellor to understand how it all wires together. Reading Bob's book (the Aeroelectric
Connection) is also one of the best ways to better understand the 'Greek'.
>
> Start radios, leave the Dynon till later, and begin with the power and grounds.
Figure out the current draw and the size of the fuses. Ask yourself the following
questions, and keep asking until you have figured out what is required
to provide all the functions you plan to use. Identify the pin number on the connector
of the source device and where that signal will go to on the receiving
box (connector and pin number).
> How will you provide the altitude information to the KT76A? Do you have an encoder
or do you plan to use the Dynon?
> Do you plan to use the VOR in the KX155?
> Besides the KX155 what audio inputs do you plan to the intercom?
> What are you doing for a GPS? Does the EFIS need a GPS input?
>
> We were all a beginner at one point, this stuff is not intuitive to most, you
haven't bitten off more than you can chew - just take it one bite at a time.
There are enough folks here who understand 'Greek' to help you figure it all out.
>
> Peter
>
>
>> On 13/07/2014 16:21, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a Dynon
EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental
IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration? It
has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and they
are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
>> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
>> Thanks,
>> Jim Gilliatt
>> Rhode Island
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Barnett <alansbarnett(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Manual for Vision microsystems EPI-800 engine monitor |
Does anyone have a digital copy of the manual for the Vision
microsystems EPI-800 engine monitor? I bought a plane with an EPI-800
installed, but most of the installation manual was lost.
I'm particularly interested in the wiring associated with the
backlighting system. At present, the backlighting doesn't work at all.
It's supposed to sense the voltage on the lighting bus. My plane has no
lighting bus, and the builder disconnected the lighting wiring for the
VOR head and the transpondes, so I assume he disconnected wiring for the
EPI-800 as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> I'm not excited about the use of his "always hot" main bus because of the additional
wire runs it would create from the buss mounted close to the rear mounted
battery and difficulty accessing fuses for those wires.
> I'd like to run all electrical busses from the always hot side of the starter
solenoid (always hot when master solenoid is hot).
Schematics do not indicate how wires are routed in an aircraft. They show the
logic of a circuit, not necessarily the physical layout. The heavy wire that
supplies power to the main power distribution bus can be connected to either end
of the wire between the two contactors (main battery and start). Your idea
of connecting to the always hot side of the starter contactor is identical (electrically
speaking) to Bob's schematic.
> I was thinking that a second master solenoid, with a separate wire and switch,
wired in parallel at the battery, would address this issue.
Like Bob said, the E-bus circuit addresses this issue. If you would rather backup
the main battery contactor, it can be done with an automotive 30 or 40 amp
relay at a fraction of the weight. The relay must be disabled during engine
cranking, maybe like the attached circuit.
But keep in mind that the more complicated and the more components , the more
to go wrong.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426609#426609
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_relay_497.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Ford" <psychden(at)sonic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sundry questions |
Folks on the List can better sources of information
on this than I. I'm surprised about 'heat issues' . . .
these things draw about 3-5 watts in operation, the
vast majority of which gets turned into heat. Unless
there are items with localized heat-dissipation issues
(doubtful for a hand-held device), I would not expect
there to be any problems for operational heating.
My experience with the Ipad is similar to Tim Andres'. I set it in my lap
(out of its case) and unless I have
a fresh air vent directly blowing on the device it will shut down with an
over temp announcement within 30 minutes of
operation. My IT friend believes the Blue Tooth communication with the
Stratus ADS-B receiver creates a larger drain
than the Ipad would normally produce. I fly with another older handheld
moving map as backup. The Foreflght + Stratus has
tremendous capability when it's working but I don't trust it as a sole nav
source. Reliability needs improvement.
Larry Ford
Glasair I RG N149LF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | "tomhanaway" <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Joe,
Once I started thinking in terms of a relay, this came pretty close to what I was
looking for.
Interesting use of a starter enable/disable switch to ensure no cranking current
through relay.
Interesting question ( to me, anyway), are heavy duty continuous service relays
any less reliable than mechanical relays? If about the same
reliability, what are the reasons that they aren't used more often for a
master solenoid? As you stated, the weight differential is pretty significant.
Thanks again,
Tom
--------
RV-10. Built and sold
RV-8a. Building
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426622#426622
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomhanaway <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com> |
If you don't find what you want, contact SteinAir and tell them exactly what instruments
you'll be installing. They will provide a complete schematic showing
where each wire connects to each pin. Great company to do business with.
Worth it's weight in gold for those doing their own wiring. Plus, it gives you
and any future operator a reference chart for the future.
I made a copy of mine and marked off each wire as I installed them
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 13, 2014, at 12:21 PM, John Tipton wrote:
>
>
> You are so lucky Jim: over here (UK/Europe) we have to fit to new builds 8.33
radios, and Mode S transponders, and all aircraft by the end of 2015 are to be
so equipped - a lot of surplus equipment will be available !!!
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:45 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>> Not to my knowledge, and I have talked to many people who are well aware of
the requirements.
>> I hope I'm not showing my ignorance here.
>> Jim
>>
>>> On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I take it that 8.33 radios, and mode S transponders are not a (I presume your
in) USA requirement for new fits
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> ----x--O--x----
>>>
>>>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 04:21 pm, Jim Gilliatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I am installing a Bendix KX155 transceiver, a Bendix KT 76A transponder, a
Dynon EFIS D100 and a PM500EX intercom in a Kitfox Series 7 with a Continental
IO240. Can anyone supply me with a wiring diagram for this configuration?
It has to be plain to a 6 year old; I have all the installation manuals, and
they are mostly Greek to the uninformed; I am floundering around like a beginner,
which I am. I may have bitten off more that I can chew, but I'll be a monkey's
uncle if I'll it give up.
>>>> At least I'm learning a whole lot.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jim Gilliatt
>>>> Rhode Island
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> are heavy duty continuous service relays any less reliable than mechanical relays?
If about the same reliability, what are the reasons that they aren't used
more often for a master solenoid?
There are several ways that a relay or contactor can fail. The contacts can develop
a high resistance, the coil can burn open, springs or other mechanical parts
can break, and etc. I do not know which type is more likely to fail. The
current carrying capability determines which relay or contactor to use. Starters
can draw a few hundred amps initially to get the engine rotating. A 30
amp automotive relay would not last very long carrying that much current.
So why have the starter current go though the master contactor? The starter
contactor could be wired directly to the battery. I think the reason is that
contactors have been known to fail closed. Having two contactors in series makes
sure that the circuit can be opened.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426626#426626
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
At 07:06 AM 7/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > are heavy duty continuous service relays any less reliable than
> mechanical relays? If about the same reliability, what are the
> reasons that they aren't used more often for a master solenoid?
"Reliability" is a rather soggy concept.
It can mean different things to most speakers
in a group of conversants. If you
write to Stancore/White-Rogers and ask,
just HOW reliable is your 70-110 contactor?
. . . they MIGHT fire back with a laboratory
study that cites cycle-life of the contactor
under various loads and perhaps environmental
conditions. Write to Tyco about reliability
of their Kilovac contactors and you MIGHT
get another report.
Okay, Tyco's numbers are better than S/W-R
numbers . . . now what?
As I've been explaining in my writing and
presentations for the past 30 years, the
elegant design has little, if any, interest
in those numbers. Lessons-learned in over
a century of building airplanes have demonstrated
that the designer's prime directive is to
reduce risk for a bad day in the cockpit.
To be sure, if money, weight, $time$
to market and cost of ownership were
of no concern, then there are virtually
limitless ways that hedges against risk
can be applied to the system. But applied
without the confidence that comes from
understanding there is a larger risk that
the end-product is burdened with "safety
features" that degrade performance to
far greater degrees than protecting the
airframe and crew.
Emacs!
My teachers would ask, "Okay, you've selected a
whiz-bang part for that location in the airplane,
make your case for the decision." Had I whipped
out the reliability data sheets for the constellation
of choices and said, "See here, look at THOSE numbers!"
they might have banished me to purchasing support
or perhaps the EMC lab.
The first bit of guidance germane to your decision
resides in lessons-learned. Question: How many
times have pilots experienced a bad day in the
cockpit due to in-flight failure of the battery
master contactor?
I haven't a clue . . . because the incidents have
been so few in numbers and so benign as to become
completely buried in COMPONENT failures that
put the whole SYSTEM at risk . . . The aviation
journals are replete with what I have called
"dark n stormy night" stories . . . most of
which are so lacking in data as to defy understanding
of root cause . . . or more illustrative of human
weaknesses than those of the airplane.
Consider that EVERY contactor is RATED and
TESTED in the lab to perform as advertised
for tens of thousands of cycles at rated lioad.
YOUR battery contactor is going to close/open
once per flight cycle . . . perhaps 100 times
per YEAR and under nearly zero-load conditions.
Were you to conduct laboratory reliability
testing for conditions in YOUR airplane, it's
unlikely that you would ever see a failure.
We HAVE seen some failures here on the List.
Detailed analysis revealed failure due to
a variety of reasons including manufacturing
defects
Emacs!
moisture ingress, and installation error . . . but in no
case were the failures first detected in flight.
Carrying lessons-learned a step further we can conduct
a failure effects study. You do this by ASSUMING that every
part will fail at some point in time. You then analyze
how that failure will affect system performance. For
failures that pose unacceptable risk, you make some
design changes. Except for things like wing struts
and prop bolts, the elegant design drives more toward
failure TOLERANCE than failure PROOF.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ozum5u9
If your studies for optimal design are driving you
toward the purchase of high-dollar hardware -OR-
adding backup components, then perhaps your confidence
born of lessons-learned and artful conduct of
failure analysis is shaky. I suggest that crafting
any of the Z-Figures chosen to match your mission
profiles and hardware will produce an exceedingly
failure tolerant system. I suggest further that
Z13/8 has more bang for the buck/pound/volume than
systems flying in some pretty sophisticated airplanes.
The very first example of Z13-8 flying in an OBAM
aircraft was in an RV-8 in Connecticut about 25
years ago . . . the father-son build team were
delighted with its performance and confidence
levels.
They could loose a battery master contactor
every few months and not suffer a bad day in
the cockpit . . . but I'll bet that the Model
70 contactor installed day-on is still flying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 05/22/2014 09:18 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
> $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.
Finally got the plane back together yesterday from the panel upgrade,
and am reporting back to the list with the results. I installed one of
these as the main battery:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001G8FY38/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
and one of these as the aux battery:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004J2TAZQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I was only able to do taxi testing yesterday due to weather, however,
the UB12220 battery turned the engine over just as fast as the previous
B&C battery, so no issues with cranking power (in summer at least).
I'll let you know more as I test further.
On a somewhat related note, do contactors normally get very hot when in
use? After running the engine and taxiing around for 15-20 mins
yesterday, I stuck my hand back behind the baggage area to feel the
battery and listen to see if I could hear it "boiling" (it was not hot
or boiling). I happened to touch the contactor, and it was very hot,
almost to the point of burning my hand, but not quite. Hot enough so
that it was very uncomfortable keeping my hand on it for more than a few
seconds. Is this is normal?
Thanks,
-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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
On a somewhat related note, do contactors normally get very hot when in
use? After running the engine and taxiing around for 15-20 mins
yesterday, I stuck my hand back behind the baggage area to feel the
battery and listen to see if I could hear it "boiling" (it was not hot
or boiling). I happened to touch the contactor, and it was very hot,
almost to the point of burning my hand, but not quite. Hot enough so
that it was very uncomfortable keeping my hand on it for more than a few
seconds. Is this is normal?
Yes. "Hot" is a relative term. While the outside
surface of the contactor may become too warm to
keep your fingers on it, this condition is normal.
http://tinyurl.com/mpcgp3t
http://tinyurl.com/k6bwdqo
Internal components of the contactor
are rated for much higher levels.
An RG battery in distress doesn't 'gurgle' but
it does whistle. Finished some tests on a really
big RG battery a few months ago wherein a Schumacher
charger failed to perform as advertised . . .
the battery was 'singing' as pressures exceeded
settings on the vent valves.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/14/2014 12:18 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Yes. "Hot" is a relative term. While the outside
> surface of the contactor may become too warm to
> keep your fingers on it, this condition is normal.
Excellent, thank you!
> An RG battery in distress doesn't 'gurgle' but
> it does whistle.
I was listening for any sort of weird noise coming from the battery.
I've also had a Schumacher charger go wonky on me (it is sitting on my
bench right now), and from one RG battery I could clearly hear what
sounded like "boiling/bubbling", and from another the "hissing/singing"
as you describe. The voltage from the charger was getting up to 15.7 or
so. I haven't had the time to tear it apart to see if it can be
adjusted down. The other charger that seems to be working correctly
puts out 14.5 volts.
The UB12220 battery has a label on the top that says it can handle up to
14.7 volts, and my alternator is putting out 14.2, so I am hopeful this
battery will work fine in the plane. The essential bus diode is
dropping 0.6v across it, giving 13.6 v on the e-bus, which seems reasonable.
-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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery choice |
The UB12220 battery has a label on the top that says it can handle up to
14.7 volts, and my alternator is putting out 14.2, so I am hopeful this
battery will work fine in the plane. The essential bus diode is
dropping 0.6v across it, giving 13.6 v on the e-bus, which seems reasonable.
-Dj
Some weeks ago, a Lister published a reply from Odyssey
in response to a query about his PC680 battery life.
The response spoke to the holy-watered manner in which
Odyssey batteries should be recharged . . . the letter
also stated that "no Schumacher chargers are approved".
I've been a follower of SOME Schumacher products for
a dozen years or more. In particular, I've owned a number
of 1562, 2A charger/maintainers. For the most part, every
1562 I've tested produced a recharge profile that mirrored
this plot. Well within the recommended profile suggested
by Hawker-Enersys.
http://tinyurl.com/pwo2oxv
I do have a 1562 charger around here that was
sent to me for testing . . . but it got 'swallowed
up' in a re-organization of my shop digs perpetrated
by a grandma/grand-daughter conspiracy . . .
the charter is not lost, I just don't know where it
is right now . . . the shop looks nice.
A few weeks ago I spoke to my disappointment for the
demonstrated performance of a new Schumacher XC75W
charger with lots of push buttons and a digital display.
Three successive recharge cycles of the same battery
produced these profiles . . .
Emacs!
The first recharge was in the "AGM" mode, consistent with
the configuration of battery. As you can see, this profile peaked
at over 15.5 volts . . . The next time I tried the "STD"
mode with similar results. Finally a recharge cycle in the "GEL"
mode produced a perfectly acceptable performance . . .
I forwarded this data to Schumacher asking for an opportunity
to talk with an engineer . . . I have yet to hear from them.
From this experience I must conclude that any tendency
toward blind faith in Schumacher's ability to produce a
well crafted recharge profile is not well placed.
I was surprised that Odyssey put the evil eye on Schumacher
some years ago . . . they did the same thing to Battery
Minder. I would like to see the data upon which their
displeasure stands but the data above suggests that
Odyssey's displeasure may be standing on solid physics . . .
You spoke to an observed output of 14.2 volts . . . which
is in no way abusive to the battery. But the Rest Of the
Story speaks to the complete recharge profile as plotted
in the data cited above. I'm doing a study of both lithium
batteries and suitable chargers . . . watch this space.
I have no doubt that the 12220 battery will perform well
when knew. If it suffers any weakness, it will manifest
in poor service ilfe . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Noisy USB Charger |
Hi Sacha,
You asked for a Wal-Mart.com link to the USB charger that I'm using that
doesn't create "noise" on my comm radio. Sorry, but I can't find it on
Wal-Mart's web site. I bought it in the store. Here is the info
printed on the charger; you might be able to find it on eBay or locally
from a different store.
I think it's manufactured by ONN
Model #: ONA12WI268
Input: 100-240 VAC
Input: 12-24 VDC
Output: 5.0VDC 2.1A
There is an additional number that might be some kind of certification:
E347649
It has two input specs because it can be plugged into a cigar lighter or
into a house wall socket. It also has two USB sockets that can charge
both at 2.1 A simultaneously.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy USB Charger |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Dennis for that. I guess the different Walmart stores carry different
products cos I couldn't find it in the one I went to.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
It's also a safety issue with some starter configurations. For instance if you
had a momentary push button for the starter instead of a key switch, even with
the master off you would still be able to push the button and turn the prop.
I have this configuration and as an added safety while the aircraft is stopped
and the master needs to be on, I always pull the starter CB.
Sacha
> On 14 Jul 2014, at 14:06, "user9253" wrote:
>
> Having two contactors in series makes sure that the circuit can be opened.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
Aside from some anecdotal references that are oft repeated at hangar flying
sessions and on the interwebs, have you or do you know of a specific
instance where a master contactor/solenoid of standard design failed
repeatedly? All mechanical things have "been known to fail", but we build
airplanes around the 99th percentile, not the 1th percentile. If you built
a perfectly safe airplane, it would be one that wouldn't leave the
ground....so to that end you design in for the 99th, but also take into
account the 1th percentiles without doing crazy things like putting in two
master contactors or two tachometers (unless of course you have two
batteries, or two busses, etc..). If you are going to put in two of those,
why not two starter buttons, or two circuit breakers for each circuit, or
two throttle cables, or two rudders, or two elevator pushrods, (after all,
those have also been known to fail)? You still do only have one camshaft
and one propeller and one crankshaft and one carb/fuel injector, one brain,
etc..
My point is that the probability of failure of that specific components is
likely less than the probability of other equally as important mechanical
things in your plane. There is no reason to randomly pick one particular
component and focus on it over another when it has not proven to be a weak
point in the entire aerospace vehicle system design.
Just my 2 cents as usual, but one could come up with all sorts of 1th
percentile "possibilities" that are really not worth expending energy, time,
money, weight or complexity on as the return on all of that in actuality
becomes a negative. Remember, adding things for "redundancy" does not
necessarily and automatically translate into reliability - many times it has
the inverse effect (increased complexity = decreased reliability).
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 7:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual master solenoids
> are heavy duty continuous service relays any less reliable than mechanical
relays? If about the same reliability, what are the reasons that they aren't
used more often for a master solenoid?
There are several ways that a relay or contactor can fail. The contacts can
develop a high resistance, the coil can burn open, springs or other
mechanical parts can break, and etc. I do not know which type is more
likely to fail. The current carrying capability determines which relay or
contactor to use. Starters can draw a few hundred amps initially to get the
engine rotating. A 30 amp automotive relay would not last very long
carrying that much current.
So why have the starter current go though the master contactor? The
starter contactor could be wired directly to the battery. I think the
reason is that contactors have been known to fail closed. Having two
contactors in series makes sure that the circuit can be opened.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426626#426626
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
At 08:57 AM 7/15/2014, you wrote:
>
>It's also a safety issue with some starter configurations. For
>instance if you had a momentary push button for the starter instead
>of a key switch, even with the master off you would still be able to
>push the button and turn the prop.
Irrespective of the kind of switch that energizes
the starter, I'm aware of no TC aircraft, or any
OBAM aircraft wired per a Z-figure where this is
the cased. The general rule of thumb for all
airplanes is that opening the battery master
contactor removes ALL power from the aircraft
except for those items wired to a battery bus.
Starters should be dead-in-place with the
battery master off.
>I have this configuration and as an added safety while the aircraft
>is stopped and the master needs to be on, I always pull the starter CB.
How was it that you came to wire your airplane
this way?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
My point is that the probability of failure of that specific components is
likely less than the probability of other equally as important mechanical
things in your plane. There is no reason to randomly pick one particular
component and focus on it over another when it has not proven to be a weak
point in the entire aerospace vehicle system design.
Precisely . . .
When opening the seminar segment on
reliability, I like to put a z-figure
up on the screen, point to a component
and ask, "What do you need to do if THIS
part malfunctions?"
At least one participant will suggest
that it be replaced with a 'better part'.
That's the segment where I pose the notion
that the flight SYSTEM consists of an airframe,
pilot, environment and expendable resources.
From the time the wheels break ground until
you're parked at the destination, the design
goal is not break a sweat . . . irrespective
of any component failure.
