AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mn
October 18, 2014 - November 03, 2014
> Justin
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 13:50, Eric Page wrote:
>
> What's the output from one of these sensors, and what are you
> monitoring/displaying it with?
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Bill Allen
> wrote:
>
> I may have misunderstood this to mean a "chip detector" which I have
> fitted to my Lycoming 0-320 engined aircraft.
>
> I sourced mine from a breaker - there are plenty of crashed Robinson R22s
> out there, and all have chip/particle detectors in their gearboxes.
>
> I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordable
> from the breaker.
>
> my 10c FWIW
>
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
> *
>
> D============================================
> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> D============================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crankcase ferrous particle detectors? |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
Roger wrote <>
Bob was correct, a "breaker" in The Queens vernacular would be a "salvage
yard" in Americish - a quick google search turns up many of them and White
Industries have been going since Pontious was a pilot.
The type I used (from an R22 gearbox) is a simple plug with magnetic
contacts which are normally open, but should metallic debris bridge the
contacts, will complete a circuit. It looks very much like (and could well
be) this; http://www.allenaircraft.com/products/chip_detectors.html
and I got it from: http://www.nalsonaviation.com/ in the UK - aircraft
spruce used to sell them, but its no longer listed on their website.
I have it connected to a Dynon Skyview so that a red warning will come on,
and a press-to-test button to check it's working.
In a helicopter, a main rotor gearbox failure is analogous to the wings
coming off an aircraft ie; if the main rotor gearbox starts shredding
itself, it wont glide/autorotate as a fixed wing aircraft will, hence the
higher imperative to reduce false alerts.
Many cars have magnetic sump plugs, and it will be seen that they often
have a covering of "fuzz" (rather than chunks of metal) which are the
microscopic particles of normal wear held in a yogurt-like paste around the
magnetic probe.
Another feature of the part from the R22 is that it is easily removable,
being a 2 part component with a self-sealing mechanism to allow the
electrical probe to be removed without the contents of the sump coming with
it.
Peter was correct, - usually false alarms occur within the first few hours
of a rebuild as the "fuzz" flushes through held in suspension in the oil,
cumulatively settling out overnight to the lowpoint where the detector is
installed.
I fitted it because I have installed an engine which is unusual and does
not have millions of in-service hours behind it. On a Lycoming/Continental
it's probably not worth it unless you really are involved with your engine.
Some people don't care much between annuals and 50 hr oil changes. I am the
opposite and go with SOAP ( eg;
http://www.spectro.in/Spectrometric-Oil-Analysis.html ) and 25hr oil
changes. Having a good EIS and a chip detector is just another tool in my
quiver against premature engine failure.
I realise that the original question from Eric has been over-answered, and
for this I apologise :^)
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
LongEze Diesel G-LEZE EGBJ
On 17 October 2014 21:29, wrote:
>
>
> I don't know the original source of these when new, but they're affordabl
e
> from the breaker.
>
> at the risk of sounding stupid, may I ask, who is =9Cthe breaker
=9D?
>
> Roger
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that are included
in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me, contain ALL garbage, not
just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics website to read your posts.
The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go to http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on the thread of interest, then click, "PostReply".
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 22:42 2014-10-17, you wrote:
>
>Also see the first post as that is what I responded to
>
> Lee KR-2 System Architecture
>
>Maybe he sent you something at one time.. looks like back in 2009
>Thanks
>Bob R
>
Did a data dump on my email archives for the List
and found a series of postings from/to Bob Lee
dating back to 2006. I also found a copy of his
web-page dissertation on electrical system planning.
I've posted them here.
http://tinyurl.com/n7zk5wh
It had been some time since we discussed his project
and I'd forgotten the extent of our conversations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
At 07:51 2014-10-18, you wrote:
>
>I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that
>are included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me,
>contain ALL garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the
>Matronics website to read your posts.
>The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go to
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on the
>thread of interest, then click, "PostReply".
>Joe
>
>--------
>Joe Gores
I've found Outlook (and most others) to be exceedingly
unfriendly to a techno-wiener's publishing and archival
needs. I've used Eudora for decades. It stores activity
in plain-text 'mailboxes' and does an excellent job of
searching. Just a few minutes ago, I was able to retrieve
a number of messages exchanged with Bob Lee about his
KR2 project . . . messages dating back to 2006.
Except for the occasional image imbedding compatibility
issues across email clients (Emacs!), I've been
very satisfied with Eudora's performance. Can't beat
the price either . . . it's free.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
Another very good free email client that has a lot of the look and feel
of Outlook without the garbage is Thunderbird, created by the same folks
as Mozilla and Firebird browsers.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/
I have been using it for around 10 yrs. It can be set to automatically
ask if you want the email you are replying to, to be sent in plain text,
html or text plus html.
On 10/18/2014 6:52 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 07:51 2014-10-18, you wrote:
>>
>> I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that
>> are included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me,
>> contain ALL garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the
>> Matronics website to read your posts.
>> The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go to
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on the thread
>> of interest, then click, "PostReply".
>> Joe
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>
>
> I've found Outlook (and most others) to be exceedingly
> unfriendly to a techno-wiener's publishing and archival
> needs. I've used Eudora for decades. It stores activity
> in plain-text 'mailboxes' and does an excellent job of
> searching. Just a few minutes ago, I was able to retrieve
> a number of messages exchanged with Bob Lee about his
> KR2 project . . . messages dating back to 2006.
>
> Except for the occasional image imbedding compatibility
> issues across email clients (Emacs!), I've been
> very satisfied with Eudora's performance. Can't beat
> the price either . . . it's free.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
| From: | "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net> |
Thanks so much Bob
I will go have a look at that now.
Bob R
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432007#432007
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
| From: | "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net> |
Hi Bob
just read through the emails quickly but I get the feeling and also had the feeling
looking at the panel itself on the link I provided earlier that this might
be over complicated and quite experimental in the sense of what I will be using
the airplane for.
I am guessing that Bob has the book and that I will get that along with other documentation
for the project when I pick it up.
I did try to go to the links on you sire but for some reason could not access the
downloadable pdfs
I will try again, and also the links to Bob's architecture are gone because his
site is no longer active. If you have copies and could send to me that would
be interesting reading for me.
I thank you for your help with understanding this and I think your first suggestion
of starting over may be the ticket. I just feel sticking as close to the
KISS principle is often a good decision. I will have enough to do without complicating
my flight demands .
Thanks Again
Bob R
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432009#432009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
My posts on this list (and the Europa-List) have always been posted from
various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those posts
using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why some
messages include some or many strange characters but I have assumed it was
more likely the use of a different ASCII character set by the posters'
software or O/S. Consistently, though perhaps not always, posts originating
outside of North America have an odd combination of characters where it is
obvious that an apostrophe should be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in
these things can comment and offer a real solution, if one exists.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS
Rotax 914
S/N A070
Airframe complete
Avionics in progress
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that are
included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me, contain ALL
garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics website to read
your posts.
The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go to
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on the thread of
interest, then click, "PostReply".
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange charactersIn your mail program, find
"Encoding" which may be on the drop-down menu "View".
You could try: "Unicode (UTF-8)" and see what happens.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Housman
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
My posts on this list (and the Europa-List) have always been posted
from various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those
posts using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why
some messages include some or many strange characters but I have assumed
it was more likely the use of a different ASCII character set by the
posters' software or O/S. Consistently, though perhaps not always, posts
originating outside of North America have an odd combination of
characters where it is obvious that an apostrophe should be. Perhaps
someone more knowledgeable in these things can comment and offer a real
solution, if one exists.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS
Rotax 914
S/N A070
Airframe complete
Avionics in progress
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
user9253
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that
are included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me,
contain ALL garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics
website to read your posts.
The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go to
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and click on the thread
of interest, then click, "PostReply".
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
great content also available via the Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
Thank you for your generous support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
10/18/14
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
The primary problem with all versions of Outlook is that it defaults to
sending messages in Rich Text Format, in other words formatted text,
with all those characters as the encoding for formatting . If you are
savvy enough, you can change to setting in Outlook to send in plain text
only, but it is not an easy change to find. The reason everything looks
fine in Outlook is because it is set to receive what other Outlook users
send. Most other email programs give you a choice of what fype of
formatting to send. Problems arise with email listserv transmissions
because they usually strip off most of the html encoding to conserve space.
On 10/18/2014 10:48 AM, Rob Housman wrote:
> RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>
> My posts on this list(and the Europa-List)have always been posted from
> various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those
> posts using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why
> some messages include some or many strange characters but I have
> assumed it was more likely the use of a different ASCII character set
> by the posters' software or O/S.Consistently, though perhaps not
> always, posts originating outside of North Americahave an odd
> combination of characters where it is obvious that an apostrophe
> should be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these things can
> comment and offer a real solution, if one exists.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
>
> Irvine, California
>
> Europa XS
>
> Rotax 914
>
> S/N A070
>
> Airframe complete
>
> Avionics in progress
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> user9253
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>
> >
>
> I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that
> are included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me,
> contain ALL garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the
> Matronics website to read your posts.
>
> The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go
> tohttp://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3and click on the thread
> of interest, then click, "PostReply".
>
> Joe
>
> --------
>
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
>
>
> more:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> great content also available via the Web Forums!
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> Thank you for your generous support!
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
| From: | Graeme Hart <graeme.hart(at)onecoolkat.com> |
The other option is to send in HTML.
These options are found under the "Format Text" menu in Outlook 2013
(when sending a message). You can also change it for all emails under
"File / Options / Mail / Compose Messages"
They exist in the earlier versions of Outlook too but Microsoft
occasionally move them around.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> The primary problem with all versions of Outlook is that it defaults to
> sending messages in Rich Text Format, in other words formatted text, with
> all those characters as the encoding for formatting . If you are savvy
> enough, you can change to setting in Outlook to send in plain text only, but
> it is not an easy change to find. The reason everything looks fine in
> Outlook is because it is set to receive what other Outlook users send. Most
> other email programs give you a choice of what fype of formatting to send.
> Problems arise with email listserv transmissions because they usually strip
> off most of the html encoding to conserve space.
> On 10/18/2014 10:48 AM, Rob Housman wrote:
>>
>> RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>
>> My posts on this list(and the Europa-List)have always been posted from
>> various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those posts
>> using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why some
>> messages include some or many strange characters but I have assumed it was
>> more likely the use of a different ASCII character set by the posters'
>> software or O/S.Consistently, though perhaps not always, posts originating
>> outside of North Americahave an odd combination of characters where it is
>> obvious that an apostrophe should be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in
>> these things can comment and offer a real solution, if one exists.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rob Housman
>>
>> Irvine, California
>>
>> Europa XS
>>
>> Rotax 914
>>
>> S/N A070
>>
>> Airframe complete
>>
>> Avionics in progress
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>
>> >
>>
>> I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that are
>> included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me, contain ALL
>> garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics website to read
>> your posts.
>>
>> The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go
>> tohttp://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3and click on the thread of
>> interest, then click, "PostReply".
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> more:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>> great content also available via the Web Forums!
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> Thank you for your generous support!
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
You absolutely do NOT want to send in HTML. It will result in blank
messages on most email listservs such as this one.
Almost all are set to strip out all html.
Plain text is the best way to ensure your message comes through clear
with no loss of content and no extra characters,
On 10/18/2014 7:38 PM, Graeme Hart wrote:
>
> The other option is to send in HTML.
>
> These options are found under the "Format Text" menu in Outlook 2013
> (when sending a message). You can also change it for all emails under
> "File / Options / Mail / Compose Messages"
>
> They exist in the earlier versions of Outlook too but Microsoft
> occasionally move them around.
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> The primary problem with all versions of Outlook is that it defaults to
>> sending messages in Rich Text Format, in other words formatted text, with
>> all those characters as the encoding for formatting . If you are savvy
>> enough, you can change to setting in Outlook to send in plain text only, but
>> it is not an easy change to find. The reason everything looks fine in
>> Outlook is because it is set to receive what other Outlook users send. Most
>> other email programs give you a choice of what fype of formatting to send.
>> Problems arise with email listserv transmissions because they usually strip
>> off most of the html encoding to conserve space.
>> On 10/18/2014 10:48 AM, Rob Housman wrote:
>>> RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>>
>>> My posts on this list(and the Europa-List)have always been posted from
>>> various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those posts
>>> using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why some
>>> messages include some or many strange characters but I have assumed it was
>>> more likely the use of a different ASCII character set by the posters'
>>> software or O/S.Consistently, though perhaps not always, posts originating
>>> outside of North Americahave an odd combination of characters where it is
>>> obvious that an apostrophe should be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in
>>> these things can comment and offer a real solution, if one exists.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Rob Housman
>>>
>>> Irvine, California
>>>
>>> Europa XS
>>>
>>> Rotax 914
>>>
>>> S/N A070
>>>
>>> Airframe complete
>>>
>>> Avionics in progress
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that are
>>> included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me, contain ALL
>>> garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics website to read
>>> your posts.
>>>
>>> The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go
>>> tohttp://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3and click on the thread of
>>> interest, then click, "PostReply".
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> --------
>>>
>>> Joe Gores
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> more:
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>
>>> great content also available via the Web Forums!
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
>>> Thank you for your generous support!
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | High oil temp...or instrumentation? |
A friend has been fighting high oil temps for several months on his O-320.
The last flight he saw a sudden drop in temp followed a few minutes later by
a spike which went away and the temps were then fine for the rest of the
flight. I thought that the oil cooler bypass might have been stuck and then
opened but the temp dropped too fast I think for this to be a real temp
change. It seems to me that it may be instrumentation.
He is also having obvious instrumentation problems with EGT#1. It is very
erratic. I hope some of you can give him a few ideas as to how he can
troubleshoot these problems and hopefully get them resolved.
Here is a link to a Savvy Analysis data dump that he made on the last
flight.
https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/741039/7be0f496-4815-45d2-9eee-4455fc4f
5e98
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
| From: | Graeme Hart <graeme.hart(at)onecoolkat.com> |
Sorry, I didn't realise that email listservs hadn't made the
transition to handling HTML.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> You absolutely do NOT want to send in HTML. It will result in blank messages
> on most email listservs such as this one.
> Almost all are set to strip out all html.
> Plain text is the best way to ensure your message comes through clear with
> no loss of content and no extra characters,
>
> On 10/18/2014 7:38 PM, Graeme Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The other option is to send in HTML.
>>
>> These options are found under the "Format Text" menu in Outlook 2013
>> (when sending a message). You can also change it for all emails under
>> "File / Options / Mail / Compose Messages"
>>
>> They exist in the earlier versions of Outlook too but Microsoft
>> occasionally move them around.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Kelly McMullen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The primary problem with all versions of Outlook is that it defaults to
>>> sending messages in Rich Text Format, in other words formatted text, with
>>> all those characters as the encoding for formatting . If you are savvy
>>> enough, you can change to setting in Outlook to send in plain text only,
>>> but
>>> it is not an easy change to find. The reason everything looks fine in
>>> Outlook is because it is set to receive what other Outlook users send.
>>> Most
>>> other email programs give you a choice of what fype of formatting to
>>> send.
>>> Problems arise with email listserv transmissions because they usually
>>> strip
>>> off most of the html encoding to conserve space.
>>> On 10/18/2014 10:48 AM, Rob Housman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>>>
>>>> My posts on this list(and the Europa-List)have always been posted from
>>>> various versions of Outlook (currently 2010) and when I view those posts
>>>> using Outlook there are no strange characters. I don't know why some
>>>> messages include some or many strange characters but I have assumed it
>>>> was
>>>> more likely the use of a different ASCII character set by the posters'
>>>> software or O/S.Consistently, though perhaps not always, posts
>>>> originating
>>>> outside of North Americahave an odd combination of characters where it
>>>> is
>>>> obvious that an apostrophe should be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable
>>>> in
>>>> these things can comment and offer a real solution, if one exists.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rob Housman
>>>>
>>>> Irvine, California
>>>>
>>>> Europa XS
>>>>
>>>> Rotax 914
>>>>
>>>> S/N A070
>>>>
>>>> Airframe complete
>>>>
>>>> Avionics in progress
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> user9253
>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:52 AM
>>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange characters
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I do not know what causes the strange characters. Your posts, that are
>>>> included in the Matronics daily digest that is emailed to me, contain
>>>> ALL
>>>> garbage, not just at the end. I have to go to the Matronics website to
>>>> read
>>>> your posts.
>>>>
>>>> The workaround for you is to NOT use Outlook. Instead, go
>>>> tohttp://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3and click on the thread
>>>> of
>>>> interest, then click, "PostReply".
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>> Joe Gores
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432003#432003
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> more:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>>
>>>> great content also available via the Web Forums!
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your generous support!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> Visual inspection any circuit protective device offers no assurance whatsoever
of any system's operational integrity.Bob . . .
I recall at least one occasion in particular where the failure to visually detect
a tripped circuit breaker before flight had no preflight consequences in a
B767, but subsequently led to significant inflight consequences and an air safety
incident report.
In fact it was taken so seriously by my (very large airline) company, that proper
preflight inspection of circuit breakers was elevated to a major assessment
item in annual flight reviews/check rides. I recall the pilot who failed to complete
the CB check as required in the Ops Manual being quite distraught about
the consequences.
Preflight exercising of each individual protected system is not necessarily practical
or achievable, but in the case I mentioned, correct checking of CBs before
getting airborne would've saved the subsequent tea and biscuits meeting with
the Chief Pilot. Also, we had systems which required both preflight exercising,
and a subsequent specific check that the system CBs had not tripped during
the testing/exercising process, as it was possible for them to do so without
any obvious symptoms until after takeoff. So it's a habit, and not an unhealthy
one, which has been ingrained into my psyche.
("You're cordially invited to tea and biscuits with the Chief Pilot - cold tea,
bring your own biscuits - you better make your explanation a good one.")
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432028#432028
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: High oil temp...or instrumentation? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bill Bradburry,
The Savvy Analysis data link that you posted is not publicly accessible.
The vast majority of electrical problems are due to bad connections. The cause
of more than one instrumentation problem is likely due to a bad ground connection.
I suggest that all ground wires and cables, related to the engine and to
engine sensors, be disconnected at both ends, cleaned, inspected, and reconnected.
A thin film of grease on terminals will help prevent future corrosion.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432030#432030
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High oil temp...or instrumentation? |
On 10/18/2014 11:30 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> A friend has been fighting high oil temps for several months on his O-320.
> The last flight he saw a sudden drop in temp followed a few minutes later by
> a spike which went away and the temps were then fine for the rest of the
> flight. I thought that the oil cooler bypass might have been stuck and then
> opened but the temp dropped too fast I think for this to be a real temp
> change. It seems to me that it may be instrumentation.
>
> He is also having obvious instrumentation problems with EGT#1. It is very
> erratic. I hope some of you can give him a few ideas as to how he can
> troubleshoot these problems and hopefully get them resolved.
>
> Here is a link to a Savvy Analysis data dump that he made on the last
> flight.
>
> https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/741039/7be0f496-4815-45d2-9eee-4455fc4f
> 5e98
>
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
Unless he had an obvious very bad miss, the egt reading had to be sensor
or instrument related.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
At 05:30 2014-10-19, you wrote:
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> Visual inspection any circuit protective device offers no
assurance whatsoever of any system's operational integrity.Bob . . .
I recall at least one occasion in particular where the failure to
visually detect a tripped circuit breaker before flight had no
preflight consequences in a B767, but subsequently led to significant
inflight consequences and an air safety incident report.
