AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mt
April 26, 2015 - June 08, 2015
RIFICATION
At 13:58 2015-04-25, you wrote:
>Jeff and all...
>
>That is why I used a new battery to run the devices and a charger to
>keep the battery topped off.... My assumption is that having the
>large battery in the loop would absorb any spikes, ripples or other
>transient events... Worked perfect for me....
>
>
>Bob... Am I thinking wrong on this concept???
Not at all, different technique with low
risk and performance that proved adequate to
your task. Recalling those famous words often
uttered by Ootek in Never Cry Wolf, "Good idea".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on a "cost effective " ground power |
? CLA RIFICATION
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on a "cost effective " ground power |
? CLARIFICATION
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on a "cost effective " ground power ? CLA |
RIFICATION
Hi all,
I tried this before with embedded photos and got rejected. I will try
again with attachments.
This is late in this thread but I thought relevant and possibly of
interest to some.
I built an RV-6A some years ago. In designing my electrical system, I
read the Aeroelectric manual, used many of Bob Nucholls designs and
recommendations.
I wanted access to external power without using jumper cables. I wanted
to be able to charge my battery, test and run everything in my
electrical system during construction as well after completion and, if
ever needed, get power away from home.
At some point, I came across one of Bob's articles about a DYI external
jack and circuits. I just now checked and found it among articles in the
Aeroelectric Connection. Just search "external power" on Bob's website
and you will find Hi all,
This is late in this thread but I thought relevant and possibly of
interest to some.
I built an RV-6A some years ago. In designing my electrical system, I
read the Aeroelectric manual, used many of Bob Nucholls designs and
recommendations.
I wanted access to external power without the mess of using jumper
cables or some clumsy temporary connections. I wanted to be able to
charge my battery, test and run everything in my electrical system
during construction as well after completion and, if ever needed, get
power when away from home.
At some point, I came across one of Bob's articles about a DYI external
jack and circuits. I just now checked the website and found it among
articles in the Aeroelectric Connection. Just search "external power"
on Bob's website and you will find "Low Cost Ground Power Jack for your
Airplane."
I used these details to include it into my electrical system. A "Piper
type"plug mated with my installed "Piper type" jack with connections to
my old automotive commonplace battery charger. I also made the
assumption that my battery would act to absorb any fluctuations in the
supply voltage. I had the radios on while working on other parts of the
project to hear local tower activity for many hours without any ill effects.
Attached, I have included two photos, one of the jack in the closed
position (you get some sense of the possible drag) and one with the plug
connected.
I enjoyed my RV-6A for three good years but sold it about eight years
ago when it was time to downsize and prepare to move to a retirement
community.
Great building and flying,
Richard Dudley
On 4/25/2015 2:58 PM, Ben wrote:
> Jeff and all...
> That is why I used a new battery to run the devices and a charger to
> keep the battery topped off.... My assumption is that having the large
> battery in the loop would absorb any spikes, ripples or other
> transient events... Worked perfect for me....
> Bob... Am I thinking wrong on this concept???
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
> To: Aero_Electric_List
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on a "cost effective " ground power
> ? CLARIFICATION
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 18:17:59 +0000 (UTC)
>
> It just occurred to me that my prior recommendation might not have
> been clear. I think this is what BobN was getting at in his prior post.
> I recommend using an automotive battery charger IN CONJUNCTION w/ a
> battery to support electrical loads during construction/electrical
> system installation.
> I was NOT suggesting the use of that type of battery charger, all by
> itself, as a power supply.
> That my not have been clear from my earlier post.
> -JeffL
> *
>
> ===================================
> c-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> ronics.com
> ===================================
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
> *
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> *Old School Yearbook Pics*
> View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/553be408b9f3264081afest03duc>classmates.com
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/553be408b9f3264081afest03duc>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | External Power - Corrections to my last |
Hi All,
In my multiple attempts to send this post, it got scrambled.
Here, I will try to repeat the text, intact.
I tried this before with embedded photos and got rejected. I will try
again with attachments.
This is late in this thread but I thought relevant and possibly of
interest to some.
I built an RV-6A some years ago. In designing my electrical system, I
read the Aeroelectric manual, used many of Bob Nucholls designs and
recommendations.
I wanted access to external power without using jumper cables. I wanted
to be able to charge my battery, test and run everything in my
electrical system during construction as well after completion and, if
ever needed, get power away from home.
At some point, I came across one of Bob's articles about a DYI external
jack and circuits. I just now checked the website and found it among
articles in the Aeroelectric Connection. Just search "external power"
on Bob's website and you will find "Low Cost Ground Power Jack for your
Airplane."
I used these details to include it into my electrical system. A "Piper
type"plug mated with my installed "Piper type" jack with connections to
my old automotive commonplace battery charger. I also made the
assumption that my battery would act to absorb any fluctuations in the
supply voltage. I had the radios on while working on other parts of the
project to hear local tower activity for many hours without any ill effects.
Attached, I have included two photos, one of the jack in the closed
position (you get some sense of the possible drag) and one with the plug
connected.
I enjoyed my RV-6A for three good years but sold it about eight years
ago when it was time to downsize and prepare to move to a retirement
community.
Great building and flying,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: External Power |
. . . "Piper type"plug mated with my installed
"Piper type"=C2 jack with connections to my old
automotive commonplace battery charger. I also
made the assumption that my battery would act to
absorb any fluctuations in the supply voltage.
I=C2 had the radios on while working on other
parts of the project to hear local tower activity
for many hours without any ill effects . . .
Nicely done sir . . . and thanks for the photos. I'll
add them to the website archives.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b432291" <mooney.faq(at)cox.net> |
They now have the 4 port ~$190 US Dollars (delivered), and I ordered one of these.
Why you ask would I spend $200 on something I can get for $10 at Walmart?
Noise, noise, and noise.
I've spent thousands of dollars to have quality Comm, and the damn cig lighter
chargers wipe all that out with ease. Even kills the FM radio reception.
We'll see if the unit is RF quiet like the guy claims on the website - if it is
then it's money well spent.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441378#441378
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:40 2015-04-27, you wrote:
>
>They now have the 4 port ~$190 US Dollars (delivered), and I ordered
>one of these.
>Why you ask would I spend $200 on something I can get for $10 at Walmart?
>Noise, noise, and noise.
>I've spent thousands of dollars to have quality Comm, and the damn
>cig lighter chargers wipe all that out with ease. Even kills the FM
>radio reception.
>We'll see if the unit is RF quiet like the guy claims on the website
>- if it is then it's money well spent.
Looking forward to your report sir. Thanks
for sharing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Recently my battery fell below 11 volts and so it could not provide enough power
to completely turn over my engine. What surprised me more than the low battery
was that after switching off my master and then switching it back on again,
the starter attempted to turn the engine. Wow, the master isn't supposed to control
the starter solenoid!
After charging the battery, the master and starter switches returned to normal
operation and the engine started perfectly many times. All was good and I eventually
figured out why my battery discharged. However, that still left me wondering
how the master switch could possibly activate the starter solenoid without
my pushing the start switch. My theory is that the low voltage only partially
(weekly) engaged the starter solenoid spring and therefore the spring didn't
exert full force to open the solenoid after it was de-energized. I'm not yet
ready to conclude that the starter solenoid is actually defective. Anybody also
experienced this?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441406#441406
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Connector kit for transponder Narco AT 50 |
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
I'm looking for the 18 pins connector And Molex terminals and I don't find any
place to buy it.
A suggestion maybe.
Daniel Pelletier
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Filkins <dfilkins(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At that low voltage the starter became a short because the armature was not turning.
No back EMF. The starter solenoid may have welded the contacts and the
internal spring was unable to push the contacts apart. I suggest you change
the starter solenoid. I had this happen on my orchard wind machine,
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Radioflyer
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 5:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery
-->
Recently my battery fell below 11 volts and so it could not provide enough power
to completely turn over my engine. What surprised me more than the low battery
was that after switching off my master and then switching it back on again,
the starter attempted to turn the engine. Wow, the master isn't supposed to control
the starter solenoid!
After charging the battery, the master and starter switches returned to normal
operation and the engine started perfectly many times. All was good and I eventually
figured out why my battery discharged. However, that still left me wondering
how the master switch could possibly activate the starter solenoid without
my pushing the start switch. My theory is that the low voltage only partially
(weekly) engaged the starter solenoid spring and therefore the spring didn't
exert full force to open the solenoid after it was de-energized. I'm not yet
ready to conclude that the starter solenoid is actually defective. Anybody also
experienced this?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441406#441406
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connector kit for transponder Narco AT 50 |
You might give lane-pilot.com a try.
He doesn't list the connecter online but if you send him a note he may have a serviceable
used one. He does carry the pins.