The last few ideas offered at the end of
the segment suggests that it doesn't matter
if you buy electrical parts from Autozone, $high$
parts from Honeywell or TC aircraft parts from
the Cessna warehouse . . . it is possible to
ARCHITECTURE the electrical system such that
no single component failure will induce an
in-flight sweat.
In the final analysis, you're more likely
to have a bad day in the cockpit driven by
events and conditions far removed from
things electrical. #1 cause of engine
stoppage is fuel starvation. #1 cause
for unplanned arrivals with the earth
are most often based on human factors for dealing
with environment: weather, mountains,
night ops, etc.) As we have studied many
times here on the List . . . mishaps
that included electrical issues were
FIRST driven by lapses in assembly skills,
failure tolerant design or poor maintenance.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ky7szec
In other words, "two parts" or a "better
part" would not have produced a better
outcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
>It's also a safety issue with some starter configurations. For instance
>if you had a momentary push button for the starter instead of a key
>switch, even with the master off you would still be able to push the
>button and turn the prop.
Irrespective of the kind of switch that energizes
the starter, I'm aware of no TC aircraft, or any
OBAM aircraft wired per a Z-figure where this is
the cased. The general rule of thumb for all
airplanes is that opening the battery master
contactor removes ALL power from the aircraft
except for those items wired to a battery bus.
Starters should be dead-in-place with the
battery master off.
Hi Bob, I was referring to the hypothetical situation that Joe brought up
where the starter contactor would be always hot, i.e. wired to the battery
bus.
>I have this configuration and as an added safety while the aircraft is
>stopped and the master needs to be on, I always pull the starter CB.
How was it that you came to wire your airplane
this way?
My apologies, I wasn't very clear... My electrical setup is essentially
Z-16, but the starter button is a push button. So whenever I am tinkering
around on the ground and the master needs to be on, I pull the starter CB
just to be safe. Another situation is when my three year old wants to sit
next to me in the a/c and see the panel light up and pretend he's flying the
aircraft... :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
My apologies, I wasn't very clear... My electrical setup is essentially
Z-16, but the starter button is a push button. So whenever I am tinkering
around on the ground and the master needs to be on, I pull the starter CB
just to be safe. Another situation is when my three year old wants to sit
next to me in the a/c and see the panel light up and pretend he's flying the
aircraft... :)
Understand . . . thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> I was referring to the hypothetical situation that Joe brought up
> where the starter contactor would be always hot, i.e. wired to the battery
> bus.
I did not bring that up. I was referring to tomhanaway's post where he wrote,
"the always hot side of the starter solenoid (always hot when master solenoid
is hot)".
It is much easier to understand each other when talking face to face compared
to email or forum postings. :-)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426748#426748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
>
> It is much easier to understand each other when talking face to
> face compared to email or forum postings.
I'm wrestling with a similar phenomenon in
crafting recommendations for crafting requirements
documents. I use as many drawings and pictures as
I can . . . a picture is worth 10,000 words.
The flip side is not true . . . 10,000 words interpreted
by ten different readers will NOT create identical
images in the minds of the readers. My clients
a loath to ask their charges to learn to draw . . .
That's why I use my scanner, cameras and links to
posted illustrations to augment the words . . . you
can't have too many pictures but more words you
have, the fuzzier the ideas become.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MikeDunlop" <mdunlop001(at)aol.com> |
A little clarification required on the Z-13/8 schematic. I'm building this into
a Long-Ez and have the SD-8 with all the bits from B&C.
The Z-13/8 schematic shows something that is marked as W10 that appears to be between
the Dynamo and the Regulator! This does NOT appear on the schematic from
B&C.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Regards
MikeD (UK)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426799#426799
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual master solenoids |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I say "ditto" to everything Stein said. I firmly believe that one well-built system
is better than a poor one with a backup... or a couple backups.
My philosophy even extents to Ballistic Parachute Systems (which have been around
for almost a century). My analysis says that a set of well-built and tested
wings on a GA aircraft with no backup is a better way to go.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426803#426803
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P Lead Wires Adjacent to Headset Jack Wires |
| From: | "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
In the interests of killing two birds with one stone, could I run my headset and
mic jack wires in the same 3/8" dia aluminum conduit as my mags' P lead wires
without screwing up my audio signals? Inasmuch as the P lead wires need to
be shielded I'm thinking this is probably a really bad idea and would probably
cripple my audio but as it would make such a slick installation in my case I
thought I'd ask.
(Plain, old, Bendix mags, Garmin SL40 com).
Thanks.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426817#426817
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P Lead Wires Adjacent to Headset Jack Wires |
At 11:43 PM 7/16/2014, you wrote:
>
>In the interests of killing two birds with one stone, could I run my
>headset and mic jack wires in the same 3/8" dia aluminum conduit as
>my mags' P lead wires without screwing up my audio
>signals? Inasmuch as the P lead wires need to be shielded I'm
>thinking this is probably a really bad idea and would probably
>cripple my audio but as it would make such a slick installation in
>my case I thought I'd ask.
Not a problem as long as you pay due
homage to the physics gods . . . the
shields for the p-leads should not
come to ground at any location but the
engine-end. Shields for the audio system
terminate at the 'radio end'.
But I'm curious, how is it that locations
of the various and sundry components made
this conduit an attractive option for
holding this combination of wires?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Jones <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: P Lead Wires Adjacent to Headset Jack Wires |
Thanks Bob, I really appreciate the advice and help.
I'm restoring a Stearman. The headset & mic jacks and intercom PTT for
the front seat all reside on the front instrument panel. The radio and
txdr are in a box in the rear cockpit mounted to the back of the front
seat ahead of the stick. The mag switch is on the rear instrument panel
on the extreme left and the airplane's main DC wiring harness runs down
the right hand side of the fuselage from the rear cockpit to the
firewall J box. I wanted to keep as much room as possible between the
main harness and the audio harnesses so the front seat harness is going
to run down the left hand side of the front cockpit and then downwards
once abeam the rear instrument panel to the radio box. To protect the
audio harness I want to run it in a small aluminum conduit and as that
will parallel the P leads anyway I thought wouldn't it be slick if the P
leads could be in there as well? A zinc chromate painted conduit of
that size will be nicely camouflaged amongst all the link rods over
there anyway and won't look as out of place as a bundle of small, 21st
Century wiring would.
And all the fat wires and fuses are up on the firewall inside the
junction box and well away from the avionics in the back. The only CB's
in the system are for the VHF, txdr, and the Alt field. The design goal
for the airplane from the beginning was airline quality VHF radio -
something that in an old open cockpit biplane is abit of a rarity!
Thanks for the help!
Dan Jones
On 7/17/2014 7:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 11:43 PM 7/16/2014, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the interests of killing two birds with one stone, could I run my
>> headset and mic jack wires in the same 3/8" dia aluminum conduit as
>> my mags' P lead wires without screwing up my audio signals? Inasmuch
>> as the P lead wires need to be shielded I'm thinking this is probably
>> a really bad idea and would probably cripple my audio but as it would
>> make such a slick installation in my case I thought I'd ask.
>
> Not a problem as long as you pay due
> homage to the physics gods . . . the
> shields for the p-leads should not
> come to ground at any location but the
> engine-end. Shields for the audio system
> terminate at the 'radio end'.
>
> But I'm curious, how is it that locations
> of the various and sundry components made
> this conduit an attractive option for
> holding this combination of wires?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: P Lead Wires Adjacent to Headset Jack Wires |
| From: | "stearman456" <warbirds(at)shaw.ca> |
Thanks Bob, I really appreciate the advice and help.
I'm restoring a Stearman. The headset & mic jacks and intercom PTT for the front
seat all reside on the front instrument panel. The radio and txdr are in a
box in the rear cockpit mounted to the back of the front seat ahead of the stick.
The mag switch is on the rear instrument panel on the extreme left and the
airplane's main DC wiring harness runs down the right hand side of the fuselage
from the rear cockpit to the firewall J box. I wanted to keep as much room
as possible between the main harness and the audio harnesses so the front seat
harness is going to run down the left hand side of the front cockpit and then
downwards once abeam the rear instrument panel to the radio box. To protect
the audio harness I want to run it in a small aluminum conduit and as that
will parallel the P leads anyway I thought wouldn't it be slick if the P leads
could be in there as well? A zinc chromate painted conduit of that size will
be nicely camouflaged amongst all the link rods over there anyway and won't look
as out of place as a bundle of small, 21st Century wiring would.
And all the fat wires and fuses are up on the firewall inside the junction box
and well away from the avionics in the back. The only CB's in the system are
for the VHF, txdr, and the Alt field. The design goal for the airplane from the
beginning was airline quality VHF radio - something that in an old open cockpit
biplane is abit of a rarity!
Thanks for the help!
Dan Jones
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426837#426837
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P Lead Wires Adjacent to Headset Jack Wires |
>
>And all the fat wires and fuses are up on the firewall inside the
>junction box and well away from the avionics in the back. The only
>CB's in the system are for the VHF, txdr, and the Alt field. The
>design goal for the airplane from the beginning was airline quality
>VHF radio - something that in an old open cockpit biplane is abit of a rarity!
Nothing in your narrative suggests any
potential for 'gotchas' . . . but in
any case, your risks are low . . . the
worst case says you'll discover some
effect we've not considered. Let us
know the outcome!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter contactors caused
my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit disorder) to kick in.
I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically dependent auto
engine conversion in an RV-7.
Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained contactor/bendix,
and a starter contactor, could a case be made for switching the cockpit
loads with smaller (lower coil current draw) contactors or even heavy duty
switches, and using only the heavy starter contactor between the battery &
starter?
I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and the
starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks, current would
still be removed from the starter when the button is released. There would
be no voltage available on the starter's heavy wire except during starting,
as is current practice (pardon the pun). The only failed-on single point
should be the momentary push-to-start button.
Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more
importantly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master contactor. If I
elect to go with a single alternator (weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw
of the main contactor is a significant percentage of load in a failed
alternator situation. Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45
minutes or more (typically plenty of time to find a runway) while operating
'battery only' using common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
Thoughts?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: battery choice |
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
>Finally got the plane back together yesterday from the panel upgrade,
>and am reporting back to the list with the results. I installed one of
>these as the main battery:
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001G8FY38/ref=oh_aui_>>detailpage_o07_s00?.ie=UTF8&psc=1
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001G8FY38/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1>
...
>
>...I was only able to do taxi testing yesterday due to weather, however,
>the UB12220 battery turned the engine over just as fast as the previous
>B&C battery, so no issues with cranking power (in summer at least).
>I'll let you know more as I test further.
FWIW, I installed a pair of those in my as yet unfinished -8. It seems my
battery tender jr smoked them....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Charlie,
I believe the driver for a master contacted has been the airworthiness regs
- FAR23 and CS23 - which require one switch to shut off all electrical
power, or words to that effect. If the load is 10s of amps (heated pitot,
incandescent landing light, stack of old radios, etc) then a contactor was
the only sensible way to go.
There are now good reasons to question that kind of requirement, and do
what you suggest. In my aeroplane, that has a conventional engine. The
typical current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular switch.
Some aerobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an SD-8. Also the
load switched on first operation is likely to be small if all the services
are switched off on shut down. I see no fundamental reason not to do what
you suggest, although you may have to be a little more careful in how you
operate.
The only draw back is the stuck starter relay scenario. Using a double pole
momentary may work, but you could also consider a separate switch in the
line to the starter piggy-back solenoid. That way if the starter relay
fails closed at least it will be obvious.
Peter
On Jul 18, 2014 8:35 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
> Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter contactors caused
> my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit disorder) to kick in.
>
> I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically dependent auto
> engine conversion in an RV-7.
> Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained contactor/bendix,
> and a starter contactor, could a case be made for switching the cockpit
> loads with smaller (lower coil current draw) contactors or even heavy duty
> switches, and using only the heavy starter contactor between the battery &
> starter?
>
> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and the
> starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks, current would
> still be removed from the starter when the button is released. There would
> be no voltage available on the starter's heavy wire except during starting,
> as is current practice (pardon the pun). The only failed-on single point
> should be the momentary push-to-start button.
>
> Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more
> importantly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master contactor. If I
> elect to go with a single alternator (weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw
> of the main contactor is a significant percentage of load in a failed
> alternator situation. Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45
> minutes or more (typically plenty of time to find a runway) while operating
> 'battery only' using common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Charlie
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
you may have replied to me by accident!
that wasn't my question.
my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp breaker i
nstead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
you may want to refer to my email again for all details thank you !
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:53 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote
:
>
> Charlie,
> I believe the driver for a master contacted has been the airworthiness reg
s - FAR23 and CS23 - which require one switch to shut off all electrical pow
er, or words to that effect. If the load is 10s of amps (heated pitot, incan
descent landing light, stack of old radios, etc) then a contactor was the on
ly sensible way to go.
>
> There are now good reasons to question that kind of requirement, and do wh
at you suggest. In my aeroplane, that has a conventional engine. The typical
current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular switch. Some ae
robatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an SD-8. Also the load sw
itched on first operation is likely to be small if all the services are swit
ched off on shut down. I see no fundamental reason not to do what you sugges
t, although you may have to be a little more careful in how you operate.
>
> The only draw back is the stuck starter relay scenario. Using a double pol
e momentary may work, but you could also consider a separate switch in the l
ine to the starter piggy-back solenoid. That way if the starter relay fails c
losed at least it will be obvious.
>
> Peter
>> On Jul 18, 2014 8:35 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
>> Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter contactors cause
d my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit disorder) to kick in.
>>
>> I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically dependent auto e
ngine conversion in an RV-7.
>> Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained contactor/bendix
, and a starter contactor, could a case be made for switching the cockpit lo
ads with smaller (lower coil current draw) contactors or even heavy duty swi
tches, and using only the heavy starter contactor between the battery & star
ter?
>>
>> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and the s
tarter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks, current would still
be removed from the starter when the button is released. There would be no v
oltage available on the starter's heavy wire except during starting, as is c
urrent practice (pardon the pun). The only failed-on single point should be t
he momentary push-to-start button.
>>
>> Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more important
ly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master contactor. If I elect to g
o with a single alternator (weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the main c
ontactor is a significant percentage of load in a failed alternator situatio
n. Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45 minutes or more (typi
cally plenty of time to find a runway) while operating 'battery only' using
common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li
st
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
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: | Ken <kleh(at)dialupatcost.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
In regards to electric dependent engines, it is common to NOT feed it
through a battery "contactor" anyway. My engine runs off the battery bus
and will keep running if the master switch/contactor is off.
My battery contactors draw less than an amp each. Do consider the
architectures here that would de-energize them in a dead alternator
situation anyway.
Note that unlike continuous duty battery contactors, starter contactors
draw several amps, are rated for intermittent use only, and are designed
to interrupt large starter currents. There has been some question as to
whether a battery contactor will in fact open if the starter is running.
I will test that if my starter solenoid ever sticks on as my subaru
starter is wired through the battery contactor with no separate starter
contactor other than the integral starter solenoid. That seemed
reasonable to me and hopefully slightly safer than how all my cars are
wired. It also seemed reasonable to try preserve much of the intent of
killing all non essential electrical wiring with a contactor located at
the battery. The battery, with its ability to deliver large currents, is
the most dangerous electrical item on board.
Ken
On 19/07/2014 2:53 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
> Charlie,
> I believe the driver for a master contacted has been the airworthiness
> regs - FAR23 and CS23 - which require one switch to shut off all
> electrical power, or words to that effect. If the load is 10s of amps
> (heated pitot, incandescent landing light, stack of old radios, etc)
> then a contactor was the only sensible way to go.
>
> There are now good reasons to question that kind of requirement, and do
> what you suggest. In my aeroplane, that has a conventional engine. The
> typical current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular
> switch. Some aerobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an
> SD-8. Also the load switched on first operation is likely to be small if
> all the services are switched off on shut down. I see no fundamental
> reason not to do what you suggest, although you may have to be a little
> more careful in how you operate.
>
> The only draw back is the stuck starter relay scenario. Using a double
> pole momentary may work, but you could also consider a separate switch
> in the line to the starter piggy-back solenoid. That way if the starter
> relay fails closed at least it will be obvious.
>
> Peter
>
> On Jul 18, 2014 8:35 PM, "Charlie England" > wrote:
>
> Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter contactors
> caused my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit disorder) to
> kick in.
>
> I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically dependent
> auto engine conversion in an RV-7.
> Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained
> contactor/bendix, and a starter contactor, could a case be made for
> switching the cockpit loads with smaller (lower coil current draw)
> contactors or even heavy duty switches, and using only the heavy
> starter contactor between the battery & starter?
>
> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and
> the starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks,
> current would still be removed from the starter when the button is
> released. There would be no voltage available on the starter's heavy
> wire except during starting, as is current practice (pardon the
> pun). The only failed-on single point should be the momentary
> push-to-start button.
>
> Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more
> importantly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master
> contactor. If I elect to go with a single alternator (weight,
> simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the main contactor is a significant
> percentage of load in a failed alternator situation. Note that
> similar engine installs have flown for 45 minutes or more (typically
> plenty of time to find a runway) while operating 'battery only'
> using common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
At 07:59 AM 7/19/2014, you wrote:
>you may have replied to me by accident!
>that wasn't my question.
>my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp
>breaker instead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
Need to see your schematic . . . how do
you propose to use the crowbar ovm in
conjunction with a 60A breaker?
These devices are not intended to be used
in any manner other than what's depicted
in AEC or B&C drawings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
In regards to electric dependent engines, it is common to NOT feed it
through a battery "contactor" anyway. My engine runs off the battery
bus and will keep running if the master switch/contactor is off.
Feeders from an always-hot bus are allowed in TC
aircraft when protected at 5A or less. This is
a crash-safety concern. For the OBAM aircraft,
one is free to wire it like any other vehicle
including automobiles that generally don't included
battery disconnect switching (except for some
racing jurisdictions).
Note that unlike continuous duty battery contactors, starter
contactors draw several amps, are rated for intermittent use only,
and are designed to interrupt large starter currents. There has been
some question as to whether a battery contactor will in fact open if
the starter is running.
Was that question posed here on the List?
The answer is YES . . . it will break the
power path to a stuck starter contactor . . .
The battery, with its ability to deliver large currents, is the most
dangerous electrical item on board.
Precisely. I recall a conversation with an accident
investigator some years back who made the
anecdotal observation that when the airplane
burned after impact, it's battery was more
likely to be still inside a rather compact arrangement
of wreckage.
When the wreckage was widely scattered with
the battery separated from the rest
of the airplane, the incidences of post crash
fire seemed lower.
The typical current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular
switch. Some aerobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an
SD-8. Also the load switched on first operation is likely to be small if
all the services are switched off on shut down. I see no fundamental
reason not to do what you suggest, although you may have to be a little
more careful in how you operate.
The battery master disconnect does not have to be
a contactor. The first airplane in which I took
dual instruction had a fat toggle switch and
a fat starter push-button . . . no contactors
at all.
I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and
the starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks,
current would still be removed from the starter when the button is
released. There would be no voltage available on the starter's heavy
wire except during starting, as is current practice (pardon the
pun). The only failed-on single point should be the momentary
push-to-start button.
Incidences of starter contactor sticking are
rare . . . the risk goes up markedly when the
pilot attempts to get the engine going with
a seriously discharged or perhaps an un-flightworthy
battery. Render due diligence in the maintenance
of your battery and don't worry about 'sicking
contactors'.
There'no prohibition for using the starter's
bui9lt in contactor-solenoid but be aware of
the extra abusive nature of pull-in spikes
with increased ware on the starter switch
cnotacts. This over-looked feature was root cause
for an AD against ACS-510 key-switches in
a bit of bureaucratic paper-thrashing that
at first produced a worthless 'fix' and was
later revised to add a spike suppression
diode to the contactor.
Bill and I pondered this phenomenon at
length in the early days of the B&C lightweight
starters and elected to side-step the
issue in it's entirety by suggesting an
EXTERNAL contactor with a lower operating
current and BUILT IN suppression diode.