In fact it was taken so seriously by my (very large airline) company,
that proper preflight inspection of circuit breakers was elevated to
a major assessment item in annual flight reviews/check rides. I
recall the pilot who failed to complete the CB check as required in
the Ops Manual being quite distraught about the consequences.
Preflight exercising of each individual protected system is not
necessarily practical or achievable, but in the case I mentioned,
correct checking of CBs before getting airborne would've saved the
subsequent tea and biscuits meeting with the Chief Pilot. Also, we
had systems which required both preflight exercising, and a
subsequent specific check that the system CBs had not tripped during
the testing/exercising process, as it was possible for them to do so
without any obvious symptoms until after takeoff. So it's a habit,
and not an unhealthy one, which has been ingrained into my psyche.
We're talking about two VERY different kinds of airplanes.
At the same time, your narrative illustrates the fact that
heavy-iron pilots (indeed C-172 pilots too) are in a what-
you-see-is-what-you get situation with respect to system
architectures, consequences of inadequate FMEA by the
designers and/or hind-sight reactions to an 'in-flight
consequence' arising from failure to perform in the cockpit.
The idea that any system's integrity is assured by making
sure it's breaker is closed speaks to poor system design.
If it's a critical system with no pre-flight detectable
tell-tales, the folks getting worked over with the
wet-noodles and stern mentors should NOT be the
flight crews - but the folks on the drawing boards.
Overhauling crews for missing one critical breaker
condition on an acres-of-breakers panel is like
dinging a TSA agent for letting grandma get through
with an unchecked water-bottle. You don't effectively
address known, critical items in preflight with broad
brush checklist items like "Copilot's breaker panel - CHECK"
or "Old lady water bottle - CHECK."
You identify every critical breaker by name and give
each a separate check-list bullet:" "#2 Slats Warn
Breaker - CHECK IN". That way, perhaps two or three
critical breakers out of dozens will get the special
attention they need . . . because for reasons
unexplained, those systems have no active notification
for loss of integrity other that to see that they're
powered up. The idea that those same systems never exhibit
failures that do not open their breakers lacks
credibility.
("You're cordially invited to tea and biscuits with the Chief Pilot -
cold tea, bring your own biscuits - you better make your explanation
a good one.")
Your tag-line is illustrative of far to many
institutional knee-jerk/CYA responses to incidents
rooted in poor attention to physics and human-
factors. I have analyzed the narratives of many
"dark-n-stormy" night stories published in the aviation
journals.
Two examples:
http://tinyurl.com/lk9d9sm
http://tinyurl.com/mrsnutr
Here's a third one that was the lead-in story
to Chapter 17 in the AeroElectric Connection.
http://tinyurl.com/otzkjft
http://tinyurl.com/n8x8bsc
I cannot recall a single story that cited poor
behavior on the part of designers and procedures
writers . . . instead the thrust of EVERY
article was to increase pilot awareness
of the potential for experiencing the same
or similar design shortfall all over again.
The foundation for my assertions here on the
List is built on the fact that OUR airplanes are
not (or at least should not be) products of the
time, talents and resources of Boeing, Cessna,
Podunk Airlines, the FAA or any other institution
who's after-market response to a design shortfall
is too often limited to writing more paragraphs
into the POH or adding new features to the pilot
training syllabus.
The way you avoid becoming a passenger in the
left seat of your own airplane is SIMPLE . . .
not necessarily easy but quite SIMPLE.
As you cut wires, crimp terminals, mount electro-
whizzies to your airplane, be constantly analyzing
the following:
How can this part fail?
How can/will I know that the part has failed?
Is its functionality critical to comfortable
termination of flight (CTCTOF)?
Is the failure pre-flight detectable?
If CTCTOF = TRUE then what considerations are
best applied to (1) actively annunciate failure and
(2) provide a Plan-B should loss of that item
become a reality?
Scanning the circuit breaker panel or putting
LEDs on the fuses is a close cousin to the "TSA
approach" to air travel security. You must PROFILE
every component of your airplane to assess (1) its
CTCTOF factor and (2) DO SOMETHING that mitigates
the risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strange characters |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Here's the answer:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=outlook+mail+weird+characters
--------
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=432035#432035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: High oil temp...or instrumentation? |
I had no problem bring up the information. It appears accessible to me. The
link is split in the original e-mail and I had to enter the last 3
characters manually after clicking the link. (E98)
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:30 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: High oil temp...or instrumentation?
>
>
> Bill Bradburry,
> The Savvy Analysis data link that you posted is not publicly accessible.
> The vast majority of electrical problems are due to bad connections. The
cause of more
> than one instrumentation problem is likely due to a bad ground connection.
I suggest
> that all ground wires and cables, related to the engine and to engine
sensors, be
> disconnected at both ends, cleaned, inspected, and reconnected. A thin
film of grease on
> terminals will help prevent future corrosion.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432030#432030
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: High oil temp...or instrumentation? |
| From: | Jack <n81jg(at)aol.com> |
Had similar OT readings; OT needs good engine ground return. Found all Van's cable
swages incomplete; battery ground pulled loose as I disconnect battery. Check
swages and cable connections; easy fix.
John
RV7A
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 18, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
>
> A friend has been fighting high oil temps for several months on his O-320.
> The last flight he saw a sudden drop in temp followed a few minutes later by
> a spike which went away and the temps were then fine for the rest of the
> flight. I thought that the oil cooler bypass might have been stuck and then
> opened but the temp dropped too fast I think for this to be a real temp
> change. It seems to me that it may be instrumentation.
>
> He is also having obvious instrumentation problems with EGT#1. It is very
> erratic. I hope some of you can give him a few ideas as to how he can
> troubleshoot these problems and hopefully get them resolved.
>
> Here is a link to a Savvy Analysis data dump that he made on the last
> flight.
>
> https://www.savvyanalysis.com/flight/741039/7be0f496-4815-45d2-9eee-4455fc4f
> 5e98
>
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Sale = Phase IV |
Bob,
Will you ship to Canada via USPS?
Michael
mosurf(at)xplornet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:07 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale = Phase IV
I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails
for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part
number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down
well onto a 22AWG twisted trio.
Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them
before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.'
Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10.
Email me directly please . . .
Bob . . .
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
10/01/14
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and their system
design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct from the Boeing
FCOM. Best of luck with that!
The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain what
happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an inquisitorial
meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a reminder
issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement and it was
a big deal.
Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for engine
start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine start in
a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down in
the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within arms
reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset power
to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches - they
do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and physically
pull and push in the same manner!
It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the ground
and in the air.
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432067#432067
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in |
flight?
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
Gday Mike,
There might be a few chuckles over your remark not even Bob has a patent on good
ideas, but mortals are on a hiding to nothing arguing electrical architectures
with him :-) I have a long P3 Orion background where CBs are used (and sometimes
abused) by the hundreds too, but it never ceases to amaze me how much
common sense and experience Bob has in his head and how well he can describe it
!
Were in your debt onya Bob.
Cheers, Stu
On 20 Oct 2014, at 9:39 pm, mmayfield wrote:
>
> Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and their
system design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct from the
Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
>
> The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain what
happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an inquisitorial
meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a reminder
issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement and it
was a big deal.
>
> Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for engine
start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine start in
a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
>
> As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down in
the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within arms
reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset power
to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches -
they do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and
physically pull and push in the same manner!
>
> It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the
ground and in the air.
>
> --------
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432067#432067
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 10:20 2014-10-18, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob
> just read through the emails quickly but I get the feeling and
> also had the feeling looking at the panel itself on the link I
> provided earlier that this might be over complicated and quite
> experimental in the sense of what I will be using the airplane for.
I found the pictures you cited earlier. Clearly, this airplane
has been fitted with WWWWAAaaayyy too much hardware for
the missions on which it's likely to be flown.
I remember when Ken Rand first debuted the KR series airplanes.
Very impressive cost/performance ratios! But just as Burt
Rutan would roll his eyes at the notion of putting an IO320
engine, 60A electrical system with auto pilot in a LongEze,
I'm sure Ken would have been similarly distressed to
see how this example of his vision was being 'expanded'.
The instrumentation package is pretty dated. You might
spend as many dollars getting all the existing hardware
flight worthy as it costs to replace them with more
modern, lighter, smaller and simpler components.
This can be and should be a simple, practical, fun machine
with few CTCTOF factors. Let's talk about your needs
and plans here on the List . . . this is a great opportunity
for learning for all of us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
At 05:39 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>
>
>Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues
>and their system design or poorly conceived procedures because they
>are direct from the Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
You miss my point. I fully understand and empathize with
the good folks at Boeing. Their accomplishments are without
peer . . . something one may expect from people with
"the right stuff" . . .
http://tinyurl.com/n7zo6ms
On the other hand, history has given us millions of
examples of "Aww s*%t!" epiphanies suffered by
successful and capable designers in companies of all sizes
and technologies. Consider recalls in the automotive
industries and other consumer products. I've had
a few of those myself in a company of only 100
employees. To date, the worst case of stubbing my toe
only cost the boss about $25K and didn't make it
onto any airplanes before it was caught.
>The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to
>explain what happened but in this particular case I don't believe it
>was actually an inquisitorial meeting (notwithstanding that it can
>be). However there was a reminder issued that checking the breaker
>panels is a preflight requirement and it was a big deal.
>Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be
>in for engine start. Just like every other switch position I check
>before engine start in a standard panel scan, the breakers are part
>of that scan.
My point was not to argue against the general
statement for checking breakers. To be sure, finding
a breaker open in pre-flight offers data worthy of
further consideration. This assumes that the breaker
powers a CFCTOF=0 system and is 'tied open' by maintenance.
The point I was promoting is based on an inarguable
fact that unlike the OPEN breaker, the CLOSED breaker guarantees
nothing. It follows then that FMEA conducted during design
and verification in flight test should go to giving
the crew ALL information necessary for pre-flight
verification of integrity for all systems with CFCTOF=1.
To be sure, few "Aw s$#t" epiphanies in Boeing class
aircraft are going to generate an AD (recall) ESPECIALLY
when a 'fix' can be implemented with some new words in the
AFM.
Fortunately, OUR airplanes do not suffer from the square-
law effects the gargantuan institutions. The potential for
an "Aw s#@t" moment goes up with the square of influential
individuals not directly tasked with the design and verification
of a device. The discovery of something needing a fix in
an RV will cost perhaps a 100 times fewer dollars than
fixing a similar shortfall on a C-172 and a factor of a
100,000 less than a B787.
>As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical
>breakers down in the electronics compartment. Technically it's
>accessible, but not within arms reach. However Airbus needed a way
>of allowing pilots to pull and reset power to systems so they
>created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches - they do not
>function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and
>physically pull and push in the same manner!
Yup, you may find that these are actually 1A breakers
that are crowbared open in response to signals from
a "remotely controlled circuit breaker" (RCCB). There's
a bunch of them on the Eclipse that are controlled via
touch-screen buttons. Here is one of dozens of such
devices . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mtjcsyb
>It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system,
>both on the ground and in the air.
No argument . . . when it's well considered procedure that
arises from the guys at the drawing boards. These are precisely
the tools needed for competent operation.
My point was to decry a DEPENDANCE upon catching
an open breaker . . . in a panel full of breakers . . .
for a system with a CTCTOF=1 . . . a system that apparently
enjoyed NO OTHER means for pre-flight verification.
Breakers and fuses are for the protection of wires and
to prevent a fault from propagating across multiple systems.
The prudent designer (and OBAM aircraft builder) will strive
to fit EVERY system with CTCTOF=1 with
1) pre-flight verifiable integrity that goes beyond
checking for a closed breaker -AND-
(2) plan-B for mitigating loss of that system
whether or not the breaker is open.
Finally, as OBAM aircraft owners and operators, we're
encouraged and privileged to FIX any latent shortfalls
in design with something more than a band-aid to the
procedures in the AFM.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 10:20 2014-10-18, you wrote:
Hi Bob
just read through the emails quickly but I get the feeling and also
had the feeling looking at the panel itself on the link I provided
earlier that this might be over complicated and quite experimental in
the sense of what I will be using the airplane for.
Yeah . . . he speaks to Figure Z-14 which is an
exceedingly capable system tailored for airplanes
MUCH larger than a IMC KR-2. I recall that
conversation a bit now . . . I tried to get him
to down-size.
I am guessing that Bob has the book and that I will get that along
with other documentation for the project when I pick it up.
Perhaps you need the book now. Understand you're
getting the airplane next spring. Now is the time
to start boning up on the options.
I did try to go to the links on you sire but for some reason could
not access the downloadable pdfs
Don't understand this. The .pdf file is the compilation
of e-mails I found. The .htm file is a copy of a page
from his website found on the WayBack machine . . .
an organization that endeavors to take periodic 'snapshots'
of websites and preserve them. The page you cited from
Bob's website happened to be one of those captures on
the WayBack servers.
I just checked both links at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Bob_Lee/
and they're working . . .
I will try again, and also the links to Bob's architecture are gone
because his site is no longer active. If you have copies and could
send to me that would be interesting reading for me.
If you have any specific links to old pages, you
can try searching for them at http://archive.org/web/
I thank you for your help with understanding this and I think your
first suggestion of starting over may be the ticket. I just feel
sticking as close to the KISS principle is often a good decision. I
will have enough to do without complicating my flight demands .
Thanks Again
Bob R
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be
reset in flight?
At 05:39 2014-10-20, you wrote:
Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and
their system design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct
from the Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
You miss my point. I fully understand and empathize with
the good folks at Boeing. Their accomplishments are without
peer . . . something one may expect from people with
"the right stuff" . . .
http://tinyurl.com/n7zo6ms
On the other hand, history has given us millions of
examples of "Aww s*%t!" epiphanies suffered by
successful and capable designers in companies of all sizes
and technologies. Consider recalls in the automotive
industries and other consumer products. I've had
a few of those myself in a company of only 100
employees. To date, the worst case of stubbing my toe
only cost the boss about $25K and didn't make it
onto any airplanes before it was caught.
The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain
what happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an
inquisitorial meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a
reminder issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement
and it was a big deal.
Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for
engine start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine
start in a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
My point was not to argue against the general
statement for checking breakers. To be sure, finding
a breaker open in pre-flight offers data worthy of
further consideration. This assumes that the breaker
powers a CFCTOF=0 system and is 'tied open' by maintenance.
The point I was promoting is based on an inarguable
fact that unlike the OPEN breaker, the CLOSED breaker guarantees
nothing. It follows then that FMEA conducted during design
and verification in flight test should go to giving
the crew ALL information necessary for pre-flight
verification of integrity for all systems with CFCTOF=1.
To be sure, few "Aw s$#t" epiphanies in Boeing class
aircraft are going to generate an AD (recall) ESPECIALLY
when a 'fix' can be implemented with some new words in the
AFM.
Fortunately, OUR airplanes do not suffer from the square-
law effects the gargantuan institutions. The potential for
an "Aw s#@t" moment goes up with the square of influential
individuals not directly tasked with the design and verification
of a device. The discovery of something needing a fix in
an RV will cost perhaps a 100 times fewer dollars than
fixing a similar shortfall on a C-172 and a factor of a
100,000 less than a B787.
As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down
in the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within
arms reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset
power to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like"
switches - they do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like
breakers, and physically pull and push in the same manner!
Yup, you may find that these are actually 1A breakers
that are crowbared open in response to signals from
a "remotely controlled circuit breaker" (RCCB). There's
a bunch of them on the Eclipse that are controlled via
touch-screen buttons. Here is one of dozens of such
devices . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mtjcsyb
It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the
ground and in the air.
No argument . . . when it's well considered procedure that
arises from the guys at the drawing boards. These are precisely
the tools needed for competent operation.
My point was to decry a DEPENDANCE upon catching
an open breaker . . . in a panel full of breakers . . .
for a system with a CTCTOF=1 . . . a system that apparently
enjoyed NO OTHER means for pre-flight verification.
Breakers and fuses are for the protection of wires and
to prevent a fault from propagating across multiple systems.
The prudent designer (and OBAM aircraft builder) will strive
to fit EVERY system with CTCTOF=1 with
1) pre-flight verifiable integrity that goes beyond
checking for a closed breaker -AND-
(2) plan-B for mitigating loss of that system
whether or not the breaker is open.
Finally, as OBAM aircraft owners and operators, we're
encouraged and privileged to FIX any latent shortfalls
in design with something more than a band-aid to the
procedures in the AFM.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>
>Bevan
Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
are things like providing independent sources of
power for dual ignition systems, etc.
A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
no influence on your comfort level. A factor
of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
will be if the critter rolls TU.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
Acronyms suck!
On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>> What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>>
>> Bevan
>
> Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
>
> Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
> etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
> communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
> are things like providing independent sources of
> power for dual ignition systems, etc.
>
> A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
> into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
> no influence on your comfort level. A factor
> of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
> careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
> will be if the critter rolls TU.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
Guys this has been a great thread and I learned a lot!
Did'nt even know some of this stuff existed!
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 21 October 2014 00:25, Lyle Peterson wrote:
> Acronyms suck!
>
>
> On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>
> What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>
> Bevan
>
>
> Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
>
> Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
> etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
> communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
> are things like providing independent sources of
> power for dual ignition systems, etc.
>
> A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
> into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
> no influence on your comfort level. A factor
> of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
> careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
> will be if the critter rolls TU.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Lyle
>
> Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
Thanks Bob,
Regarding relatively rare acronyms, it would be nice for the writer to spell
out the full version followed by the acronym in brackets when it occurs the
first time in a document. After that, it's all good. Acronyms don't bother
me as much as the incorrect spelling of words and punctuation (specifically,
the lack thereof) which can change the meaning of a sentence.
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lyle
Peterson
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be
reset in flight?
Acronyms suck!
On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
Bevan
Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
are things like providing independent sources of
power for dual ignition systems, etc.
A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
no influence on your comfort level. A factor
of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
will be if the critter rolls TU.
Bob . . .
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
It should be required by God to spell out acronyms the first time they
are used in a text. However, don't use them, spell them out then not
use them again in that text. Don't use the acronym if the term or phrase
is not going to be used again in the same text.
On 10/21/2014 2:20 AM, B Tomm wrote:
> Thanks Bob,
> Regarding relatively rare acronyms, it would be nice for the writer to
> spell out the full version followed by the acronym in brackets when it
> occurs the first time in a document. After that, it's all good.
> Acronyms don't bother me as much as the incorrect spelling of words
> and punctuation (specifically, the lack thereof) which can change the
> meaning of a sentence.
> Bevan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Lyle Peterson
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 3:26 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker
> be reset in flight?
>
> Acronyms suck!
>
>
> On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>>> What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>>>
>>> Bevan
>>
>> Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
>>
>> Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
>> etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
>> communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
>> are things like providing independent sources of
>> power for dual ignition systems, etc.
>>
>> A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
>> into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
>> no influence on your comfort level. A factor
>> of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
>> careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
>> will be if the critter rolls TU.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
> --
> Lyle
>
> Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
> *
>
>
> *
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be |
reset in flight?
At 03:18 2014-10-21, you wrote:
>It should be required by God to spell out acronyms the first time
>they are used in a text. However, don't use them, spell them out
>then not use them again in that text. Don't use the acronym if the
>term or phrase is not going to be used again in the same text.
. . . God hasn't weighed in yet but the Mil-standards,
ATA writing practices manuals, most P/P manuals for
writing practices, etc. etc. suggest/demand just that.
Indeed, my first use of the acronym posted on 10/19 was
paired with the expansion. However, in deference to those
not tightly "plugged-in" to all postings in a thread,
acronym not common-language in aviation should probably be
expanded at first use in each posting.