Chuck
On Apr 27, 2015, at 20:14, DANIEL PELLETIER wrote:
I'm looking for the 18 pins connector And Molex terminals and I don't find any
place to buy it.
A suggestion maybe.
Daniel Pelletier
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Cranking the engine with a low battery is very hard on the starter contactor because
the contacts are not held tightly closed. The contacts arc and weld closed.
Replace the starter contactor.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441423#441423
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Cessna Pilots Association (CPA) has recently uncovered a common error where starter
contactors are sometimes installed upside down and where the weight of the
plunger is working against plunger return spring. Contactors should always
be installed with the case swaged lip facing DOWN. Terminal Studs should be nearer
the bottom of the contactor, rather than the top. Unfortunately, some new
contactors are appearing with labels inverted, which adds to the problem.
Even with the case lip facing down, CPA suggests adding sealant around the case
perimeter at the lip to keep moisture out.
Ref: CPA Magazine, April 2015, p.47
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441456#441456
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connector kit for transponder Narco AT 50 |
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
Thanks !
Envoy de mon iPad
> Le 2015-04-27 21:41, Chuck Birdsall a crit :
>
>
> You might give lane-pilot.com a try.
>
> He doesn't list the connecter online but if you send him a note he may have a
serviceable used one. He does carry the pins.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 20:14, DANIEL PELLETIER wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for the 18 pins connector And Molex terminals and I don't find any
place to buy it.
>
> A suggestion maybe.
>
> Daniel Pelletier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At 19:26 2015-04-27, you wrote:
Recently my battery fell below 11 volts and so it could not provide
enough power to completely turn over my engine. What surprised me
more than the low battery was that after switching off my master and
then switching it back on again, the starter attempted to turn the
engine. Wow, the master isn't supposed to control the starter solenoid!
After charging the battery, the master and starter switches returned
to normal operation and the engine started perfectly many times. All
was good and I eventually figured out why my battery discharged.
However, that still left me wondering how the master switch could
possibly activate the starter solenoid without my pushing the start
switch. My theory is that the low voltage only partially (weekly)
engaged the starter solenoid spring and therefore the spring didn't
exert full force to open the solenoid after it was de-energized. I'm
not yet ready to conclude that the starter solenoid is actually
defective. Anybody also experienced this?
Millions of times over the history of vehicular DC
power systems not the least of which are airplanes.
Contactors will perform as advertised
only if coil currents are maintained at or above
minimums required for that performance.
With a depleted battery, the voltage is low to
begin with . . . the internal resistance is also
high . . . meaning that the voltage drops still
lower when even moderately loaded.
This condition increases the probability of
starter contactor STICKING by several orders
of magnitude.
Contactos all have one characteristic in common,
they BOUNCE. Some worse than others but none are
zero. The designs that come very close to zero
are those specifically designed for starter control
service. Very light moving contacts. Lots of closure
pressure. Small contact area.
Emacs!
These contacts have hundreds of start cycles on them with
what was probably a healthy battery. Drop the battery
to 10% capacity . . . the contactor will close but it's
going to burn on each bounce and perhaps stick.
If battery voltage is not 12.5 volts or more with
the master switch just closed, be cognizant of the
risk for contactor sticking that goes up exponentially
as battery condition goes lower.
Your starter contactor is probably fine but suffered
an unrealistic expectations event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At 11:11 2015-04-28, you wrote:
Cessna Pilots Association (CPA) has recently uncovered a common error
where starter contactors are sometimes installed upside down and
where the weight of the plunger is working against plunger return
spring. Contactors should always be installed with the case swaged
lip facing DOWN. Terminal Studs should be nearer the bottom of the
contactor, rather than the top. Unfortunately, some new contactors
are appearing with labels inverted, which adds to the problem.
Even with the case lip facing down, CPA suggests adding sealant
around the case perimeter at the lip to keep moisture out.
Ref: CPA Magazine, April 2015, p.47
Good grief . . . is that canard still circulating?
That was investigated several times at Cessna by
teams that never seemed to know what the other
teams had discovered . . . with no foundation
whatsoever laid for the assertions in the CPA
article.
First, GRAVITY has nothing to do with the
performance of ANY relay or contactor I've ever
encountered with ONE exception. Back in my
railroading days, a signals guy I met showed
me some antique signal relays he had collected
over the years. Railroad signal equipment remote
from AC mains was battery powered. Battery capacity
was sufficient for months of operation between
charges . . . but signal crews would change out
or recharge batteries at conservative intervals.
Even so, railroad signals designers had the
art of FMEA down decades before anybody bolted
a battery to an airplane. Did you know that crossing
gates are HELD UP with power? Not much . . . but
they're carefully overbalanced such that loss of
power drops the gate. Some relays were built without
springs and depended on gravity for motion in the
de-energized state. This simplified design by eliminating
springs.
The so called intermittent duty, whisky barrel
contactors . . .
Emacs!
were never designed for starter motor service. Power
winch, hydraulic lift gates, etc, yes. But starter
motors . . . not so much. The problem got worse when
the TC guys starting bolding PM motor starters to
their products. Starter inrush currents went up
and the massive, copper ring that served as movable
contact
Emacs!
is bouncy to the extreme.
There WERE some orientation issues with these contactors
but it had nothing to do with gravity.
When Cessna went to the floating cowl way back when, rain
running down the firewall of a sun-soaked airplane sometimes
splashed a contactor body which cooled and sucked in moisture
under the crimped-but-not-sealed closure cap. Moisture
sucked in as liquid had to escape as a gas during atmospheric
variations in pressure. Needless to say, the humidity inside
the contactor was 100% and guess what?
Emacs!
Things got kind of cruddy inside . . .
Emacs!
There was a ABORTIVE fix tried wherein all contactors
were 'sealed' around the terminals and the crimped
cap. The results were predictable. Failure rates went
down slightly but since the sealing was not hermetic,
liquid was still sucked in and vapor exchange went
down further.
The most effective FIX was to mount the contactor cap-down
and drill a tiny 'drain hole' in the center of the
cap. Actually, the hole served both as a vent to
reduce that sucking tendencies as well as
a more reliable exit strategy for any liquid
that would pool there.
Bottom line is that the whisky barrel contactor
has always been a poor performer as a starter
contactor 'Better gravity' won't help and
uckum-yucky over the openings is useless.
The car companies figured that out decades ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connector kit for transponder Narco AT 50 |
| From: | Gordon Parker <gptailwind(at)gmail.com> |
STEINAIR ALSO HAS BOTH
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:45 AM, DANIEL PELLETIER
wrote:
> pelletie1959(at)me.com>
>
> Thanks !
>
> Envoy=C3=A9 de mon iPad
>
> > Le 2015-04-27 =C3- 21:41, Chuck Birdsall a =C3
=A9crit :
> >
> cbirdsall6(at)cox.net>
> >
> > You might give lane-pilot.com a try.
> >
> > He doesn't list the connecter online but if you send him a note he may
> have a serviceable used one. He does carry the pins.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > On Apr 27, 2015, at 20:14, DANIEL PELLETIER wrote
:
> >
> pelletie1959(at)me.com>
> >
> > I'm looking for the 18 pins connector And Molex terminals and I don't
> find any place to buy it.
> >
> > A suggestion maybe.
> >
> > Daniel Pelletier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray? |
Hello Bob,
Thanks again for all your help over the years of our (wife and my) Lancair
Legacy project.
In our electrical system design, we've gone with a pull-out fuse tray that
is on the right side of the instrument panel. It's about 4 " tall, 2" wide,
24" long and uses blade fuses that light up when they've blown. All the
fuse blocks are easily visible to the pilot when the tray is pulled out.
We chose this solution because of its simplicity and minimum real estate on
the Legacy's small instrument panel. In its implementation, though, I'm a
bit concerned with the fatigue life of the thick wires running to it with
the tray being pulled out and in for each flight with before takeoff checks.
The MIL-W-22759 wire in these gauges is fairly stiff. There are several
since the diodes between buses are on the avionics shelf because of fuse
tray space limitations.
Is there a very flexible 10 and 8 AWG wire that we could use for the
connections between our fuse tray and avionics shelf, that can better handle
the fuse tray motion/flexing than the MIL-W-22759, and is air worthy?
Thanks,
Valin Thorn
Lancair Legacy Project
Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
Re-sending:
What about the proposal to eliminate the starter contactor? I am looking
at the Skytec dagram here:
> http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_diag.htm
The starter barely gets 10 volts after the master contactor and the
starter contactor in series. By eliminating the starter contactor, you
would have a hot wire to the starter whenever the master is on. Is this
a good idea or suicide?
john
On 4/28/2015 11:31 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 19:26 2015-04-27, you wrote:
>
>
> Recently my battery fell below 11 volts and so it could not provide
> enough power to completely turn over my engine. What surprised me more
> than the low battery was that after switching off my master and then
> switching it back on again, the starter attempted to turn the engine.