This was a one-solution fits all contingency
installations and had nothing to do with
worries for contactors sticking shut.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
See http://tinyurl.com/ott27no
for an explanation of the extra-ordinarily
abusive inrush currents for the built-in
contactor-solenoid. This phenomenon has been
extra-ordinarily hard on key-starts switches in
cars too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
On 7/19/2014 9:34 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> In regards to electric dependent engines, it is common to NOT feed it
> through a battery "contactor" anyway. My engine runs off the battery
> bus and will keep running if the master switch/contactor is off.
>
> * Feeders from an always-hot bus are allowed in TC
> aircraft when protected at 5A or less. This is
> a crash-safety concern. For the OBAM aircraft,
> one is free to wire it like any other vehicle
> including automobiles that generally don't included
> battery disconnect switching (except for some
> racing jurisdictions).
> *
> Note that unlike continuous duty battery contactors, starter
> contactors draw several amps, are rated for intermittent use only, and
> are designed to interrupt large starter currents. There has been some
> question as to whether a battery contactor will in fact open if the
> starter is running.
>
> * Was that question posed here on the List?
> The answer is YES . . . it will break the
> power path to a stuck starter contactor . . .
> *
> The battery, with its ability to deliver large currents, is the most
> dangerous electrical item on board.
>
> *Precisely. I recall a conversation with an accident
> investigator some years back who made the
> anecdotal observation that when the airplane
> burned after impact, it's battery was more
> likely to be still inside a rather compact arrangement
> of wreckage.
>
> When the wreckage was widely scattered with
> the battery separated from the rest
> of the airplane, the incidences of post crash
> fire seemed lower.
> *
> The typical current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular
> switch. Some aerobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an
> SD-8. Also the load switched on first operation is likely to be small if
> all the services are switched off on shut down. I see no fundamental
> reason not to do what you suggest, although you may have to be a little
> more careful in how you operate.
>
> *The battery master disconnect does not have to be
> a contactor. The first airplane in which I took
> dual instruction had a fat toggle switch and
> a fat starter push-button . . . no contactors
> at all.
> *
> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and
> the starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks,
> current would still be removed from the starter when the button is
> released. There would be no voltage available on the starter's heavy
> wire except during starting, as is current practice (pardon the
> pun). The only failed-on single point should be the momentary
> push-to-start button.
>
> *Incidences of starter contactor sticking are
> rare . . . the risk goes up markedly when the
> pilot attempts to get the engine going with
> a seriously discharged or perhaps an un-flightworthy
> battery. Render due diligence in the maintenance
> of your battery and don't worry about 'sicking
> contactors'.
>
> There'no prohibition for using the starter's
> bui9lt in contactor-solenoid but be aware of
> the extra abusive nature of pull-in spikes
> with increased ware on the starter switch
> cnotacts. This over-looked feature was root cause
> for an AD against ACS-510 key-switches in
> a bit of bureaucratic paper-thrashing that
> at first produced a worthless 'fix' and was
> later revised to add a spike suppression
> diode to the contactor.
>
> Bill and I pondered this phenomenon at
> length in the early days of the B&C lightweight
> starters and elected to side-step the
> issue in it's entirety by suggesting an
> EXTERNAL contactor with a lower operating
> current and BUILT IN suppression diode.
>
> This was a one-solution fits all contingency
> installations and had nothing to do with
> worries for contactors sticking shut.
>
>
> *
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Just read your article (from link in subsequent post)on dual windings in
starter solenoids; very helpful.
From your comments above, it sounds like I could simply wire the
starter like the B&C design in fig 6 of the article, but directly from
the battery to run the starter. This would remove the need for the
typical heavy (and high coil current) master contactor, allowing a
lighter duty relay or switch for the in-cabin loads.
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
why am I getting everybody's questions and answers to me from other people
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 10:36 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/ott27no
>
> for an explanation of the extra-ordinarily
> abusive inrush currents for the built-in
> contactor-solenoid. This phenomenon has been
> extra-ordinarily hard on key-starts switches in
> cars too.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Jon,
You must have subscribed to the AeroElectric connection email list. Anytime a
n email is sent to "aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" you will receive a copy
of that email.
It is sort of a think tank with some very knowledgeable people that read and
respond to questions.
Hope this answers your question.
Justin
On Jul 19, 2014, at 7:15, jon molek wrote:
> why am I getting everybody's questions and answers to me from other people
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 10:36 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/ott27no
>>
>> for an explanation of the extra-ordinarily
>> abusive inrush currents for the built-in
>> contactor-solenoid. This phenomenon has been
>> extra-ordinarily hard on key-starts switches in
>> cars too.
>>
>>
>> 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: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
yes thank you that explains it I know how to stop it but my main question wa
s never answered maybe you can answer it
originally wrote
I'm installing a overvoltage module (Ovm 14) from B&C and wiring it as sugge
sted in the external regulatored diagram. (of B&C)
problem is the regulator IN shows it's hooked to a 5 amp breaker my system i
s the Cessna type system that has a 60 amp breaker only will the 60 amp brea
ker work properly meaning if I hook to that will it kick it when overloaded ?
& or will it burnout the Ovm?
or do you have another means of hooking the Ovm up ?(normally they use the f
ield it has a 5amp)
john
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Justin Jones wr
ote:
>
> Jon,
>
> You must have subscribed to the AeroElectric connection email list. Anytim
e an email is sent to "aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" you will receive a c
opy of that email.
>
> It is sort of a think tank with some very knowledgeable people that read a
nd respond to questions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 7:15, jon molek wrote:
>>
>> why am I getting everybody's questions and answers to me from other peopl
e
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 10:36 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> See http://tinyurl.com/ott27no
>>>
>>> for an explanation of the extra-ordinarily
>>> abusive inrush currents for the built-in
>>> contactor-solenoid. This phenomenon has been
>>> extra-ordinarily hard on key-starts switches in
>>> cars too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> 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=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> 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=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=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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
Just read your article (from link in subsequent
post)on dual windings in starter solenoids; very helpful.
From your comments above, it sounds like I could
simply wire the starter like the B&C design in
fig 6 of the article, but directly from the
battery to run the starter. This would remove the
need for the typical heavy (and high coil
current) master contactor, allowing a lighter
duty relay or switch for the in-cabin loads.
Thanks,
Charlie
You wrote:
Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor
weight, and more importantly, saving the 2+amps
of draw by the normal master contactor.
Actually, 1A or less . . . See
http://tinyurl.com/mpcgp3t
and . . .
http://tinyurl.com/k6bwdqo
If I elect to go with a single alternator
(weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the main
contactor is a significant percentage of load in a failed alternator
situation.
What size alternator do you anticipate
installing?
Note that similar engine installs have flown for
45 minutes or more (typically plenty of time to
find a runway) while operating 'battery only'
using =C2 common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
Is this a day-vfr fun machine or
do plan to travel? Is 45 minutes
your battery-only endurance
target . . . or would fuel endurance
be more attractive? Have you
crafted a load analysis for the purpose
of sizing the battery to your battery-
only endurance target?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
>\
I'm installing a overvoltage module (Ovm 14) from B&C and wiring it
as suggested in the external regulatored diagram. (of B&C) problem is
the regulator IN shows it's hooked to a 5 amp breaker my system is
the Cessna type system that has a 60 amp breaker only will the 60 amp
breaker work properly meaning if I hook to that will it kick it when
overloaded ?& or will it burnout the Ovm? or do you have another
means of hooking the Ovm up ?(normally they use the field it has a 5amp)
If the system to which you are adding
ov protection is a 'Cessna type', then there
are two breakers. The 60A is the alternator
b-lead on the panel, Recommend that be replaced
with 60A current limiter on the firewall.
Also 5A breaker for the alternator field supply.
This breaker would feed one side of the
split-rocker battery-master/alternator switch. The
OVM would mount right at them master
to the feedpoint that's wired to the 5A
breaker.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
On 7/19/2014 12:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Just read your article (from link in subsequent post)on dual windings
> in starter solenoids; very helpful.
>
> From your comments above, it sounds like I could simply wire the
> starter like the B&C design in fig 6 of the article, but directly from
> the battery to run the starter. This would remove the need for the
> typical heavy (and high coil current) master contactor, allowing a
> lighter duty relay or switch for the in-cabin loads.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
> *You wrote:
>
> *Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more
> importantly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master contactor.
>
> * Actually, 1A or less . . . See
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mpcgp3t
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/mpcgp3t> and . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/k6bwdqo
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/k6bwdqo>*If I elect to go with a single alternator
> (weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the main contactor is a
> significant percentage of load in a failed alternator situation.
>
>
> * What size alternator do you anticipate
> installing?
>
> *Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45 minutes or more
> (typically plenty of time to find a runway) while operating 'battery
> only' using common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>
> * Is this a day-vfr fun machine or
> do plan to travel? Is 45 minutes
> your battery-only endurance
> target . . . or would fuel endurance
> be more attractive? Have you
> crafted a load analysis for the purpose
> of sizing the battery to your battery-
> only endurance target?
>
> *
>
> Bob . . .
>
Wow; to speak Mississippi, who'd a thunk that <11 watts could heat that
chunk of metal to 160 degrees in free air.
Alternator is a Denso off a Suzuki Samurai; 60 A. Total continuous load
is ~25A; calculated load can reduce to <16A for engine-only operation,
but I suspect that it goes significantly lower in the real world. The
reason is, as I've mentioned, similar engines (Mazda rotary with
electronic injection/ignition & automotive high pressure electric fuel
pump), have flown for >45 minutes on battery-only using 'typical'
18-20AH SLA batteries.
The plane will be used day-vfr initially, but will have a panel that's
capable of IFR flight (if I ever become capable). Load for IFR would go
up by ~15A max (heated pitot).
Yes, I'd like to have the fuel endurance option. I actually have a 2nd
Denso alternator, and a 20A dynamo, one of which may yet find its way
onto the engine as 2nd source of energy. But it's really hard to add the
weight & complexity for a vfr only a/c.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list.
>Gotta find a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
mention any changes to hardware or software but
that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
related bug.
Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
and email application software. Also, is this the
ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
that might still be functioning as desired?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
I can't offer a solution, but I have the same issue. Anything I send to the
server is not echoed back to me, but everyone else's posts come through. D
oesn't bother me too much, as long as I see the replies.
Unfortunately, I don't: One annoying issue that could perhaps be solved on t
he server end is that many emails from the list end up in my email account's
spam folder. If the server sent all emails with a common "From" address, w
e could put that address in our address book or whitelist and stop this prob
lem immediately. But, since the server echoes each message with the origina
l sender's address in the "From" field, there's no way I can stop the spam f
ilter from grabbing them. At least no way that I've been able to discover.
Eric
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 3:20 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Afternoon Bob,
>>
>> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gotta fi
nd a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>
> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling with a peculiar probl
em. Seems he gets all the list traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he s
ends to the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>
> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't mention any changes to hard
ware or software but that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade related b
ug.
>
> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine and email application sof
tware. Also, is this the ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
that might still be functioning as desired?
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Greenley <wgreenley(at)gmail.com> |
Same for me, even when just using gmail. I assumed that was how the list
works.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Bob,
>
> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gotta
> find a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
> with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
> traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
> the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>
> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
> mention any changes to hardware or software but
> that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
> related bug.
>
> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
> and email application software. Also, is this the
> ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
> that might still be functioning as desired?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Maybe you are not really sending your message to the AE list but to an original
poster or to a bogus address.
I have noticed one thing in the Apple email program. If I click "reply" at the
top of the mail window, it will insert the AE address. If I click on the AE
address in the message and select "reply to sender" it will insert the original
poster's address.
My wife often starts an email. As she begins to type the recipient's address,
the mail program searches through all the old saved emails and address book and
shows her a bunch of options for that address. Unfortunately, some of the addresses
are out of date so she will sometimes send it to a bad address. Usually
she'll get a "could not deliver message" though, that's when she calls the
expert . . . :-)
-Kent
On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Afternoon Bob,
>>
>> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gotta find
a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>
> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
> with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
> traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
> the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>
> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
> mention any changes to hardware or software but
> that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
> related bug.
>
> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
> and email application software. Also, is this the
> ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
> that might still be functioning as desired?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/19/2014 6:36 PM, William Greenley wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> wrote:
>> Good Afternoon Bob,
>>
>> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list.
>> Gotta find a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my
>> messages!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>
> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
> with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
> traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
> the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>
> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
> mention any changes to hardware or software but
> that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
> related bug.
>
> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
> and email application software. Also, is this the
> ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
> that might still be functioning as desired?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Same for me, even when just using gmail. I assumed that was how
> the list works.
>
I've had it happen to me, as well, but it doesn't seem to be consistent
and I'm pretty sure I've had it happen with other, non-Matronics lists.
For troubleshooting purposes, it might be useful to supply info on what
email client (if any) is being used. I use Thunderbird, but sometimes
check mail using Gmail's web interface using the computer in the shop.
For a while, I assumed that the host(s)'s list server software had
changed the way it distributed email, but since it's not consistent, I'm
mystified as to the cause.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
While that can happen, I've sent messages to various lists, not received
a copy, then gotten replies from another member quoting my message.
Charlie
On 7/19/2014 6:55 PM, Kent or Jackie Ashton wrote:
>
> Maybe you are not really sending your message to the AE list but to an original
poster or to a bogus address.
>
> I have noticed one thing in the Apple email program. If I click "reply" at the
top of the mail window, it will insert the AE address. If I click on the AE
address in the message and select "reply to sender" it will insert the original
poster's address.
>
> My wife often starts an email. As she begins to type the recipient's address,
the mail program searches through all the old saved emails and address book
and shows her a bunch of options for that address. Unfortunately, some of the
addresses are out of date so she will sometimes send it to a bad address. Usually
she'll get a "could not deliver message" though, that's when she calls the
expert . . . :-)
> -Kent
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>> Good Afternoon Bob,
>>>
>>> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gotta find
a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>>>
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>>
>> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
>> with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
>> traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
>> the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>>
>> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
>> mention any changes to hardware or software but
>> that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
>> related bug.
>>
>> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
>> and email application software. Also, is this the
>> ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
>> that might still be functioning as desired?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp breaker instead
of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
A 60 amp breaker will most likely damage the OVM. No, it will not work properly
and could cause a fire. An alternator has two separate circuits: field circuit
and stator circuit. The 60 amp breaker protects the battery and wiring from
a shorted alternator stator winding. A 5 amp breaker protects the electrical
system from a shorted alternator field. The crowbar type OVM is designed to
trip a 5 amp breaker.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426989#426989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
I was replying to Charlie's questions about using a switch instead of a
contactor - that's why it is addressed to Charlie.
Why try to re-design the B&C implementation? Circuit breakers are
reasonably cheap, just go buy a 5a c/b!
I don't know how the B&C circuit was designed, but using a 60A c/b will
probably mean it doesn't work properly (takes too long to work) so I
suspect something expensive you are trying to protect will be damaged.
Peter
On 19/07/2014 13:59, jon molek wrote:
> you may have replied to me by accident!
> that wasn't my question.
> my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp
> breaker instead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
> you may want to refer to my email again for all details thank you !
> John
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:53 AM, Peter Pengilly > wrote:
>
>> Charlie,
>> I believe the driver for a master contacted has been the
>> airworthiness regs - FAR23 and CS23 - which require one switch to
>> shut off all electrical power, or words to that effect. If the load
>> is 10s of amps (heated pitot, incandescent landing light, stack of
>> old radios, etc) then a contactor was the only sensible way to go.
>>
>> There are now good reasons to question that kind of requirement, and
>> do what you suggest. In my aeroplane, that has a conventional engine.
>> The typical current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a
>> regular switch. Some aerobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only
>> use an SD-8. Also the load switched on first operation is likely to
>> be small if all the services are switched off on shut down. I see no
>> fundamental reason not to do what you suggest, although you may have
>> to be a little more careful in how you operate.
>>
>> The only draw back is the stuck starter relay scenario. Using a
>> double pole momentary may work, but you could also consider a
>> separate switch in the line to the starter piggy-back solenoid. That
>> way if the starter relay fails closed at least it will be obvious.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2014 8:35 PM, "Charlie England" > > wrote:
>>
>> Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter
>> contactors caused my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit
>> disorder) to kick in.
>>
>> I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically
>> dependent auto engine conversion in an RV-7.
>> Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained
>> contactor/bendix, and a starter contactor, could a case be made
>> for switching the cockpit loads with smaller (lower coil current
>> draw) contactors or even heavy duty switches, and using only the
>> heavy starter contactor between the battery & starter?
>>
>> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor
>> and the starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks,
>> current would still be removed from the starter when the button
>> is released. There would be no voltage available on the starter's
>> heavy wire except during starting, as is current practice (pardon
>> the pun). The only failed-on single point should be the momentary
>> push-to-start button.
>>
>> Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more
>> importantly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master
>> contactor. If I elect to go with a single alternator (weight,
>> simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the main contactor is a
>> significant percentage of load in a failed alternator situation.
>> Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45 minutes or
>> more (typically plenty of time to find a runway) while operating
>> 'battery only' using common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
I don't have a complete answer for you as a couple of you were using aol
addresses but I do know that if you're using a gmail address and send a
message or reply to a group which contains your gmail address then gmail
does not display your message in your Inbox. Here's a link to a gmail forum
that confirms this is how gmail is designed to work, it does offer a
workaround https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/RPxyd7uW4Hc
Tony Babb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Test
-->
While that can happen, I've sent messages to various lists, not received a
copy, then gotten replies from another member quoting my message.
Charlie
On 7/19/2014 6:55 PM, Kent or Jackie Ashton wrote:
> -->
>
> Maybe you are not really sending your message to the AE list but to an
original poster or to a bogus address.
>
> I have noticed one thing in the Apple email program. If I click "reply"
at the top of the mail window, it will insert the AE address. If I click on
the AE address in the message and select "reply to sender" it will insert
the original poster's address.
>
> My wife often starts an email. As she begins to type the recipient's
address, the mail program searches through all the old saved emails and
address book and shows her a bunch of options for that address.
Unfortunately, some of the addresses are out of date so she will sometimes
send it to a bad address. Usually she'll get a "could not deliver message"
though, that's when she calls the expert . . . :-)
> -Kent
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>> Good Afternoon Bob,
>>>
>>> I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gotta
find a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
>>>
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>>
>> Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
>> with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
>> traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
>> the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
>>
>> Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
>> mention any changes to hardware or software but
>> that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
>> related bug.
>>
>> Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
>> and email application software. Also, is this the
>> ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
>> that might still be functioning as desired?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
I tried using five amp breaker it won't kick the alternator in
have to have a 60 amp I guess
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote
:
>
> I was replying to Charlie's questions about using a switch instead of a co
ntactor - that's why it is addressed to Charlie.
>
> Why try to re-design the B&C implementation? Circuit breakers are reasonab
ly cheap, just go buy a 5a c/b!
> I don't know how the B&C circuit was designed, but using a 60A c/b will pr
obably mean it doesn't work properly (takes too long to work) so I suspect s
omething expensive you are trying to protect will be damaged.
>
> Peter
>
>> On 19/07/2014 13:59, jon molek wrote:
>> you may have replied to me by accident!
>> that wasn't my question.
>> my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp break
er instead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly
?
>> you may want to refer to my email again for all details thank you !
>> John
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:53 AM, Peter Pengilly wrot
e:
>>
>>> Charlie,
>>> I believe the driver for a master contacted has been the airworthiness r
egs - FAR23 and CS23 - which require one switch to shut off all e
lectrical power, or words to that effect. If the load is 10s of amps (heated
pitot, incandescent landing light, stack of old radios, etc) then a contact
or was the only sensible way to go.
>>>
>>> There are now good reasons to question that kind of requirement, and do w
hat you suggest. In my aeroplane, that has a conventional engine. The typica
l current draw is 8amps, which could be switched by a regular switch. Some a
erobatic aeroplanes do that, by they often only use an SD-8. Also the load s
witched on first operation is likely to be small if all the services are swi
tched off on shut down. I see no fundamental reason not to do what you sugge
st, although you may have to be a little more careful in how you operate.