Thanks for the heads-up . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be |
reset in flight?
FWIW...LMAO.
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:22 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
At 03:18 2014-10-21, you wrote:
Itshould be required by God to spell out acronyms the first time they areus
ed in a text.=C2- However,=C2- don't use them, spell them out thennot u
se them again in that text. Don't use the acronym if the term or phrase is
not going to be used againin the same text.
=C2-=C2- . . . God hasn't weighed in yet but the Mil-standards,
=C2-=C2- ATA writing practices manuals, most P/P manuals for
=C2-=C2- writing practices, etc. etc. suggest/demand justthat.
=C2-=C2- Indeed, my first use of the acronym posted on 10/19 was
=C2-=C2- paired with the expansion. However, in deference tothose
=C2-=C2- not tightly "plugged-in" to all postings in athread,
=C2-=C2- acronym not common-language in aviation should probablybe
=C2-=C2- expanded at first use in each posting.
=C2-=C2- Thanks for the heads-up . . .
=C2- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, 1 battery) |
| From: | Clark Carroll <carrollswa(at)gmail.com> |
CkhleSBhbGwsCgpJIGFtIHByZXBhcmluZyB0byB3aXJlIG15IFJWNyBpYXcgdGhlIFoxMyBkaWFn
cmFtIGluIEFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy4gTXkgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMsIHdoYXQgYnVzc2VzIGFuZCBzd2l0
Y2hlcyBhcmUgeW91IHVzaW5nIGZvciB0aGUgc3lzdGVtPwoKVGhlIGR1YWwgaWduaXRpb24gc2hv
dWxkIGJlIHdpcmVkIHRvIDIgc2luZ2xlIHBvbGUgaWduaXRpb24gc3dpdGNoZXMuIEFyZSB5b3Ug
cHV0dGluZyB0aGVtIGJvdGggb24gdGhlIG1haW4gYmF0dGVyeSBidXMsIHRoZSBlLWJ1cywgb3Ig
c3BsaXR0aW5nIHRoZW0gYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgMiBidXNzZXM/CgpUaGVyZSBhcmUgMiBFQ1Uncy4g
TXkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBpcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBuZWVkIHRvIGhhdmUgdGhlbSBzd2l0Y2gg
YWN0aXZhdGVkLCBidXQgYXJlIHlvdSBhbGwgc3dpdGNoIGFjdGl2YXRpbmcgdGhlbSBhbnl3YXk/
IFdoYXQgYnVzIGFyZSB5b3UgcHV0dGluZyB0aGVtIG9uPyBJIGFtIHRoaW5raW5nIHRoYXQgaWYg
SSBwdXQgdGhlbSBvbiB0aGUgbWFpbiBiYXR0ZXJ5IGJ1cywgdGhleSBzaG91bGQgYmUgc3dpdGNo
IGFjdGl2YXRlZC4gSG93ZXZlciwgaWYgSSBwdXQgdGhlbSBvbiB0aGUgZS1idXMsIHRoZXkgZG9u
J3QgbmVlZCB0byBiZS4uLgoKVGhlcmUgYXJlIDIgZnVlbCBwdW1wczogYSBwcmltYXJ5IHB1bXAg
YW5kIGEgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IHB1bXAuIE9ubHkgMSBzaG91bGQgYmUgcnVubmluZyBhdCBhIHRpbWUu
IEkgYW0gdGhpbmtpbmcgb2YgYWxzbyBwdXR0aW5nIHRoZW0gb24gdGhlIG1haW4gYmF0dGVyeSBi
dXMgd2l0aCBhIHNpbmdsZSBkdWFsIHBvbGUgc3dpdGNoIChvbi1vZmYtb24pLiBBbnkgb3RoZXIg
cmVjb21tZW5kYXRpb25zPwoKVGhhbmtzIQoKClNvcnJ5IGZvciBhbnkgdHlwb3MsIHRoaXMgbWVz
c2FnZSB3YXMgc2VudCB2aWEgYSBzbWFydHBob25lLg=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, 1 battery) |
I'm assuming Z13/8 since you mention 2 alternators.
Need to know more about...
Your primary flying mission?, ($100 hamburgers, frequent long cross
country, aerobatic, low speed local fun flying, over in hospitable
terrain/open water etc)
Type of EI? (Pmag, SDS, Lightspeed etc)
Do you have a mechanical fuel pump in addition to the two electrics?
Do your EI have their own power backup?
Z13/8 shows specific architecture showing how the busses and systems are
laid out. Are you changing the basic architecture?
Will you use fuses, resettable breakers, switched breakers for the EI
and pumps?
That's just a start.
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clark
Carroll
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators,
1 battery)
Hey all,
I am preparing to wire my RV7 iaw the Z13 diagram in Aeroelectric. My
question is, what busses and switches are you using for the system?
The dual ignition should be wired to 2 single pole ignition switches.
Are you putting them both on the main battery bus, the e-bus, or
splitting them between the 2 busses?
There are 2 ECU's. My understanding is there is no need to have them
switch activated, but are you all switch activating them anyway? What
bus are you putting them on? I am thinking that if I put them on the
main battery bus, they should be switch activated. However, if I put
them on the e-bus, they don't need to be...
There are 2 fuel pumps: a primary pump and a secondary pump. Only 1
should be running at a time. I am thinking of also putting them on the
main battery bus with a single dual pole switch (on-off-on). Any other
recommendations?
Thanks!
Sorry for any typos, this message was sent via a
smartphone.=EF=BD~=EF=BD=03
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, 1 battery) |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Both fuel pumps should NOT be controlled by one switch because that switch will
eventually fail. How about two separate switches with a mechanical interlock
so that only one switch can be turned on at a time? Is this a fuel injected
system with high pressure fuel pumps? Can the fuel pressure regulator handle
the flow from two pumps? When designing the electrical system, ask what will
happen if this connection fails? Then either have a backup plan or make sure
the connection is highly unlikely to ever fail.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432152#432152
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, 1 battery) |
| From: | "carrollcw" <carrollswa(at)gmail.com> |
For now, I just want to get it in the air for day/vfr/acro only. However, I will
later make it fully night IFR.
I am running the dual EFII ignition and fuel injection. Although I will have a
mechanical pump, at least one electric pump must be running to sepply sufficient
pressure.
EI does not have its own power backup. After speaking with Robert at EFII, I am
planning on wiring the 2 ECU's, 2 Ignitions, and 2 Fuel pumps to the always
hot battery bus with switches for each of them, although I was planning on wiring
the fuel pumps with a single dual pole switch.
Basic architecture staying the same. Breakers for e-bus, fuses for everything
else.
Thanks for the help!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432174#432174
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stoney Ware <sw(at)apyxx.com> |
I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan for th
e electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when necessary.
Here is my potential configuration:
Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
GMC305 AutoPilot Console
GTN650 GPS/Comm
GTN200 Comm
GMA 240 Audio Panel
GTX 23 Transponder
So two questions:
What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
1. Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
2. Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
3. Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
What about additional alternator?
My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the last 6
months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
Thanks,
Stoney Ware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
40 amps seems somewhat low for what appears to be an all-electric aircraft
and IFR use. I installed a 60 amp primary alternator in my all-electric
RV-9A for day/night VFR....I'm using Dynon's heated pitot tube and you will
want a heated pitot also.
You should have a backup alternator. I'm using PlanePower's 20 amp on an
accessory pad at the engine rear...they may offer only 30 amp standby
alternators now. Then you'll need an eBuss (endurance buss) if your primary
alternator fails and you can quickly switch to the second buss and shed
unnecessary load. I'm lucky there, I'm using a VP-200, no longer sold, to
do all this. Vertical Power still sells the VP-X and maybe that handles an
eBuss conveniently. Regardless, get Bob Nuckoll's electrical book (name
escapes me) for lots of good ideas.
I don't have a second, backup aircraft battery, even though I have
electronic ignition (Light Speed). I'm using Dynon for avionics and got
their backup battery. I'm also going to have a completely separate,
portable backup nav in the form of an iPad with WingX or similar. But if it
were IFR, I'd probably install a second AHRS.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan for
> the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>
>
> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>
> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>
> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>
> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>
> GTN200 Comm
>
> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>
> GTX 23 Transponder
>
>
> So two questions:
>
>
> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>
> 1. Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>
> 2. Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>
> 3. Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>
>
> What about additional alternator?
>
>
> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the last 6
> months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Stoney Ware
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, |
1 battery)
>EI does not have its own power backup. After speaking with Robert
>at EFII, I am planning on wiring the 2 ECU's, 2 Ignitions, and 2
>Fuel pumps to the always hot battery bus with switches for each of them,
That will work
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, |
1 battery)
>EI does not have its own power backup. After speaking with Robert
>at EFII, I am planning on wiring the 2 ECU's, 2 Ignitions, and 2
>Fuel pumps to the always hot battery bus with switches for each of them,
That will work. The next step is to work
out your total energy requirements for various
phases of flight to both size battery and
alternator but to KNOW what your battery-only
endurance capabilties are.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
To answer your specific questions,
1. It would mitigate several potential failure scenarios to add a 2nd
ADAHRS and an EFIS battery, and is not that expensive, so I would
suggest these are worthwhile additions, especially as the autopilot will
use the same AHRS.
2. My experience is that TT ADI and Gemini are not that suitable as
back-up IFR instruments as they provide misleading information at low
speed. Dynon D6 is quite an old instrument now. GRT Mini seems to fit
the bill as an excellent stand-alone back-up, but it is quite new so not
much field experience yet. The alternative is something like an RC Allen
RCA2600 series attitude indicator - but they are expensive and you would
need an ASI & Alt.
3. I don't think many people consider the 'gyro' page provided by a GPS
to be anything other than a final back-up life saver. GRT Mini seems
like the best bet as there will be much more service experience by the
time you are flying.
As the previous post mentions, 40A is a bit light and 60A might be more
appropriate. I agree a standby alternator also provides a robust back-up
capability for a serious IFR aeroplane.
Peter
On 23/10/2014 17:33, Stoney Ware wrote:
>
> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan
> for the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>
> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>
> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>
> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>
> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>
> GTN200 Comm
>
> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>
> GTX 23 Transponder
>
> So two questions:
>
> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>
> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>
> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>
> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>
> What about additional alternator?
>
> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the
> last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stoney Ware
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Have you priced your choices vs Dynon Skyview? Including annual
database and charts update cost?
I think Dynon has been around giving excellent cost effective products
and service to the experimental market a lot longer than Garmin;
but we all tend to think our choices are superior to other choices. ;-)
IMHO the simplest way to reduce your electrical system needs and costs
are to go with single ship's battery,
backup up battery for each EFIS screen, and dual ADAHRS,
That is what I have done with my RV-10 with the following choices:
Lycoming IO-540 with dual Bendix 1200 mags, Plane Power 60 amp
alternator, Odyssey PC-925 battery.
Two Dynon Skyview D1000 screens each with their own backup battery, dual
ADAHRS, Dynon autopilot, dynon ADSB transponder and receiver
PS Eng PS5000X audio panel
GTN-650
SL30.
Dynon heated pitot/AOA.
Granted the GTN200 was not available when I selected, and the G3X system
was priced much higher at the time.
PMag still does not have a 6 cyl version, last I checked.
Each Dynon EFIS is independently capable of controlling the autopilot
servos, each can use either ADAHRS,
I am very comfortable with what i have for flying IFR, day or night.I
may upgrade one of my screens to touch, but it is not a priority.
Since your PMags produce their own power, no dual bus electrical system
needed. As long as either of your selected EFIS can operate on a backup
battery and provide you enough time to get to VFR or on the ground and
supply you the same level of backup as having old mechanical instruments
that are required under 91.205 c&d you should be fine.
You will want to do a load analysis to see if 40 amps really is enough.
While my system is legitimately within the 80% of rated capacity with
intermittent use items not considered, with everything on it is very
close to 60 amps, even using LED nav and strobe systems.
Owen Baker has done an excellent document on distilling the
instrumentation required by reg for IFR in amateur built experimentals,
certainly contained in archives of this list. Whether you want more than
legal minimum is up to you and how much electrical complexity you want.
On 10/23/2014 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
>
> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan
> for the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>
> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>
> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>
> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>
> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>
> GTN200 Comm
>
> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>
> GTX 23 Transponder
>
> So two questions:
>
> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>
> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>
> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>
> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>
> What about additional alternator?
>
> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the
> last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stoney Ware
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
I'll echo Kelly on this and add my one cent as well. With backup batteries
for essential systems I would argue that keeping the simplifications to
system designs and reducing the complexities and parts count should
hopefully reduce potential failure points.
I too am building an RV-10 and I have gone with dual AFS screens and dual
AHRS. Each has their own backup battery. I have Bendix mags so no
electronic ignition. My e-buss setup is powering things off the TCW backup
batteries. I have a VP-X and did not want to add the complexity of switches
and fuses to power my essential buss using the ships PC-925 Odyssey battery.
Given a battery master contactor failure I will still have 1 hour or more of
runtime. If the single 60A alternator fails I will have the ships main
battery and then the backup batteries to run things. Yes I'll have to
manually load shed but that is a design tradeoff I'm OK with.
I did purchase a Dynon D2 as a backup EFIS. This will run for 4 hours of
its internal battery. I wrestled with the D2 vs the Gemini or Mini and in
the end decided on the D2. The 10 panel did not have a decent location for
a backup efis using dual screens. The D2 sits on the top of the dash and
mounted where most would put a wet compass. The other benefit I like w/the
D2 is given a blocked pitot the D2's GPS groundspeed will be adequate.
I'm a big fan of single alt, single battery designs with adequate battery
backup. Saves weight wiring complexity.
-Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-14
-->
Have you priced your choices vs Dynon Skyview? Including annual database
and charts update cost?
I think Dynon has been around giving excellent cost effective products and
service to the experimental market a lot longer than Garmin; but we all tend
to think our choices are superior to other choices. ;-) IMHO the simplest
way to reduce your electrical system needs and costs are to go with single
ship's battery, backup up battery for each EFIS screen, and dual ADAHRS,
That is what I have done with my RV-10 with the following choices:
Lycoming IO-540 with dual Bendix 1200 mags, Plane Power 60 amp alternator,
Odyssey PC-925 battery.
Two Dynon Skyview D1000 screens each with their own backup battery, dual
ADAHRS, Dynon autopilot, dynon ADSB transponder and receiver PS Eng PS5000X
audio panel
GTN-650
SL30.
Dynon heated pitot/AOA.
Granted the GTN200 was not available when I selected, and the G3X system was
priced much higher at the time.
PMag still does not have a 6 cyl version, last I checked.
Each Dynon EFIS is independently capable of controlling the autopilot
servos, each can use either ADAHRS, I am very comfortable with what i have
for flying IFR, day or night.I may upgrade one of my screens to touch, but
it is not a priority.
Since your PMags produce their own power, no dual bus electrical system
needed. As long as either of your selected EFIS can operate on a backup
battery and provide you enough time to get to VFR or on the ground and
supply you the same level of backup as having old mechanical instruments
that are required under 91.205 c&d you should be fine.
You will want to do a load analysis to see if 40 amps really is enough.
While my system is legitimately within the 80% of rated capacity with
intermittent use items not considered, with everything on it is very close
to 60 amps, even using LED nav and strobe systems.
Owen Baker has done an excellent document on distilling the instrumentation
required by reg for IFR in amateur built experimentals, certainly contained
in archives of this list. Whether you want more than legal minimum is up to
you and how much electrical complexity you want.
On 10/23/2014 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
>
> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan
> for the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>
> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>
> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>
> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>
> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>
> GTN200 Comm
>
> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>
> GTX 23 Transponder
>
> So two questions:
>
> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>
> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>
> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>
> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>
> What about additional alternator?
>
> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the
> last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stoney Ware
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I visited Dynon booth today at Copperstate fly-in.
Their subsidiary AFS has a very nice competitor to VPX and Approach
Systems Faststack in one box, handling all the Dynon network
connections, a fuse panel and all the switching. AFS or Dynon screens
are very equivalent. Many of the unique features of each brand have been
shared after Dynon bought AFS.
Ken, Dynon's sales manager convinced me that a D1 or D2 would
effectively be a secondary level of backup, after both primary screens
failed and wasn't all that essential. We each have to decide whether we
need belt, suspenders and elastic waist band. 8^)
On 10/23/2014 9:18 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:
>
> I'll echo Kelly on this and add my one cent as well. With backup batteries
> for essential systems I would argue that keeping the simplifications to
> system designs and reducing the complexities and parts count should
> hopefully reduce potential failure points.
>
> I too am building an RV-10 and I have gone with dual AFS screens and dual
> AHRS. Each has their own backup battery. I have Bendix mags so no
> electronic ignition. My e-buss setup is powering things off the TCW backup
> batteries. I have a VP-X and did not want to add the complexity of switches
> and fuses to power my essential buss using the ships PC-925 Odyssey battery.
> Given a battery master contactor failure I will still have 1 hour or more of
> runtime. If the single 60A alternator fails I will have the ships main
> battery and then the backup batteries to run things. Yes I'll have to
> manually load shed but that is a design tradeoff I'm OK with.
>
> I did purchase a Dynon D2 as a backup EFIS. This will run for 4 hours of
> its internal battery. I wrestled with the D2 vs the Gemini or Mini and in
> the end decided on the D2. The 10 panel did not have a decent location for
> a backup efis using dual screens. The D2 sits on the top of the dash and
> mounted where most would put a wet compass. The other benefit I like w/the
> D2 is given a blocked pitot the D2's GPS groundspeed will be adequate.
>
> I'm a big fan of single alt, single battery designs with adequate battery
> backup. Saves weight wiring complexity.
>
> -Ben
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-14
>
> -->
>
> Have you priced your choices vs Dynon Skyview? Including annual database
> and charts update cost?
> I think Dynon has been around giving excellent cost effective products and
> service to the experimental market a lot longer than Garmin; but we all tend
> to think our choices are superior to other choices. ;-) IMHO the simplest
> way to reduce your electrical system needs and costs are to go with single
> ship's battery, backup up battery for each EFIS screen, and dual ADAHRS,
> That is what I have done with my RV-10 with the following choices:
> Lycoming IO-540 with dual Bendix 1200 mags, Plane Power 60 amp alternator,
> Odyssey PC-925 battery.
> Two Dynon Skyview D1000 screens each with their own backup battery, dual
> ADAHRS, Dynon autopilot, dynon ADSB transponder and receiver PS Eng PS5000X
> audio panel
> GTN-650
> SL30.
> Dynon heated pitot/AOA.
>
> Granted the GTN200 was not available when I selected, and the G3X system was
> priced much higher at the time.
> PMag still does not have a 6 cyl version, last I checked.
> Each Dynon EFIS is independently capable of controlling the autopilot
> servos, each can use either ADAHRS, I am very comfortable with what i have
> for flying IFR, day or night.I may upgrade one of my screens to touch, but
> it is not a priority.
> Since your PMags produce their own power, no dual bus electrical system
> needed. As long as either of your selected EFIS can operate on a backup
> battery and provide you enough time to get to VFR or on the ground and
> supply you the same level of backup as having old mechanical instruments
> that are required under 91.205 c&d you should be fine.
> You will want to do a load analysis to see if 40 amps really is enough.
> While my system is legitimately within the 80% of rated capacity with
> intermittent use items not considered, with everything on it is very close
> to 60 amps, even using LED nav and strobe systems.