> Wow, the master isn't supposed to control the starter solenoid!
>
> After charging the battery, the master and starter switches returned
> to normal operation and the engine started perfectly many times. All
> was good and I eventually figured out why my battery discharged.
> However, that still left me wondering how the master switch could
> possibly activate the starter solenoid without my pushing the start
> switch. My theory is that the low voltage only partially (weekly)
> engaged the starter solenoid spring and therefore the spring didn't
> exert full force to open the solenoid after it was de-energized. I'm
> not yet ready to conclude that the starter solenoid is actually
> defective. Anybody also experienced this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Ok, I was worried there for a while thinking that either I burned up my starter
solenoid contacts and/or that it was mounted upside down. Like I said in my original
post, now that battery voltage is normal, the starter solenoid is operating
perfectly. However, I agree that I probably abused it with the low battery
situation, probably shortening its expected service life, and I will be on
the look out for future problems with it.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441477#441477
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At 19:39 2015-04-28, you wrote:
Re-sending:
What about the proposal to eliminate the starter contactor? I am looking
at the Skytec dagram here:
http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_diag.htm
The starter barely gets 10 volts after the master contactor and the
starter contactor in series. By eliminating the starter contactor, you
would have a hot wire to the starter whenever the master is on. Is this
a good idea or suicide
How do you arrive at that voltage level. What do you
believe voltage drop across the starter contactor
to be?
Actually, when you wire per the configuration recommended
by B&C since day-one of the light-weight starters, you
will have THREE contactors in series.
Battery, starter external, starter internal. SkyTec
was in favor of utilizing on the starter's
internal contactor hence the wiring diagram you
cited.
We elected not to recommend that as a general rule
based on a lot of history . . . some of which has
roots in the legacy Bendix-Style key switches
found on 100,000 single engine airplanes.
Here is a document I published almost 20 years
ago that explains the extra-ordinary stresses
placed on the crew-operated, starter switch
by modern, two-stage starter solenoid/contactor
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
In this article I described the electrical
forces that are especially hard on slow-motion,
wiping contacts characteristic of the legacy
key switch. Forces that prompted an abortive
AD by the FAA issued first without understanding
the physics and corrected later when the 'fix'
didn't fix anything.
I'm not implying that there are not alternatives
based on other system constraints. For example,
this image . . .
Emacs!
. . . is found in figure Z-22 of the book. This
was a system driven 'fix' for the starter run-on
phenomenon observed when PM motors were becoming
popular. In this instance, one was required to
use the built-in contactor . . . so a buffer relay
was added to isolate the starter switch from
solenoid abuse.
This approach could be applied for ANY form
of starter motor thus eliminating the external
contactor. Given that the B&C starters were
going into both OBAM and TC aircraft (already
fitted with external contactors) we elected
to recommend external contactors as a matter of
common practice . . . B&C starters did not
have PM motors. The switch supplied with B&C
starter installation kits was pretty robust but
NOT suited to drive the starter's build in
solenoid-contactor.
So the short answer is, you can certainly eliminate
the external contactor . . . but it's a good idea
to know how that decision may create ripples
in the rest of the system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At 21:08 2015-04-28, you wrote:
Ok, I was worried there for a while thinking that either I burned up
my starter solenoid contacts and/or that it was mounted upside down.
Like I said in my original post, now that battery voltage is normal,
the starter solenoid is operating perfectly. However, I agree that I
probably abused it with the low battery situation, probably
shortening its expected service life, and I will be on the look out
for future problems with it. \
I don't think a one-of sticking event
is a predictor of future problems. The
welding material between contacts prone
to sticking consists of small mounds of
low-area metal that get displaced from
the contact mass during a low-battery
start attempt. Those features will be
flashed away during successive good-battery
start operations.
But we'll be interested in hearing if
you observe any contrary experience.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray? |
At 17:48 2015-04-28, you wrote:
Hello Bob,
Thanks again for all your help over the years of
our (wife and my) Lancair Legacy project.
In our electrical system design, weve gone with
a pull-out fuse tray that is on the right side of
the instrument panel. Its about 4 tall, 2
wide, 24 long and uses blade fuses that light up
when theyve blown. All the fuse blocks are
easily visible to the pilot when the tray is pulled out.
We chose this solution because of its simplicity
and minimum real estate on the Legacys small
instrument panel. In its implementation, though,
Im a bit concerned with the fatigue life of the
thick wires running to it with the tray being
pulled out and in for each flight with before
takeoff checks. The MIL-W-22759 wire in these
gauges is fairly stiff There are several since
the diodes between buses are on the avionics
shelf because of fuse tray space limitations.
Is there a very flexible 10 and 8 AWG wire that
we could use for the connections between our fuse
tray and avionics shelf, that can better handle
the fuse tray motion/flexing than the MIL-W-22759, and is air worthy?
Check out a big-box store's electrical
supplies. You can get a chunk of 10-3 drop
cord (SJ, SJO)and cut away the insulation to
acquire three, very flexible and robust
runs of 10AWG wire.
You won't find 8AWG drop cord but a welding
shop can sell you 6AWG welding cable that's
only a little larger than your 8AWG and probably
more flexible than the 8AWG Tefzel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray? |
You can get a chunk of 10-3 drop
=C2- cord (SJ, SJO)and cut away the insulation to
=C2- acquire three, very flexible and robust
=C2- runs of 10AWG wire.
Bob, is that insulation "kosher" with respect to combustion by-products.
I thought that was the reason that Tefzel was the recommended wire/insulat
ion type.
-Jeff
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:24 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
ls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 17:48 2015-04-28, you wrote:
Hello Bob,
Thanks again for all your help over the years of
our (wife and my) Lancair Legacy project.
In our electrical system design, we=99ve gone with
a pull-out fuse tray that is on the right side of
the instrument panel.=C2- It=99s about 4 =9C tall, 2=9D
wide, 24=9D long and uses blade fuses that light up
when they=99ve blown.=C2- All the fuse blocks are
easily visible to the pilot when the tray is pulled out.
We chose this solution because of its simplicity
and minimum real estate on the Legacy=99s small
instrument panel.=C2- In its implementation, though,
I=99m a bit concerned with the fatigue life of the
thick wires running to it with the tray being
pulled out and in for each flight with before
takeoff checks.=C2- The MIL-W-22759 wire in these
gauges is fairly stiff=C2- There are several since
the diodes between buses are on the avionics
shelf because of fuse tray space limitations.
Is there a very flexible 10 and 8 AWG wire that
we could use for the connections between our fuse
tray and avionics shelf, that can better handle
the fuse tray motion/flexing than the MIL-W-22759, and is air worthy?
=C2- Check out a big-box store's electrical
=C2- supplies. You can get a chunk of 10-3 drop
=C2- cord (SJ, SJO)and cut away the insulation to
=C2- acquire three, very flexible and robust
=C2- runs of 10AWG wire.
=C2- You won't find 8AWG drop cord but a welding
=C2- shop can sell you 6AWG welding cable that's
=C2- only a little larger than your 8AWG and probably
=C2- more flexible than the 8AWG Tefzel.
=C2- Bob . . .
-
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray? |
At 15:16 2015-04-29, you wrote:
You can get a chunk of 10-3 drop
cord (SJ, SJO)and cut away the insulation to
acquire three, very flexible and robust
runs of 10AWG wire.
Bob, is that insulation "kosher" with respect to combustion by-products.
I thought that was the reason that Tefzel was the recommended
wire/insulation type.
It depends on who you talk too. There's one well
meaning and vocal faction out there that thinks
Tefzel is spawn of the devil . . .
http://tinyurl.com/2f8uz
After you've spent some time in the test
lab letting the smoke out of things, you come
to realize that the flavor of smoke from any
combustible becomes a rather moot point.
Yeah, they do flame tests on insulation . . . by
plying it with a torch! After it appears sufficiently
antagonized that it should burn, you take away
the flame. If I recall the reasoning with any
accuracy, the flaming insulation should not propagate
along the wire, it should self extinguish in so
many seconds, it should not drip flaming
globs of insulation and . . . oh yeah . . .
should be minimally obnoxious to respiratory
system . . . the flavor of a fine pipe tobacco
being a design goal.
I've been present when wires were burned
either by accident or test. I've seen and smelled
lots of smoke . . . and there were no reminders
of grandpa's favorite pipe.