>>>
>>> The only draw back is the stuck starter relay scenario. Using a double p
ole momentary may work, but you could also consider a separate switch in the
line to the starter piggy-back solenoid. That way if the starter relay fail
s closed at least it will be obvious.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>> On Jul 18, 2014 8:35 PM, "Charlie England" wrote
:
>>>> Someone's recent question/comment about master & starter contactors cau
sed my ARADD (aviation related attention deficit disorder) to kick in.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just beginning the wiring process on an electrically dependent auto
engine conversion in an RV-7.
>>>> Given the typical automotive starter with self-contained contactor/bend
ix, and a starter contactor, could a case be made for switching the cockpit l
oads with smaller (lower coil current draw) contactors or even heavy duty sw
itches, and using only the heavy starter contactor between the battery & sta
rter?
>>>>
>>>> I'm envisioning the starter button activating both the contactor and th
e starter's built-in contactor. This way, if either sticks, current would st
ill be removed from the starter when the button is released.
There would be no voltage available on the starter's heavy wire except du
ring starting, as is current practice (pardon the pun). The only failed-on s
ingle point should be the momentary push-to-start button.
>>>>
>>>> Motivation is saving a few ounces of contactor weight, and more importa
ntly, saving the 2+amps of draw by the normal master contactor. If I elect t
o go with a single alternator (weight, simplicity), the 2 amp draw of the ma
in contactor is a significant percentage of load in a failed alternator situ
ation. Note that similar engine installs have flown for 45 minutes or more (
typically plenty of time to find a runway) while operating 'battery only' us
ing common 18-20 AH SLA battery installations.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
you're saying instead of hooking it to the reg in from the alternator to th
e regulator ,Hook it to the field which has a five amp
that's what I thought I would do but didn't know if it would work
do I still need to change to a voltage limiter on the firewall ?if so what i
s it ?where do I get one?
Thank you
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2014, at 1:26 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
>
>> \
>
>
>
> I'm installing a overvoltage module (Ovm 14) from B&C and wiring it as sug
gested in the external regulatored diagram. (of B&C) problem is the regulato
r IN shows it's hooked to a 5 amp breaker my system is the Cessna type syste
m that has a 60 amp breaker only will the 60 amp breaker work properly meani
ng if I hook to that will it kick it when overloaded ?& or will it burnout t
he Ovm? or do you have another means of hooking the Ovm up ?(normally they u
se the field it has a 5amp)
>
>
> If the system to which you are adding
> ov protection is a 'Cessna type', then there
> are two breakers. The 60A is the alternator
> b-lead on the panel, Recommend that be replaced
> with 60A current limiter on the firewall.
>
> Also 5A breaker for the alternator field supply.
> This breaker would feed one side of the
> split-rocker battery-master/alternator switch. The
> OVM would mount right at them master
> to the feedpoint that's wired to the 5A
> breaker.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
that's my thinking also but according to the drawing it says to hook to the regulator
and not the field if he wanted to hook it to the field it would've said
so
so I'm confused do I split the regulator in or split the field the field has the
breaker on & the regulator in doesn't
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 5:25 AM, "user9253" wrote:
>
>
>
>> my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp breaker
instead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
>
> A 60 amp breaker will most likely damage the OVM. No, it will not work properly
and could cause a fire. An alternator has two separate circuits: field circuit
and stator circuit. The 60 amp breaker protects the battery and wiring
from a shorted alternator stator winding. A 5 amp breaker protects the electrical
system from a shorted alternator field. The crowbar type OVM is designed
to trip a 5 amp breaker.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426989#426989
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
it sounds to me it's saying hook it to a five amp breaker the controls the system
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 5:25 AM, "user9253" wrote:
>
>
>
>> my question was on a overvoltage module (ovm) from B&C using 60 amp breaker
instead of a 5 amp will it hurt the ovm and will it work properly?
>
> A 60 amp breaker will most likely damage the OVM. No, it will not work properly
and could cause a fire. An alternator has two separate circuits: field circuit
and stator circuit. The 60 amp breaker protects the battery and wiring
from a shorted alternator stator winding. A 5 amp breaker protects the electrical
system from a shorted alternator field. The crowbar type OVM is designed
to trip a 5 amp breaker.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=426989#426989
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
How odd. I have gmail and get the digest, and have no such issues.
However, on another venue that is hosted on yahoo, I will sometimes get
peoples replies without ever having gotten the original post. Gotta love
technology.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Test Too!
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
Bob-
This is Old Bob's son Bob, and I have been trying to look into why he does
not receive the emails that he sends to the list. According to a help page
on AOL, the contents of which are attached, it seems to be associated with
the way that AOL handles messages from mailing list servers. I do not see a
ny work-around, but if someone else has some insight I will try to help Old
Bob make whatever changes that might be required.
Regards,
Bob Siegfried, II
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Test
At 02:18 PM 7/19/2014, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon Bob,
I still am not getting a copy of anything I send to the AE list. Gottafind
a good techie to see why my machine is blocking my messages!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Any pc byte thrashers out here? Ol' Bob is wrestling
with a peculiar problem. Seems he gets all the list
traffic to his mailbox EXCEPT those which he sends to
the list. We all see them but he doesn't.
Any suggestions as to where to look? He didn't
mention any changes to hardware or software but
that doesn't preclude some kind of an upgrade
related bug.
Bob, give us a top level rundown of your machine
and email application software. Also, is this the
ONLY machine you have? Do you perhaps have a laptop
that might still be functioning as desired?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
John,
Is the O.V. module being installed in an experimental airplane?
What make and model is it?
Are we talking about an alternator or dynamo or generator?
Is there an external voltage regulator?
Is this an existing electrical system that you are adding an O.V. module to?
If there is an existing alternator and external voltage regulator, then there should
also be a fuse or circuit breaker that supplies power to the voltage regulator.
The O.V. module needs to be connected between the 5 amp circuit breaker
and the voltage regulator (which is part of the field circuit).
Good advice can not be given without knowing all of the facts.
It is better to not install an O.V. module than to install it incorrectly.
> . . . .you may want to refer to my email again for all details thank you !
I can not find your original posting.
> why am I getting everybody's questions and answers to me from other people
Because you are posting in someone else's thread.
>
> do I still need to change to a voltage limiter on the firewall ?if so what is
it ?
Do you mean current limiter? It is sort of a robust very slow blow fuse.
Search for MIDI fuse or ANL fuse. A current limiter is a good idea, but is unrelated
to the O.V. module.
> do I split the regulator in or split the field the field has the breaker on &
the regulator in doesn't
Sorry, I do not understand that. If installing an O.V. module to an existing
electrical system, no splitting is necessary. Connect the O.V. module to the wire
that goes between the 5 amp breaker and the voltage regulator.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427018#427018
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
At 06:13 AM 7/20/2014, you wrote:
>I tried using five amp breaker it won't kick the alternator in
>have to have a 60 amp I guess
>
>Sent from my iPhone
A picture may be worth 10,000 words . . . but 10,000
words never describes the same picture in the
minds of all readers.
Are you wiring to a published schematic that
we can download and all pray over at the same
time? If you've modified a published schematic,
then a scanned copy of your changes will
offer all of us a reasonable chance of understanding
your design goals and offering a solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
At 06:13 AM 7/20/2014, you wrote:
>I tried using five amp breaker it won't kick the alternator in
>have to have a 60 amp I guess
>
>Sent from my iPhone
A picture may be worth 10,000 words . . . but 10,000
words never describes the same picture in the
minds of all readers.
Are you wiring to a published schematic that
we can download and all pray over at the same
time? If you've modified a published schematic,
then a scanned copy of your changes will
offer all of us a reasonable chance of understanding
your design goals and offering a solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
Glen,
I=99d guess that=99s why. You=99re getting the digest
and not individual messages so gmail can=99t tell that the
incoming message was sent by you as it=99s just one of many
messages with the digest.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GLEN
MATEJCEK
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Test
How odd. I have gmail and get the digest, and have no such issues.
However, on another venue that is hosted on yahoo, I will sometimes get
peoples replies without ever having gotten the original post. Gotta
love technology.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
yes I'm using the B&C schematic with an external regulator ,(no changes) it says
to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch .
I want to hook it to the field which has a five amp breaker .
I'm asking why I can't do that instead of the regulator in?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 06:13 AM 7/20/2014, you wrote:
>> I tried using five amp breaker it won't kick the alternator in
>> have to have a 60 amp I guess
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
> A picture may be worth 10,000 words . . . but 10,000
> words never describes the same picture in the
> minds of all readers.
>
> Are you wiring to a published schematic that
> we can download and all pray over at the same
> time? If you've modified a published schematic,
> then a scanned copy of your changes will
> offer all of us a reasonable chance of understanding
> your design goals and offering a solution.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
this is an alternator with an external regulator (system by Interav, using their
schematic and B&C schematic ) it's a Motorola Alternator previously installed
an experimental RV8
my intention is to use the field instead of the regulator in ,being how the field
already has a 5 amp breaker to kick ,
(it is also controlling the regulator )
Thank You for your time & advice it's greatly appreciated and very helpful!
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 4:31 PM, "user9253" wrote:
>
>
> John,
> Is the O.V. module being installed in an experimental airplane?
> What make and model is it?
> Are we talking about an alternator or dynamo or generator?
> Is there an external voltage regulator?
> Is this an existing electrical system that you are adding an O.V. module to?
> If there is an existing alternator and external voltage regulator, then there
should also be a fuse or circuit breaker that supplies power to the voltage regulator.
The O.V. module needs to be connected between the 5 amp circuit breaker
and the voltage regulator (which is part of the field circuit).
> Good advice can not be given without knowing all of the facts.
> It is better to not install an O.V. module than to install it incorrectly.
>
>> . . . .you may want to refer to my email again for all details thank you !
>
> I can not find your original posting.
>
>> why am I getting everybody's questions and answers to me from other people
>
> Because you are posting in someone else's thread.
>
>>
>> do I still need to change to a voltage limiter on the firewall ?if so what is
it ?
>
> Do you mean current limiter? It is sort of a robust very slow blow fuse.
> Search for MIDI fuse or ANL fuse. A current limiter is a good idea, but is unrelated
to the O.V. module.
>
>> do I split the regulator in or split the field the field has the breaker on
& the regulator in doesn't
>
> Sorry, I do not understand that. If installing an O.V. module to an existing
> electrical system, no splitting is necessary. Connect the O.V. module to the
wire that goes between the 5 amp breaker and the voltage regulator.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427018#427018
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> it says to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch
No it doesn't.
B&C schematic link: http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/OVM_wiringdiagram.pdf
The B&C schematic shows the black wire of the O.V. module connected to ground.
They just happened to use the same ground that the master switch is connected
to. You can connect the black wire to any convenient ground.
I think that B&C drew the schematic that way for two reasons: 1. It is easy to
draw. 2. It is easy to wire directly at the master switch because both ground
and the alternator field circuit are available there (if your master switch is
wired like B&C's switch is wired).
As for the colored wire (orange?) of the O.V., B&C shows it connected to the alternator-field
half of the master switch. Electrically speaking, this is the
same as connecting to the voltage regulator input. In either case, power is coming
from the 5 amp breaker.
Now if you want to connect the O.V. module directly to the 5 amp breaker, I see
no reason why that will not work. I hope others will correct me if wrong. Just
make sure that it is connected to the down stream side and not the always
hot side of the breaker.
In summary, connect the O.V. black wire to ground. And connect the other wire
to some point between the 5 amp breaker and the input to the voltage regulator.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427062#427062
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Crowbar OV module placement |
At 07:25 AM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>yes I'm using the B&C schematic with an external regulator ,(no
>changes) it says to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch .
>I want to hook it to the field which has a five amp breaker .
>I'm asking why I can't do that instead of the regulator in?
The crowbar ov module functions by creating
a high current (artificial fault) on the field
voltage supply line for the purpose of
forcing the field supply breaker open . . .
thus depriving the alternator of field
excitation an shutting it down.
That 'fault' may be applied anywhere along
the supply line between the breaker and
the regulator's input terminal.
What kind of regulator are you using?
You mentioned something to the effect that
a 5A breaker seemed inadequate to getting
the alternator to come alive? You need
to get the alternator working first using
details from the B&C drawing . . . the
breaker sizes cited are correct.
After the alternator is working, then add
the OV module at any point along the field
excitation power path.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Barnett <alansbarnett(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: COZY: Phantom audio return path (Narco 12MKE) |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crowbar OV module placement |
The regulator is the solid-state supplied from InterAv as a kit to work with the
Motorola Alternator i'm using the schematic of the interAv system and hooking
up the OVM from the B&C system if I can hook to the field on the InterAv system
then all my troubles are over that's what I wanted to do
the mention of the 5 amp not kicking the regulator in just disregard ! that was
a whole Nother scenario!
do you still recommend me to change to a voltage limiter on the firewall as suggested
before? if not I'm done ,I have it accomplished! Thank you again!!
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 07:25 AM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> yes I'm using the B&C schematic with an external regulator ,(no changes) it
says to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch .
>> I want to hook it to the field which has a five amp breaker .
>> I'm asking why I can't do that instead of the regulator in?
>
> The crowbar ov module functions by creating
> a high current (artificial fault) on the field
> voltage supply line for the purpose of
> forcing the field supply breaker open . . .
> thus depriving the alternator of field
> excitation an shutting it down.
>
> That 'fault' may be applied anywhere along
> the supply line between the breaker and
> the regulator's input terminal.
>
> What kind of regulator are you using?
>
> You mentioned something to the effect that
> a 5A breaker seemed inadequate to getting
> the alternator to come alive? You need
> to get the alternator working first using
> details from the B&C drawing . . . the
> breaker sizes cited are correct.
>
> After the alternator is working, then add
> the OV module at any point along the field
> excitation power path.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jon molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed? |
I understand !! I thank you very very very much you guys are lifesaver it's a please
dealing with you and your staff !!
Thank You
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:40 AM, "user9253" wrote:
>
>
>
>> it says to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch
>
> No it doesn't.
> B&C schematic link: http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/OVM_wiringdiagram.pdf
> The B&C schematic shows the black wire of the O.V. module connected to ground.
They just happened to use the same ground that the master switch is connected
to. You can connect the black wire to any convenient ground.
> I think that B&C drew the schematic that way for two reasons: 1. It is easy to
draw. 2. It is easy to wire directly at the master switch because both ground
and the alternator field circuit are available there (if your master switch
is wired like B&C's switch is wired).
> As for the colored wire (orange?) of the O.V., B&C shows it connected to the
alternator-field half of the master switch. Electrically speaking, this is the
same as connecting to the voltage regulator input. In either case, power is
coming from the 5 amp breaker.
> Now if you want to connect the O.V. module directly to the 5 amp breaker, I see
no reason why that will not work. I hope others will correct me if wrong.
Just make sure that it is connected to the down stream side and not the always
hot side of the breaker.
> In summary, connect the O.V. black wire to ground. And connect the other wire
to some point between the 5 amp breaker and the input to the voltage regulator.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427062#427062
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transmitting with no antenna? |
I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the PTT
(transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
Is this correct or is it an OWT?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427077#427077
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bower, Bob" <Bob.Bower(at)hdrinc.com> |
| Subject: | Z13 fusible link, circuit breaker, same circuit? |
Something puzzles me . . .
Drawing Z-13/8 rev T dated 1/17/2014 shows both a 22AWG fusible link and a
5A circuit breaker between the main bus and terminal 5 of the Bat/Alt DC Po
wer switch. When the Bat/Alt DC Power switch is closed and the alternator i
s making power, the 5A circuit breaker will open if the crowbar over voltag
e protection module connected to terminal 4 of the Bat/Alt DC Power switch,
senses an over voltage condition and grounds the circuit. This functionali
ty I understand.
The wire between the fusible link and the circuit breaker is called out as
18AWG, thus the four size smaller 22AWG fusible link makes sense to me. Thr
ee questions:
1. What is the function of the 22AWG fusible link in this circuit?
2. Shouldn't the wire from the 5A circuit breaker to the Bat/Alt DC Pow
er switch and the wire from the Bat/Alt DC Power switch terminal 4 to the v
oltage regulator terminal A also be 18AWG?
3. Alternatively, assuming the 20AWG wire is sufficient to carry the lo
ad, shouldn't all wires in this circuit be 20AWG and the fusible link be 16
AWG, i.e. 4 sizes smaller?
Thanks in advance for unpuzzling me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
It's not a good idea; transmitting into an open circuit can damage
that final power amplifier stage as the signal is reflected back into
it. But most radios built in the past 20-30 years will have built-in
foldback protection to detect this condition and dial the power back
to avoid damage.
Henry
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
>
> I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the
PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
>
> Is this correct or is it an OWT?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427077#427077
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z13 fusible link, circuit breaker, same circuit? |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Just to clarify:
Question 3 : four sizes smaller than 20awg, is 24awg, not 16
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 21 Jul 2014, at 09:55 pm, "Bower, Bob" wrote:
>
> Something puzzles me . . .
>
> Drawing Z-13/8 rev T dated 1/17/2014 shows both a 22AWG fusible link and a
5A circuit breaker between the main bus and terminal 5 of the Bat/Alt DC Po
wer switch. When the Bat/Alt DC Power switch is closed and the alternator is
making power, the 5A circuit breaker will open if the crowbar over voltage p
rotection module connected to terminal 4 of the Bat/Alt DC Power switch, sen
ses an over voltage condition and grounds the circuit. This functionality I u
nderstand.
>
> The wire between the fusible link and the circuit breaker is called out as
18AWG, thus the four size smaller 22AWG fusible link makes sense to me. Thr
ee questions:
>
> 1. What is the function of the 22AWG fusible link in this circuit?
> 2. Shouldn=99t the wire from the 5A circuit breaker to the Bat/A
lt DC Power switch and the wire from the Bat/Alt DC Power switch terminal 4 t
o the voltage regulator terminal A also be 18AWG?
> 3. Alternatively, assuming the 20AWG wire is sufficient to carry the l
oad, shouldn=99t all wires in this circuit be 20AWG and the fusible li
nk be 16AWG, i.e. 4 sizes smaller?
>
> Thanks in advance for unpuzzling me.
>
>
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
henry(at)pericynthion.org wrote:
> It's not a good idea; transmitting into an open circuit can damage
> that final power amplifier stage as the signal is reflected back into
> it. But most radios built in the past 20-30 years will have built-in
> foldback protection to detect this condition and dial the power back
> to avoid damage.
>
> Henry
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
Thanks!
What should I do to prevent any potential problem? Would a 50 ohm terminating
resistor be a good idea? I'm not going to be able to connect the antennas for
a while and I'd like to not have to worry about any problems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427085#427085
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Is it an OWT (old wives tale): I don't know but where are those 'ouput watts' going,
if you don't have an aerial connected
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 21 Jul 2014, at 09:27 pm, "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the
PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
>
> Is this correct or is it an OWT?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427077#427077
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bower, Bob" <Bob.Bower(at)hdrinc.com> |
| Subject: | Z13 fusible link, circuit breaker, same circuit? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
It depends on the radio design. The problem is that the radio is meant
to have an antenna connected to it that is designed to operate on the
frequency the transmitter is transmitting at. When that doesn't happen
all the power that the transmitter is producing is "reflected" back into
the transmitter. That can fry things. Most well designed modern
transmitters have protection circuits that reduce the transmitter power
or disable the transmitter when it detects that condition. It's still a
bad idea to transmit with no antenna (or the wrong antenna) connected.
This goes for Comm radios, Transponders, Radio Altimeters, TCAS boxes...
Bill
On 7/21/14, 1:27 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the
PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
>
> Is this correct or is it an OWT?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427077#427077
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
Most 50 Ohm terminating resistors are rated for a half watt or less.