> Owen Baker has done an excellent document on distilling the instrumentation
> required by reg for IFR in amateur built experimentals, certainly contained
> in archives of this list. Whether you want more than legal minimum is up to
> you and how much electrical complexity you want.
>
> On 10/23/2014 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
>> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan
>> for the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
>> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>>
>> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>>
>> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>>
>> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>>
>> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>>
>> GTN200 Comm
>>
>> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>>
>> GTX 23 Transponder
>>
>> So two questions:
>>
>> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>>
>> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>>
>> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>>
>> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>>
>> What about additional alternator?
>>
>> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the
>> last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stoney Ware
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
I'm not a big fan of each individual component having its own backup battery.
I think it makes for future maintenance issues. To be diligent you must test
each battery on a regular basis (like at every annual inspection). A full
discharge/charge cycle to measure actual remaining battery capacity for
each battery.
Also, what about keeping a radio, or other important components alive?
A well-designed two battery system does not need to be complex or difficult to
use.
-Jeff
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
I visited Dynon booth today at Copperstate fly-in.
Their subsidiary AFS has a very nice competitor to VPX and Approach
Systems Faststack in one box, handling all the Dynon network
connections, a fuse panel and all the switching. AFS or Dynon screens
are very equivalent. Many of the unique features of each brand have been
shared after Dynon bought AFS.
Ken, Dynon's sales manager convinced me that a D1 or D2 would
effectively be a secondary level of backup, after both primary screens
failed and wasn't all that essential. We each have to decide whether we
need belt, suspenders and elastic waist band. 8^)
On 10/23/2014 9:18 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:
>
> I'll echo Kelly on this and add my one cent as well. With backup batteries
> for essential systems I would argue that keeping the simplifications to
> system designs and reducing the complexities and parts count should
> hopefully reduce potential failure points.
>
> I too am building an RV-10 and I have gone with dual AFS screens and dual
> AHRS. Each has their own backup battery. I have Bendix mags so no
> electronic ignition. My e-buss setup is powering things off the TCW backup
> batteries. I have a VP-X and did not want to add the complexity of switches
> and fuses to power my essential buss using the ships PC-925 Odyssey battery.
> Given a battery master contactor failure I will still have 1 hour or more of
> runtime. If the single 60A alternator fails I will have the ships main
> battery and then the backup batteries to run things. Yes I'll have to
> manually load shed but that is a design tradeoff I'm OK with.
>
> I did purchase a Dynon D2 as a backup EFIS. This will run for 4 hours of
> its internal battery. I wrestled with the D2 vs the Gemini or Mini and in
> the end decided on the D2. The 10 panel did not have a decent location for
> a backup efis using dual screens. The D2 sits on the top of the dash and
> mounted where most would put a wet compass. The other benefit I like w/the
> D2 is given a blocked pitot the D2's GPS groundspeed will be adequate.
>
> I'm a big fan of single alt, single battery designs with adequate battery
> backup. Saves weight wiring complexity.
>
> -Ben
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-14
>
> -->
>
> Have you priced your choices vs Dynon Skyview? Including annual database
> and charts update cost?
> I think Dynon has been around giving excellent cost effective products and
> service to the experimental market a lot longer than Garmin; but we all tend
> to think our choices are superior to other choices. ;-) IMHO the simplest
> way to reduce your electrical system needs and costs are to go with single
> ship's battery, backup up battery for each EFIS screen, and dual ADAHRS,
> That is what I have done with my RV-10 with the following choices:
> Lycoming IO-540 with dual Bendix 1200 mags, Plane Power 60 amp alternator,
> Odyssey PC-925 battery.
> Two Dynon Skyview D1000 screens each with their own backup battery, dual
> ADAHRS, Dynon autopilot, dynon ADSB transponder and receiver PS Eng PS5000X
> audio panel
> GTN-650
> SL30.
> Dynon heated pitot/AOA.
>
> Granted the GTN200 was not available when I selected, and the G3X system was
> priced much higher at the time.
> PMag still does not have a 6 cyl version, last I checked.
> Each Dynon EFIS is independently capable of controlling the autopilot
> servos, each can use either ADAHRS, I am very comfortable with what i have
> for flying IFR, day or night.I may upgrade one of my screens to touch, but
> it is not a priority.
> Since your PMags produce their own power, no dual bus electrical system
> needed. As long as either of your selected EFIS can operate on a backup
> battery and provide you enough time to get to VFR or on the ground and
> supply you the same level of backup as having old mechanical instruments
> that are required under 91.205 c&d you should be fine.
> You will want to do a load analysis to see if 40 amps really is enough.
> While my system is legitimately within the 80% of rated capacity with
> intermittent use items not considered, with everything on it is very close
> to 60 amps, even using LED nav and strobe systems.
> Owen Baker has done an excellent document on distilling the instrumentation
> required by reg for IFR in amateur built experimentals, certainly contained
> in archives of this list. Whether you want more than legal minimum is up to
> you and how much electrical complexity you want.
>
> On 10/23/2014 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
>> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan
>> for the electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when
>> necessary. Here is my potential configuration:
>>
>> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>>
>> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>>
>> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>>
>> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>>
>> GTN200 Comm
>>
>> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>>
>> GTX 23 Transponder
>>
>> So two questions:
>>
>> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>>
>> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>>
>> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>>
>> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>>
>> What about additional alternator?
>>
>> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the
>> last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stoney Ware
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Primary backup is in fact ship's battery. Depending on your navigation
needs, a GTN-650 is going to draw between 3.5 and 4 amps, while an SL30
doing VHF nav will only draw less than 1 amp. A Dynon Skyview draws
around 3.5-3.8 amps.
My total load for my panel, without any exterior lights or pitot heat is
around 10 amps. With the PC-925 rated at 28 amp hours I should get at
least an hour there. At that point, if I haven't found VFR or got
clearance to the nearest suitable airport with an approach I can make, I
have done something wrong. The Dynon system has a backup battery charge
status available, with a reminder of when it was last tested. It is not
fully discharged in the test, but run for 45 min or to a voltage drop
that protects the battery. The system gives you the opportunity to push
one button and run the test whenever you power off the unit. Thus I have
45 min of EFIS with VFR GPS to get me on the ground after the ship's
power has dropped below voltage that will support other radios.
Having a total of 3 batteries to test once a year is a whole lot simpler
than trying to install dual electric buss with one or two alternators
and one or two batteries that will power what besides you flight
instruments? You will need to maintain both alternators, both batteries
, etc. What is most critical to maintain if the ship's alternator and
main battery fail? Not much matters outside your EFIS.
I do have an essential buss concept, with the items on the list being
powered directly from the master relay whenever master is on. The
non-essential are controlled by a single switch.
On 10/23/2014 10:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of each individual component having its own backup
> battery.
>
> I think it makes for future maintenance issues. To be diligent you
> must test
> each battery on a regular basis (like at every annual inspection). A
> full
> discharge/charge cycle to measure actual remaining battery capacity for
> each battery.
>
> Also, what about keeping a radio, or other important components alive?
>
> A well-designed two battery system does not need to be complex or
> difficult to use.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
As far as your electrical architecture is concerned, you need to do a google search
for "The Aeroelectric Connection". The Z- diagrams are in the book and already
built to suit your specific application. As mentioned earlier, bob is the
author and has done a masterful job at putting the book and diagrams together.
Going from memory, you will be looking for either Z-13 or Z-14 for the dual
alternator schematic.
You have come to the right place for help! There are folks on here that are smarter
on this subject than I could ever imagine being.
Justin
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 21:11, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Have you priced your choices vs Dynon Skyview? Including annual database and
charts update cost?
> I think Dynon has been around giving excellent cost effective products and service
to the experimental market a lot longer than Garmin;
> but we all tend to think our choices are superior to other choices. ;-)
> IMHO the simplest way to reduce your electrical system needs and costs are to
go with single ship's battery,
> backup up battery for each EFIS screen, and dual ADAHRS,
> That is what I have done with my RV-10 with the following choices:
> Lycoming IO-540 with dual Bendix 1200 mags, Plane Power 60 amp alternator, Odyssey
PC-925 battery.
> Two Dynon Skyview D1000 screens each with their own backup battery, dual ADAHRS,
Dynon autopilot, dynon ADSB transponder and receiver
> PS Eng PS5000X audio panel
> GTN-650
> SL30.
> Dynon heated pitot/AOA.
>
> Granted the GTN200 was not available when I selected, and the G3X system was
priced much higher at the time.
> PMag still does not have a 6 cyl version, last I checked.
> Each Dynon EFIS is independently capable of controlling the autopilot servos,
each can use either ADAHRS,
> I am very comfortable with what i have for flying IFR, day or night.I may upgrade
one of my screens to touch, but it is not a priority.
> Since your PMags produce their own power, no dual bus electrical system needed.
As long as either of your selected EFIS can operate on a backup battery and
provide you enough time to get to VFR or on the ground and supply you the same
level of backup as having old mechanical instruments that are required under
91.205 c&d you should be fine.
> You will want to do a load analysis to see if 40 amps really is enough. While
my system is legitimately within the 80% of rated capacity with intermittent
use items not considered, with everything on it is very close to 60 amps, even
using LED nav and strobe systems.
> Owen Baker has done an excellent document on distilling the instrumentation required
by reg for IFR in amateur built experimentals, certainly contained in
archives of this list. Whether you want more than legal minimum is up to you and
how much electrical complexity you want.
>
>> On 10/23/2014 9:33 AM, Stoney Ware wrote:
>>
>> I am a first time builder and building a RV-14. I am trying to plan for the
electrical and backup system now. I will be flying IFR, when necessary. Here
is my potential configuration:
>>
>> Lycoming IO-390 with dual P-Mags & 40 Amp B&C Alternator (Purchased)
>>
>> G3X Dual Touchscreen Monitors
>>
>> GMC305 AutoPilot Console
>>
>> GTN650 GPS/Comm
>>
>> GTN200 Comm
>>
>> GMA 240 Audio Panel
>>
>> GTX 23 Transponder
>>
>> So two questions:
>>
>> What should I do for a backup in the case of a loss of the Garmin System?
>>
>> 1.Add a second ADAHRS and battery backup for the EFIS
>>
>> 2.Add a separate system, i.e. GRT Mini, TruTrak Gemini, Dynon D6
>>
>> 3.Use a portable backup like the Garmin 696 or 796?
>>
>> What about additional alternator?
>>
>> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in the last 6 months
and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stoney Ware
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
> >>
> >> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in
> the last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Stoney Ware
Suggest you consider Z-13/8 architecture first . . . which
can be found here (along with it's cousins) . . .
http://tinyurl.com/5wxzn7
First you need to do a LOAD analysis . . . fancy
name for making a list of every electron-hungry
device on your airplane.
You then sort them into pigeon-holes categorized
for the various flight . . . with the one called
"Main Alternator Out" getting special attention.
Download a form from http://tinyurl.com/7jqypwj
and print three copies. One for each of the Z-13/8
busses, MAIN, ENDURANCE and BATTERY.
The goal is to ascertain exactly what your maximum
alternator loads are and under what conditions.
The special attention is for MAIN ALT OUT
where you'd like to get your loads down to
8A or less.
The point being that in the unlikely event
of main alternator failure, you can operate
enough electro-whizzies to conduct a comfortable
flight for as long as you have fuel aboard . . .
while holding battery energy in reserve.
Once you have the airport in sight, you can
turn on everything you'd like to light-up . . .
including the kitchen sink. This will be
possible because you've included routine
BATTERY MAINTENANCE in your to-do list
along with oil changes, checks for leaks,
tire wear, tire pressures, etc. etc.
Launching into ANY anticipated mission
KNOWING your energy requirements along
with energy availability offers a very
low risk adventure. But without need
for the added $maintenance$ of standby
batteries in the electro-whizzies normally
considered essential for continued
flight to airport of destination.
This offers an opportunity to craft an
electrical system with predictable endurance
exceeding duration of fuel on board.
Make sure that Z-13/8 is truly inadequate to
your anticipated needs and associated risks
before you launch into something like Z-14
(really suited to only a small percentage
of OBAM aircraft projects), . Bring your musings
here to the List . . .
Filling in the knowledge gaps after your
energy/mission studies are complete starts
with a copy of the book. Random-access,
low-energy paper available here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
or byte-bound, battery-powered copy available
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
I must disagree with the attitude here...that a proper backup system is too
complicated, so don't do it. The OP's mission is IFR, perhaps at night,
probably single-pilot and of course single-engine. That's already a complex
task which needs to be done right. In this case, "right" means having
backup electricity not from a perhaps tired aircraft battery and an EFIS
battery backup.
You must have an e-buss to quickly and easily shed unnecessary load. Once
you've acknowledged that complexity, adding a standby alternator, for
instance, is not much more difficult and is very prudent.
Studies Mr. Nuckolls' The Aeroelectric Connection book, continue to ask
questions here, and implement a backup system that reduces risks to your
comfort level, not because it's easier. Many people have done the Z-13 or
-14 system given in the book as Mr. Nuckolls has already done most of the
design work.
Ralph Finch
RV-9A
> >
>
> Primary backup is in fact ship's battery...Having a total of 3 batteries
> to test once a year is a whole lot simpler than trying to install dual
> electric buss with one or two alternators and one or two batteries that
> will power what besides you flight instruments?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that slide
over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?
-James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
If you dont find any James let me know, I have a few left over.
Tim Andres
On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "berkut13(at)berkut13.com"
wrote:
Anyone got a part number (or
spec) handy for the toroid beads that slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home
made antennas?
-James
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 10/24/2014 01:03 PM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> *Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that
> slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?*
Radio Shack sells them (called Snap Choke Core):
http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId 32273&znt_campaign=Category_CMS&znt_medium=RSCOM&znt_source=CAT&znt_content=CT2032230
-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: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
Will need them ongoing, I was really looking for a source.
Thanks though.
-James
From: Tim Andres
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
If you dont find any James let me know, I have a few left over.
Tim Andres
On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "berkut13(at)berkut13.com"
wrote:
Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that slide
over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?
-James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
Too big. Looking for source for the small ferrite "doughnuts" that slip
over the coax at the di-pole element split.
Shown here:
http://www.berkut13.com/com2_08.jpg
Thanks,
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
On 10/24/2014 01:03 PM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> *Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that
> slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?*
Radio Shack sells them (called Snap Choke Core):
http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId 32273&znt_campa
ign=Category_CMS&znt_medium=RSCOM&znt_source=CAT&znt_content=CT20
32230
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
You might try RST Engineering. It is the guy who writes the Kit Planes
Electronics articles. He normally sells them.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
berkut13(at)berkut13.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
Will need them ongoing, I was really looking for a source.
Thanks though.
-James
From: Tim Andres <mailto:tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
If you dont find any James let me know, I have a few left over.
Tim Andres
On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "berkut13(at)berkut13.com
" > wrote:
Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that slide
over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?
-James
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 10/24/2014 02:19 PM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> Too big. Looking for source for the small ferrite "doughnuts" that slip
> over the coax at the di-pole element split.
>
> Shown here:
> http://www.berkut13.com/com2_08.jpg
Hi James, I think the ones from Radio Shack will perform the same job,
electrically.
Yes, they are physically bigger, but they do offer one that is the right
inside diameter size to fit around the coax. They just have a plastic
case around the ferrite that "snaps" in place. Makes them easy to
remove, too, without having to undo any soldering or crimping since they
are a split configuration.
You can remove the outer plastic shell and wrap them with something
smaller (tape, whatever) if the physical outside diameter is too big.
You can probably find the exact ones you are looking for at McMaster
Carr or some other online source, and someone else on the list might be
able to offer a specific reference.
-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: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
No thanks! Last time I ordered from RST, it took 6 months of reminder
phone calls/emails to get it. I=99m not ever doing that
again...YMMV.
To keep this on track...I need specs and a distributor if possible.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/catalogusd/647/1295.pdf
If the selection is nothing more than finding something that fits around
the coax, I would order from the =9CTOROIDAL FERRITE
BEADS=9D section.
-James
From: Jim Kale
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
You might try RST Engineering. It is the guy who writes the Kit Planes
Electronics articles. He normally sells them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Those are much different than the ones I think James May be looking for. I have
no idea if they are suitable. RST once sold a kit with the small ferrite beads
that just fit the RG 58 and could easily be imbedded into a composite structure.
I think that is what he's looking for.
Tim
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>
>> On 10/24/2014 01:03 PM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
>> *Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that
>> slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?*
>
>
> Radio Shack sells them (called Snap Choke Core):
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId 32273&znt_campaign=Category_CMS&znt_medium=RSCOM&znt_source=CAT&znt_content=CT2032230
>
> -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: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
Or your mileage won't vary. I keep seeing bitter complaints about RST total
lack of customer service. I'd for sure never order anything from him.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
> No thanks! Last time I ordered from RST, it took 6 months of reminder
> phone calls/emails to get it. I'm not ever doing that again...YMMV.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Bob,
In my view Z13/8 has many advantages, but how would you handle the
start-up brown out problem? For example if an EFIS with integral engine
monitor is fitted it must be operational during engine start, but is
unlikely to endure the start-up low voltage transients. A second
alternator seems by far a better mitigation for main alternator failure
than a second battery, but I can't see any way around a small additional
battery to hold up the power for the EFIS/Engine Monitor (and perhaps
main Nav radio/GPS) during engine start.
What are your thoughts?
Peter
On 24/10/2014 15:41, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in
>> the last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very limited.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Stoney Ware
>
> Suggest you consider Z-13/8 architecture first . . . which
> can be found here (along with it's cousins) . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5wxzn7
>
> First you need to do a LOAD analysis . . . fancy
> name for making a list of every electron-hungry
> device on your airplane.
>
> You then sort them into pigeon-holes categorized
> for the various flight . . . with the one called
> "Main Alternator Out" getting special attention.
>
> Download a form from http://tinyurl.com/7jqypwj
> and print three copies. One for each of the Z-13/8
> busses, MAIN, ENDURANCE and BATTERY.
>
> The goal is to ascertain exactly what your maximum
> alternator loads are and under what conditions.
> The special attention is for MAIN ALT OUT
> where you'd like to get your loads down to
> 8A or less.
>
> The point being that in the unlikely event
> of main alternator failure, you can operate
> enough electro-whizzies to conduct a comfortable
> flight for as long as you have fuel aboard . . .
> while holding battery energy in reserve.
>
> Once you have the airport in sight, you can
> turn on everything you'd like to light-up . . .
> including the kitchen sink. This will be
> possible because you've included routine
> BATTERY MAINTENANCE in your to-do list
> along with oil changes, checks for leaks,
> tire wear, tire pressures, etc. etc.
>
> Launching into ANY anticipated mission
> KNOWING your energy requirements along
> with energy availability offers a very
> low risk adventure. But without need
> for the added $maintenance$ of standby
> batteries in the electro-whizzies normally
> considered essential for continued
> flight to airport of destination.
>
> This offers an opportunity to craft an
> electrical system with predictable endurance
> exceeding duration of fuel on board.
>
> Make sure that Z-13/8 is truly inadequate to
> your anticipated needs and associated risks
> before you launch into something like Z-14
> (really suited to only a small percentage
> of OBAM aircraft projects), . Bring your musings
> here to the List . . .
>
> Filling in the knowledge gaps after your
> energy/mission studies are complete starts
> with a copy of the book. Random-access,
> low-energy paper available here . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
>
> or byte-bound, battery-powered copy available
> here . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
I share Peter's concerns.
In fact, keeping the avionics alive during
crank is one of the criteria (among many others)
which led to this design.
See attached pdf.