Most the flaming materials wienies seem to
think that there is increased risks for having
materials that will PROPAGATE or PROMOTE a fire
from any/un-named source . . . not many pilots I
know fly around with propane torches. Getting
a wire lit up by hard faulting to a battery is
exceedingly problematic unless the insulation is
VERY flammable . . . but wait, seems like those
fuses and circuit breakers are supposed to
keep things from going that far in the first
place. No . . .?
Airplanes have been wired with everything
from cotton covered rubber to super-exotic-
unobtanium for over a century. Yet in the annals
of aviation accidents, I'm aware of no incident
that was blamed on flammability of the insulation.
There may be some out there but they're a vanishingly
small proportion of totality of incidents.
INTEGRITY of insulation, yes. Swissair 111 wiring
sparked and set the airplane's cabin insulation
on fire. Look at the pictures of the 777 that
belly flopped in SFO. LOTS of stuff throughout
the cabin burned with some vigor . . . and I
doubt that anyone was reminded of their grandpa's
pipe in that incident either.
If the flaming materials wienies were really
taking their jobs seriously, then every new
requirement that strives for happy fires in the
cabin would have grounded the existing fleet
until sub-standard materials were replaced.
Hundreds of thousands of miles of 'sub-standard'
wire are airborne someplace over the planet
as we speak . . .
I suggest that the lowest risk path to personal
flight is grounded in good FMEA, craftsmanship,
and plan-b for highest risk failures. If
you've got serious smoke in the cockpit
that doesn't quit when you turn of the master
switch . . . well . . . the flavor of that
smoke is the least of your worries. I prefer to
design for no-fire as opposed to designing for
friendly fire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray? |
Thanks Bob and all for the help.
In the webpage at your link provided, it shows the TKT Boeing
(Teflon/Kapton/Teflon) wire as safe and with the same Mil Spec ID (22759) as
I thought Tefzel wire has...?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flexible Wire for Pull Out Fuse Tray?
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 15:16 2015-04-29, you wrote:
You can get a chunk of 10-3 drop
cord (SJ, SJO)and cut away the insulation to
acquire three, very flexible and robust
runs of 10AWG wire.
Bob, is that insulation "kosher" with respect to combustion by-products.
I thought that was the reason that Tefzel was the recommended
wire/insulation type.
It depends on who you talk too. There's one well
meaning and vocal faction out there that thinks
Tefzel is spawn of the devil . . .
<http://tinyurl.com/2f8uz> http://tinyurl.com/2f8uz
After you've spent some time in the test
lab letting the smoke out of things, you come
to realize that the flavor of smoke from any
combustible becomes a rather moot point.
Yeah, they do flame tests on insulation . . . by
plying it with a torch! After it appears sufficiently
antagonized that it should burn, you take away
the flame. If I recall the reasoning with any
accuracy, the flaming insulation should not propagate
along the wire, it should self extinguish in so
many seconds, it should not drip flaming
globs of insulation and . . . oh yeah . . .
should be minimally obnoxious to respiratory
system . . . the flavor of a fine pipe tobacco
being a design goal.
I've been present when wires were burned
either by accident or test. I've seen and smelled
lots of smoke . . . and there were no reminders
of grandpa's favorite pipe.
Most the flaming materials wienies seem to
think that there is increased risks for having
materials that will PROPAGATE or PROMOTE a fire
from any/un-named source . . . not many pilots I
know fly around with propane torches. Getting
a wire lit up by hard faulting to a battery is
exceedingly problematic unless the insulation is
VERY flammable . . . but wait, seems like those
fuses and circuit breakers are supposed to
keep things from going that far in the first
place. No . . .?
Airplanes have been wired with everything
from cotton covered rubber to super-exotic-
unobtanium for over a century. Yet in the annals
of aviation accidents, I'm aware of no incident
that was blamed on flammability of the insulation.
There may be some out there but they're a vanishingly
small proportion of totality of incidents.
INTEGRITY of insulation, yes. Swissair 111 wiring
sparked and set the airplane's cabin insulation
on fire. Look at the pictures of the 777 that
belly flopped in SFO. LOTS of stuff throughout
the cabin burned with some vigor . . . and I
doubt that anyone was reminded of their grandpa's
pipe in that incident either.
If the flaming materials wienies were really
taking their jobs seriously, then every new
requirement that strives for happy fires in the
cabin would have grounded the existing fleet
until sub-standard materials were replaced.
Hundreds of thousands of miles of 'sub-standard'
wire are airborne someplace over the planet
as we speak . . .
I suggest that the lowest risk path to personal
flight is grounded in good FMEA, craftsmanship,
and plan-b for highest risk failures. If
you've got serious smoke in the cockpit
that doesn't quit when you turn of the master
switch . . . well . . . the flavor of that
smoke is the least of your worries. I prefer to
design for no-fire as opposed to designing for
friendly fire.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Olson" <klolson(at)wwestsky.net> |
Hello,
I'm installing Dynon's Flight DEK D180. The instructions show the ammeter
shunt installed in one of three locations on the positive side of the
system. Taking a page from AeroElectric Connection book, I asked tech
support if I could install the shunt on the ground side of the battery. I'm
not getting a cogent answer. Is there any reason I cannot install the shunt
on the ground side or is there something going on in the inside the D180
"box" that won't allow this?
Thanks,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ammeter shunt |
Ken,
The current flow coming out of the positive terminal is equal to the flow g
oing back in to the negative terminal so the shunt really doesn't care.=C2
-
HOWEVER
Without seeing a diagram of your proposed installation, it's hard to provid
e more analysis, but here are some things to consider:
There are several legitimate places to put a shunt in an electrical system.
=C2- If you are considering, for lack of a better term, a "battery" shunt
, which measures current flow into & out of the battery, consider this.
The starter circuit is not typically run thru the shunt. So when wiring a s
hunt in the conventional way, it is usually put down-stream of the starter.
=C2-
If you put the shunt in the big negative wire, it will see starter current.
=C2- Something you probably do not want.
There are other issues with ground return paths that might get complicated.
.. ( and require a lot of typing ;)
Now the big question: Why are you considering this?
-Jeff
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:16 AM, Ken Olson
wrote:
Hello, I=99m installin
g Dynon=99s Flight DEK D180. Theinstructions show the ammeter shunt i
nstalled in one of three locations on thepositive side of the system. Takin
g a page from AeroElectric Connection book, Iasked tech support if I could
install the shunt on the ground side of thebattery. I=99m not getting
a cogent answer. Is there any reason I cannotinstall the shunt on the grou
nd side or is there something going on in the insidethe D180 =9Cbox
=9D that won=99t allow this? Thanks, Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ammeter shunt |
Ken,
Short and simple: Don't do it. Here's why:
1. You didn't mention what type of airplane you have but there's a good chance
it has a starter. The starter current will have to go through it. Chances are
also good that the shunt isn't rated for more than 50-100A.
2. The shunt will be a additional point of failure for the battery system (like
the battery ground cable, but in addition to it). Flight without a battery
ground connection will be a lot "less good" than flight without, say, an
alternator B-lead connection.
I've been very satisfied with the ammeter shunt located in my RV-8A's alternator
B-lead output. It shows only the output of the alternator, which is what I care
about (although I can appreciate that you may feel differently). The downside
of this location is the requirement for protection of the wires from the shunt
to the instrument but that's easily handled with fusible links.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
Ken Olson wrote, On 4/30/2015 09:01:
> Hello,
>
> I'm installing Dynon's Flight DEK D180. The instructions show the ammeter
> shunt installed in one of three locations on the positive side of the
> system. Taking a page from AeroElectric Connection book, I asked tech
> support if I could install the shunt on the ground side of the battery. I'm
> not getting a cogent answer. Is there any reason I cannot install the shunt
> on the ground side or is there something going on in the inside the D180
> "box" that won't allow this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
I arrived at the 10 volt figure by the hasty assumption that the Skytec
trouble shooting guide says that a voltage of less than 10 is not a
starter problem.
My symptoms are a, "bump and continue" where the prop hangs for a second
and then continues. It starts but I thought it should be better.
john
On 4/29/2015 9:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> <http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_diag.htm>The starter barely gets 10
> volts after the master contactor and the
> starter contactor in series. By eliminating the starter contactor, you
> would have a hot wire to the starter whenever the master is on. Is this
> a good idea or suicide
>
>
> How do you arrive at that voltage level. What do you
> believe voltage drop across the starter contactor
> to be?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
That is very typical behavior of the Skytec PM models, if the battery,
wiring and relays are not all up to spec. It just can't generate the
torque to overcome the first compression stroke of the engine unless it
is getting enough current. As discussed many times, relatively low
resistance in each connection adds up in a hurry when you are drawing
over 150 amps. Each connection needs to be torqued to spec after
disassembly, cleaning to bare metal and reassembly. Ground connections
for battery, engine block and firewall are all common suspects, as well
as the positive side connections.