Most Comm radios put out 5 watts or more. The terminating resistor won't
last long. 1) Keep the radio turned off when you're working on things.
2) Disconnect the PTT wire from the radio connector if that's feasible.
Termination resistors are made to keep a constant impedance connection
on something like a spare antenna diplexer port, not dissipate the power
from a transmitter. You can get 50 dummy loads that are designed to be
transmitted into all day long. They're a lot more expensive than a
terminator and much bulkier. Even a dummy load will only operate at it's
rated power for a limited time. Make sure you look at all the specs for
what you buy. Most of the time you're going to be transmitting without
you knowing it because a wiring short or sitting on the mic (or
something like that). You're likely to be transmitting for a long time
or until the stuck mic circuit in the transmitter shuts it down.
Bill
On 7/21/14, 2:50 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
>
> henry(at)pericynthion.org wrote:
>> It's not a good idea; transmitting into an open circuit can damage
>> that final power amplifier stage as the signal is reflected back into
>> it. But most radios built in the past 20-30 years will have built-in
>> foldback protection to detect this condition and dial the power back
>> to avoid damage.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> What should I do to prevent any potential problem? Would a 50 ohm terminating
resistor be a good idea? I'm not going to be able to connect the antennas for
a while and I'd like to not have to worry about any problems.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427085#427085
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Transmitting with no antenna? |
As per some other post in reply yes it can lead to damage to the output
stage of the connected radio. The high SWR presented to the
Output side by no Antenna or the wrong antenna causes significant heating to
the output transistors and can cause their internal junctions to fail.
You can go to your local Ham Radio shop and purchase a small 50 Ohm dummy
load for a few dollars to protect the connected radios or indeed test the
Radios without an antenna. You will need a VHF, 50 Ohm Dummy Load Capable of
handling 25 watts (less if you keep the transmissions short say 4-5
seconds).
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV10 41016
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
donjohnston
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014 6:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transmitting with no antenna?
--> <don@velocity-xl.com>
I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the
PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
Is this correct or is it an OWT?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427077#427077
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Alternatively, you could build this dummy load: http://bit.ly/1wSMtI1
...using 20 of these (buy 25 for the price break): http://bit.ly/1lnVgfM
Note: Do *not* substitute wire-wound resistors!
Eric
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 5:22 PM, John MacCallum wrote:
>
> You can go to your local Ham Radio shop and purchase a small 50 Ohm dummy load
for a few dollars to protect the connected radios or indeed test the Radios
without an antenna. You will need a VHF, 50 Ohm Dummy Load Capable of handling
25 watts (less if you keep the transmissions short say 4-5 seconds).
>
> Cheers
> John MacCallum
> VH-DUU
> RV10 41016
>
>
> I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that pressing the
> PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the radio. [Embarassed]
>
> Is this correct or is it an OWT?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crowbar OV module placement |
At 12:27 PM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
The regulator is the solid-state supplied from InterAv as a kit to
work with the Motorola Alternator i'm using the schematic of the
interAv system and hooking up the OVM from the B&C system if I can
hook to the field on the InterAv system then all my troubles are over
that's what I wanted to do
Very good.
the mention of the 5 amp not kicking the regulator in just
disregard ! that was a whole Nother scenario!
do you still recommend me to change to a voltage limiter on the
firewall as suggested before? if not I'm done ,I have it
accomplished! Thank you again!!
If you have a 60A breaker already installed and
wired, leave it.
Pleased to have a clearer picture of what you were
wrestling with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
At 03:27 PM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that
pressing the PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the
radio. [Embarassed]
Is this correct or is it an OWT?
I wouldn't make a habit of it . . . there's no
good reason to do it. If you need to listen to
your transmitted signal without radiating it more
than a few dozen yards, build yourself a dummy
load to put on the transmitter's coax connector.
http://tinyurl.com/cchp3pf
This load is good for 2W continuous and will handle
10W transmitters for the few seconds necessary to make
a vocal test transmission to deduce audio quality.
If you need a bigger load, it too can be fabricated
from R-S parts.
But the caveat about keying a transmitter into
an open antenna jack is a carry-over from the state
of solid state radios of the 60-70's. It didn't
take the industry long to figure out ways to build
protections into their products . . . so keying
an unloaded transmitter no longer represents
a serious hazard.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator and Battery ON & OFF |
7/22/2014
Hello Joe (Unknown) and Bob Nuckolls, The B&C wiring diagram accessed by
the link given below by Joe has this warning:
=9CImportant =93 Battery contactor and alternator should
come on and off together.=9D
Can someone please explain to me why that is important? What bad things
will happen if they don=99t come on and off together?
Thank you,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
PS: My procedure: On start up, Turn the alternator ON after engine is
running. On shut down, Turn the alternator OFF while engine is still
running to get a flashing low voltage light to confirm that my low
voltage warning system is working. I have entirely separate Battery
(battery contactor) and Alternator switches.
===========
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Are 'serial' contactors really needed?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
> it says to hook the ovm to regulator in & to the master switch
No it doesn't.
B&C schematic link: http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/OVM_wiringdiagram.pdf
The B&C schematic shows the black wire of the O.V. module connected to
ground.
They just happened to use the same ground that the master switch is
connected
to. You can connect the black wire to any convenient ground.
I think that B&C drew the schematic that way for two reasons: 1. It is
easy to
draw. 2. It is easy to wire directly at the master switch because both
ground
and the alternator field circuit are available there (if your master
switch is
wired like B&C's switch is wired).
As for the colored wire (orange?) of the O.V., B&C shows it connected to
the alternator-field
half of the master switch. Electrically speaking, this is the
same as connecting to the voltage regulator input. In either case,
power is coming
from the 5 amp breaker.
Now if you want to connect the O.V. module directly to the 5 amp
breaker, I see
no reason why that will not work. I hope others will correct me if
wrong. Just
make sure that it is connected to the down stream side and not the
always
hot side of the breaker.
In summary, connect the O.V. black wire to ground. And connect the
other wire
to some point between the 5 amp breaker and the input to the voltage
regulator.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator and Battery ON & OFF |
At 07:45 AM 7/22/2014, you wrote:
7/22/2014
Hello Joe (Unknown) and Bob Nuckolls, The B&C
wiring diagram accessed by the link given below by Joe has this warning:
"Important Battery contactor and alternator
should ccome on and off together."
Can someone please explain to me why that is
important? What bad things will happen if they don't come on and off together?
Hmmmm . . . hadn't noticed that. It's a not-so-accurate
acknowledgement of the history of alternators in airplanes.
When our vehicles with big fans and wings carried
generators, there were two relatively independent
sources of power. A battery and a generator. Generators
were by nature self-exciting (after the field was
'flashed') and output from the machine was relatively
smooth. Ship's electro-whizzies would run well on
battery, generator or both.
When we pressed the Ford alternators into service
on airplanes in the 60's, two noteworthy differences
in the alternator's characteristics took center
stage. Alternators were reluctant to self-excite;
you couldn't simply turn a spinning alternator ON
and expect it to come on line. Further, voltage
regulation dynamics for alternators was a fledgling
technology . . . having a battery on line aided
in the task stabilizing bus voltage and the battery
prevented the alternator from suffering a stalling
event should it be hit with a large inrush like
klieg-lights on the wings or an electro-hydraulic
landing gear system.
It was clear that the legacy separation of BATTERY
and GENERATOR switches was fraught with some risk
for confusing pilots familiar with how the electrical
system worked in the older airplanes. What's an
itty-bitty airplane factory to do?
The airplanes at Cessna were already being fitted
with the stylish rocker switches from Carling. The
pilots, engineers and switch-guys put their heads
together and the split-rocker DC MASTER switch
was birthed. Mechanical linkage between the rockers
allowed you to operate battery-only but that the
alternator could not be on without having the battery
on also.
EARLY in the history of AeroElectric Connection
architectures, the split-rocker was replaced with
a two-pole, ON-OFF switch to operated battery and
alternator together. The crowbar OVM called for
use of a field supply breaker . . . which could
be pulled for battery-only operations either
airborne or ground test.
Later, I discovered the Carling catalog and sources
for the three position 2-10 switch that would emulate
the split-rocker functionality . . .
http://tinyurl.com/q9pbjks
Over the years, the simple DPDT+breaker configuration
was replaced with the DP3T, ON-ON-ON (2-10) switch.
Now that you have the history, I can explain that
the admonition on the B&C drawing is an artifact
of the "days before 2-10 switches" and was further
mis-interpreted as an imperative . . . don't recall
now who wrote those words but they are in error.
Now that you have the "Rest of the Story" you are
free to select from the whole array of available
switches including (1) simple, DPDT+breaker (2) DP3T
ON-ON-ON, or (3) a living artifact of the early days
of alternators in light aircraft, the split rocker switch.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator and Battery ON & OFF |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Important Battery contactor and alternator should come on and off together.
> Can someone please explain to me why that is important? What bad things will
happen if they dont come on and off together?
I think that it is good operating practice to turn the master contactor and alternator
on and off simultaneously. But I do not think that bad things will
happen if not operated that way. TC aircraft have a split master switch and the
Z figures have a progressive transfer master switch that allows the alternator
to be shut off.
Most pilots expect the the master switch will shut off every single electrical
circuit on the airplane. If the master contactor and alternator are controlled
by separate switches and if only the contactor is shut off, then it is possible
(or even likely, depending on the alternator) for the alternator to keep supplying
power to the aircraft. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but could
be if the pilot does not understand how the aircraft is wired.
Another consideration is flying with the master contactor on and the alternator
off. The battery will not be recharged. If the alternator is then turned
on, could there be a voltage surge? I do not know. Maybe Bob N will answer that.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427139#427139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
At 08:43 PM 7/21/20, you wrote:
>
>
> At 03:27 PM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that
>pressing the PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the
>radio. [Embarassed]
>
>Is this correct or is it an OWT?
After crafting my reply last night I was curious as to
modern approaches to crafting SWR ruggedness into a
VHF transmitter.
The last time I dug through the innards of a solid state
vhf transmitter, the output stage was crafted from NPN
silicon junction transistors . . . about 4 of them in
push-pull for 100W of output at 145MHz. The antenna
matching network was fitted with a directional coupler
(SWR meter) that sampled reverse-voltage as a product of
high SWR . . . that voltage was used to reduce drive
to the output stage for the purpose of protecting the
transistors should the transmitter be presented with
a high swr. Works good, lasts a long time.
Just for grins, I got a copy of the KX165 transceiver
service manual to bone up on contemporary design
philosophies. Got an interesting surprise.
Here is an excerpt from the transmitter schematic . . .
Yup . . . there it is . . . the expected directional
coupler. But when I read the accompanying text, I was
informed that the directional coupler output was
used to sample FORWARD power for the purpose of leveling
the transmitter's output power. No mention was made
for 'high SWR protection' . . .
In fact, a search of the entire service manual
for "standing" or "SWR" produced no hits. Say
what????
Emacs!
Here are some excerpts from the manufacturer's data sheets
on the KX165 powuer output transistor.
Emacs!
This is a MOSFET rated at 80W of output in VHF operation.
Further we read the following . . .
Emacs!
Down in the tabulation of characteristics we also
find . . .
Emacs!
I was pleased to find that my original assertion was
correct but for the wrong reasons. It seems the MOSFET is
immune to damage from the stresses that would have
shot its ancestors out of the saddle. Hence no wrap-around
protection was needed. The directional coupler was still
there but pressed into service other than output
stage protection.
Another interesting feature from the schematic excerpt:
Notice the "stub" depiction on the antenna output line.
A search of the manual doesn't speak to its existence
or purpose. Given that this is a deign from the hallowed
halls of the Nav/Comm gods, I suspect that 'stub' is an
shunt filter element tuned to reject transmitter harmonics
that fall on or close to GPS frequencies. Garmin used to
offer a 330-00067-00 Notch Filter intended to be 'scabbed
on' to the nav/comm antenna connector.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z13 fusible link, circuit breaker, same circuit? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> What is the function of the 22AWG fusible link in this circuit?
The wire (if very long) between the main power bus and the circuit breaker needs
to be protected against short circuits. A fusible link provides this protection.
The circuit breaker does not offer protection because short circuit current
in this wire will not pass through the circuit breaker. A fuse can not
be used because, in case of over voltage, a fuse will blow before the circuit
breaker trips.
> Shouldn't the wire from the 5A circuit breaker to the Bat/Alt DC Power switch
and the wire from the Bat/Alt DC Power switch terminal 4 to the voltage regulator
terminal A also be 18AWG?
No, heavier wire is not needed because O.V. module current does not flow through
the 20 AWG wire.
> shouldn't all wires in this circuit be 20AWG and the fusible link be 16 AWG,
i.e. 4 sizes smaller?
If the fusible link is made from smaller wire, then it might burn open before the
5 amp breaker trips. So leave it at 22 AWG. The wire attached to the fusible
link must be 4 sizes bigger, thus 18 AWG. 20 AWG is adequate downstream from
the circuit breaker because it is protected by the circuit breaker.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427156#427156
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator and Battery ON & OFF |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Most of the split alt/bat switches that I have experience with allow the battery
to be on without the alternator but not the alternator on without the battery.
The function is an internal mechanical function in the switch itself. I like
to call it army proof.
On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:09, "user9253" wrote:
>
>
>> Important Battery contactor and alternator should come on and off together.
>> Can someone please explain to me why that is important? What bad things will
happen if they dont come on and off together?
>
> I think that it is good operating practice to turn the master contactor and
alternator on and off simultaneously. But I do not think that bad things will
happen if not operated that way. TC aircraft have a split master switch and
the Z figures have a progressive transfer master switch that allows the alternator
to be shut off.
> Most pilots expect the the master switch will shut off every single electrical
circuit on the airplane. If the master contactor and alternator are controlled
by separate switches and if only the contactor is shut off, then it is possible
(or even likely, depending on the alternator) for the alternator to keep
supplying power to the aircraft. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but could
be if the pilot does not understand how the aircraft is wired.
> Another consideration is flying with the master contactor on and the alternator
off. The battery will not be recharged. If the alternator is then turned
on, could there be a voltage surge? I do not know. Maybe Bob N will answer
that.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427139#427139
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 03:27 PM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> I'm working on an audio panel/radio problem and I was told that
> pressing the PTT (transmitting) without an antenna will fry the
> radio. [Embarassed]
>
> Is this correct or is it an OWT?
>
>
> I wouldn't make a habit of it . . . there's no
> good reason to do it. If you need to listen to
> your transmitted signal without radiating it more
> than a few dozen yards, build yourself a dummy
> load to put on the transmitter's coax connector.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cchp3pf
>
> This load is good for 2W continuous and will handle
> 10W transmitters for the few seconds necessary to make
> a vocal test transmission to deduce audio quality.
> If you need a bigger load, it too can be fabricated
> from R-S parts.
>
> But the caveat about keying a transmitter into
> an open antenna jack is a carry-over from the state
> of solid state radios of the 60-70's. It didn't
> take the industry long to figure out ways to build
> protections into their products . . . so keying
> an unloaded transmitter no longer represents
> a serious hazard.
>
>
> Bob . . .
Using the logic of "if some is good, more must be better", I picked up some 10w,
100ohm resistors. :)
Checked with the manufacture (Val) and they said that I'm probably okay:
> In regards to circuit protection, the COM 2KR doesn't have any active protection
against keying the unit without a proper load attached. As such, you run
a small risk of damaging your radios keying them up without an antenna. However,
the radios are resistant to damage from being keyed without an antenna and
should be fine.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427184#427184
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Don,
Just be sure the resistors you sourced are not wire-wound types. At a 10W rating,
most are. These are inductive and will make a very poor dummy load.
Examples to avoid: http://bit.ly/1A3zd7U -or- http://bit.ly/1rImumj
Bob's 2W-10W dummy load appears to be built with Metal Film or Metal Oxide resistors.
Eric
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:42 PM, "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
>
> Using the logic of "if some is good, more must be better", I picked up some 10w,
100ohm resistors. :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
edpav8r(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Don,
>
> Just be sure the resistors you sourced are not wire-wound types. At a 10W rating,
most are. These are inductive and will make a very poor dummy load.
>
> Examples to avoid: http://bit.ly/1A3zd7U -or- http://bit.ly/1rImumj
>
> Bob's 2W-10W dummy load appears to be built with Metal Film or Metal Oxide resistors.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:42 PM, "donjohnston" wrote:
> >
> > Using the logic of "if some is good, more must be better", I picked up some
10w, 100ohm resistors. :)
> >
> >
>
Yep... They're wire wound.
I can't get anything right lately. :(
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427203#427203
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
>Yep... They're wire wound.
>
>I can't get anything right lately. :(
I was skeptical and disappointed when your conversation
with VAL suggested that 'your were probably going to be
okay' with the 10W resistors.
It would have been nice if the design I posted was
a little beefier . . . but getting resistors
with low inductance at VHF frequencies isn't a trivial
task. The venerable carbon composition resistor popular
to this legacy DIY task are not easy to find and not cheap
when you do find them. The 2W design proved to be the
best I could do with limited resources . . . although
suited to the task as long as you don't get into long-winded
test transmissions. As I recall, I produced that suggestion
as a test tool for proving that some appliance sensitivity
to transmitters was a function of energy radiated from
the antenna. Short transmissions would suffice.
If you want to acquire a more robust load, finding
suitable resistors then stacking fab-time
on top of the project is problematic. Suggest
you consider commercial-off-the-shelf products
like this:
http://tinyurl.com/k5w4vth
You'll need and adapter to attach this N-connector
load to your BNC-connector transceiver
http://tinyurl.com/mxjgusn
Hard to beat for price but it does take a bit of
time to ship them over the big pond.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
At 08:07 PM 7/21/2014, you wrote:
Alternatively, you could build this dummy load: http://bit.ly/1wSMtI1
...using 20 of these (buy 25 for the price break): http://bit.ly/1lnVgfM
Note: Do *not* substitute wire-wound resistors!
Eric
This is a time-honored and relatively easy methodology
for crafting a low SWR dummy load. Built one of these
when I was in high-school . . . my can was salvaged
from some painting project around the house and I used
Havoline motor oil . . . but as you can see, the time
to fabricate this thing is not trivial. Be sure to store
this thing rihgt-side-up . . . if it lays over then atmospheric
breathing will push oil past connectors that are not
liquid tight. The commercial-off-the shelf alternative
may prove more attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> I was skeptical and disappointed when your conversation
> with VAL suggested that 'your were probably going to be
> okay' with the 10W resistors.
>
> It would have been nice if the design I posted was
> a little beefier . . . but getting resistors
> with low inductance at VHF frequencies isn't a trivial
> task. The venerable carbon composition resistor popular
> to this legacy DIY task are not easy to find and not cheap
> when you do find them. The 2W design proved to be the
> best I could do with limited resources . . . although
> suited to the task as long as you don't get into long-winded
> test transmissions. As I recall, I produced that suggestion
> as a test tool for proving that some appliance sensitivity
> to transmitters was a function of energy radiated from
> the antenna. Short transmissions would suffice.
Uh... Val didn't say I would be fine with 10W resistors.
They said that the radios should be fine.
> In regards to circuit protection, the COM 2KR doesn't have any active protection
against keying the unit without a proper load attached. As such, you run
a small risk of damaging your radios keying them up without an antenna. However,
the radios are resistant to damage from being keyed without an antenna and
should be fine.
I'm going to redo with the proper resistors. I'm only tracking down an audio panel
switching issue. As such, I'm only keying the mic long enough to see if I
get a transmit indicator on the display. So about a half second whenever I hit
the PTT.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427227#427227
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't die |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob,
Please forgive me, but I need a refresher on why one-wire (internally
regulated) alternators are no longer recommended for a/c; even banned from
'the Book'. I do remember (scratch that; know from experience) that if the
B-lead contactor opens while the alternator is under load, there can be a
'load dump' (high voltage spike) issue that can kill the electronics (the
regulator) in the alternator. Makes sense. But if the only way the B-lead
contactor is allowed to open is due to an overvoltage fault, does it
matter? At that point, it's a given that the regulator is already toast,
and the entire alternator will be swapped out to fix it. Given the very
high reliability of modern automotive alternators, and that the only time
the B-lead contactor would need to open under load is during a true OV
fault event, what's the compelling reason to keep the 'not recommended'
philosophy?