-Jeff
On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:17 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
Bob,
In my view Z13/8 has many advantages, but how would you handle the
start-up brown out problem? For example if an
EFIS with integral engine
monitor is fitted it must be operational during engine start, but is
unlikely to endure the start-up low voltage transients. A second
alternator seems by far a better mitigation for main alternator failure
than a second battery, but I can't see any way around a small additional
battery to hold up the power for the EFIS/Engine Monitor (and perhaps
main Nav radio/GPS) during engine start.
What are your thoughts?
Peter
On 24/10/2014 15:41, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> My knowledge and experience is only what I have read on-line in
>> the last 6 months and asking a lot of questions, but still very
limited.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Stoney Ware
>
> Suggest you consider Z-13/8 architecture first . . . which
> can be found here (along with it's cousins) . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5wxzn7
>
> First you need to do a LOAD analysis . . . fancy
> name for making a list of every electron-hungry
> device on your airplane.
>
> You then sort them into pigeon-holes categorized
> for the various flight . . . with the one called
> "Main Alternator Out" getting special attention.
>
> Download a form from http://tinyurl.com/7jqypwj
> and print three copies. One for
each of the Z-13/8
> busses, MAIN, ENDURANCE and BATTERY.
>
> The goal is to ascertain exactly what your maximum
> alternator loads are and under what conditions.
> The special attention is for MAIN ALT OUT
> where you'd like to get your loads down to
> 8A or less.
>
> The point being that in the unlikely event
> of main alternator failure, you can operate
> enough electro-whizzies to conduct a comfortable
> flight for as long as you have fuel aboard . . .
> while holding battery energy in reserve.
>
> Once you have the airport in sight, you can
> turn on everything you'd like to light-up . . .
> including the kitchen sink. This will be
> possible because
you've included routine
> BATTERY MAINTENANCE in your to-do list
> along with oil changes, checks for leaks,
> tire wear, tire pressures, etc. etc.
>
> Launching into ANY anticipated mission
> KNOWING your energy requirements along
> with energy availability offers a very
> low risk adventure. But without need
> for the added $maintenance$ of standby
> batteries in the electro-whizzies normally
> considered essential for continued
> flight to airport of destination.
>
> This offers an opportunity to craft an
> electrical system with predictable endurance
> exceeding duration of fuel on board.
>
> Make sure that Z-13/8 is truly inadequate to
>
your anticipated needs and associated risks
> before you launch into something like Z-14
> (really suited to only a small percentage
> of OBAM aircraft projects), . Bring your musings
> here to the List . . .
>
> Filling in the knowledge gaps after your
> energy/mission studies are complete starts
> with a copy of the book. Random-access,
> low-energy paper available here . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
>
> or byte-bound, battery-powered copy available
> here . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cgr42l5
>
>
> Bob . .
.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
They are simply called "toroids", which describe their shape, Jim. They
come in various compositions, both ferite and iron, that vary in their
frequency responses. You will needneed a ferite composition effective at
VHF. Commonly available through ham radio suppliers, so should not be
too hard to find over there.
Bill
On 25/10/2014 5:19 AM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> Too big. Looking for source for the small ferrite "doughnuts" that
> slip over the coax at the di-pole element split.
> Shown here:
> http://www.berkut13.com/com2_08.jpg
> Thanks,
> James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dj Merrill
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:53 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Toroid beads
> On 10/24/2014 01:03 PM, berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> > *Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that
> > slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?*
> Radio Shack sells them (called Snap Choke Core):
> http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId 32273&znt_campaign=Category_CMS&znt_medium=RSCOM&znt_source=CAT&znt_content=CT2032230
> -Dj
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
At 12:03 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:
>Anyone got a part number (or spec) handy for the toroid beads that
>slide over the RG-58/400 coax on our home made antennas?
>-James
These are so ineffectual as to make their 'benefits'
undetectable except by sophisticated test equipment
in the lab. Cessna produced thousands of airplanes with
coax brazenly attached to horizontal cat-whisker dipoles
with excellent results. Our resident physics PhD did a study
on these antennas back in '69 or so. This was before 'donuts
on the coax' became the 'buzz-phrase'. Back then the purists
were into 4:1 coax baluns . . . they took care of the 'worries'
about feeding an unbalanced coax with a balanced antenna . . .
but demonstrated a 3:1 SWR under the best condition.
Later, somebody tried the ferrite beads thing . . . not all
ferrites are made the same. You need a material that
exhibits low losses at the frequency of interest . . . 110
Mhz or thereabouts. Then it's useful to understand that
the EFFECTIVENESS of adding such magnetics to the feed line
varies as the SQUARE of the turns. So, 9 ferrites strung
along a coax offer performance on the order of three turns
of coax fed through a larger torroid.
The big question is: If you don't have a balun (coax
or ferrite), who would know? The answer is: nobody.
We're talking a receiving antenna excited with nano or
pico watts from a ground station. Further, the signal
is line of sight . . . seldom more than 50 miles from
ground station to airplane. A wet string with a gazillion
to one SWR would receive the signal.
If you'd really like to 'balance' things up, you
can build a 1:1 "Pawsey stub" balun from a piece of
scrap coax. See:
http://tinyurl.com/yytxwd3
I've built dozens of these and the work just fine
but as a VOR receive antenna, the benefits for having
installed it are not observable from the cockpit.
If you'd like to see an example of effective
ferrite decoupling of a badly mated antenna/feedline
condition, look at the "airwhip" vhf comm antenna
articles on the web. One poster took one apart to show
the ferrite torroid at the base with 4-5 turns of
coax through the core . . . 16 to 25 times the
effectiveness of a single core. Further, the material
from which this core is made is narrowly crafted for
the frequency of interest. Ferrites from Radio Shack
for noise mitigation are not even close.
My first choice: Hook the coax to the antenna 'bare
foot' and it will work fine.
Second choice; Build a 1:1 Pawsey stub balun.
Third choice; track down suitable torroids but use
larger ones that will allow multiple passes of
coax thorugh the center.
But understand that choices 2 an 3 are pretty much
a waste of time in terms of outcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 03:06 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>In my view Z13/8 has many advantages, but how would you handle the
>start-up brown out problem? For example if an EFIS with integral
>engine monitor is fitted it must be operational during engine start,
>but is unlikely to endure the start-up low voltage transients. A
>second alternator seems by far a better mitigation for main
>alternator failure than a second battery, but I can't see any way
>around a small additional battery to hold up the power for the
>EFIS/Engine Monitor (and perhaps main Nav radio/GPS) during engine start.
>
>What are your thoughts?
Brownout resets are not an architecture problem,
they're a radio problem. A radio that DOES NOT
conform to DO-160 guidelines for graceful recovery
after all manner of input power interruptions.
That capability is supposed to be internal to
the appliance, not external . . . and for good
reason. What's the poor C-172 owner supposed to
do when he wants to modernize his avionics but
doesn't want to climb the Everest-of-paperwork
necessary to modify the ship's certificated
electrical system?
My work with lithium cells has germinated some
ideas for very light, no moving parts, brownout
mitigation for appliances that suffer this malady.
I'm making some pretty startling discoveries . . .
startling because of what the suppliers of lithium
products don't choose to tell us for what ever
reasons.
Along those same lines of thought, it's still not
clear to me that the owner-operator of a brown-out
vulnerable instrumentation package is at any serious
risks for having one or more gizmos reboot after engine
start . . . yeah . . . we were to worship the oil
pressure gage . . . I remember reading those words
in my dad's copy of Sick and Rudder from his flight
school days in 1946.
But seriously, how many instances of 'failure to
build pressure' in the first 30 seconds of run
time were due to lubrication system failure that
warranted shut-down and investigation?Some airplanes
I've flow took a minute to develop full oil pressure
on the gage in very cold weather . . . in spite of
the fact that nothing was amiss in the engine.
Architecture should be crafted to optimize system
performance for all the equipment items needed to
accomplish the mission. But if some piece of equipment
fails to meet legacy goals for performance, I'm
more disposed to put the necessary band-aid on that
piece of equipment than to take an egg-beater to the
whole system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
I agree with Bob that ferrite donuts are not necessary or desirable for
VOR/LOC/GS antennas. If you want good symmetrical coverage, you want a
balanced feed for your dipole and the folded balun shown in Bob's
http://tinyurl.com/yytxwd3
is a good way to do that. The benefits are observable in the cockpit in
the form of increased reception range for weak signals.
If you want to make a com antenna and it's tuned correctly but you want
it to be a little more broadband (lower VSWR at the band edges,) using a
string of ferrite toroids or a tubular ferrite core is one approach.
You are using the ferrites to create loss, not coupling. In effect you
create a high resistance for currents flowing on the outside of the
shield. It is partly resistance, not just impedance. If there is high
VSWR, the ferrite heats up when you transmit, the same as a resistor in
series would, allowing some of the reflected power to be dissipated as
heat rather than bouncing back to the radio. This is not *exactly* what
you want, but it's better than having the radio shut down if you try to
transmit at 135 MHz and your antenna is sharply tuned to 122.
You do not want to create additional tuned circuits by looping the coax
through one larger toroid, you just want to create resistive loss for
reflected power, because you haven't designed an antenna that's
inherently broadband enough (good broadband antennas don't need
ferrites.) A suitable sleeve or tube core is Fair-Rite 2643625202,
available from Mouser
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Fair-Rite/2643625202 for about a
dollar. This can substitute for the 3 or 4 donuts often used. You should
use ferrites only when you can't get the VSWR low enough any other way.
--
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gautier, Thomas N (3266)" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid Beads |
If you decide to go the bead route check out
palomar-engineers.com
for a source of suppressor beads for coax. They have a nice application chart.
Nick Gautier
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Jeff's aircraft electrical schematic |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Jeff attached this schematic to the RV-14 thread.
http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=39981
Jeff, has this architecture been used in a flying aircraft yet?
I like it and think that it deserves peer review.
I think that the 60 amp alternator fuse and 100 amp battery current limiter are
redundant. An alternator is self current limiting. An alternator fuse protects
the battery and wires, not the alternator. So I suggest that the 100 amp
battery fuse be replaced by a 60 amp fuse, and eliminate the 60 amp fuse in the
alternator circuit.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432247#432247
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
>
> Peter and Jeff-
>
I wrestled with the same issues, and although I've not yet flown my night /
ifr capable RV yet, I like what I've come up with. The short version is
that I've a primary efis w/ engine instruments and a backup efis six pack.
Given that cranking and avoiding brown out pretty well required two
batteries, I ultimately adopted Bob's two identical battery, swap one out
per year concept. The starter, main alternator, main bus (including the
switched stby efis), and main battery comprise one branch of my system.
The essential battery (Sorry folks; I'm not interested in any semantic
arguments... call it a kumquat if you like!) carries the essential bus,
which powers the primary efis un-switched and is supported by an SD-8 on
the vacuum pad. The two batteries are tied together with a Schotkey diode,
and the SD-8 regulator is set between battery and main alternator voltage.
Operation is dirt simple. Starting with the main alt off tests the stby.
In flight, the main alt carries the whole electrical system. Should the
main alt fail, the main bus is carried by the main battery and the SD-8
picks up the essential bus with precisely zero switch flipping by the
pilot. The efis will annunciate the drop in main bus voltage. Load
shedding at one's leisure will prolong the life of the main bus, but the
SD-8 will ensure all the most important goodies have power for probably two
hours after the prop stops windmilling, even with battery contactors on
line.
I use fuses, with the only breakers on power sources. Failure of ANY one
component can't hurt me. YMMV, but I like it, a lot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
This discussion, as good as it is, has focused on hardware installed and
its capabilities, not mission "need".
Need varies from a military requirement to complete the mission
regardless of circumstances to if something fails I will land at nearest
suitable airport and deal with it. Night IFR by itself only has certain
minimum requirements, and if you "assume" that your missions will keep
you within XX minutes of a suitable airport, your needs are different
than if you assume you will need to fly to destination and thus need
electron capacity equal to the aircraft fuel range. Having electron
capacity greater than fuel range just adds unnecessary wt.
Then there is the consideration of how much effort the backups need to
allow pilot with minimum effort to safely reach his pre-determined goal.
I like the system described below, IF you assume your mission is over
hostile terrain, at night in IFR and need to go a considerable distance
to a suitable landing spot after a failure. Most of us don't really have
that mission requirement, but may want the capability.
Personally, having managed to escape a night time partial panel episode
in a non-radar mountainous region will no longer consider combining
night, IFR and mountains on the same flight in a single engine normally
aspirated aircraft. My preference would be to limit risk to one of those
challenges, but will consider a flight that combines two of them.
However, I really don't want mountains at night in anything with only
one engine and no turbo regardless of VFR or IFR. I already have enough
experience there to not want to do it again.
That is why I consider suitable IFR backup to be enough electrons to
function for 1 hour, maybe 1+30 to be adequate, and easily achievable
with batteries only backup rather than a second alternator. Each builder
will have to assess their mission goals and risk tolerance to decide how
much redundancy they need and how much they want. How much complexity
that does or does not add is a minor factor in the equation. I believe
Bob has always pushed us to most carefully evaluate what our goals and
mission needs were to decide on what architecture is appropriate.
On 10/25/2014 6:03 AM, GLEN MATEJCEK wrote:
>
> Peter and Jeff-
>
>
> I wrestled with the same issues, and although I've not yet flown my
> night / ifr capable RV yet, I like what I've come up with. The short
> version is that I've a primary efis w/ engine instruments and a backup
> efis six pack. Given that cranking and avoiding brown out pretty well
> required two batteries, I ultimately adopted Bob's two identical
> battery, swap one out per year concept. The starter, main alternator,
> main bus (including the switched stby efis), and main battery comprise
> one branch of my system. The essential battery (Sorry folks; I'm
> not interested in any semantic arguments... call it a kumquat if you
> like!) carries the essential bus, which powers the primary efis
> un-switched and is supported by an SD-8 on the vacuum pad. The two
> batteries are tied together with a Schotkey diode, and the SD-8
> regulator is set between battery and main alternator voltage.
>
> Operation is dirt simple. Starting with the main alt off tests the
> stby. In flight, the main alt carries the whole electrical system.
> Should the main alt fail, the main bus is carried by the main battery
> and the SD-8 picks up the essential bus with precisely zero switch
> flipping by the pilot. The efis will annunciate the drop in main bus
> voltage. Load shedding at one's leisure will prolong the life of the
> main bus, but the SD-8 will ensure all the most important goodies have
> power for probably two hours after the prop stops windmilling, even
> with battery contactors on line.
>
> I use fuses, with the only breakers on power sources. Failure of ANY
> one component can't hurt me. YMMV, but I like it, a lot.
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
>You do not want to create additional tuned circuits by looping the
>coax through one larger toroid, you just want to create resistive
>loss for reflected power, because you haven't designed an antenna
>that's inherently broadband enough (good broadband antennas don't
>need ferrites.)
Agreed to within one important point. There are 'ferrites'
and then there are 'FERRITES' . . .
There's a constellation of mixes of metal and binders used
to fabricate the device. A ferrite core can be an
efficient, compact solution to the fabrication of an
inductor or transformer. In this instance, the manufacturer
strives for the LOWEST possible losses in the core material
at the frequency of interest.
When used as a mitigator of noise, design goals can include
a 'filter' comprised of combinations of inductors and capacitors
that provide high series impedance (inductor) and low shunt
impedance (capacitor) at the antagonistic frequencies. In this
case, low loss components don't 'exterminate' the noise, they
just 'contain' it.
With the advances in powered metal technologies it was
discovered that while putting a ferrite 'bead' or toroid
over a wire would create a lumped inductance of some small
value . . . the designer could, if goals warranted, include
some material in the bead that made it a lousy candidate for
tuned circuits or transformers. This material deliberately
created energy losses within the core material . . . losses
that converts antagonistic energies into heat thus reducing
their nuisance factors.
http://tinyurl.com/3b7nuj
As a general rule, ALL products sold for the purposes
of reducing noise will be fabricated from materials having
deliberate losses . . . like the filter 'beads' and
'snap around the cable' products.
But when you pick up one of those little donut shaped
thingies with no particularly defining features of
color or part numbers, you're in the dark. The
odd toroid captured in the wild is often optimized
for a rather narrow range of characteristics that
may or may not be suited to your task.
One of several resources for reviewing capabilities
and limits for the various products can be found
here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nx4qb9h
In the case for the 'string of beads on the coax'
the goal is to de-couple currents flowing on the
feed line shield, the task is not to add a filtering
loss but to add a high-q (read low loss) common mode
inductance to the feed-line. This would become the
lumped component version of a Pawsey stub or Bazooka
balun.
As far as weak signal performance goes, the only
time you're even close to experiencing a 'weak signal'
event is trying to read a VOR radial that is WWAAAaaayy
off the beaten track for IFR operations.
When "flying the routes", your charts will be marked
with a VOR change-over point . . . a location along
a line between VOR stations that is "equal signal"
for the stations of interest. For this mode of flight ops,
signal strengths combined with modern receiver
capabilities make a 'weak signal' event due to
standing waves on your feed line a physical
impossibility.
I've played with 'beads on the coax' in the lab and
found their benefit to be difficult to measure with
boxes having names like Hewlett-Packard and Watkins-
Johnson on them. The notion that you're going to
get more meaningful measurements with a box having
Garmin or King on front is not grounded in practice.
A suitable sleeve or tube core is Fair-Rite 2643625202, available
from Mouser http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Fair-Rite/2643625202
for about a dollar. This can substitute for the 3 or 4 donuts often
used. You should use ferrites only when you can't get the VSWR low
enough any other way.
Not very quantified . . . who actually measures VSWR
on a VOR antenna and what is 'low enough'? The measure
of antenna performance cannot be lumped into the VSWR
bucket. A resistor can have a VSWR of 1:1 over a huge
range of frequencies with ZERO performance while an
antenna with 'low enough' VSWR can perform poorly for
a variety of reasons not related to the antenna itself.
Antenna science is a BIG PICTURE activity that has
to included the entire sphere of interest . . . while
centered on your headphones, the sphere envelopes a host of
variables no single one of which is the holy grail
of satisfactory operations.
Consider some of the Blue Tooth, Wi-Fi and remote
control products. Very few of these devices have
antennas that would warm Bob Archer's heart . . . but
in the context of their operating sphere, they
perform as advertised. Some with pretty amazing
results. Dr. Dee can wear her little Blue-Tooth ear
piece and be out weeding in her garden while tutoring
a student. Amazes me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 10/24/2014 11:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Brownout resets are not an architecture problem,
> they're a radio problem. A radio that DOES NOT
> conform to DO-160 guidelines for graceful recovery
> after all manner of input power interruptions.
>
> That capability is supposed to be internal to
> the appliance, not external . . . and for good
> reason. What's the poor C-172 owner supposed to
> do when he wants to modernize his avionics but
> doesn't want to climb the Everest-of-paperwork
> necessary to modify the ship's certificated
> electrical system?
>
>
We've had this discussion on the list many times over the past few
years. We can spend days pointing fingers back and forth blaming the
manufacturer or whomever as to why the radio/efis/panel-goodie resets
when cranking the engine, but the simple reality is that we do have
equipment that resets, and going back to the manufacturer and pointing
at DO-160 likely isn't going to get us anywhere in the short term. One
could argue that continually pestering the manufacturer about the issue
might get us somewhere in the long term, but in the meantime we aren't
likely to return our $12,000+ EFIS system because of it, and we need to
move forward.