On 4/30/2015 4:08 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> I arrived at the 10 volt figure by the hasty assumption that the
> Skytec trouble shooting guide says that a voltage of less than 10 is
> not a starter problem.
>
> My symptoms are a, "bump and continue" where the prop hangs for a
> second and then continues. It starts but I thought it should be better.
>
> john
>
> On 4/29/2015 9:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> <http://www.skytecair.com/Wiring_diag.htm>The starter barely gets 10
>> volts after the master contactor and the
>> starter contactor in series. By eliminating the starter contactor, you
>> would have a hot wire to the starter whenever the master is on. Is this
>> a good idea or suicide
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you arrive at that voltage level. What do you
>> believe voltage drop across the starter contactor
>> to be?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys
Do I need, for a 60amp alternator, 40amp ammeter, a 60amp or a 40amp Shunt
Regards
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ammeter shunt |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Hello,
> Im installing Dynons Flight DEK D180. The instructions show the ammeter shunt
installed in one of three locations on the positive side of the system. Taking
a page from AeroElectric Connection book, I asked tech support if I could install
the shunt on the ground side of the battery. Im not getting a cogent answer.
Is there any reason I cannot install the shunt on the ground side or is there
something going on in the inside the D180 box that wont allow this?
> Thanks,
> Ken
The D-180 does not care where the shunt is located or what the polarity is. If
the D-180 ammeter display has the wrong polarity, then just switch the 2 small
ammeter sensor wires. As others have pointed out, the shunt should NOT be in
the starter circuit because it is not rated for starter current and because
starter performance will be degraded.
Here is a quote from the Dynon D-180 installation manual:
> Note that the ammeter shunt is not designed for the high current required by
the starter and must
> not be installed in the electrical path between the battery and starter.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441572#441572
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric-List:_ammeter_shunt? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ammeter shunt |
At 06:36 2015-05-01, you wrote:
>Hello,
>I=99m installing Dynon=99s Flight DEK D180. The
>instructions show the ammeter shunt installed in
>one of three locations on the positive side of
>the system. Taking a page from AeroElectric
>Connection book, I asked tech support if I could
>install the shunt on the ground side of the
>battery. I=99m not getting a cogent answer. Is
>there any reason I cannot install the shunt on
>the ground side or is there something going on
>in the inside the D180 =9Cbox=9D that won=99t allow this?
Say you DO put it in the (-) side of the battery . . .
how would you use the information presented?
Ammeters are pretty worthless in the cockpit.
They WERE originally installed as a go/no-go
indicator of system performance. The zero
center, un-calibrated instruments were
battery-ammeter clones of the instruments
found in cars. As long as the needle was at
or above 'zero' all was right with the
universe.
Emacs!
If your DEK180 has a voltage display
function . . . and better yet, a low volts
warning function, the usefulness of the
panel mounted ammeter as a flight management
instrument goes to zero.
If you become aware of a low voltage condition
that mitigates with reduction in load, then
the alternator is CRIPPLED and you reduce loads
to keep voltage at or above battery discharge
level of 12.5 volts. If no mitigation is
possible, alternator is CRAPPED and your
plans are necessarily modified.
Values of CURRENT under all conditions
of flight are predictable and should be known
as part of your load analysis and system design
goals. The idea that having a continuously
monitored current will assist with a aw-S%$T-
flip-a-switch situation in the cockpit is
unrealistic and easily replaced with PLAN-B
that calls for flipping at most 2 switches
with predictable result that does not depend
on an ammeter for confirmation.
Recommend you put the shunt in the alternator
b-lead. That will be most useful as a GROUND
diagnostics tool AFTER plan-b got you comfortably
on the ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:43 2015-05-01, you wrote:
Hi Guys
Do I need, for a 60amp alternator, 40amp ammeter, a 60amp or a 40amp Shunt
Regards
John
Do I assume correctly that it's a calibrated device
with 40A full scale? If the calibration is to be
meaningful, then you need a 40A shunt DESIGNED
to work with that ammeter. MOST shunted instruments
use 50mV shunts . . . but in recent years, products
designed for something other than 50mv have popped
up on the market.
The credible answer to your question needs
more information. What kind of instrument
do you have?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
I've recently purchased some eBay instruments (V/A) with both 500a and 50a
shunts that are 75mv.
On May 1, 2015 9:52 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 05:43 2015-05-01, you wrote:
> jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> Do I need, for a 60amp alternator, 40amp ammeter, a 60amp or a 40amp Shunt
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> Do I assume correctly that it's a calibrated device
> with 40A full scale? If the calibration is to be
> meaningful, then you need a 40A shunt DESIGNED
> to work with that ammeter. MOST shunted instruments
> use 50mV shunts . . . but in recent years, products
> designed for something other than 50mv have popped
> up on the market.
>
> The credible answer to your question needs
> more information. What kind of instrument
> do you have?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Solenoid behavior with low Battery |
At 18:08 2015-04-30, you wrote:
>I arrived at the 10 volt figure by the hasty assumption that the
>Skytec trouble shooting guide says that a voltage of less than 10 is
>not a starter problem.
>
>My symptoms are a, "bump and continue" where the prop hangs for a
>second and then continues. It starts but I thought it should be better.
Absolutely. The lightweight, PM starters are not
known for their low rpm torque output. This is
why B&C decided to stay with series wound starters
after several years of sifting the sands of
performance on the various products.
To be sure, PM starter systems impose greater
stresses on the rest of the system. They were
never a big problem in cars and trucks because
nobody balks at carrying around 20 to 30 pound
batteries, they don't have battery contactors
and don't have a system design goal that prompts
considering an external starter contactor.
I've had it in my head for about 10 years to
offer a cranking system performance analyzer
that runs out of the USB port of a laptop
and does dynamic data acquisition and analysis
of that data to identify the worst offender
voltage drops during cranking.
These are hard numbers to capture by observation
on an analog multimeter . . . impossible on
a digital multimeter. Child's play with an
agile micro-controller.
Assertions made here on the List correctly
identify the importance of high conductivity
joints and wires. But just for grins, try
putting jumper cables from your battery
to a big-honker battery and see if you
don't observe a quantum jump in cranking
performance. In my experience, battery
source impedance is a the MAJOR contributor
to disappointing starter performance
with either PM or wound field machines
. . . but ESPECIALLY PM.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Bob
Yes: a standard Vans 40-0-40 ammeter (steam gauge setup) so a 40 amp shunt - got
it
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441579#441579
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:44 2015-05-01, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>Yes: a standard Vans 40-0-40 ammeter (steam gauge setup) so a 40 amp
>shunt - got it
>
>John
Make sure you get the shunt from Van's . . .
I think the last time I put my hands on Van's
ammeter, it was set up for a 70 mV shunt.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:06 2015-05-01, you wrote:
>I've recently purchased some eBay instruments (V/A) with both 500a
>and 50a shunts that are 75mv.
Yeah, I've run across some Chinese products that
were wrapped around 75mv shunts. I think Van's
ammeter is a +/- 75mv instrument.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | revenson(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Have a Problem? |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I Have a Problem? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Assuming that the voltmeter is connected to the ebus, then I would expect somewhere
between 0.5 to 1 volt increase when the ebus switch is turned on. Of even
greater concern is the low electrical system voltage. It should be closer
to 14 volts with the alternator running. And with the engine off, a fully charged
battery should have a voltage near 13, but at least 12.5.
Check the voltage with another meter.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441595#441595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Have a Problem? |
At 17:05 2015-05-01, you wrote:
Assuming that the voltmeter is connected to the ebus, then I would
expect somewhere between 0.5 to 1 volt increase when the ebus switch
is turned on. Of even greater concern is the low electrical system
voltage. It should be closer to 14 volts with the alternator
running. And with the engine off, a fully charged battery should
have a voltage near 13, but at least 12.5.
Check the voltage with another meter.
You took the words out of my mouth . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | revenson(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Have a Problem? |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do I Have a Problem? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Your latest numbers are in the ballpark except for the ebus voltage in flight with
the ebus switch turned on. Check the ebus circuit for bad connections and
check the ebus switch for high internal resistance.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441602#441602
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Since there is already an ANL fuse installed to protect the alternator "B" lead,
why not use that same fuse to protect the main power bus feeder? See attached
drawing. One fuse can protect two circuits with no weight or cost penalty.
Of course if the alternator shorts out and blows the fuse, power is lost to
the main bus. That is unlikely to happen. And if it does, the pilot can turn
on the E-BUS switch (not shown on the drawing for simplicity).
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441831#441831
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/main_anl_fuse_104.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Obviously two circuits should not share the same fuse if there are loads on either
circuit that are critical to flight safety, for instance retractable landing
gear or landing lights or etc.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441832#441832
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Joe,
You put your finger right on it - you don't want trouble with the alternato
r wire to kill the whole system.=C2-
As we all know, the likelihood of failure events is difficult to quantify.