I've had a couple of different career paths involving running a soldering
iron & modifying stuff (both consumer and industrial electronics
maintenance), so I'm not 'afraid' to dig into an alternator to modify it
for external regulation. But I'm of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
school.
I'd like to be educated on what I'm overlooking in terms of risk, failure
modes (fire?), etc.
If it's reasonable to bring the one-wire alternator (with contactor style
OV protection)back into the mix, the next question will be about
integrating a backup dynamo style alternator without spending close to half
an Aviation Unit for the hardware. :-)
Many thanks,
Charle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitting with no antenna? |
>Indeed. I always seem to forget that you can buy virtually anything
>cheaply on eBay! For $19, the economics of building one yourself,
>in $ and time, make little sense.
But we won't talk about the things we do, buy,
read or just dream about . . . 'cause it's FUN!
It's probably cheaper than a gambling habit . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't |
die
At 02:58 PM 7/23/2014, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Please forgive me, but I need a refresher on why
one-wire (internally regulated) alternators are
no longer recommended for a/c; even banned from 'the Book'.
I've never 'banned' anything from the book. But in the
interest of brevity and shortest path to demonstrated
success at low risk levels, I have focused AeroElectric
efforts on a limited range of ideas and products that
embrace the best-we-know-how-to-do . . .
Far too many over-excited people have morphed my
recommendations into warnings: "DON'T DO THAT lest
you fall out of the sky an die!" I have never
worked on or read about an accident that had
root cause in failure of electrical parts to perform
as advertised . . . EVERY case I'm aware of had roots
in human failings to understand limits imposed by
poor craftsmanship or operation of those parts.
I do remember (scratch that; know from
experience) that if the B-lead contactor opens
while the alternator is under load, there can be
a 'load dump' (high voltage spike) issue that can
kill the electronics (the regulator) in the alternator. Makes sense.
Only on certain alternators that fall short of the-
best-we-know-how-to-do. Consider this excerpt from
the chapter 3 of the 'Connection
http://tinyurl.com/nchenmr
[]
But if the only way the B-lead contactor is
allowed to open is due to an overvoltage fault,
does it matter? =C2 At that point, it's a given
that the regulator is already toast, and the
entire alternator will be swapped out to fix it.
Given the very high reliability of modern
automotive alternators, and that the only time
the B-lead contactor would need to open under
load is during a true OV fault event, what's the
compelling reason to keep the 'not recommended' philosophy?
Not a 'big deal' as you have deduced. The 'problem'
is rooted in legacy cockpit protocols that do
not prohibit turning off a loaded alternator.
You can do it in any TC aircraft without risk
of damage. You can do it in any aircraft fitted
with an alternator of the quality cited in the
narrative about MPA. But unlike the cookie-cutter
conformity control offered by the TC aircraft
world, we have no way to KNOW what quality of
alternator was being offered by Van's . . .
it seems that one or more of his customers
experienced a untimely demise of his alternator
by switching it on and off with the b-lead
contactor.
I've had a couple of different career paths
involving running a soldering iron & modifying
stuff (both consumer and industrial electronics
maintenance), so I'm not 'afraid' to dig into an
alternator to modify it for external regulation.
But I'm of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' school.
By all means, dig in. Photograph every step.
Show us what you found and how you dealt with
it . . . you're not 'fixing' it, you're adapting
it to higher design goals.
I'd like to be educated on what I'm overlooking
in terms of risk, failure modes (fire?), etc.
If it's reasonable to bring the one-wire
alternator (with contactor style OV
protection)back into the mix, the next question
will be about integrating a backup dynamo style
alternator without spending close to half an
Aviation Unit for the hardware. :-)
Yeah . . . but. The same project economics are in
play here as for the dummy-load conversation we had
earlier this week. The $parts$ are cheap but the
$time$ is significant. Further, there are $risks$
for not being aware of all the design subtleties.
Not risks of life, limb and airplane . . . but of
future $time$ expended to 'fix' something overlooked.
You can purchase an ND cored reman for a very reasonable
price. But check installation dimensions so that you
can use a commonly available bracket. You may need to
find a new pulley. Doing the 'mod' is straightforward
and low risk.
The PM alternator is a bit harder. You need either a pulley
on the engine and brackets to hold the alternator . . .
or the machining resources to craft a pad-friendly spline drive.
I think the SD-8 is pretty attractively priced given
the effort it would take to DIY.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Bristol <djtoddb(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello Out there....=0AWhat can I do to subscribe to the List / Group?=0A-
=0ATodd Bristol=0AInteractive Entertainment DJs and Events,=0ACasino Partie
s and Game Shows.=0AMesa, Arizona=0A480-755-4200=0Awww.djs4u.com=0Awww.game
showsamerica.com=0Awww.condopenasco.com=0A=0A=0ASport Pilot...=0A=0A- -
- - - - - - - -_|_-=0A-------- Todd ___
/===\___ Bristol=0A----- \__________(- .- )___________/
-=0A---------- (*)--- \___/--- (*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Molek" <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
i wanted to unsubscribe to the email forms ,
(i'm getting to many to keep up with & then erase)
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Bristol
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:40 AM
Hello Out there....
What can I do to subscribe to the List / Group?
Todd Bristol
Interactive Entertainment DJs and Events,
Casino Parties and Game Shows.
Mesa, Arizona
480-755-4200
www.djs4u.com
www.gameshowsamerica.com
www.condopenasco.com
Sport Pilot...
_|_
Todd ___ /===\___ Bristol
\__________( . )___________/
(*) \___/ (*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Nobody can do this for you, log onto the Matronics site and adjust your set
tings. The link is in every email.=0A=0ATim=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Thursday, July 24
, 2014 8:54 AM, Jon Molek wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A =0Ai wanted
to unsubscribe to the email forms =0A,=0A(i'm getting to many to keep up w
ith- & =0Athen erase) =0A----- Original Message ----- =0A>From: Todd Bris
tol =0A>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com =0A>Sent: Thursday, July 24, 20
14 10:40 AM=0A>=0A>=0A>Hello Out there....=0A>What can I do to subscribe
to the List / Group?=0A>-=0A>Todd Bristol=0A>Interactive Entertainment DJ
s and Events,=0A>Casino Parties and Game Shows.=0A>Mesa, Arizona=0A>480-755
-4200=0A>www.djs4u.com=0A>www.gameshowsamerica.com=0A>www.condopenasco.com
=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Sport Pilot...=0A>=0A>=0A>- - - - - - - -
- -_|_-=0A>-------- Todd ___ /===\___ Bristol
=0A>----- \__________(- .- )___________/-=0A>----
------ (*)--- \___/--- (*)=0A>=0A>-=0A>-=0A>hr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com
">http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contributi
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Molek <acub(at)neo.rr.com> |
there's no place in it I can find it says to unsubscribe
unless there's a difference site I'm not looking at,maybe you can send me th
at site and I'll do it
thank you John
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
>
> Nobody can do this for you, log onto the Matronics site and adjust your se
ttings. The link is in every email.
> Tim
>
>
> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:54 AM, Jon Molek wrote:
>
>
> i wanted to unsubscribe to the email forms ,
> (i'm getting to many to keep up with & then erase)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Bristol
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:40 AM
>
> Hello Out there....
> What can I do to subscribe to the List / Group?
>
> Todd Bristol
> Interactive Entertainment DJs and Events,
> Casino Parties and Game Shows.
> Mesa, Arizona
> 480-755-4200
> www.djs4u.com
> www.gameshowsamerica.com
> www.condopenasco.com
>
> Sport Pilot...
>
> _|_
> Todd ___ /===\___ Bristol
> \__________( . )___________/
> (*) \___/ (*)
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigattarget="_blank" href="http://forums.ma
tronics.com/">http://forums.matro -->
>
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Today when I started my flight, all seemed well. Shortly after takeoff I
tried to make a radio call, but when I held the mic key, instead of getting
the usual sidetone, I got a series of clicks. I don't recall it doing that
when I made my departing radio calls. I plugged a second headset into the
other front seat and got the same results when I pushed the other PTT. I
put the second headset back into the original side and tried again with the
same result, as to help ensure that the headset wasn't the problem. The
first headset was a Bose X through a LEMO plug (which is wired to the
adjacent two-plugs per Bose instructions), and the second was a David Clark
through the usual two plugs. I'm away from my usual shop and tools, so I
wonder if anyone might have any tips about where to focus my
troubleshooting? Has anyone encountered this type of behavior before out
of the 430 or another radio? This is a single-radio installation with a
Flightcom 403 intercom. The left and right PTT keys are consolidated in
the intercom, but with the behavior being the same on both sides, I'm
doubtful that the problem would be there.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just |
won't die
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
At 12:40 PM 7/24/2014, you wrote:
>Today when I started my flight, all seemed well.
> Shortly after takeoff I tried to make a radio
>call, but when I held the mic key, instead of
>getting the usual sidetone, I got a series of
>clicks. I don't recall it doing that when I
>made my departing radio calls. I plugged a
>second headset into the other front seat and got
>the same results when I pushed the other PTT.
>I put the second headset back into the original
>side and tried again with the same result, as to
>help ensure that the headset wasn't the problem.
>The first headset was a Bose X through a LEMO
>plug (which is wired to the adjacent two-plugs
>per Bose instructions), and the second was a
>David Clark through the usual two plugs. I'm
>away from my usual shop and tools, so I wonder
>if anyone might have any tips about where to
>focus my troubleshooting? Has anyone
>encountered this type of behavior before out of
>the 430 or another radio? This is a
>single-radio installation with a Flightcom 403
>intercom. The left and right PTT keys are
>consolidated in the intercom, but with the
>behavior being the same on both sides, I'm
>doubtful that the problem would be there.
Does the intercom work? Can you talk between
two headsets? Do people hear your transmissions?
Do you hear their transmissions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
> Does the intercom work? Can you talk between
> two headsets? Do people hear your transmissions?
> Do you hear their transmissions?
Yes, yes, it doesn't seem so, and yes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
At 01:33 PM 7/25/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > Does the intercom work? Can you talk between
> > two headsets? Do people hear your transmissions?
> > Do you hear their transmissions?
>
>Yes, yes, it doesn't seem so, and yes.
When you push the PTT, does the transceiver
go into transmit mode?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
> When you push the PTT, does the transceiver
> go into transmit mode?
I'll have to check Monday, but it seemed to. I should modify my description of
the sound to "Static with clicks" when I key the mic, since there is a static
element to it also.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
At 05:22 PM 7/25/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > When you push the PTT, does the transceiver
> > go into transmit mode?
>
>I'll have to check Monday, but it seemed to. I should modify my
>description of the sound to "Static with clicks" when I key the mic,
>since there is a static element to it also.
Okay. If the intercom is working then the
AUDIO paths to the two microphone inputs to
the intercom are intact. Without having
a schematic of the IC . . . I have
no way to deduce how the PTT commands
are processed going though the IC.
In one of the Flightcom installation manuals
I found a suggested tool for bypassing
the IC . . . which is also useful for trouble-
shooting.
Emacs!
Suggest you check your manual for such a
recommendation and have the tool on hand.
With the IC bypassed the radio should
work normally as if only the pilot's headset
is connected directly to the radio. Whether
or not this produces improved behavior is
an important clue for tracking down root cause
of your problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matthew Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
Wasn't there some discussion awhile back about how the GNS has two power fee
d paths and that if one of them opened, the radio would appear to work but i
t wouldn't transmit? I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't
fully inserted into the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be
worth checking out.
Regards,
Matt-
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 05:22 PM 7/25/2014, you wrote:
m>
>>
>>
>> > When you push the PTT, does the transceiver
>> > go into transmit mode?
>>
>> I'll have to check Monday, but it seemed to. I should modify my descripti
on of the sound to "Static with clicks" when I key the mic, since there is a
static element to it also.
>
> Okay. If the intercom is working then the
> AUDIO paths to the two microphone inputs to
> the intercom are intact. Without having
> a schematic of the IC . . . I have
> no way to deduce how the PTT commands
> are processed going though the IC.
>
> In one of the Flightcom installation manuals
> I found a suggested tool for bypassing
> the IC . . . which is also useful for trouble-
> shooting.
>
> <227d876f.jpg>
>
> Suggest you check your manual for such a
> recommendation and have the tool on hand.
> With the IC bypassed the radio should
> work normally as if only the pilot's headset
> is connected directly to the radio. Whether
> or not this produces improved behavior is
> an important clue for tracking down root cause
> of your problem.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
The 430 does have separate comm and NAV power feeds, but I believe most ofte
n they are on a single fuse/CB/wire and simply "Y" into the two pins inside t
he D-sub connector. If the comm side is not powered the comm info display on
the RHS of the screen will not be there.
Tim
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Matthew Prather wrote
:
>
> Wasn't there some discussion awhile back about how the GNS has two power f
eed paths and that if one of them opened, the radio would appear to work but
it wouldn't transmit? I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn
't fully inserted into the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could b
e worth checking out.
>
> Regards,
> Matt-
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:43 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 05:22 PM 7/25/2014, you wrote:
om>
>>>
>>>
>>> > When you push the PTT, does the transceiver
>>> > go into transmit mode?
>>>
>>> I'll have to check Monday, but it seemed to. I should modify my descript
ion of the sound to "Static with clicks" when I key the mic, since there is a
static element to it also.
>>
>> Okay. If the intercom is working then the
>> AUDIO paths to the two microphone inputs to
>> the intercom are intact. Without having
>> a schematic of the IC . . . I have
>> no way to deduce how the PTT commands
>> are processed going though the IC.
>>
>> In one of the Flightcom installation manuals
>> I found a suggested tool for bypassing
>> the IC . . . which is also useful for trouble-
>> shooting.
>>
>> <227d876f.jpg>
>>
>> Suggest you check your manual for such a
>> recommendation and have the tool on hand.
>> With the IC bypassed the radio should
>> work normally as if only the pilot's headset
>> is connected directly to the radio. Whether
>> or not this produces improved behavior is
>> an important clue for tracking down root cause
>> of your problem.
>>
>> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
I had that problem. The GNS430 wasn't fully inserted into its slot and although
the RX and TX button lit up it did not seem to transmit (or receive as I remember).
See
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=98650&view=next&sid=a9694aaf0de05619e08664647aea1483
> On 26 Jul 2014, at 18:01, Matthew Prather wrote:
>
> I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't fully inserted into the
tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be worth checking out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckley William <hoverandwire(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Separate Busses |
99,
Using the AeroElectric Z-11 schematic, I plan to supply the Nav side of the Garmin
430W from the Essential buss and the Comm side from the Main buss. The Garmin
install manual shows the comm and nav functions of the 430W to be powered
by separate wires with separate circuit breakers. With my equipment list I don't
need the comm function of the 430W during battery only operations but I do
need to power the nav side. In an alternator failed situation with the master
switch off and the Essential buss alternate switch on, any reason why the 430W
nav (GPS & VOR/LOC) will not work with the comm side receiving no power?
Thanks,
William Buckley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
Sacha makes a very good point. .
The 430 chassis to box-chassis connector fit is finicky.
I know. . .I have the "T-shirt"
If the box-chassis is mounted in the aircraft panel a little to deep, this
causes a problem. For when the 430 is slid into the box, it will not seat
back deep enough to fully engage some connector pins.
The fix is to loosen up the panel mounted box chassis and pull it forward to
be flush with the panel or even a tad ( 1/16") out in front of the panel and
then re-bolt it back to the panel framing.
Another point. . .I do not recommend that you use the 430 locking jack
mechanism to pull the 430 back into its locked position. If something is
not aligned correctly you will not know it using the this method and could
damage pins.
I suggest that you get the 430 inserted by hand, fingers on each end of the
the 430 panel. Gently rock it back in place feeling for any obstruction.
Get it started in, turn the jacking system just enough to take up the slack.
Then, using fingers only, rock the 430 further back into place and again
feel for any odd resistance, then, using the jack, take up the slack.
Continue this until you "feel" it seat properly with it rear connectors.
Stop if you feel any odd resistance and start over after checking for any
bent pins, etc.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem
>
> I had that problem. The GNS430 wasn't fully inserted into its slot and
> although the RX and TX button lit up it did not seem to transmit (or
> receive as I remember). See
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=98650&view=next&sid=a9694aaf0de05619e08664647aea1483
>
>
>> On 26 Jul 2014, at 18:01, Matthew Prather wrote:
>>
>> I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't fully inserted
>> into the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be worth
>> checking out.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Schematic symbol |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
OK, I give in. I've looked everywhere for a schematic symbol for a switch-breaker.
I have every type of switch known to humankind, and standard circuit breakers,
but not a switch-breaker.
Any clues, or is it just drawn like a standard circuit breaker?
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427390#427390
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic symbol |
Mike,=0A=0AI'm not aware of any special symbol for a switch/circuit breaker
.- I would use the standard breaker symbol.- Whether or not it is used
as the normal operating switch is probably not germane at the schematic lev
el.- What is important is that it can protect the wire, so show it as a s
tandard breaker.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:09 PM,
mmayfield wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-Li
st message posted by: "mmayfield" =0A=0AOK, I giv
e in. I've looked everywhere for a schematic symbol for a switch-breaker. I
have every type of switch known to humankind, and standard circuit breaker
s, but not a switch-breaker.=0A=0AAny clues, or is it just drawn like a sta
ndard circuit breaker?=0A=0A--------=0AMike=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic o
nline here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427390#42739
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schematic symbol |
| From: | Michael Garmon <michaelagarmon(at)gmail.com> |
Mike,
I have used this symbol. I believe I found it in the "The Aeroelectric
Connection" on page 1-10 in Figure 1-13.
-Michael Garmon
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:54 PM, mmayfield wrote:
> mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
>
> OK, I give in. I've looked everywhere for a schematic symbol for a
> switch-breaker. I have every type of switch known to humankind, and
> standard circuit breakers, but not a switch-breaker.
>
> Any clues, or is it just drawn like a standard circuit breaker?
>
> --------
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427390#427390
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic symbol |
At 07:49 AM 7/27/2014, you wrote:
>Mike,
>I have used this symbol. I believe I found it in the "The
>Aeroelectric Connection" on page 1-10 in Figure 1-13.
>
>-Michael Garmon
I don't think there is any 'industry recognized' symbol
unique to this device so as Mike has noted, I made one
up. If you're doing AutoCAD drawings, the symbol is
included in the library of symbols on the website.
I recall a few years back that there was no 'industy
recognized' symbol for the DPDT-ON-ON-ON toggle switch.
At least not in the 'approved' mil-spec symbology
that had been adopted by Cessna. One such switch was
used in an autopilot installation I had to write about.
I crafted a symbol not unlike those found in the
'Connection publications today. Got a bucket of flack
from my super and was told to use the symbol for a
DP3T ON-OFF-ON . . . which happened to be the way that
ARC Radio supplied the schematic to us!.
"But boss!", sez I. "That doesn't help me explain
how it works to my readers. "Don't you never mind
son . . . it's ARC's product and we'll treat them
with respect." "Oh," sez I. "Okay". I had to write
a bunch of words explaining how the switch functioned
in the system hoping that my words would over-ride
the 'jump off the page' misunderstanding that was
published in the drawing.
A few years later, alternators started finding their
way onto our airplanes, the great DC Master Switch
Conundrum rose up whereupon the split-rocker was born. Hmmm . . .
how to show THAT thing on a drawing?
One of the guys over in the electrical group came
up with this:
Emacs!
Push the bottom switch to ON and it forces the
top switch ON too. But with both on, you can turn
the bottom switch OFF and leave the top switch
ON. "Cool" thinks I. "A schematic symbol that COMMUNICATES
functionality with little if any head-scratching
on the part of the observer." Guess what? THAT
switch wasn't in the mil-specs either . . . but
the guy heading up the electrical group understood
the value of jump-off-the-page understanding
better than my boss . . . who was in the business
of publishing.