Comparing to a 172 owner isn't really relevant since we are
primarily talking about experimental avionics going into OBAM aircraft,
and they'll never see the inside of a 172 without highly unlikely and
significant regulatory changes. Again one could argue that regardless
of being experimental or not they should strive to meet some regulatory
specification, but again we are stuck with what we have and if we choose
to keep the equipment we need to factor it in, and move on, much like
when we got an airframe part in the kit that didn't fit just right and
we had to figure out how to make it work and continue building.
Fortunately for us in the OBAM community we aren't limited in that
manner, and are free to incorporate this into the design architecture.
With as many times as this has come up in recent years, it seems pretty
clear that brownout protection is a very desirable feature, and I'd go
so far as to say that it is a required feature for many posters given
the messages we've seen about it.
Yes, we could design a nice whiz-bang external band-aid device that
could be applied to each individual panel-goodie that resets, but as
soon as you have two of them in your panel you've now created
unnecessary complexity and increased component count. Many OBAM
aircraft today have at least two EFIS screens, and often three. Often
the manufacturers solution is to incorporate an internal battery into
each device, which does certainly work, but then leaves us with having
to maintain several batteries throughout the aircraft.
It would seem the more efficient means of addressing this is to
design it into the architecture from the start (pun intended), reducing
battery and parts count, and making the overall system as simple as
possible, and only as complex as it needs to be and no more.
In my humble opinion,
-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: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
>
>That is why I consider suitable IFR backup to be enough electrons to
>function for 1 hour, maybe 1+30 to be adequate, and easily
>achievable with batteries only backup rather than a second alternator.
But why limit your horizon to 90 minutes if there's
simple, light, low cost of ownership combination of
hardware and planing that keeps the panel lit until
the engine runs out of fuel?
This is a mode of thinking not generally offered to
C-172 owners. I had a conversation with a company
pilot at Beech who had just delivered a new A-36
to a proud customer. He was extolling the virtues
of all the electro-whizzies on the panel to the
customer.
Later, I asked, "Did you check the guy out in flying
this airplane in the J-3 mode"?
"Say what? Why would I do that? He just paid a half
million for an airplane with air conditioning and the
kitchen sink . . . why would I even suggest that
he might want to acquire such skills about?"
Why indeed. The point is, I respectfully suggest that
there is no reason any OBAM aviation pilot should
experience an electrical 'emergency'. No single failure
should be cause to seek the nearest airport in boonies
because risks for continued flight to airport of
intended destination have driven up your pucker-factor.
> Each builder will have to assess their mission goals and risk
> tolerance . . .
Right ON! Let's not 'tolerate' risk, let's drive
it so close to zero that throwing a prop-bolt becomes
the more likely event to ruin your day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jeff's aircraft electrical schematic |
Joe,
I've been in discussions w/ several builders, both on this List and off, who asked
many questions and for permission to use this design. But as far as I know,
no one is flying it yet. My airplane is probably two years away from flying.
Re 60A fuse:
You are correct, the fuse is not to protect the alternator. It is to protect the
wire (the "B" lead) going to the alternator. If that wire were to go to ground,
we want that 60A to blow.
Without that fuse, the next fuse up the chain is the 100A "main" fuse and we don't
want a wire problem w/ the alternator B lead to kill the Battery A system.
BTW - I appreciate the ongoing analysis & scrutiny - makes us all smarter,
-Jeff
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:03 AM, user9253 wrote:
Jeff attached this schematic to the RV-14 thread.
http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=39981
Jeff, has this architecture been used in a flying aircraft yet?
I like it and think that it deserves peer review.
I think that the 60 amp alternator fuse and 100 amp battery current limiter are
redundant. An alternator is self current limiting. An alternator fuse protects
the battery and wires, not the alternator. So I suggest that the 100 amp
battery fuse be replaced by a 60 amp fuse, and eliminate the 60 amp fuse in the
alternator circuit.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432247#432247
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> This discussion, as good as it is, has focused on hardware installed and
> its capabilities, not mission "need".
>
Not true. I speculated on the OP's mission: IFR as stated, possibly at
night, probably single-pilot, certainly single engine.
> Need varies from a military requirement to complete the mission regardless
> of circumstances to if something fails I will land at nearest suitable
> airport and deal with it. Night IFR by itself only has certain minimum
> requirements, and if you "assume" that your missions will keep you within
> XX minutes of a suitable airport,
An optimistic assumption...dangerous to make. Better to make pessimistic
assumptions.
> your needs are different than if you assume you will need to fly to
> destination and thus need electron capacity equal to the aircraft fuel
> range. *Having electron capacity greater than fuel range just adds
> unnecessary wt*.
>
No. Aircraft batteries add more weight than standby alternators and provide
much less endurance. At any rate, a bit of extra weight for an RV-14 is
hardly the critical factor.
> Then there is the consideration of how much effort the backups need to
> allow pilot with minimum effort to safely reach his pre-determined goal.
> I like the system described below, IF you assume your mission is over
> hostile terrain, at night in IFR and need to go a considerable distance to
> a suitable landing spot after a failure. Most of us don't really have that
> mission requirement, but may want the capability.
>
Most of the inter-mountain West (USA) would be considered hostile terrain
as is the Appalachian Range; we don't know where the OP lives, but at some
point he might cross them. Airports in the mountains are not close
together. And what if a nearby airport is under minimums and he needs to
travel a distance to reach an acceptable airport? He may not plan on night
IFR, but could easily find himself with a choice: late departure, arriving
at destination at night, OR stay overnight in Podunk Airport and leave in
the morning.
So plan for a system with at least, say, a 2- or 3-hour e-buss capacity.
But as Bob points out, it's easy--not more effort--to add indefinite
endurance, so why not do it?
I don't understand the notion that a 2nd alternator is greatly increased
complexity and effort, therefore all backup must be battery. Once you are
trapped in that thinking, poor trade-offs result.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
>I don't understand the notion that a 2nd alternator is greatly
>increased complexity and effort, therefore all backup must be
>battery. Once you are trapped in that thinking, poor trade-offs result.
Precisely. "greatly increased" is non-quantified. To quote from
one of my heros . . .
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a
meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."
Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
and one other . . .
"A number cited without knowing its degree of uncertainty is meaningless"
Walter Lewin (PhD Physics and professor at MIT)
These two gentlemen laid foundation for my suggestion to our
newest member to the List who was starting to plan his
electrical system, buy parts and start drilling holes.
I suggested that he first make a list of every electrical
load in the airplane and assign its duties in the conduct
of various phases of flight. Those numbers combined with
an assessment of criticality to comfortable continuation
of flight to airport of intended destination is where
one might begin to size the task and make measured
decisions of known significance.
Task I: Measure and tabulate it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
".. I don't understand the notion that a 2nd alternator is greatly increased complexity
and effort, therefore all backup must be battery. Once you are
trapped in that thinking, poor trade-offs
result."
Ralph, it is unclear from the context; are you promoting a single battery, dual
alternator system? I don't see any problem with that, given a particular set
of design criteria.
If one of your goals is to maximize endurance after an alternator failure, then
the second alternator makes sense. However, a system with a single battery does
not solve the brown-out at start-up problem.
So it comes down to what's important to you. There is no right or wrong answer
- there can be different designs based upon different sets of constraints & criteria
that result in different, but equally legitimate, designs.
-Jeff
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 10:49 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
I don't
understand the notion that a 2nd alternator is greatly increased
complexity and effort, therefore all backup must be battery. Once you are
trapped in that thinking, poor trade-offs
result.
Precisely. "greatly increased" is
non-quantified. To quote from
one of my heros . . .
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express
it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure
it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a
meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but
you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of
science."
Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
and one other . . .
"A number cited without knowing its degree of uncertainty is
meaningless"
Walter Lewin (PhD Physics and professor at MIT)
These two gentlemen laid foundation for my suggestion to
our
newest member to the List who was starting to plan his
electrical system, buy parts and start drilling
holes.
I suggested that he first make a list of every
electrical
load in the airplane and assign its duties in the
conduct
of various phases of flight. Those numbers combined
with
an assessment of criticality to comfortable
continuation
of flight to airport of intended destination is where
one might begin to size the task and make measured
decisions of known significance.
Task I: Measure and tabulate it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Glen,
What Schotkey diode part number are you using?
Thanks!
Justin
On Oct 25, 2014, at 07:03, GLEN MATEJCEK wrote:
>> Peter and Jeff-
>
> I wrestled with the same issues, and although I've not yet flown my night /
ifr capable RV yet, I like what I've come up with. The short version is th
at I've a primary efis w/ engine instruments and a backup efis six pack. Gi
ven that cranking and avoiding brown out pretty well required two batteries,
I ultimately adopted Bob's two identical battery, swap one out per year con
cept. The starter, main alternator, main bus (including the switched stby e
fis), and main battery comprise one branch of my system. The essential bat
tery (Sorry folks; I'm not interested in any semantic arguments... call it
a kumquat if you like!) carries the essential bus, which powers the primary
efis un-switched and is supported by an SD-8 on the vacuum pad. The two ba
tteries are tied together with a Schotkey diode, and the SD-8 regulator is s
et between battery and main alternator voltage.
>
> Operation is dirt simple. Starting with the main alt off tests the stby.
In flight, the main alt carries the whole electrical system. Should the ma
in alt fail, the main bus is carried by the main battery and the SD-8 picks u
p the essential bus with precisely zero switch flipping by the pilot. The e
fis will annunciate the drop in main bus voltage. Load shedding at one's le
isure will prolong the life of the main bus, but the SD-8 will ensure all th
e most important goodies have power for probably two hours after the prop st
ops windmilling, even with battery contactors on line.
>
> I use fuses, with the only breakers on power sources. Failure of ANY one c
omponent can't hurt me. YMMV, but I like it, a lot.
>
>
>
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: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV- 14, now electrical redundancy |
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> ".. I don't understand the notion that a 2nd alternator is greatly
> increased complexity and effort, therefore all backup must be battery. Once
> you are trapped in that thinking, poor trade-offs result."
>
>
> Ralph, it is unclear from the context; are you promoting a single battery,
> dual alternator system?
>
Not necessarily, two aircraft batteries may be preferable for the OP's
mission and tolerance of risk. I *AM *arguing against the apparent
insistence by at least one here that a 2nd alternator adds such complexity
it should not be considered.
> If one of your goals is to maximize endurance after an alternator failure,
> then the second alternator makes sense. However, a system with a single
> battery does not solve the brown-out at start-up problem.
>
Don't know what that is precisely...if it's important, then put in a 2nd
battery. Sounds like someone is turning on all the avionics, then starting
the engine...if so, couldn't the engine be started, then turn on the glass
panels?
So it comes down to what's important to you. There is no right or wrong
> answer
>
There are multiple solutions or answers to the OP's question, with
different levels of satisfying his requirements. But forgoing a 2nd
alternator because it's "complicated" is not true and is unhelpful.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, |
1 battery)
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I also have the EFII system with redundant ecus.
Make sure you talk with Robert about the mechanical fuel pump in the EFII system.
The issue I see with placing a mechanical fuel pump in the system would be
pressurizing it with an electric fuel pump. The head pressure put out by the EFII
pump module can damage the mechanical pump diaphragms. If one or both diaphragms
begin to leak, you will loose fuel pressure to your injectors and they
will fail to inject fuel into the cylinders, resulting in engine failure.
If you MUST have the mechanical pump in the system, I would suggest that the fuel
from the tanks run thru the mechanical fuel pump first, then thru the EFII
electrical fuel pump module. More plumbing but much safer. I'm sure Robert Paisley
will have an opinion as well.
Hope this helps
Justin
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 07:54, carrollcw wrote:
>
>
> For now, I just want to get it in the air for day/vfr/acro only. However, I
will later make it fully night IFR.
>
> I am running the dual EFII ignition and fuel injection. Although I will have
a mechanical pump, at least one electric pump must be running to sepply sufficient
pressure.
>
> EI does not have its own power backup. After speaking with Robert at EFII, I
am planning on wiring the 2 ECU's, 2 Ignitions, and 2 Fuel pumps to the always
hot battery bus with switches for each of them, although I was planning on wiring
the fuel pumps with a single dual pole switch.
>
> Basic architecture staying the same. Breakers for e-bus, fuses for everything
else.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432174#432174
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | peter goudinoff <petergoudinoff(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | brown out on start |
You can deal with brown out on start by using a deslumpefier designed by Eric
Jones. Right now I have one unit that handles AOA and JPI engine monitor. Works
great, even during hot starts. Also cool fade out on shut down. Im having
a second one built for the GRT HX.
Peter Goudinoff
Lancair Legacy #200
N637PG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, |
1 battery)
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I don't have an EFII, but I am working with an automotive injection system.
I'd 2d Justin's comments, and add that unless you plumb in a check valve
that can bypass the dual EFII pumps, it is quite likely that the mechanical
pump will be unable to pump fuel with both electric pumps off or dead. All
the 'inline' style automotive injection pumps I've been able to find are
positive displacement pumps. They won't pass fuel unless the pump mechanism
is actually turning. See the EFII 'boost' pump for comparison; the skinny
cylinder next to the actual pump contains a check valve to pass fuel sucked
by the mechanical pump in a traditional Bendix style injection system.
I'd also ask about the operating pressure of the EFII system. Virtually all
current automotive systems operate in the 40-60 psi range; a standard Lyc
pump achieves barely half that. If he's using standard automotive
injectors, the engine would likely go so lean on just the mechanical pump
that it would quit.
We could be wrong, but if either or both of us are right, you could have
serious problems.
Charlie
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
>
> I also have the EFII system with redundant ecus.
>
> Make sure you talk with Robert about the mechanical fuel pump in the EFII
> system. The issue I see with placing a mechanical fuel pump in the system
> would be pressurizing it with an electric fuel pump. The head pressure put
> out by the EFII pump module can damage the mechanical pump diaphragms. If
> one or both diaphragms begin to leak, you will loose fuel pressure to your
> injectors and they will fail to inject fuel into the cylinders, resulting
> in engine failure.
>
> If you MUST have the mechanical pump in the system, I would suggest that
> the fuel from the tanks run thru the mechanical fuel pump first, then thru
> the EFII electrical fuel pump module. More plumbing but much safer. I'm
> sure Robert Paisley will have an opinion as well.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Justin
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2014, at 07:54, carrollcw wrote:
> >
> carrollswa(at)gmail.com>
> >
> > For now, I just want to get it in the air for day/vfr/acro only.
> However, I will later make it fully night IFR.
> >
> > I am running the dual EFII ignition and fuel injection. Although I will
> have a mechanical pump, at least one electric pump must be running to
> sepply sufficient pressure.
> >
> > EI does not have its own power backup. After speaking with Robert at
> EFII, I am planning on wiring the 2 ECU's, 2 Ignitions, and 2 Fuel pumps to
> the always hot battery bus with switches for each of them, although I was
> planning on wiring the fuel pumps with a single dual pole switch.
> >
> > Basic architecture staying the same. Breakers for e-bus, fuses for
> everything else.
> >
> > Thanks for the help!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432174#432174
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerald Folkerts" <jfolkerts1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Alternator Question |
I'm planning on the Z-12 dual alternator single battery installation. I
have a VMC-1000 engine monitor and believe it only displays one alternator
output. Can I use a simple switch to add the B&C 20 Amp Vacuum Pad
alternator so I can check it periodically or should I add another ammeter?
Would the switch create enough resistance to throw off the readings on the
display?
Thanks,
Jerry Folkerts
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical redundancy |
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
Justin- The Schottkey I'm using is from Eric's Perihelion site.
Peter- Eric's device did not exist when I designed my system, plus my long
term plans include some longer flights and perhaps some over water. Making
fuel in the tanks the limiting factor for my endurance was a fundamental
goal, as was the ease of mx affofrded by using two identical, inexpensive
batteries.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
We've had this discussion on the list many times over the past
few years. We can spend days pointing fingers back and forth blaming
the manufacturer or whomever as to why the radio/efis/panel-goodie
resets when cranking the engine, but the simple reality is that we do
have equipment that resets, and going back to the manufacturer and
pointing at DO-160 likely isn't going to get us anywhere in the short
term. One could argue that continually pestering the manufacturer
about the issue might get us somewhere in the long term, but in the
meantime we aren't likely to return our $12,000+ EFIS system because
of it, and we need to move forward.
Agreed. But question asked and never answered (if
it was, I missed it and beg forgiveness) is where
is it written that starting an engine before lighting
up the electro-whizzies is a high-risk activity
that flirts with $missery$ in the engine shop?
Okay, you bought a $12K EFIS system, what do the
manufacturers say about their design decision to
be intolerant of starter-inrush brown-out events?
We were taught to "Observe thy oil pressure during
start up lest thy wings curl up and propeller fall
off" but what is the foundation in physics for the
modern engine asserting that KNOWING rpm and
oil pressure within the first 30 seconds of start
up is necessary for low risk utility of that engine?
Comparing to a 172 owner isn't really relevant since we are primarily
talking about experimental avionics going into OBAM aircraft, and
they'll never see the inside of a 172 without highly unlikely and
significant regulatory changes.
Oh contraire . . . nobody can afford to bring a
product to market that targets only new production
aircraft. The C172 was an extreme example but certainly
thousands of existing airplanes in the A36/C210/PA46 class
are juicy targets for any new development. My MOST
successful design in terms of cash flow to my boss
was a field retrofit that far outpaced the production
line rates.
So how do they handle this conundrum in either a
current production -OR- an after-market retrofit?
It would seem the more efficient means of addressing this is to
design it into the architecture from the start (pun intended),
reducing battery and parts count, and making the overall system as
simple as possible, and only as complex as it needs to be and no more.
I suggest the cart has run down the hill in
front of the horse. How many people in the OBAM
aviation community are candidates for incorporating
these new electro-whizzies . . . I would judge that
the after-market potential is on a par with new
completions.
So the question still remains . . . just how important
is it that the screens be all lit up and stable during
engine start? If achievement of low risk comfort amongst
all aviators is critical . . . how do the heavy
iron guys do it. What, if any, modifications to
electrical system architecture were made to accommodate
these new products? What are the recommendations of
those who offer the products in the first place?
I'm not convinced that our que of requirements
ducks are yet all lined up . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator Question |
At 08:25 2014-10-26, you wrote:
>I'm planning on the Z-12 dual alternator single battery
>installation. I have a VMC-1000 engine monitor and believe it only
>displays one alternator output. Can I use a simple switch to add
>the B&C 20 Amp Vacuum Pad alternator so I can check it periodically
>or should I add another ammeter? Would the switch create enough
>resistance to throw off the readings on the display?
If the VM1000 uses a hall-effect transducer, run BOTH
B-leads through the same transducer. The display will
show alternator load for the device presently in service.
However, since the SD-20 is a stand-by alternator fitted
with a dedicated hall-effect load sensing and indication
system, bringing alternator load numbers to the panel
offers no in formation of use to the pilot while in
flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring RV7 with Z13 diagram (2 alternators, |
1 battery)
>
>We could be wrong, but if either or both of us are right, you could
>have serious problems.
I recall reading somewhere that the EFII fuel
pressures are more like 15 psi . . . much lower
than the legacy automotive systems. But I'd
still make sure that the mechanical pump performs
on a par with the electric standby pump.
MEASURE and then talk to EFII.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads |
The constellation of materials used to make ferrites is referred to as
the "mix." Most common of the ferrites used in RF transformers and
chokes at VHF is type 43, which is mostly nickel and zinc. It's useful
over the whole com/nav/GS range, particularly if you are looking for
loss as we are, rather than high-Q inductance. There is good information
on the Palomar Engineers page referred to by Tom Gauthier. If you don't
recognize the joke in the Palomar author's pseudonym (sadly, the man
behind the name died at 90 last year after many excellent articles over
the years), you haven't been around antennas long enough...