Something to consider is that the big wire that goes out to the alternator
is in a pretty hostile environment.=C2- Lots of heat, vibration, sharp ed
ges, (clumsy mechanics), etc.
The additional cost to add a second current limiter is so small.
BTW - When the occasion presents itself, I have been asking friends & colle
agues to send me wiring diagrams of airplanes they are flying or training i
n, and have found, in that small sample, all aircraft use current limiters
in the primary feed line.
-Jeff
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 8:43 AM, user9253 wrote:
Since there is already an ANL fuse installed to protect the alternator "B"
lead, why not use that same fuse to protect the main power bus feeder?=C2
- See attached drawing.=C2- One fuse can protect two circuits with no w
eight or cost penalty.=C2- Of course if the alternator shorts out and blo
ws the fuse, power is lost to the main bus.=C2- That is unlikely to happe
n.=C2- And if it does, the pilot can turn on the E-BUS switch (not shown
on the drawing for simplicity).
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441831#441831
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/main_anl_fuse_104.jpg
-
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 10:26 2015-05-07, you wrote:
Since there is already an ANL fuse installed to protect the
alternator "B" lead, why not use that same fuse to protect the main
power bus feeder? See attached drawing. One fuse can protect two
circuits with no weight or cost penalty. Of course if the alternator
shorts out and blows the fuse, power is lost to the main bus. That
is unlikely to happen. And if it does, the pilot can turn on the
E-BUS switch (not shown on the drawing for simplicity).
Circuit protection has TWO functions:
(1) Protect associated wiring and
(2) prevent a failure from propagating
across multiple systems. The B-lead
protection assumes that probability
of a short in alternator diodes,
while small, is not zero. Hence,
b-lead protection. If that device
WERE called upon to do it's job, it
would disconnect both the alternator
and main bus feeder . . . a condition
contrary to design goals.
A century of lessons learned suggest
that "protection" for properly installed
bus feeders is unnecessary. I've seen
"main breakers" installed in these feeders
on numerous OBAM aircraft schematics over
the years. Invariably, they are installed
on the panel at the junction of the main
bus and the feed line. IF there were any
serious threat to a bus feeder, protection
would have to be installed at the OTHER
end. But you will find no such protection
on any TC aircraft I'm aware of.
It's a function of FMEA and probabilities.
Got into a similar discussion with a gray-
beard yesterday. He was an employee of one
of my customers. I was talking about the
practice of paralleling multiple pins
in a connector for the purpose of boosting
current carrying capacity . . . with the
caveat that each of the paralleled pins
needed a 'ballasting resistor' in the
form of a 12" length of wire.
He offered up the standard argument, "But
you cannot detect a latent failure of
one pin."
"True. But you just did a failure analysis
on this system. After all the magic numbers
were stirred into the reliability stew, you
came up with a one-failure-in-10-to-the-minus-
amazing number."
"Yes," says he.
"Okay, here is a command signal pin right next
to my cluster of paralleled pins."
"Okay."
"A failure in that single pin has the ability
to take the system down."
"Yeah."
"But your probability stew says this single
pin offers so little risk for failure
that the 10-to-the-minus-amazing numbers
for the whole system are not challenged."
"Yeaahhh . . ."
"Okay, how is one pin paralleled with five
others any different?"
The conversation got real quiet there. They
went off to consider this further. Had this
same conversation with a Navy techno-wiennie
about 20 years ago. That conversation only
lasted about 10 minutes.
Emacs!
The first flight of this vehicle featured a power
distribution box that routed 25 amp feeders through D-sub
connectors.
Emacs!
It's all about properties of materials and management
of energy . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator Position |
| From: | "michaelrorth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
Hello All,
Is it acceptable to move a (now) horizontally-mounted to a vertical-mounted position?
I'm not concerned with the electrical operation of the alternator but rather the
bearing points of the rotor will change from two to one.
Thanks,
Michael
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441834#441834
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
At 11:10 2015-05-07, you wrote:
>
>Hello All,
>
>Is it acceptable to move a (now) horizontally-mounted to a
>vertical-mounted position?
>
>I'm not concerned with the electrical operation of the alternator
>but rather the bearing points of the rotor will change from two to one.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Michael
What kind of alternator are we talking about?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Hi Bob,
Actually, I must revise my original post.
I have a generator..not an alternator.
Of course, it is buried by other equipment and I am unable to make out the
nomenclature tag without extensive dismantling.
The Parts Manual is mum on the subject of manufacturer.
The generator is 25 amps and externally regulated.
It is currently mounted on a Continental IO-470-L. Beech Baron.
It is belt-driven.
Thanks,
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Position
At 11:10 2015-05-07, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello All,
>
>Is it acceptable to move a (now) horizontally-mounted to a vertical-mounted
>position?
>
>I'm not concerned with the electrical operation of the alternator but
>rather the bearing points of the rotor will change from two to one.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Michael
What kind of alternator are we talking about?
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
At 13:01 2015-05-07, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Actually, I must revise my original post.
>
>I have a generator..not an alternator.
>Of course, it is buried by other equipment and I am unable to make
>out the nomenclature tag without extensive dismantling.
>The Parts Manual is mum on the subject of manufacturer.
>The generator is 25 amps and externally regulated.
>It is currently mounted on a Continental IO-470-L. Beech Baron.
>It is belt-driven.
>
>Thanks,
>Michael
Interesting. As Neal has suggested, he may
be able to offer advise that's more application
specific. But I am curious as to how the installation
became 'vertical'.
I can't imagine that it would make any difference
for bearings. While there are such things as THRUST
bearings designed to take rated loads axially
oriented to the shaft, a ball bearing still
has significant performance for axial loading.
A major force on the belt driven generator
is belt tension. I would imagine armature
weight to be on the order of 1/3 or less
the belt force.
The force vector on the bearing would move
out of the bottom of the races . . . but
they're hard there too. The weakest mechanical
link in a generator is brush-wear. I suspect
you'll be replacing brushes at much shorter
intervals than for any other reason. Once you
have the machine off the airplane for attention,
you might as well replace bearings at the same
time . . . they're probably cheaper than the
brushes!
But give Neal a buzz and let us know what
you discover.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
At 15:43 2015-04-24, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Have you been able to assess the active VOR
>antenna? Were about 30 days from first
>flight and really need a retrofit VOR antenna
>solution for this bird as we discussed.
What is the length of cable from the
end of the antenna to your receiver?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Hi Bob,
Just got off the telephone with Neal George from Continental.
Neal is a very nice and knowledgeable man who is also very easy to talk to.
With regard to how the generator may become "vertical" as opposed to its
current horizontal orientation, it is moving to an M-14 from a Continental
IO-470-L.
In the process, it will also become gear-driven rather than belt-driven.
Neal agreed with you that the perpendicular force vector. . .the force
applied on the armature perpendicular to the axis of rotation by the drive
belt. . .would be lessened with a gear-driven installation.
Neal also agreed that the physical orientation of the generator should have
no effect on its mechanical life.
Thanks to both you and Neal for your help,
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Position
At 13:01 2015-05-07, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Actually, I must revise my original post.
>
>I have a generator..not an alternator.
>Of course, it is buried by other equipment and I am unable to make out the
>nomenclature tag without extensive dismantling.
>The Parts Manual is mum on the subject of manufacturer.
>The generator is 25 amps and externally regulated.
>It is currently mounted on a Continental IO-470-L. Beech Baron.
>It is belt-driven.
>
>Thanks,
>Michael
Interesting. As Neal has suggested, he may
be able to offer advise that's more application
specific. But I am curious as to how the installation
became 'vertical'.
I can't imagine that it would make any difference
for bearings. While there are such things as THRUST
bearings designed to take rated loads axially
oriented to the shaft, a ball bearing still
has significant performance for axial loading.
A major force on the belt driven generator
is belt tension. I would imagine armature
weight to be on the order of 1/3 or less
the belt force.
The force vector on the bearing would move
out of the bottom of the races . . . but
they're hard there too. The weakest mechanical
link in a generator is brush-wear. I suspect
you'll be replacing brushes at much shorter
intervals than for any other reason. Once you
have the machine off the airplane for attention,
you might as well replace bearings at the same
time . . . they're probably cheaper than the
brushes!
But give Neal a buzz and let us know what
you discover.
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
About a 24-30" run between antenna location and Garmin GTN-650 radio.
I would plan a short pigtail ~4" off the end of the antenna with a female
BNC connector. Similar with the power wire. To allow the canard to be
removed for maintenance and inspection, connectors local to the antenna
installation area are required.