The point to be taken away from this missive and
Jeff's comment is that what ever symbol you do use
should first NOT CONFUSE any future readers of
your work product. After that, speak (or draw)
to operational nuances in ways that jump-off-the-
page at you.
I've seen breakers depicted thusly on various
drawings over the years
Emacs!
and all three of these pictures 'make sense'
when more than one style appears in the same
publication. It helps when either a table of
symbols or accompanying text speaks to
the existence of more than one style of breaker
in the system . . . but as Jeff points out, were
you to use ANY of the three to speak to the
ELECTRICAL functionality of any circuit breaker
in a schematic, no valuable information
is lost. Adding the little nuances to depict
MECHANICAL operation is just icing on the
cupcake.
Bottom line is, make a drawing that YOU
understand first but keeping in mind that
it may be useful that somebody else understands
it in the future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
Sound like the voice of experience!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem
-->
Sacha makes a very good point. .
The 430 chassis to box-chassis connector fit is finicky.
I know. . .I have the "T-shirt"
If the box-chassis is mounted in the aircraft panel a little to deep, this
causes a problem. For when the 430 is slid into the box, it will not seat
back deep enough to fully engage some connector pins.
The fix is to loosen up the panel mounted box chassis and pull it forward to
be flush with the panel or even a tad ( 1/16") out in front of the panel and
then re-bolt it back to the panel framing.
Another point. . .I do not recommend that you use the 430 locking jack
mechanism to pull the 430 back into its locked position. If something is
not aligned correctly you will not know it using the this method and could
damage pins.
I suggest that you get the 430 inserted by hand, fingers on each end of the
the 430 panel. Gently rock it back in place feeling for any obstruction.
Get it started in, turn the jacking system just enough to take up the slack.
Then, using fingers only, rock the 430 further back into place and again
feel for any odd resistance, then, using the jack, take up the slack.
Continue this until you "feel" it seat properly with it rear connectors.
Stop if you feel any odd resistance and start over after checking for any
bent pins, etc.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem
>
> I had that problem. The GNS430 wasn't fully inserted into its slot and
> although the RX and TX button lit up it did not seem to transmit (or
> receive as I remember). See
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=98650&view=next&sid=a9694aaf0de0
5619e08664647aea1483
>
>
>> On 26 Jul 2014, at 18:01, Matthew Prather wrote:
>>
>> I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't fully inserted
>> into the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be worth
>> checking out.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lithium Battery Experience - Sept. Kitplanes Article |
| From: | "jaustinmd" <john(at)jaustinmd.com> |
Bob requested in his recent article that those experimenting with Lithium batteries
relate their experiences. I built a Zenith STOL CH750 with a Jabiru 3300
engine - a day/VFR, non-electrically dependent aircraft - perfect for experimentation!
I originally installed a PC680 and it worked flawlessly. As I accumulated hours
and increased empty weight from various modifications, I looked to using a LiFePO4
battery to gain back some useful load. I had heard that the Aerovoltz 12-cell
would readily crank the Jab 3300, so I purchased a Ballistic 12-cell (same
battery but cheaper!). Initially, things were fine - it spun the 3300 as good
or better than the PC680 (and saved about 12-13 lbs doing it!). However, I
began to get erratic tach readings and looked at the alternator leads where the
tach picks up and the Jabiru OEM female spade leads appeared burned! After consulting
Jabiru USA, I replaced the rather flimsy leads with quality AMP female
spade connectors. THEN, my 20 amp alternator breaker began to trip!
At this point, I did a lot of research and found that since the Jab 3300 doesn't
output charging current 'til about 1800-1900 rpm, my theory was that the connectors
were frying due to the surge of charging current after take off and low
internal resistance of the battery, and once the connectors were corrected,
the little Ballistic battery was getting hit with a surge of charging current
in excess of 20 amps and tripping the breaker.
I did two things - I reviewed my wiring and found I was good for up to a 35 amp
breaker to protect it, so I replaced the breaker with a 35A, and switched to
an EarthX ETX36D which supposedly has close to the capacity of the PC680. I'm
really happy so far (several months) with the ETX36D - it seems to function just
as well as the PC680. It spins the prop for starts as well or better as the
PC680 and although the Jab 3300 is not charging during ground operations, there
is negligible voltage drop when powering-up the EFIS, transponder, radio, etc.
(The PC680 found a happy home in my '82 911SC Porsche, which was a weight
savings vs a conventional auto battery!) The Ballistic will be re-purposed in
my UTV.
Time will tell as to durability and performance of the EarthX, but for now I'm
a happy camper!
John
N750A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427414#427414
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schematic symbol |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Ah thanks Mike. I could've sworn I looked at every schematic in the AEC library
but must've missed it.
Yes Bob, that's the exact reason I want a different symbol for it. I have mainly
conventional breakers however I also have 2 switch breakers which power a couple
of low-cycle non flight-critical system circuits. I want to make sure the
circuit diagram accurately represents the system components for the benefit of
anyone who may happen to be working on it other than myself.
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427429#427429
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schematic symbol |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
There really are standards for this sort of thing; many many standards. Ugh...
See: http://symbols.radicasoftware.com/category/Circuit-Breakers.html
But you'd do almost as good drawing a little box with a label in it.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427437#427437
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | tachometer question |
This is a non-aviation question but I hope relevant to this lists' interest.
The needle of my pickup truck's tachometer has started to vibrate
significantly more than it used to. Whereas it used to be only a few km/h,
now it goes from 50km/h to 60km/h and back incessantly with a period of
about 1 second. It seems excessive and I was wondering if it's the sign of
something wrong. Where would I start looking?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tachometer question |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 07/28/2014 11:22 AM, Sacha wrote:
> Whereas it used to be only a few km/h,
> now it goes from 50km/h to 60km/h and back incessantly with a period of
> about 1 second. It seems excessive and I was wondering if it's the sign of
> something wrong. Where would I start looking?
My Audi's speedometer does something similar. My guess is that it is
either the servo motor that controls the needle (common in the TT), or
the speed sensor on the transmission.
Might be something similar with your tach.
-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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lithium Battery Experience - Sept. Kitplanes |
Article
At 05:00 PM 7/27/2014, you wrote:
Bob requested in his recent article that those experimenting with
Lithium batteries relate their experiences. I built a Zenith STOL
CH750 with a Jabiru 3300 engine - a day/VFR, non-electrically
dependent aircraft - perfect for experimentation!
Thank you for taking the time to share . . .
I purchased a Ballistic 12-cell. Initially, things were fine - it
spun the 3300 as good or better than the PC680 (and saved about 12-13
lbs doing it!).
However, I began to get erratic tach readings and looked at the
alternator leads where the tach picks up and the Jabiru OEM female
spade leads appeared burned! After consulting Jabiru USA, I replaced
the rather flimsy leads with quality AMP female spade connectors.
According to the Jabiru wiring diagram for this
engine http://tinyurl.com/mpsmquh
the tachometer drives from a variable
reluctance pickup that looks at features
on the flywheel . . . gear teeth, bolt heads,
etc.
This is a TINY signal that is unlikely to
burn anything. What you may have observed in
terms of discoloration is corrosion. But in any
case, if you have spade terminal females getting
loose or corroded, be aware of the potential for
similar problems every other place you used this
same terminal . . . this particular failure
would not have been related to your battery
change-out.
THEN, my 20 amp alternator breaker began to trip!
Where was this breaker installed?
At this point, I did a lot of research and found that since the Jab
3300 doesn't output charging current 'til about 1800-1900 rpm,
. . . typical of ALL brands and sizes of permanent
magnet 'dynamos' . . .
. . . my theory was that the connectors were frying due to the surge
of charging current after take off and low internal resistance of the
battery, and once the connectors were corrected, the little Ballistic
battery was getting hit with a surge of charging current in excess of
20 amps and tripping the breaker.
Those connectors were not associated with any part of
the battery recharging current.
I did two things - I reviewed my wiring and found I was good for up
to a 35 amp breaker to protect it, so I replaced the breaker with a
35A, and switched to an EarthX ETX36D which supposedly has close to
the capacity of the PC680.
Why the battery change? When I'm informed as to the
location of 20/35A breakers, we can begin to figure
out root cause of the tripping phenomenon you observed.
It's not clear that the trip is related to the differences
in batteries. The alternator is rated for 200W continuous
which is 200/14 or about 14A. It MIGHT be that the lithium
battery's willingness to accept charge at 14v is greater
than the Lead-Acid . . . I'll need to explore that with
some lithium cells on the bench. If that's true, then
substitution of lithium for lead in your particular
installation may be putting your rectifier/regulator/
alternator at risk. These systems are generally not
current limited like wound-field alternators. So while
up-sizing the breaker may have fixed a symptom, it
doesn't answer the question as to why the 20A breaker
was popping. Do you have an alternator loadmeter . . .
if not, would you be willing to install one temporarily
to sort out the questions?
Time will tell as to durability and performance of the EarthX, but
for now I'm a happy camper!
It's not clear that the AeroVoltz would not be performing
as well as the EarthX . . . But the EarthX does feature
a full-up battery management system not unlike that
installed in the TrueBlue products presently finding
their way onto TC aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tachometer question |
Sacha,
Can't help without knowing if the tach is driven by cable or electronics.
If cable, then lubricating the cable would probably stop the tach needle
from whipping.
_________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:22 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: tachometer question
>
> This is a non-aviation question but I hope relevant to this lists'
> interest.
> The needle of my pickup truck's tachometer has started to vibrate
> significantly more than it used to. Whereas it used to be only a few
> km/h,
> now it goes from 50km/h to 60km/h and back incessantly with a period of
> about 1 second. It seems excessive and I was wondering if it's the sign
> of
> something wrong. Where would I start looking?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wiring a 2 dash 7 Two pole Switch for my flaps |
| From: | "AZFlyer" <millrML(at)aol.com> |
Bob,
I've read your explanation on wiring various switches several times now and am
still not certain what I should be using in my plane.
I recently flew a few hours in a Remos G3. The flap switch installed as standard
used a "bump down, or hold down" to deploy the flaps and a single "bump up"
to retract fully.
(Spring loaded both directions.) The flap switch in my Zenith 601XL requires bumping
both directions (or holding) to extend or retract. I would like to duplicate
the Remos switch.
My flap motor has limit switches in both directions if that makes any difference.
Do I need a different two pole switch or need to wire my 2-7 differently?
Thanks,
Mike
--------
Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com
601 XL-B, 3300, Dynon
Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427446#427446
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tachometer question |
You're talking about 2 different things.
Tachometer-measures engine rpm
Thing that measures in Km/h - speedometer (drive train rpm)
Please clarify which system you're talking about.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 07/28/2014 10:22 AM, Sacha wrote:
>
> This is a non-aviation question but I hope relevant to this lists' interest.
> The needle of my pickup truck's tachometer has started to vibrate
> significantly more than it used to. Whereas it used to be only a few km/h,
> now it goes from 50km/h to 60km/h and back incessantly with a period of
> about 1 second. It seems excessive and I was wondering if it's the sign of
> something wrong. Where would I start looking?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
Thanks for all of the troubleshooting tips! I removed the 430, visually inspected
the pins carefully, and reseated it as David suggests, and it is fixed!
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 21:02, "David Lloyd" wrote:
>
>
> Sacha makes a very good point. .
> The 430 chassis to box-chassis connector fit is finicky.
> I know. . .I have the "T-shirt"
>
> If the box-chassis is mounted in the aircraft panel a little to deep, this causes
a problem. For when the 430 is slid into the box, it will not seat back
deep enough to fully engage some connector pins.
>
> The fix is to loosen up the panel mounted box chassis and pull it forward to
be flush with the panel or even a tad ( 1/16") out in front of the panel and then
re-bolt it back to the panel framing.
>
> Another point. . .I do not recommend that you use the 430 locking jack mechanism
to pull the 430 back into its locked position. If something is not aligned
correctly you will not know it using the this method and could damage pins.
>
> I suggest that you get the 430 inserted by hand, fingers on each end of the the
430 panel. Gently rock it back in place feeling for any obstruction. Get it
started in, turn the jacking system just enough to take up the slack. Then,
using fingers only, rock the 430 further back into place and again feel for any
odd resistance, then, using the jack, take up the slack.
> Continue this until you "feel" it seat properly with it rear connectors. Stop
if you feel any odd resistance and start over after checking for any bent pins,
etc.
> David
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem
>
>
>>
>> I had that problem. The GNS430 wasn't fully inserted into its slot and although
the RX and TX button lit up it did not seem to transmit (or receive as I remember).
See
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=98650&view=next&sid=a9694aaf0de05619e08664647aea1483
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jul 2014, at 18:01, Matthew Prather wrote:
>>>
>>> I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't fully inserted into
the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be worth checking out.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring a 2 dash 7 Two pole Switch for my flaps |
At 11:36 AM 7/28/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
I've read your explanation on wiring various switches several times
now and am still not certain what I should be using in my plane.
I recently flew a few hours in a Remos G3. The flap switch installed
as standard used a "bump down, or hold down" to deploy the flaps and
a single "bump up" to retract fully. (Spring loaded both directions.)
The flap switch in my Zenith 601XL requires bumping both directions
(or holding) to extend or retract. I would like to duplicate the Remos switch.
Okay, the DPDT, (ON)-off-(ON) with both sides
loaded to center is the 2-7.
My flap motor has limit switches in both directions if that makes any
difference.
Do I need a different two pole switch or need to wire my 2-7 differently?
To get a DPDT (ON)-off-ON with only one side
loaded to center you need a 2-5.
http://tinyurl.com/9xh3dhq
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is Bob at Oshkosh? |
At 02:22 PM 7/28/2014, you wrote:
>I heard that our fearless moderator was at OSH.
>Anyone know the details? Booth, forum, etc?
I wish . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: speedometer, not tachometer question |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
> Tachometer-measures engine rpm
>
> Thing that measures in Km/h - speedometer (drive train rpm)
Thanks for correcting me Raymond. I meant the speedometer.
It's a 1990 Toyota Hilux so I expect it's driven by cable not electronics (but
I'm no expert here so correct me if I'm wrong).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Great to hear! David's tips are very useful (found out the hard way...)
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 19:41, Jared Yates wrote:
>
> it is fixed!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: speedometer, not tachometer question |
Sacha,
If, indeed it is cable drive, that is probably the problem.
The cable drive interior gets dry over time and lots of friction develops.
Figure out a way to disconnect the top end of the cable and spray a silicon
based spray or similar down the interior of it.
It will take some time to work the lubricant down a tight cable.
Don't use WD-40. It congeals after time and in a long cable drive that is
bad situation. David
______________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: speedometer, not tachometer question
>
>
>> Tachometer-measures engine rpm
>>
>> Thing that measures in Km/h - speedometer (drive train rpm)
>
> Thanks for correcting me Raymond. I meant the speedometer.
>
> It's a 1990 Toyota Hilux so I expect it's driven by cable not electronics
> (but I'm no expert here so correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LiFePo Battery |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Guido,
Did you ever receive a reply to your battery question?
Sometimes questions get lost if Bob and others are busy sorting out other issues.
Ask again. I am also curious about the new batteries.
Eric
lapulce(at)sunrise.ch wrote:
> Hello Bob and who it may concerne,
> I am quite new to this group. I recently bought in Friedrichshafen at
> the Aero 2014 a new LiFePo battery from AeroAkku ( model LFP450 D
> Starter Battery for Lyc 0-320 ) The vendor told me that these
> batteries are built with A123 Systems elements APR 18650M1. Do you
> know this product ( it looks like a german assembly ) and has someone
> of this list some or even extended experience with this type of
> battery in general aviation especially concerning how to recharge and
> reliability.
> Thanks in advance
> Guido
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427486#427486
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: speedometer, not tachometer question |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the tip David.
Knowing nothing about how these things are built I assumed that this was an electrical
problem (I was imagining it was the sign of a faulty ground connection)
but I guess I was a long way off the mark. Apologies for the off topic post
and thanks again for everybody's help.
Sacha
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 23:29, "David Lloyd" wrote:
>
> If, indeed it is cable drive, that is probably the problem.
> The cable drive interior gets dry over time and lots of friction develops.
> Figure out a way to disconnect the top end of the cable and spray a silicon based
spray or similar down the interior of it.
> It will take some time to work the lubricant down a tight cable.
> Don't use WD-40. It congeals after time and in a long cable drive that is bad
situation. David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Great article 9/14 Kitplanes
Thank you . . . I'm gathering info for the 4th chapter . . .
>
>Will you be doing a NiCad comparison article? The NiCal seems to take a lot
>more punishment without problems and Air Bus said they were looking at
>them.
There are very few companies that offer ni-cads
suited to engine cranking. The legacy wet-cells
are still made for replacement and refurbishment
of an existing installation but they're not
well liked in the general aviation community.
I suggested that the OBAM aviation community
take a look at wet ni-cads back about 1988 . . .
but that was based on the availability of surplus
cells that could be sorted and assembled into
a DIY battery.
Next time I talk to Skip Koss at Concorde, I'll
ask him what his take is on the current state
of the Ni-Cad market . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guido von Allmen <lapulce(at)sunrise.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: LiFePo Battery |
Eric,
no I never got an answer or comment to my question. I installed the
below mentioned battery into our Tailwind recently and saved 12,2 kg
in weight ! Our old lead acid battery ( Sonnenschein ) was 14 kg and
the new one is only 1,8kg ! The cranking power is excellent even
better than with the lead acid battery. Up to now we had no problems
but is only one month and 5 starts with run ups away.
Guido
On 29.07.2014, at 03:38, eschlanser wrote:
> >
>
> Guido,
> Did you ever receive a reply to your battery question?
> Sometimes questions get lost if Bob and others are busy sorting out
> other issues.
> Ask again. I am also curious about the new batteries.
> Eric
>
>
> lapulce(at)sunrise.ch wrote:
>> Hello Bob and who it may concerne,
>> I am quite new to this group. I recently bought in Friedrichshafen at
>> the Aero 2014 a new LiFePo battery from AeroAkku ( model LFP450 D
>> Starter Battery for Lyc 0-320 ) The vendor told me that these
>> batteries are built with A123 Systems elements APR 18650M1. Do you
>> know this product ( it looks like a german assembly ) and has someone
>> of this list some or even extended experience with this type of
>> battery in general aviation especially concerning how to recharge and
>> reliability.
>> Thanks in advance
>> Guido
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427486#427486
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | WD-40 As a Lubricant |
7/29/2014
Hello All, David Lloyd wrote: =9CDon't use WD-40. It congeals
after time and in a long cable drive that is
bad situation.=9D
Amen to that. In fact don=99t use original plain WD-40 as a
lubricant, that is a self defeating action. It is true that original
plain WD-40 may free up some mechanism initially (as would almost any
low viscosity fluid, even water), but the longer term effect will not be
lubricating in nature. Spraying original plain WD-40 may even wash away
what little lubrication that remains in the mechanism making the longer
term situation worse.
Original plain WD-40 is a great product for doing just exactly what it
was designed to do, displace water. That is why it is called W(ater)
D(isplacing) =93 40. When people began to mistakenly spray it as a
lubricant and initially got some lubricating effect the WD-40 marketing
people jumped on the bandwagon and began to claim lubricating properties
for that product in their advertisement and labeling.
Now the WD-40 company has some specialty products that may be suitable
for your lubrication use. See here:
http://www.wd40specialist.com/products
But don=99t be sucked into using original plain WD-40 as a
lubricant, use a true lubricating product.
OC
======
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: speedometer, not tachometer question
Sacha,
If, indeed it is cable drive, that is probably the problem.
The cable drive interior gets dry over time and lots of friction
develops.
Figure out a way to disconnect the top end of the cable and spray a
silicon
based spray or similar down the interior of it.
It will take some time to work the lubricant down a tight cable.