Many engineers who use ferrites don't really understand what's going on.
Note that many manufacturers now specify the result of putting a core on
a wire in terms of impedance rather than inductance. It is not as simple
as a lumped inductance caused by increased permeability; if it were, the
effect would not be so broadband. Refer to several papers by Jim Brown
(and one by him and me, using a lot of H-P, W-J and Anritsu test
equipment) on ferrites at www.audiosystemsgroup.com/publish.htm ... Jim
and I started doing a lot of work analyzing the behavior of ferrites for
rfi reduction in audio equipment and learned a lot of surprising stuff.
The core mentioned in my previous post (the URL got mangled, go to
mouser.com and enter 2643625202) adds about 350 ohms of impedance,
mostly resistive, to a single wire at 100 MHz.
I agree, there's no reason to use ferrites on a receiving antenna. As I
mentioned, you use them only on a com antenna coax, where it attaches to
the antenna, when the VSWR is too high. If your radio works without
ferrites on the coax, leave them off, they are a band-aid to fix
compromised antenna design. They will never make a bad antenna better,
only allow a radio to work with a bad antenna when it might not
otherwise. The heat generated in the ferrite is the power you would have
radiated if the antenna had been properly matched. You want an actual
balun such as a Pawsey stub or a hybrid transformer for a VOR antenna
not to reduce VSWR, but to keep the pattern symmetrical. Not nice to
receive a VOR when you're heading east and have it disappear when you
turn west (I have had this experience while I was developing antennas on
my Mooney, and it was fixed by using a balun.) And some of us do use
VORs still.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: brown out on start |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Thanks Peter,
The whole subject can be found at:
De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=99555&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight
Eric M. Jones
--------
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=432311#432311
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
> On Oct 26, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. But question asked and never answered (if
> it was, I missed it and beg forgiveness) is where
> is it written that starting an engine before lighting
> up the electro-whizzies is a high-risk activity
> that flirts with $missery$ in the engine shop?
IMHO, when the engine is running, your eyes need to be outside the airplane,
not fiddling with the fancy avionics setting up your flight plan, etc. All
the fiddling should be done and things ready to go by the time you are read
y to push the start button. As others have mentioned in the past, some of t
he systems do not retain the flight information or other flight info after a
reboot.
I see it as a safety issue, not related to engine gauges, etc. Others do ha
ve the concern about the engine instruments, and this is important to them.
> Oh contraire . . . nobody can afford to bring a
> product to market that targets only new production
> aircraft.
I was trying say the stuff we are installing is targeted at experimental air
craft, not certified.
Your point about retrofits into flying aircraft, even experimental, is well t
aken (an exercise I just went through earlier this year), but adding brownou
t protection to the electrical system is no more difficult than the panel re
trofit, and I anticipated it as part of the overall upgrade project.
> I'm not convinced that our que of requirements
> ducks are yet all lined up . .
I know. There are many of us on this list that are convinced that brownout p
rotection is important, though, and are trying to gently guide you in that d
irection... :-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: brown out on start |
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Eric,
Do you sell the "de-slumpifier" ?
regards,
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
On 26 October 2014 20:10, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> emjones(at)charter.net>
>
> Thanks Peter,
>
> The whole subject can be found at:
>
> De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=99555&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight
>
> Eric M. Jones
>
> --------
> 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=432311#432311
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brown out on start |
I know that this form generally has been about rolling your own version
of electrical systems, but this topic is straight on point with products
we sell that address starting brown outs and back-up sources of power.
Our IPS series of products provides brown out protection with a true
dc-dc converter that operates all the way down to 5 volts of input
voltage. The connected equipment is provided with stable 12 volt
power as the input voltage fluctuates. We have a 4 amp and an 8 amp
version for use in 14 volts systems and a 5 amp version for 28 volt
systems.
We also sell our series of IBBS products. These integrated back-up
battery systems contain a rechargeable battery, automatic switching
logic and smart charging system all in one convenient package, and
ranging from 2 amp-hrs up to 6 amp-hrs in capacity. We have been
specified for use with the Garmin G3x product line as well as the
Advanced Flight System product line.
For all the details and the installation manuals please visit our web
site. www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
RV-10, N541RV
TCW Technologies, LLC.
From: Bill Allen
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: brown out on start
Hi Eric,
Do you sell the "de-slumpifier" ?
regards,
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
On 26 October 2014 20:10, Eric M. Jones wrote:
Thanks Peter,
The whole subject can be found at:
De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=99555&start=0&postdays=
0&postorder=asc&highlight
Eric M. Jones
--------
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=432311#432311
==========
-
Electric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: brown out on start |
| From: | "j. davis" <jwd3ca(at)gmail.com> |
Eric... are you making your slumpifier available as a kit? Or the circuit
board? Thanks!
On 26 October 2014 15:10, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> emjones(at)charter.net>
>
> Thanks Peter,
>
> The whole subject can be found at:
>
> De-Slumpifier, Voltage Buffer to Prevent Brownout
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=99555&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight
>
> Eric M. Jones
>
> --------
> 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=432311#432311
>
>
--
Regards, J.
-----------------------------
J. Davis,
- Zenith STOL CH750 C-FJNJ: Jab 3300, Whilrwind GA prop, AeroCarb
- Sonex #325 (ex)C-FJNJ, Jab 3300a, Prince P-Tip, Aerocarb
- former C-IGGY CH701 owner/builder
- see these and more at http://cleco.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator Question |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net> |
I am operating a Z12 electrical system in my RV7A and have been very pleased, 200+
hours. The aircraft has recently been certified IFR. It has a Dynon Skyview
and a simple switch on the panel to show volts and amps of the alternator selected.
Lights on the panel indicate the status of the two alternators.
David Lamb
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432325#432325
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine |
crank
>
>I know. There are many of us on this list that are convinced that
>brownout protection is important, though, and are trying to gently
>guide you in that direction... :-)
A tried and proven technique has been around for about
12 years. ANY time a dedicated power source is
indicated for the protection of any electro-whizzy's
vulnerabilities to brown-out a simple
battery manager works just fine. This product was
sold out of our shops for many years
http://tinyurl.com/owut7o8
it's being replaced by a more modern version in a
nicer package and will be offered as the AEC9024,
4-function module.
The battery can be sized to run all the brown-out
vulnerable devices on their own battery until
after engine-start and the alternator is on
line (bus rises above 13.0 volts). In most
cases, this could probably be a 2 a.h. or
so SVLA.
Originally crafted to offer a 'protected' battery
for the #2 LightSpeed ignition battery . . . but
it would just as happily protect a small power
source from starter-inrush brownout without making
any other changes to system architecture.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | B&C alternator question |
In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the standby alternator.
Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A and use a generic ford
voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to use a B&C alternator controller?
I would connect it to the system in the same place (battery side of the battery
contractor). In the event of a primary alternator failure, I require 12A (worst
case scenario) to continue to run necessary systems without discharging the
battery. The SD-8 doesnt seem up to the task, not to mention the BC410-H is
a less expensive option.
Thanks!
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
>> Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A and use a generic ford voltage
regulator? Or is it necessary to use a B&C alternator controller?
Justin,
If you try to use an automotive Ford regulator, my experience shows you'll find
that an attempt to shutdown that alternator in the conventional method, by switching
off the field power to the regulator, will instead result in a voltage
runaway, with the regulator powering itself from the alternator directly with
NO regulation of voltage. Once that happens, turning the field power back on
does NOT result in voltage control... Overvoltage continues. The only way to restore
normal regulation is powering down the alternator, which usually means
engine shutdown... Not handy.
Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | B&C alternator question |
Justin,
Are you sure that your CONTINUOUS Ebus load is greater than 10amps?
Momentary loads over 10 amps will source the excess from the battery, and
then recharge as the peak load drops off. If you can, measure your actual
loads. Measured loads will likely be less than what's published by the
manufacturer as those are likely maximums. Kind of like rounding up. If
you add a bunch of rounded up numbers together, you get a much higher number
than actual.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin
Jones
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B&C alternator question
-->
In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the standby
alternator. Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A and use a
generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to use a B&C alternator
controller? I would connect it to the system in the same place (battery
side of the battery contractor). In the event of a primary alternator
failure, I require 12A (worst case scenario) to continue to run necessary
systems without discharging the battery. The SD-8 doesn't seem up to the
task, not to mention the BC410-H is a less expensive option.
Thanks!
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I am sure the continuous required load will be greater than 10A. I live in Alaska
and I am including the Pitot heat into the equation. The aircraft that I
am building is all electric (instruments and engine). I will be flying quite
a bit at night and MVFR with the potential of IFR flights. Conditions conducive
to Pitot Tube icing exist often up here. With the ECUs, Ignition Coils, Fuel
Pumps, EFIS, GPS, Engine Monitor, Pitot Heat and required lights, I am over
10A. My goal is to have an electrical contingent based on my worst case scenario.
This would be a marginal weather flight, at night over remote stretches
of wilderness or water. I will not be doing these types of flights often, but
the majority of flying that I will do with this airplane will be off-airport
operations. I would like to have the option to use the devices that I may need
without the concern of discharging the battery. I would be more comfortable
on these more dangerous, higher risk flights if I knew that my back-up alternator
system was capable of handling a primary alternator failure without having
to decide what items to shut off in order to shed a load. I am designing the
limiting factor in the system to be fuel remaining. It is also a perk that
the larger alternator is less expensive.
Justin
On Oct 26, 2014, at 11:42 PM, B Tomm wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> Are you sure that your CONTINUOUS Ebus load is greater than 10amps?
> Momentary loads over 10 amps will source the excess from the battery, and
> then recharge as the peak load drops off. If you can, measure your actual
> loads. Measured loads will likely be less than what's published by the
> manufacturer as those are likely maximums. Kind of like rounding up. If
> you add a bunch of rounded up numbers together, you get a much higher number
> than actual.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin
> Jones
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:32 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: B&C alternator question
>
> -->
>
> In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the standby
> alternator. Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A and use a
> generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to use a B&C alternator
> controller? I would connect it to the system in the same place (battery
> side of the battery contractor). In the event of a primary alternator
> failure, I require 12A (worst case scenario) to continue to run necessary
> systems without discharging the battery. The SD-8 doesn't seem up to the
> task, not to mention the BC410-H is a less expensive option.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Justin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
For many of us (if not most), experimental airplanes are toys. There are other
modes of transportation that are less expensive and safer. And some of these
aircraft have expensive avionics (more toys). Pilots want their avionics to
work without the annoyance of rebooting during engine start. It is not a matter
of what is needed or what is practical. We want to play with our toys without
being annoyed with brownouts. I would like to see this discussion deal with
a solution that is inexpensive, lightweight and uncomplicated. Topics could
include Eric's deslumpifier (capacitors), backup batteries, and DC to DC converters.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432340#432340
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
At 00:32 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>
>
>In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the
>standby alternator. Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H
>20A and use a generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to
>use a B&C alternator controller? I would connect it to the system
>in the same place (battery side of the battery contractor). In the
>event of a primary alternator failure, I require 12A (worst case
>scenario) to continue to run necessary systems without discharging
>the battery. The SD-8 doesn't seem up to the task, not to mention
>the BC410-H is a less expensive option.
Suggest go with Z-12 and use ANY of the larger,
B&C pad-driven alternators.
The generic Ford regulators are 'okay' . . .
they perform as advertised but they are
not adjustable. Z-12 was orignially crafed
to accommodate an 'auto switching' mode
for the stand-by alternator (like those
systems installed on many, many TC aircraft.
The standby system is ON all the time with
a voltage regulator set for 1.0 volts below
the normal system voltage set-point. If the
main alternator goes south, bus voltage drops,
the s/b regulator tells the little alternator
to go to work. If you're using the B&C SB-1
controller, it will light an annunciator to
tell you that the alternator is on-line.
If in an overloaded state, the light will
flash. You then reduce loads until the light
is on steady indicating that the loads are
now within the alternator's capabilities.
If you don't want/need the auto-switched feature,
use the generic Ford regulator if you wish.
Leave s/b alternator OFF until advised that
it is needed by a low-volts warning whereupon
you bring the s/b alternator on line and
then adjust loads to keep the bus voltage
at the regulator's set-point or some value
at or below 100% of alternator's output as
displayed on a loadmeter.
KISS . . . Z-12 is recommended. I used to
have a Figure Z-13/20 that proved to be
rather in-elegant and I removed it.
Wire your "Ford" regulator thusly . . .
Emacs!
. . . as depicted in Figure Z-11.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
At 01:59 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>
> >> Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A and use a
> generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to use a B&C
> alternator controller?
>
>Justin,
>
>If you try to use an automotive Ford regulator, my experience shows
>you'll find that an attempt to shutdown that alternator in the
>conventional method, by switching off the field power to the
>regulator, will instead result in a voltage runaway, with the
>regulator powering itself from the alternator directly with NO
>regulation of voltage. Once that happens, turning the field power
>back on does NOT result in voltage control... Overvoltage continues.
>The only way to restore normal regulation is powering down the
>alternator, which usually means engine shutdown... Not handy.
This is a condition limited to the Cessna's which
do not tie "A" and "S" terminals together . . . a
condition that's okay for the legacy electro-mechanical
regulators and their solid-state clones.
The commercial off-the shelf replacement regulators
are sometimes wired a little differently within . . .
which does not affect their performance in cars
where alternators are not controlled. These not-
quite-a-clone variants will indeed produce the
behavior your describe . . . been there, done that.
But when wired as depicted in Z-11 and others, the
generic COTS regulators of all stripe are well
behaved performers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
At 03:19 2014-10-27, you wrote:
I am sure the continuous required load will be greater than 10A. I
live in Alaska and I am including the Pitot heat into the
equation. The aircraft that I am building is all electric
(instruments and engine). I will be flying quite a bit at night and
MVFR with the potential of IFR flights. Conditions conducive to
Pitot Tube icing exist often up here. With the ECUs, Ignition Coils,
Fuel Pumps, EFIS, GPS, Engine Monitor, Pitot Heat and required
lights, I am over 10A. My goal is to have an electrical contingent
based on my worst case scenario. This would be a marginal weather
flight, at night over remote stretches of wilderness or water. I
will not be doing these types of flights often, but the majority of
flying that I will do with this airplane will be off-airport
operations. I would like to have the option to use the devices that
I may need without the concern of discharging the battery. I would
be more comfortable on these more dangerous, higher risk flights if I
knew that my back-up alternator system was capable of handling a
primary alternator failure without having to decide what items to
shut off in order to shed a load. I am designing the limiting factor
in the system to be fuel remaining. It is also a perk that the
larger alternator is less expensive.
Justin
Have you done a load analysis? These are non-
quantified assertions that are easily converted
to conditions of KNOWN significance with a little
pencil pushing . . .
Define "worst case" scenario and put a number on it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
Thanks! Very helpful discussion. Yes, the ferrites are for future COM
antennas being imbedded in composite structure where size does matter.
The below brings up a different question I have about a retrofit VOR/GS
antenna I need to install as well: A traditional 'T' shaped (with a slight
angle in the two radials) VOR antenna can not be utilized given the physical
constraints of the area it must be installed. There are really no other
options for mounting given the aircraft's shape and construction materials.
The two radials for the antenna will be in-line, no angle, horizontal and
mounted in a newly formed conduit drilled into the leading edge foam of a
small airfoil skinned with fiberglass. The radials will likely be solid
conductor wire or copper foil attached to a small wooden dowel for rigidity
during installation and soldered to the coax. I plan to construct a balun
out of coax as described below. This part is all rather straightforward.
The issue is: There is insufficient depth (fore/aft) in the area to run the
feed line coax sway from the radials to form the bottom of the 'T' so the
feed line coax must run parallel to and in close proximity of the (shield
connected) "lower" radial at least it's full length before being able to
re-direct away. Imagine a fully built "antenna of a stick" set being
inserted into a horizontal 5/8"dia conduit hole, then capping off the hole
with only the feed coax sticking out, then running to the radio. The end of
the "lower" radial can be right at the end of the conduit hole, or it can be
installed deeper into the structure if different design parameters dictate.
So, antenna gurus, the questions become: Will this sub-optimal antenna
config perform acceptably as a receive only antenna? Is there something
else I can do to make it more efficient given the space constraints, or is
there even a different antenna design more applicable to this install?
You input is appreciated.
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: D L Josephson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 1:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Toroid beads
I agree, there's no reason to use ferrites on a receiving antenna. As I
mentioned, you use them only on a com antenna coax, where it attaches to
the antenna, when the VSWR is too high. If your radio works without
ferrites on the coax, leave them off, they are a band-aid to fix
compromised antenna design. They will never make a bad antenna better,
only allow a radio to work with a bad antenna when it might not
otherwise. The heat generated in the ferrite is the power you would have
radiated if the antenna had been properly matched. You want an actual
balun such as a Pawsey stub or a hybrid transformer for a VOR antenna
not to reduce VSWR, but to keep the pattern symmetrical. Not nice to
receive a VOR when you're heading east and have it disappear when you
turn west (I have had this experience while I was developing antennas on
my Mooney, and it was fixed by using a balun.) And some of us do use
VORs still.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
What is your opinion on the Zeftonici regulators? I had nothing but
trouble with regulators when I got my Pacer, and then heard about
Zeftronics. They got an STC for the Pacer PA20, and I put one on. It
has been absolutely trouble free for 20+ years, and I don't remember it
being very expensive.
M. Haught
On Oct 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 00:32 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>>
>> In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the
standby alternator. Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H 20A
and use a generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to use a
B&C alternator controller? I would connect it to the system in the same
place (battery side of the battery contractor). In the event of a
primary alternator failure, I require 12A (worst case scenario) to
continue to run necessary systems without discharging the battery. The
SD-8 doesn=92t seem up to the task, not to mention the BC410-H is a less
expensive option.
>
> Suggest go with Z-12 and use ANY of the larger,
> B&C pad-driven alternators.
>
> The generic Ford regulators are 'okay' . . .
> they perform as advertised but they are
> not adjustable. Z-12 was orignially crafed
> to accommodate an 'auto switching' mode
> for the stand-by alternator (like those
> systems installed on many, many TC aircraft.
>
> The standby system is ON all the time with
> a voltage regulator set for 1.0 volts below
> the normal system voltage set-point. If the
> main alternator goes south, bus voltage drops,
> the s/b regulator tells the little alternator
> to go to work. If you're using the B&C SB-1
> controller, it will light an annunciator to
> tell you that the alternator is on-line.
> If in an overloaded state, the light will
> flash. You then reduce loads until the light
> is on steady indicating that the loads are
> now within the alternator's capabilities.
>
> If you don't want/need the auto-switched feature,
> use the generic Ford regulator if you wish.
> Leave s/b alternator OFF until advised that
> it is needed by a low-volts warning whereupon
> you bring the s/b alternator on line and
> then adjust loads to keep the bus voltage
> at the regulator's set-point or some value
> at or below 100% of alternator's output as
> displayed on a loadmeter.
>
> KISS . . . Z-12 is recommended. I used to
> have a Figure Z-13/20 that proved to be
> rather in-elegant and I removed it.
>
> Wire your "Ford" regulator thusly . . .
>
> <21fe9360.jpg>
>
> . . . as depicted in Figure Z-11.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
Is there any concern with the vacuum pump pad driven alternators of the
coupling to the engine gears failing?