Thanks,
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active VOR antenna
At 15:43 2015-04-24, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Have you been able to assess the active VOR antenna? Were about 30
>days from first flight and really need a retrofit VOR antenna solution for
>this bird as we discussed.
What is the length of cable from the
end of the antenna to your receiver?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
At 15:43 2015-04-24, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Have you been able to assess the active VOR
>antenna? Were about 30 days from first
>flight and really need a retrofit VOR antenna
>solution for this bird as we discussed.
>
>Thanks,
>James
What is the coax cable length from cable end of antenna
to your receiver. Is the receiver connector BNC?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
At 13:03 2015-05-08, you wrote:
>
>About a 24-30" run between antenna location and Garmin GTN-650 radio.
>
>I would plan a short pigtail ~4" off the end of the antenna with a
>female BNC connector. Similar with the power wire. To allow the
>canard to be removed for maintenance and inspection, connectors
>local to the antenna installation area are required.
>
>Thanks,
>-James
Oops . . . missed this. Will do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
At 12:28 2015-05-08, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Just got off the telephone with Neal George from Continental.
>Neal is a very nice and knowledgeable man who is also very easy to talk to.
>
>With regard to how the generator may become "vertical" as opposed to
>its current horizontal orientation, it is moving to an M-14 from a
>Continental IO-470-L.
>In the process, it will also become gear-driven rather than belt-driven.
>
>Neal agreed with you that the perpendicular force vector. . .the
>force applied on the armature perpendicular to the axis of rotation
>by the drive belt. . .would be lessened with a gear-driven installation.
>Neal also agreed that the physical orientation of the generator
>should have no effect on its mechanical life.
>
>Thanks to both you and Neal for your help,
Michael, Understand. Be aware too that
B&C has a PM alternator . . . a 3-phase
20-30 amp class that fits one or more
Russian round engines. I'm not familiar
with details. Should the generator mod
become problematic, check with B&C for
options.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
As Bob says, most ball bearings still have significant performance for thrust as
well as axial loads. After installation, check for bearing noise using a stethoscope
(cheap rod in ear type). Compare it with noise from the upper bearing.
Afterward, occasionally listen for increased noise (growling or clicking)
at the lower bearing.
If problems arise with the lower bearing, substitute an Angular Contact Bearing
which is designed to better accept both radial and thrust loads. Fafnir 7000
series comes to mind. Any good bearing supply house should be able to help.
Remember that angular contact bearings are directional and are designed for
thrust load in one direction only. If you view the bearing, one side will have
less spacing between races; that is the side which will accept increased thrust
loads.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441923#441923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Thanks Jerry.
Good information.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: racerjerry
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 4:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position
As Bob says, most ball bearings still have significant performance for
thrust as well as axial loads. After installation, check for bearing noise
using a stethoscope (cheap rod in ear type). Compare it with noise from the
upper bearing. Afterward, occasionally listen for increased noise
(growling or clicking) at the lower bearing.
If problems arise with the lower bearing, substitute an Angular Contact
Bearing which is designed to better accept both radial and thrust loads.
Fafnir 7000 series comes to mind. Any good bearing supply house should be
able to help. Remember that angular contact bearings are directional and
are designed for thrust load in one direction only. If you view the
bearing, one side will have less spacing between races; that is the side
which will accept increased thrust loads.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441923#441923
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Good Morning Bob,
Thanks for the B & C steer.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Position
At 12:28 2015-05-08, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Just got off the telephone with Neal George from Continental.
>Neal is a very nice and knowledgeable man who is also very easy to talk to.
>
>With regard to how the generator may become "vertical" as opposed to its
>current horizontal orientation, it is moving to an M-14 from a Continental
>IO-470-L.
>In the process, it will also become gear-driven rather than belt-driven.
>
>Neal agreed with you that the perpendicular force vector. . .the force
>applied on the armature perpendicular to the axis of rotation by the drive
>belt. . .would be lessened with a gear-driven installation.
>Neal also agreed that the physical orientation of the generator should have
>no effect on its mechanical life.
>
>Thanks to both you and Neal for your help,
Michael, Understand. Be aware too that
B&C has a PM alternator . . . a 3-phase
20-30 amp class that fits one or more
Russian round engines. I'm not familiar
with details. Should the generator mod
become problematic, check with B&C for
options.
Bob . . .
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Fafnir 7000 series comes to mind. Any good bearing supply house
should be able to help. Remember that angular contact bearings are
directional and are designed for thrust load in one direction
only. If you view the bearing, one side will have less spacing
between races; that is the side which will accept increased thrust loads.
Was not aware of that product . . . good
data . . . thanks! Much of what I've learned
about the "other guy's" sandbox toys has
been gleaned during my participation on multi-
discipline tiger-teams assembled to sift
through the pieces. It's always nice to
pick up a knowledge nugget before the
thing falls apart!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
| From: | "highwire" <ronmarks(at)gmail.com> |
berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> About a 24-30" run between antenna location and Garmin GTN-650 radio.
>
> I would plan a short pigtail ~4" off the end of the antenna with a female
> BNC connector. Similar with the power wire. To allow the canard to be
> removed for maintenance and inspection, connectors local to the antenna
> installation area are required.
>
> Thanks,
> -James
>
> Hi James,
>
> What are the physical sizes of the area that you have to install an antenna?
I am guessing from what has been posted, that it is a tubular space in each canard
accessible from the root. Is the canard glass and the nose of carbon? What
is the spread between the canard roots?
> I started simulating, modelling and lab testing antennas a few years age for
my own plane and my own entertainment. Your application looks like it may be
a challenge for a conventional solution, but who knows.
> Ron
>
>
> --
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441943#441943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
A challenge, for sure.
The concept here is to retrofit an active (amplified), end fed, single
element antenna into the LE D-section of an existing canard on one side.
The canard is glass skinned and will be invisible to the antenna. However,
the center spar caps are carbon and the typical retrofit of adding a foil
"V" style antenna to the exterior of the bottom skin is not ideal. A
"dipole on a stick" was the original idea, but there is no space to get the
coax away from the elements.
The canard is solid foam core, in which a conduit was drilled out in the LE
running from the center to one tip. This will be where the antenna will be
inserted. There is a small "access box" (if you can call it that) cut in
the foam at the center of the canard where the antenna can be accessed,
however once installed and the skin in patched, it will require cutting the
fiberglass repair patch off each time. Sounds worse than it really is and
is actually less work than installing the external foil elements and trying
to re-contour the already critical profile of a small airfoil.
Fingers crossed this works!
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: highwire
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 1:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Active VOR antenna
> What are the physical sizes of the area that you have to install an
> antenna? I am guessing from what has been posted, that it is a tubular
> space in each canard accessible from the root. Is the canard glass and the
> nose of carbon? What is the spread between the canard roots?
> I started simulating, modelling and lab testing antennas a few years age
> for my own plane and my own entertainment. Your application looks like it
> may be a challenge for a conventional solution, but who knows.
> Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
Bob, do you still have the gold Coax for sale in pre-cut length, with
connectors?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 19:32 2015-05-09, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob, do you still have the gold Coax for sale in pre-cut length,
>with connectors?
I have some residual stocks . . . what do you need?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
Let me run down the list to be sure, I'll get back in touch.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 19:32 2015-05-09, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob, do you still have the gold Coax for sale in pre-cut length, with
>> connectors?
>
> I have some residual stocks . . . what do you need?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Control Stick Trim Switches Without Relays |
| From: | "weasel" <airbalanceengineering(at)gmail.com> |
Tundra10 wrote:
> I see two restrictions to utilize this circuit:
> The trim switches in your control stick would have to be not commonly
> switched to ground. This might be a typical case, since it would half
> the number of wires inside the control stick.
> The trim switches would have to be capable of handling the trim motor
> spikes. Unlike a relay, since the voltage polarity is reversed, the
> usual diode protection for the switch could not be used. A
> bi-directional device with a clamping voltage a little higher than bus
> voltage might be desirable.
> I think that is why the relay method is commonly used.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
> > Subject: Dual Control Stick Trim Switches Without Relays
> > From: "user9253"
> >
> > Joel Graber designed and posted a circuit on VansAirforce that
> > controls a trim
> > servo motor using
> > Ray Allen G205 SPDT stick grip switches mounted on pilot and copilot
> > control sticks.
> > No relays are required. A PDF version can be download:
> > http://tinyurl.com/Trim-Circuit
> > Joel Graber has used this circuit in his RV-10 for over 600hrs.
> > In case of a runaway trim caused by a stuck switch or suicidal
> > copilot, the opposite
> > direction
> > button can be pressed and held until the fuse or breaker can be pulled.
> > I do not know if anyone else has thought of this wiring scheme before or not,
> > but I thought it both simple and ingenious. Even the Ray Allen
> > company thinks
> > that relays
> > must be used for 2 control sticks.