Don't use WD-40. It congeals after time and in a long cable drive that
is
bad situation. David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: speedometer, not tachometer question |
At 10:32 PM 7/28/2014, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the tip David.
>Knowing nothing about how these things are built I assumed that this
>was an electrical problem (I was imagining it was the sign of a
>faulty ground connection) but I guess I was a long way off the
>mark. Apologies for the off topic post and thanks again for everybody's help.
>
>Sacha
The warnings for WD40 are on point. This is VERY
useful product for a narrow range of applications
none of which included long term lubrication . . .
ESPECIALLY high pressure (gears and chains).
One interesting use of WD40 was in the after-dunking
refurbishment of this target . . .
http://tinyurl.com/qaxjmk9
Many missions for this aircraft were flown over water
where it was recovered on a parachute at the end
of the mission. After hoisting out of the water,
the engine was removed and submerged in a barrel
of WD40 . . . the rest of airplane's components
were rinsed off (avionics was in a water-tight
compartment), checked for operation and the whole
airplane re-assembled for the next mission. Broken
parts were replaced (missiles would often damage
parts of the airframe due to direct hits). Every
MQM-107 operations base had a 'bone yard' of targets
from which serious replacement parts could be
salvaged.
The engine would be spun up with air to clear
the WD-40 (and bits of seaweed) and reinstalled.
The airplane was ready for the next mission!
Flex drives are quite common in modern aircraft.
Most notably flap systems where a centrally mounted
power unit's energy is 'piped' out to ball-screw
actuators in the wings.
Each system designer probably has their 'favorite'
lubrication material based on temperatures, speeds
and shaft loads. A web search will produce a bucket
full of first hand advice most of which is probably
adequate to the task. EVERY kind of 'slick' stuff
has been used at one time or another on a flex shaft. See:
http://tinyurl.com/mmkushv
Checked the service manual for my '87 GMC
p/u. It says:
Emacs!
In another GM service manual I found this
reference:
Emacs!
Didn't find any specifics on the makeup of
this product but some inferences that it was
a special graphite bearing lubricant specific
to speedometer cables.
Flex shafts are common in single engine tachometer
drives as well. The core of the shaft can be pulled
out of the jacket. You can wipe down the flex shaft
with a rag and solvent. Flush the jacket with a
can of carb or brake cleaner squirted down the upper
opening. Follow with compress air to get it DRY.
Get a small bottle of graphite. Autoparts stores
used to offer a bottle of graphite that could
be screwed onto the speedometer (upper end)
of a cable and left in place while you "drive
some miles" with some notion that the graphite
would distribute down the shaft with time and
motion. The better technique is to squirt about
5CC of graphite into the empty jacket then
push it through with strokes of clean and
dry flex shaft.
Flex shafts with high torque on them WILL
run harder against the jacket wall and graphite
is not a high pressure lubricant. But for speedo
and tach shafts, I suspect that graphite is
never wrong.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LiFePo Battery |
At 02:16 PM 7/6/2014, you wrote:
Hello Bob and who it may concerne,
I am quite new to this group. I recently bought in Friedrichshafen at
the Aero 2014 a new LiFePo battery from AeroAkku ( model LFP450 D
Starter Battery for Lyc 0-320 ) The vendor told me that these
batteries are built with A123 Systems elements APR 18650M1. Do you
know this product ( it looks like a german assembly ) and has someone
of this list some or even extended experience with this type of
battery in general aviation especially concerning how to recharge and
reliability.
These are tough questions to answer. There is virtually zero
long term history of A123 or any other product in OBAM aircraft
from which one might offer anecdotal observations . . . much
less comparative studies for return on investment to be
realized by selecting this or any other lithium product.
As to 'recharge' recommendations, I'll note that even the
pronouncements of the manufacturers is all over the map.
Some folks bundle up some cells in a nice case an say,
"Here's a drop in replacement for lead-acid." This is
demonstrably not true. Others will include a nifty
connector for a 'smart charger' on their product with
words like, "You don't NEED our supper-whippy charger
but . . . using it could double your battery life."
Say what? By the way, they DON'T tell you the operational
protocols under which the supper-whippy charger yields
the best battery service life.
Still others (EarthX most notably) have build advanced
battery management systems electronics INTO their
battery. These are probably as close as you will come
to a drop-in replacement for lead-acid. The fact that
lithium batteries have been demonstrated to benefit from
such advanced electronics is a BOLD statement that
argues with any other products that claim to replace
a lead-acid battery with their simple assembly of
cells into a nice case.
The jury is still out but evidence will being to mount
as the willing experimenters in the market sample the
range of products and begin to report their experiences.
Guido my friend, YOU are positioned to become the
authority as one of hopefully many participants in this
grand experiment. Operate your battery as close as possible
to the manufacturer's recommendations . . . and then you
tell US of your experience.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | NiCd batteries that |
| From: | crouton <crouton(at)well.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Separate |
Busses
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from
Separate Busses
At 04:24 PM 7/26/2014, you wrote:
99,
Using the AeroElectric Z-11 schematic, I plan to supply the Nav side
of the Garmin 430W from the Essential buss and the Comm side from the
Main buss. The Garmin install manual shows the comm and nav functions
of the 430W to be powered by separate wires with separate circuit
breakers. With my equipment list I don't need the comm function of
the 430W during battery only operations but I do need to power the
nav side. In an alternator failed situation with the master switch
off and the Essential buss alternate switch on, any reason why the
430W nav (GPS & VOR/LOC) will not work with the comm side receiving no power?
Not that I know of . . .
This excerpt from 430W install manual states
that COM power is mere milliamps in receive
and significant only in transmit.
Emacs!
How did your ENDURANCE load analysis come to suggest
that Com functions need not be part of an extended
battery-only ops scenario?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: speedometer, not tachometer question |
I have used powdered graphite to lube speedometer cables since the '70s
with good success. I'd check with the mfgr and see what they recommend.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> Sacha,
>
> If, indeed it is cable drive, that is probably the problem.
> The cable drive interior gets dry over time and lots of friction develops.
> Figure out a way to disconnect the top end of the cable and spray a
> silicon based spray or similar down the interior of it.
> It will take some time to work the lubricant down a tight cable.
> Don't use WD-40. It congeals after time and in a long cable drive that
> is bad situation. David
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: speedometer, not tachometer question
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Tachometer-measures engine rpm
>>>
>>> Thing that measures in Km/h - speedometer (drive train rpm)
>>
>> Thanks for correcting me Raymond. I meant the speedometer.
>>
>> It's a 1990 Toyota Hilux so I expect it's driven by cable not
>> electronics (but I'm no expert here so correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Back in the early 90s the Royal Navy fleet of SeaKing helicopters (S-61
derivative) used NiCad batteries. We were pretty much banned from using
them to start and made sure ground power was always available. They
didn't turn the engine over quickly enough to get a reliable start -
usually too much fuel and not enough rpm resulted in a hot start with
sheets of flame out the exhaust - and potentially an overheated turbine.
The batteries were a lot of trouble, I remember several being float
tested after aircraft landed back on-board with over heating or smoking
battery compartments (now not an option as nothing is allowed over the
side). We could also swap out individual cells if a battery went down. I
guess the technology has moved on in 20 years, but I still would not be
rushing to fit one.
Peter
On 29/07/2014 05:06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Great article 9/14 Kitplanes
>
> Thank you . . . I'm gathering info for the 4th chapter . . .
>
>>
>> Will you be doing a NiCad comparison article? The NiCal seems to
>> take a lot
>> more punishment without problems and Air Bus said they were looking at
>> them.
>
> There are very few companies that offer ni-cads
> suited to engine cranking. The legacy wet-cells
> are still made for replacement and refurbishment
> of an existing installation but they're not
> well liked in the general aviation community.
> I suggested that the OBAM aviation community
> take a look at wet ni-cads back about 1988 . . .
> but that was based on the availability of surplus
> cells that could be sorted and assembled into
> a DIY battery.
>
> Next time I talk to Skip Koss at Concorde, I'll
> ask him what his take is on the current state
> of the Ni-Cad market . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem |
| From: | Matt Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com> |
Cool!
Matt-
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Jared Yates wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks for all of the troubleshooting tips! I removed the 430, visually
> inspected the pins carefully, and reseated it as David suggests, and it is
> fixed!
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 2014, at 21:02, "David Lloyd" wrote:
> >
> skywagon(at)charter.net>
> >
> > Sacha makes a very good point. .
> > The 430 chassis to box-chassis connector fit is finicky.
> > I know. . .I have the "T-shirt"
> >
> > If the box-chassis is mounted in the aircraft panel a little to deep,
> this causes a problem. For when the 430 is slid into the box, it will not
> seat back deep enough to fully engage some connector pins.
> >
> > The fix is to loosen up the panel mounted box chassis and pull it
> forward to be flush with the panel or even a tad ( 1/16") out in front of
> the panel and then re-bolt it back to the panel framing.
> >
> > Another point. . .I do not recommend that you use the 430 locking jack
> mechanism to pull the 430 back into its locked position. If something is
> not aligned correctly you will not know it using the this method and could
> damage pins.
> >
> > I suggest that you get the 430 inserted by hand, fingers on each end of
> the the 430 panel. Gently rock it back in place feeling for any
> obstruction. Get it started in, turn the jacking system just enough to take
> up the slack. Then, using fingers only, rock the 430 further back into
> place and again feel for any odd resistance, then, using the jack, take up
> the slack.
> > Continue this until you "feel" it seat properly with it rear connectors.
> Stop if you feel any odd resistance and start over after checking for any
> bent pins, etc.
> > David
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GNS430 Microphone/Sidetone Problem
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I had that problem. The GNS430 wasn't fully inserted into its slot and
> although the RX and TX button lit up it did not seem to transmit (or
> receive as I remember). See
> >>
> >>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=98650&view=next&sid=a9694aaf0de05619e08664647aea1483
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 26 Jul 2014, at 18:01, Matthew Prather
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think someone had this issue when their radio wasn't fully inserted
> into the tray/rack. Might not be the case here, but could be worth checking
> out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Separate |
Busses
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
It will work just fine with no power to the comm side, I do it all the time o
n my plane. It's set up to power the NAV side and one EFIS from a small aux b
att circuit so they don't reboot after start, and as a backup for loss of th
e main bus.
Tim
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:17 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Separa
te Busses
>
>
> At 04:24 PM 7/26/2014, you wrote:
>
oo.com>
>
> 99,
> Using the AeroElectric Z-11 schematic, I plan to supply the Nav side of th
e Garmin 430W from the Essential buss and the Comm side from the Main buss. T
he Garmin install manual shows the comm and nav functions of the 430W to be p
owered by separate wires with separate circuit breakers. With my equipment l
ist I don't need the comm function of the 430W during battery only operation
s but I do need to power the nav side. In an alternator failed situation wit
h the master switch off and the Essential buss alternate switch on, any reas
on why the 430W nav (GPS & VOR/LOC) will not work with the comm side receivi
ng no power?
>
> Not that I know of . . .
>
> This excerpt from 430W install manual states
> that COM power is mere milliamps in receive
> and significant only in transmit.
>
>
> <32eb7351.jpg>
>
> How did your ENDURANCE load analysis come to suggest
> that Com functions need not be part of an extended
> battery-only ops scenario?
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckley William <hoverandwire(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Separate |
Busses
Bob,
To your question: As currently designed, the equipment list in my panel has
the comm side of the 430 as comm#2 and the nav functions of the 430 as the
primary navigation source. With an alternator failure, I want comm#2 to be
among the equipment that gets dropped while keeping the navigation functio
ns. The comm functions will be handled by a different transceiver as comm#1
.
And why not make the 430 the primary comm and nav source? ...Budget. I'd li
ke to have the full compliment of panel equipment on day one but its likely
that the 430 will be added later. Starting out with only VFR capability an
d I'm planning for the full enchilada later.
Thanks,
William B.
--- On Tue, 7/29/14, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from Sep
arate Busses
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 1:17 PM
>
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav
> Power from
> Separate Busses
>
> - How did your ENDURANCE load analysis come to suggest
>
> - that Com functions need not be part of an extended
>
> - battery-only ops scenario?
>
> - Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 430W - Comm & Nav Power from |
Separate Busses
At 06:26 AM 7/30/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>To your question: As currently designed, the equipment list in my
>panel has the comm side of the 430 as comm#2 and the nav functions
>of the 430 as the primary navigation source. With an alternator
>failure, I want comm#2 to be among the equipment that gets dropped
>while keeping the navigation functions. The comm functions will be
>handled by a different transceiver as comm#1.
But comm#2 doesn't draw any significant power unless
you talk on it . . . so what is the ENDURANCE advantage
for shutting it down and making comm#2 unavailable
except by bringing the main bus back up?
>And why not make the 430 the primary comm and nav source? ...Budget.
>I'd like to have the full compliment of panel equipment on day one
>but its likely that the 430 will be added later. Starting out with
>only VFR capability and I'm planning for the full enchilada later.
Okay, you're planning ahead . . . good show.
Do you have an battery-only endurance target?
Is your engine electrically dependent? Have
you run the numbers on battery-only flight
at end of battery life?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:10 PM 7/29/2014, you wrote:
>Pengilly
>
>Back in the early 90s the Royal Navy fleet of
>SeaKing helicopters (S-61 derivative) used NiCad
>batteries. We were pretty much banned from using
>them to start and made sure ground power was
>always available. They didn't turn the engine
>over quickly enough to get a reliable start -
>usually too much fuel and not enough rpm
>resulted in a hot start with sheets of flame out
>the exhaust - and potentially an overheated
>turbine. The batteries were a lot of trouble, I
>remember several being float tested after
>aircraft landed back on-board with over heating
>or smoking battery compartments (now not an
>option as nothing is allowed over the side). We
>could also swap out individual cells if a
>battery went down. I guess the technology has
>moved on in 20 years, but I still would not be rushing to fit one.
The hot-start phenomenon would not have root cause
in the chemistry of the batteries, only the sizing-
to-task irrespective of chemistry.
The volumetric and power density numbers for ni-cad
are superior to lead-acid . . . i.e. a PROPERLY
SIZED ni-cad will be smaller and lighter than the
lead-acid capable of the same starting performance.
But as others have noted, ni-cads are not very friendly
to the cost of ownership. Their alkaline electrolyte
is antagonistic to lead-aced which prompts maintenance
operators to have separate shops for dealing with the
two technologies . . . which could probably be
dispensed with today . . . nobody has to 'maintain'
electrolyte in a lead-acid battery any more.
The thermal runaway thing was the byproduct of some
rather un-creative design decisions. The smaller,
lighter cells were very capable of cranking engines but
when those engines started, generators rated at
hundreds of amps would stuff energy back into the
little batteries causing them to warm up. Ni-Cad
temperature coefficient of voltage causing them
to draw more current from a fixed voltage bus as
their temperature rises . . . which causes them
to warm up still faster . . . you get the picture.
Quoting from Wikipedia at:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm7xee
"One of the biggest disadvantages is that the
battery exhibits a very marked negative
temperature coefficient. This means that as the
cell temperature rises, the internal resistance
falls. This can pose considerable charging
problems, particularly with the relatively simple
charging systems employed for
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93acid_battery>lead'acid
type batteries. Whilst lead'acid batteries can be
charged by simply connecting a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo>dynamo to
them, with a simple electromagnetic cut-out
system for when the dynamo is stationary or an
over-current occurs, the Ni'Cd battery under a
similar charging scheme would exhibit thermal
runaway, where the charging current would
continue to rise until the over-current cut-out
operated or the battery destroyed itself."
People who understood batteries published reams of data
on how to get the best performance from Ni-Cads . . . data
which said "constant current charge" . . . but those-
who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do decided that it
would be too much to expect an air-framer to install
ni-cad friendly starter-generator controllers. They decreed
that thermometers be added to ni-cads with displays
on the panel along with warning lights for battery overheat.
Instead of crafting a battery management system totally
transparent to the pilots . . . the pilots were burdened
with rudimentary system management duties to offset
poor regulatory judgement.
Hence, the ni-cad gets this bad rap for being higher
risk . . . risks driven by inelegant design. As a chemical
energy storage system, ni-cads have a lot going for them.
But as we've discussed here on the List . . . there is
no such creature as an alternative chemistry, drop-in
lead-acid replacement. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES that
beg understanding and deference in design, fabrication,
installation, operation and maintenance.
Whether lead-acid, ni-cad or lithium-ion . . . failure
to pay homage to the physics gods is at best just
expensive . . . at worst it sets airplanes on fire.
Every technology comes with its own constellation of
challenges.
http://tinyurl.com/kxu3s6j
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Loram" <johnl(at)loram.org> |
Well Said! -john-
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, July 30, 2014 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ni-Cad?
..
People who understood batteries published reams of data
on how to get the best performance from Ni-Cads . . . data
which said "constant current charge" . . . but those-
who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do decided that it
would be too much to expect an air-framer to install
ni-cad friendly starter-generator controllers. They decreed
that thermometers be added to ni-cads with displays
on the panel along with warning lights for battery overheat.
Instead of crafting a battery management system totally
transparent to the pilots . . . the pilots were burdened
with rudimentary system management duties to offset
poor regulatory judgement.
Hence, the ni-cad gets this bad rap for being higher
risk . . . risks driven by inelegant design. As a chemical
energy storage system, ni-cads have a lot going for them.
But as we've discussed here on the List . . . there is
no such creature as an alternative chemistry, drop-in
lead-acid replacement. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES that
beg understanding and deference in design, fabrication,
installation, operation and maintenance.
Whether lead-acid, ni-cad or lithium-ion . . . failure
to pay homage to the physics gods is at best just
expensive . . . at worst it sets airplanes on fire.
Every technology comes with its own constellation of
challenges.
http://tinyurl.com/kxu3s6j
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
Can anybody recommend panel-mounted USB ports to supply power for Apple
devices (iPhone/iPad)? I'm not sure if the Apple devices require some
special signaling circuitry of the USB port to accept power.
I could use a cigarette lighter receptacle and then a plug-in adapter, but
I prefer to plug directly into a USB port to charge.
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA USA
RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
On 8/1/2014 10:17 AM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> Can anybody recommend panel-mounted USB ports to supply power for
> Apple devices (iPhone/iPad)? I'm not sure if the Apple devices require
> some special signaling circuitry of the USB port to accept power.
>
> I could use a cigarette lighter receptacle and then a plug-in adapter,
> but I prefer to plug directly into a USB port to charge.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA USA
>
> RV-9A
>
iphone 4 & under seem to work ok with any usb supply. The ipads won't
charge unless the usb port signals that it's capable of 2.1 amps. It's
done with a specific value resistor between two of the pins.There are
some inexpensive units on ebay & amazon, but most don't tell you whether
they will work with ipads.
I've been considering the same issue. Dedicated ports would look nicer,
but there is something to be said for the cig lighter socket with plugin
adapter. That way, the port on the panel could be temporarily
re-purposed for generic automotive devices, if needed.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
On Aug 1, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Ralph Finch wrote:
> Can anybody recommend panel-mounted USB ports to supply power for Apple de
vices (iPhone/iPad)?
As I've mentioned a couple of times in the past, I'm working on just such a p
roduct. I admit that with the passage more than a year it probably looks li
ke vapor-ware, but I'm getting close. As of about a month ago, I have a ful
ly functional final prototype on my bench:
It has input over-voltage and reverse-voltage protection, output short circu
it protection, USB device sensing so that it automatically configures itself
to charge whatever you plug into it, noise filtering so that it plays well w
ith other avionics, and it automatically shuts itself off when the aircraft'
s alternator is offline. It will rapid-charge two devices simultaneously (i
n this photo, the board was charging both my iPad 4 and iPhone 3GS). The bo
ard measures 3" x 2" (~76 x 51mm) and uses a rugged panel-mount dual USB rec
eptacle.
Now I need to get production worked out. I'm a commuting airline guy, and I
'm on reserve with minimum days off, so my time at home has been very limite
d. I have the second half of Aug off, so I'm hoping to make some real progr
ess then. I can't promise a delivery date, but stay tuned...
Eric