I assume they have some sort of shear or slip connection to protect the
engine from a bearing seizure.
Does the electrical load imposed have any effect on that coupling?
On 10/27/2014 7:29 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 00:32 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the Z-13/8 Diagram, it specifies the use of an SD-8 PM as the
>> standby alternator. Is it acceptable to replace it with a BC410-H
>> 20A and use a generic ford voltage regulator? Or is it necessary to
>> use a B&C alternator controller? I would connect it to the system in
>> the same place (battery side of the battery contractor). In the
>> event of a primary alternator failure, I require 12A (worst case
>> scenario) to continue to run necessary systems without discharging
>> the battery. The SD-8 doesnt seem up to the task, not to mention the
>> BC410-H is a less expensive option.
>
> Suggest go with Z-12 and use ANY of the larger,
> B&C pad-driven alternators.
>
> The generic Ford regulators are 'okay' . . .
> they perform as advertised but they are
> not adjustable. Z-12 was orignially crafed
> to accommodate an 'auto switching' mode
> for the stand-by alternator (like those
> systems installed on many, many TC aircraft.
>
> The standby system is ON all the time with
> a voltage regulator set for 1.0 volts below
> the normal system voltage set-point. If the
> main alternator goes south, bus voltage drops,
> the s/b regulator tells the little alternator
> to go to work. If you're using the B&C SB-1
> controller, it will light an annunciator to
> tell you that the alternator is on-line.
> If in an overloaded state, the light will
> flash. You then reduce loads until the light
> is on steady indicating that the loads are
> now within the alternator's capabilities.
>
> If you don't want/need the auto-switched feature,
> use the generic Ford regulator if you wish.
> Leave s/b alternator OFF until advised that
> it is needed by a low-volts warning whereupon
> you bring the s/b alternator on line and
> then adjust loads to keep the bus voltage
> at the regulator's set-point or some value
> at or below 100% of alternator's output as
> displayed on a loadmeter.
>
> KISS . . . Z-12 is recommended. I used to
> have a Figure Z-13/20 that proved to be
> rather in-elegant and I removed it.
>
> Wire your "Ford" regulator thusly . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
> . . . as depicted in Figure Z-11.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
If you have two batteries wired so that one is for starting, doesn't that
solve the problem?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:43 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> For many of us (if not most), experimental airplanes are toys. There are
> other modes of transportation that are less expensive and safer. And some
> of these aircraft have expensive avionics (more toys). Pilots want their
> avionics to work without the annoyance of rebooting during engine start.
> It is not a matter of what is needed or what is practical. We want to play
> with our toys without being annoyed with brownouts. I would like to see
> this discussion deal with a solution that is inexpensive, lightweight and
> uncomplicated. Topics could include Eric's deslumpifier (capacitors),
> backup batteries, and DC to DC converters.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432340#432340
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Yes, potentially if it is wired correctly.
The point I was trying to subtly make was that we don't yet have a Z
figure that incorporates brownout protection (that I am aware of, please
correct me if this is incorrect), and many people keep asking about this.
-Dj
On 10/27/2014 11:29 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> If you have two batteries wired so that one is for starting, doesn't
> that solve the problem?
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:43 AM, user9253 > wrote:
>
> >
>
> For many of us (if not most), experimental airplanes are toys.
> There are other modes of transportation that are less expensive and
> safer. And some of these aircraft have expensive avionics (more
> toys). Pilots want their avionics to work without the annoyance of
> rebooting during engine start. It is not a matter of what is needed
> or what is practical. We want to play with our toys without being
> annoyed with brownouts. I would like to see this discussion deal
> with a solution that is inexpensive, lightweight and uncomplicated.
> Topics could include Eric's deslumpifier (capacitors), backup
> batteries, and DC to DC converters.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
--
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: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | B&C alternator question |
Thanks, Bob, for including the diagram; I wasn't aware that tying A & S
together solved the runaway problem, as I'm not sure exactly how the
currently available automotive regulators are wired to *cause* the runaway
problem in the first place. But I can tell you from personal experience that
an uncontrollable alternator runaway is *very* unpleasant for the
pilot-in-command, especially if he's also the one that writes checks to keep
the airplane airworthy. :)
Seems like this might be a good workaround for legacy aircraft as well?
Paul
>> This is a condition limited to the Cessna's which
do not tie "A" and "S" terminals together . . . a
condition that's okay for the legacy electro-mechanical
regulators and their solid-state clones.
The commercial off-the shelf replacement regulators
are sometimes wired a little differently within . . .
which does not affect their performance in cars
where alternators are not controlled. These not-
quite-a-clone variants will indeed produce the
behavior your describe . . . been there, done that.
But when wired as depicted in Z-11 and others, the
generic COTS regulators of all stripe are well
behaved performers.
Wire your "Ford" regulator thusly . . .
. . . as depicted in Figure Z-11.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
No Z drawing but, as you & I have discussed DJ, brown-out protection is one of
the design criteria behind my UPS-style design.
[evangelize mode: On]
Brown-out protection is baked-in to the design. It is not an afterthought. And
one of its advantages is its simplicity. It does not require voltage-sensing
modules, multiple busses, relays, DC-to-DC converters, mega-capacitors, etc.
(I know you are aware of this but other members may not be).
[evangelize mode: Off]
-Jeff
On Monday, October 27, 2014 8:54 AM, Dj Merrill wrote:
Yes, potentially if it is wired correctly.
The point I was trying to subtly make was that we don't yet have a Z
figure that incorporates brownout protection (that I am aware of, please
correct me if this is incorrect), and many people keep asking about this.
-Dj
On 10/27/2014 11:29 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> If you have two batteries wired so that one is for starting, doesn't
> that solve the problem?
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:43 AM, user9253 > wrote:
>
> >
>
> For many of us (if not most), experimental airplanes are toys.
> There are other modes of transportation that are less expensive and
> safer. And some of these aircraft have expensive avionics (more
> toys). Pilots want their avionics to work without the annoyance of
> rebooting during engine start. It is not a matter of what is needed
> or what is practical. We want to play with our toys without being
> annoyed with brownouts. I would like to see this discussion deal
> with a solution that is inexpensive, lightweight and uncomplicated.
> Topics could include Eric's deslumpifier (capacitors), backup
> batteries, and DC to DC converters.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
--
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: was RV-14, now brownouts/resets at engine crank |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 10/27/2014 12:12 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> No Z drawing but, as you & I have discussed DJ, brown-out protection is
> one of the design criteria behind my UPS-style design.
Yes, I know. I am trying to gently nudge Bob to include a Z drawing
with brownout protection in the Aeroelectric Connection since so many
people are repeatedly asking about it.
My own version incorporating the KISS principle:
http://deej.net/glastar/pics/electrical/Electrical-Rev-3.jpg
Please forgive the rough drawing. I've been flying with this for a few
months now and am happy with it.
I haven't updated the drawing, but changes that I've made are:
1) The GRT Mini-X only has one power input, so it is wired only to the
Essential buss.
2) The GPS, COM and NAV radios are on the Essential buss.
The Essential Buss diode is the 221-201 sold by B&C:
http://www.bandc.biz/essentialbusdiodew15wattheatsink.aspx
-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: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
At 09:47 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>
>Thanks! Very helpful discussion. Yes, the ferrites are for future
>COM antennas being imbedded in composite structure where size does matter.
>
>The below brings up a different question I have about a retrofit
>VOR/GS antenna I need to install as well: A traditional 'T' shaped
>(with a slight angle in the two radials) VOR antenna can not be
>utilized given the physical constraints of the area it must be
>installed. There are really no other options for mounting given the
>aircraft's shape and construction materials. The two radials for the
>antenna will be in-line, no angle, horizontal and mounted in a newly
>formed conduit drilled into the leading edge foam of a small airfoil
>skinned with fiberglass. The radials will likely be solid
>conductor wire or copper foil attached to a small wooden dowel for
>rigidity during installation and soldered to the coax. I plan to
>construct a balun out of coax as described below. This part is all
>rather straightforward.
Any 'morphing' of geometry from the center-fed
dipole driven with coax at right angles will
result in a degradation of performance in terms
of pattern and impedance matching. The closest
anyone has come to an elegant end-fed dipole in
the airplanes was the Miracle Antenna brand
"air-whip", end-feed dipole antenna with the
toroidal common mode choke we discussed earlier
this past week.
Emacs!
Emacs!
You could string this style antenna out under a
leading edge but you still have to deal with the common-
mode choke 'lump' . . .
I note that Miracle Antennas seems to have
closed the doors. Aircraft Spruce doesn't offer
the antennas any more and the website is black.
They were in business for a lot of years and ejoyed
some good reviews by their ham-radio clients.
It seems that their demise is based more on business
issues than product performance issues.
The big problem with development of the
lead edge vor antenna is the inconvenient
packaging process that involves cut-n-try
experiments on a device buried under
layers of Fiberglas.
It follows that what ever lies underneath that
layer of glass and epoxy should be a low-risk
configuration . . . it's damned hard to change
if you don't like it.
This seems like an ideal application for an active
antenna. This is a relatively short (on the order of
6 to 12 inches long attached to a very compact
amplifier right at the end of the coax feedline.
It takes a little fussing to get dc voltage out
to the amplifier on the coax but this could well
be a VERY compact solution to a receive-only antenna
for VOR that eliminates the geometry issues that
arise when you try to put a center fed dipole into
a leading edge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | brown-out protection from automotive world |
6 years ago I invested <$100 in a 90W 12V/5V DC-DC regulator from
Carnetix normally used to power car PCs and advertised to =93survive
engine cranking under full load over entire temperature range=94. The
actual specs say it will maintain 12VDC output =B15% from 7.5-18V input
from -10=B0C to 70=B0C
I use the 12V output mainly to power my MGL EFIS and the 5V output for
my fuel flow sensor and for a panel USB port. Main reason was to get
cleaner power, not for brownout protection, but it does both. Was
unsure of its reliability, so I wired it with a bypass to the main buss,
knowing I would lose the USB and fuel flow readout if I had to bypass.
Comes in an aluminum case with an internal fan you can barely hear with
the engine off.
So far, in 6 years of mountain operations where it gets very hot and
very cold under the panel, it has never hiccoughed and has never let
anything shut down, even during extended engine cranking at temps near
-20=B0C when I nearly went through both PC-680s!
I don=92t work for or have any interest in Carnetix. Checked the web
site
www.carnetix.com, and the same power supply, CNX-1290, is still
available for <$100! They also have 140W and 185W (250W@24V in)
versions which also offer PC-type 18-20VDC outputs if you need such.
FWIW,
Andy
------------------------
Andy Elliott, CL:480-695-9568
N601GE/Z601XLb/TD/Corvair
630 hrs since 11/08
<http://servi-aero.com/n601ge/4sale/> Web Site Link
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
You may already be aware but thought I would mention it - Have you read Bob Archer's
stuff on antennas? I think is company is called Sportcraft Antennas. A
quick google should find his website.
FYI,
-Jeff
On Monday, October 27, 2014 12:37 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
At 09:47 2014-10-27, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by:
>
>Thanks! Very helpful discussion. Yes, the ferrites are for
future COM antennas being imbedded in composite structure where size does
matter.
>
>The below brings up a different question I have about a retrofit VOR/GS
antenna I need to install as well: A traditional 'T' shaped
(with a slight angle in the two radials) VOR antenna can not be utilized
given the physical constraints of the area it must be installed.
There are really no other options for mounting given the aircraft's shape
and construction materials. The two radials for the antenna will be
in-line, no angle, horizontal and mounted in a newly formed conduit
drilled into the leading edge foam of a small airfoil skinned with
fiberglass. The radials will likely be solid conductor wire
or copper foil attached to a small wooden dowel for rigidity during
installation and soldered to the coax. I plan to construct a balun
out of coax as described below. This part is all rather
straightforward.
Any 'morphing' of geometry from the center-fed
dipole driven with coax at right angles will
result in a degradation of performance in terms
of pattern and impedance matching. The closest
anyone has come to an elegant end-fed dipole in
the airplanes was the Miracle Antenna brand
"air-whip", end-feed dipole antenna with the
toroidal common mode choke we discussed earlier
this past week.
You could string this style antenna out under a
leading edge but you still have to deal with the
common-
mode choke 'lump' . . .
I note that Miracle Antennas seems to have
closed the doors. Aircraft Spruce doesn't offer
the antennas any more and the website is black.
They were in business for a lot of years and ejoyed
some good reviews by their ham-radio clients.
It seems that their demise is based more on business
issues than product performance issues.
The big problem with development of the
lead edge vor antenna is the inconvenient
packaging process that involves cut-n-try
experiments on a device buried under
layers of Fiberglas.
It follows that what ever lies underneath that
layer of glass and epoxy should be a low-risk
configuration . . . it's damned hard to change
if you don't like it.
This seems like an ideal application for an active
antenna. This is a relatively short (on the order of
6 to 12 inches long attached to a very compact
amplifier right at the end of the coax feedline.
It takes a little fussing to get dc voltage out
to the amplifier on the coax but this could well
be a VERY compact solution to a receive-only antenna
for VOR that eliminates the geometry issues that
arise when you try to put a center fed dipole into
a leading edge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
Bob,
Based on what you have indicated, this type of =9Cair
whip=9D antenna would work very well in this area =93 small
airfoil leading edge D-section (carbon spared, glass skinned canard in
this case). I can feed the antenna portion of the assembly into the
foam conduit and the choke can reside inside the fuselage area, either
just outside the airfoil skin, or I can build a small access box for it.
If an =9Cactive=9D box is required, electrical is readily
available in this area too. All of this can be done without affecting
the external airfoil surface and thus easy to implement and potentially
to remove and service.
Can you point me to some more specific info on how to build this type of
antenna and choke?
Thanks!
-James
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design
At 09:47 2014-10-27, you wrote:
The below brings up a different question I have about a retrofit
VOR/GS antenna I need to install as well: A traditional 'T' shaped
(with a slight angle in the two radials) VOR antenna can not be utilized
given the physical constraints of the area it must be installed.
"air-whip", end-feed dipole antenna with the
toroidal common mode choke we discussed earlier
this past week.
You could string this style antenna out under a
leading edge but you still have to deal with the common-
mode choke 'lump' . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: brown out on start |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I don't sell the "De-Slumpifier", nor do I sell a kit.
My approach was to show and demonstrate a technique that could be used.
Frankly there are too many variables to build a general-purpose unit for sale.
The parameters I sketched can be extended for many applications.
But hey, that's why this is called "experimental".
Good luck.
--------
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=432376#432376
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <rv6a(at)rogers.com> |
Hi
I am trying to use a 12 volt LED for an "Alt Warn" light. The alternator manufacturer
provides a wiring diagram for the warning light and specifies using a
100ma light. The LED specs that I want to use are 12v and 20ma. When I try and
use the LED as is, there is intermittent low intensity flickering of the warning
light while the engine is running. The alternator output is a constant
14.5 volts. The problem is eliminated by using a 100ma incandescent lamp as per
the manufacturer's recommendation. I would suspect that there is a small amount
of current in the warning circuit that is enough to cause intermittent operation
of the LED, albeit very dimly. The LED does go to full intensity when
operating in a warning mode. Can a resister be added to the circuit to make
the LED comparable with the Alt manufacturer's spec of using 100ma lamp. If
so, what size resister and is installed in parallel? It would be nice if I can
use the LED, as it matches the other lights in my annunciation panel.
Thanks,
John C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Brown-out resets at engine start |
At 10:43 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>
>Yes, potentially if it is wired correctly.
>
>The point I was trying to subtly make was that we don't yet have a Z
>figure that incorporates brownout protection (that I am aware of, please
>correct me if this is incorrect), and many people keep asking about this.
It's been discussed and several options offered for
years.
(1) Z-14 where starting is accomplished with one battery . . .
(2) Any Z-figure with an aux battery auto-switched
like the original ABMM concept except the battery services
the e-bus as opposed to ignition systems or . . .
(3) A simple form of auto-switching is illustrated in Z-8
offering an aux battery auto-switched through a relay that
disconnects the battery from the main bus while the starter
is engaged . . . in this configuration, the e-bus alternate
feed switch is closed during engine start. Add one relay,
fuse holder and battery sized to task to any system with
an e-bus.
There are probably a half dozen or more other solutions
that speak to design goals for brown-out protection that
are simply modification to the existing Z-figures. Mods
with no impact on design goals that brought the Z-figure
into existence in the first place.
My current thinking says the dragon to be tamed is not
how to switch the battery into service . . . but battery
selection for minimizing volume, weight and cost of
ownership. As I mentioned earlier, sand-castles built
in the lithium sandbox over the past few weeks have
planted seeds of some ideas.
The battery needs to be capable of say 5A of delivery
at 10+ volts for a period of not more than 0.5
seconds about 50 times a year. It's never depended on
for standby power, hence never expected to be discharged.
It also needs to demonstrate a long, "shelf life"
as a device that spends most of its time open circuit,
50 hours a year attached to a charger, and never asked
to deliver more than 50 Joules per discharge/charge
cycle.
In this case, the elegant solution is driven more
strongly by product selection than by architecture.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 18:22 2014-10-27, you wrote:
Hi
I am trying to use a 12 volt LED for an "Alt Warn" light. The
alternator manufacturer provides a wiring diagram for the warning
light and specifies using a 100ma light. The LED specs that I want
to use are 12v and 20ma. When I try and use the LED as is, there is
intermittent low intensity flickering of the warning light while the
engine is running. The alternator output is a constant 14.5
volts. The problem is eliminated by using a 100ma incandescent lamp
as per the manufacturer's recommendation. I would suspect that there
is a small amount of current in the warning circuit that is enough to
cause intermittent operation of the LED, albeit very dimly. The LED
does go to full intensity when operating in a warning mode. Can a
resister be added to the circuit to make the LED comparable with the
Alt manufacturer's spec of using 100ma lamp. If so, what size
resister and is installed in parallel? It would be nice if I can use
the LED, as it matches the other lights in my annunciation panel.
Where does this alternator warn signal come from? Out of
the alternator? Those built-in warning circuits are not
all inclusive for alternator failure. Does your system
include a LOW VOLTS warning light? LOW VOLTS WARN is the PRIMARY
and all-inclusive annunciation for alternator health.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <rv6a(at)rogers.com> |
The signal comes the alternator. The light indicates an "Alternator Out" c
ondition.
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 7:53 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
>
ls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 18:22 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am trying to use a 12 volt LED for an "Alt Warn" light. The alternator m
anufacturer provides a wiring diagram for the warning light and specifies us
ing a 100ma light. The LED specs that I want to use are 12v and 20ma. When
I try and use the LED as is, there is intermittent low intensity flickering
of the warning light while the engine is running. The alternator output is
a constant 14.5 volts. The problem is eliminated by using a 100ma incandes
cent lamp as per the manufacturer's recommendation. I would suspect that th
ere is a small amount of current in the warning circuit that is enough to ca
use intermittent operation of the LED, albeit very dimly. The LED does go t
o full intensity when operating in a warning mode. Can a resister be added
to the circuit to make the LED comparable with the Alt manufacturer's spec o
f using 100ma lamp. If so, what size resister and is installed in parallel?
It would be nice if I can use the LED, as it matches the other lights in m
y annunciation panel.
>
> Where does this alternator warn signal come from? Out of
> the alternator? Those built-in warning circuits are not
> all inclusive for alternator failure. Does your system
> include a LOW VOLTS warning light? LOW VOLTS WARN is the PRIMARY
> and all-inclusive annunciation for alternator health.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>