> > Joe
> >
> > --------
> > Joe Gores
> >
> >
>
Just for data. I have been running this for well over 600hrs with no problems.
Joel
--------
RV-10
RV-4 SOLD
Fisher Classic -- VW Power
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442106#442106
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: RV10-List: Odyssey optimal charge voltage |
Forwarded from the RV10 list
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
> Date: May 14, 2015 at 12:41:31 AKDT
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Odyssey optimal charge voltage
> Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Just wondering if anyone has researched what optimal alternator setting sh
ould be using the Odyssey 925L battery? Whether it should be different than t
he old wet cell set point between 13.8 and 14.2.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: RV10-List: Odyssey optimal charge voltage |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There was a recent discussion about Odyssey charge voltage here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=125524
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442123#442123
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: RV10-List: Odyssey optimal charge voltage |
At 04:23 PM 5/14/2015, you wrote:
>Forwarded from the RV10 list
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Kelly McMullen <<mailto:apilot2(at)gmail.com>apilot2(at)gmail.com>
>>Date: May 14, 2015 at 12:41:31 AKDT
>>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV10-List: Odyssey optimal charge voltage
>>Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>>Just wondering if anyone has researched what optimal alternator
>>setting should be using the Odyssey 925L battery? Whether it should
>>be different than the old wet cell set point between 13.8 and 14.2.
>>
>>
No.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
What model Dynon EMS are you using? The SkyView EMS has both a high voltage and
a low voltage tach input. The high voltage input can come from a "P" lead with
a 30K resistor. The low voltage input can be less than 12 volts.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442136#442136
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net |
Joe,
I am trying to tie my Dynon DEK - 180 ( 2007 vintage) Pin #32 Green / White RPM
Left into the Tachometer output ( Pin 7 Square Wave ) of the Rotec E-Mag.
I can not get a go or no go from either Dynon or Rotec.
Any help would be appreciated.
bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bobby,
The safe way to hook it up, so as to not risk damaging anything, is to use a 30K
resistor in series between the ignition pin 7 and the EMS pin 32. If the D-180
does not display an RPM, then look at the signal with an oscilloscope or digital
meter that reads peak voltage.
Or you could use the trial and error method. If the tachometer does not work
with a 30K resistor, then remove it and connect ignition pin 7 directly to EMS
pim 32. Looking at Rotec's documentation, my guess is that the tach signal is
not high voltage.
http://www.rotecaerosport.com/faqs/ign-plug/
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442145#442145
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rotec_tach_134.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Even if the amplitude of the square wave from the Rotec tachometer is less than
12 volts, someone on this list can design a simple transistor amplifier that
will boost the voltage above the minimum required for the Dynon D-180 tachometer
input.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442167#442167
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
This question is for Bob-
In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
system network. Do you feel this is possible?
Anyone else have input on this?
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:28 AM, racerjerry wrote:
>
> As Bob says, most ball bearings still have significant performance for thrust
as well as axial loads. After installation, check for bearing noise using a
stethoscope (cheap rod in ear type). Compare it with noise from the upper bearing.
Afterward, occasionally listen for increased noise (growling or clicking)
at the lower bearing.
>
> If problems arise with the lower bearing, substitute an Angular Contact Bearing
which is designed to better accept both radial and thrust loads. Fafnir 7000
series comes to mind. Any good bearing supply house should be able to help.
Remember that angular contact bearings are directional and are designed for
thrust load in one direction only. If you view the bearing, one side will have
less spacing between races; that is the side which will accept increased thrust
loads.
>
> --------
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441923#441923
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to the planes flight controls
My take on this is that it is mostly false and rumors.
http://tinyurl.com/pko4qcv
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442191#442191
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> This question is for Bob-
> In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
> the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
> system network. Do you feel this is possible?
> Anyone else have input on this?
Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and avionics are isolated
from each other. I believe them.
--------
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=442196#442196
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
I believe Boeing also. It would not be sensible to have the two systems
integrated in any way.
I don't believe most of what the news reports say. My biggest issue is
with drones. The media does not know the difference between a combat
equipped drone and a hobby drone. To them a drone is a drone is
a....... Any of them will wreak havoc and destruction on the world. I
believe this led to the FAA getting there nose under the tent with
regard to hobby drones being used commercially. Someone at the FAA also
noticed that some entrepreneurs were making money with hobby sized
drones that carried no weapons. The FAA decided they had to manage
these operations to limit the profits to be had. How can drone
operation for a hobby be any safer than operating a drone for some
commercial purpose?
The media sells air time and disaster holds the viewer interest.
I apologize for stealing the thread but the note about the media got my
adrenalin flowing.
Lyle
On 5/17/2015 1:10 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>> This question is for Bob-
>> In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
>> the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
>> system network. Do you feel this is possible?
>> Anyone else have input on this?
>
> Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and avionics are
isolated from each other. I believe them.
>
> --------
> 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=442196#442196
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/17/15 |
| From: | James Baldwin <1james.baldwin(at)gmail.com> |
As a 33 year Boeing pilot I can tell you this is media nonsense. I'll share
one technical fact: the Honeywell FMS (Flight Management System) has what
is called a Mode Control Panel and NOTHING will override the altitude
control setting in that panel made by the pilot. NOTHING!
Also, there is no command in the system that allows the pilot to program
altitude climbs. Descents yes, climbs NO.
Pure nonsense and yes, the two systems are totally seperate.
On May 18, 2015 12:16 AM, "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 15-05-17&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 15-05-17&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 05/17/15: 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 07:53 AM - Re: Alternator Position (user9253)
> 2. 11:13 AM - Re: Alternator Position (Eric M. Jones)
> 3. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (Lyle Peterson)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position
> From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
>
>
> > it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to the planes flight
> controls
>
> My take on this is that it is mostly false and rumors.
> http://tinyurl.com/pko4qcv
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442191#442191
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position
> From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>
>
> > This question is for Bob-
> > In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
> > the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
> > system network. Do you feel this is possible?
> > Anyone else have input on this?
>
>
> Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and avionics
> are isolated
> from each other. I believe them.
>
> --------
> 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=442196#442196
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position
>
> I believe Boeing also. It would not be sensible to have the two systems
> integrated in any way.
>
> I don't believe most of what the news reports say. My biggest issue is
> with drones. The media does not know the difference between a combat
> equipped drone and a hobby drone. To them a drone is a drone is
> a....... Any of them will wreak havoc and destruction on the world. I
> believe this led to the FAA getting there nose under the tent with
> regard to hobby drones being used commercially. Someone at the FAA also
> noticed that some entrepreneurs were making money with hobby sized
> drones that carried no weapons. The FAA decided they had to manage
> these operations to limit the profits to be had. How can drone
> operation for a hobby be any safer than operating a drone for some
> commercial purpose?
>
> The media sells air time and disaster holds the viewer interest.
>
> I apologize for stealing the thread but the note about the media got my
> adrenalin flowing.
>
> Lyle
>
> On 5/17/2015 1:10 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This question is for Bob-
> >> In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
> >> the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
> >> system network. Do you feel this is possible?
> >> Anyone else have input on this?
> >
> > Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and
> avionics are
> isolated from each other. I believe them.
> >
> > --------
> > 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=442196#442196
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
I too believe Boeing, BUT...
I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to vulnerable systems,
such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not quite so sure about things
like engine indicating systems, where erroneous indications could lead pilots
to shut down an engine or take other emergency measures that might temporarily
decrease their margin of safety.
I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed in a special
category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where no actual harm is done
or intended. Because of profit worries, it would take a very long time [never]
for an aircraft manufacturer to admit such a defect in design and we should
almost thank such people for exposing these faults before someone with far
less scruples acts on them.
Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation under the
condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he tried any such hair-brained
schemes in the future, he would fully serve out his original sentence
in the slammer.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
| From: | William Mills <wtrooper(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
I don't think it's too far fetched. These days so many companies
are negligent in isolating systems. It doesn't take much to
get 2 systems inadvertently tied together. If you think about
the entertainment system, that may need access to the SATCOM
link. But so would potentially many other things on the
plane. So once you have a system like that where other
systems utilize it, you have potential for hopping from
one system to another. I'm an IT person myself, and from
everything I've been able to read so far, I personally think it
sounds legit. And, I think that all the aviation players in
the mess will do their best to cover it up or make it go
away a.s.a.p. But, the fact that the hacker was very
forthcoming, and had good intentions, is a big bonus. Imagine
the situation where someone DIDN'T make this known but
other hackers found out. The consequences are serious.
So if I were the FBI, I'd be asking him to prove it, and in
fact I'd send a couple agents up with him and have him
demonstrate it. And if it is proven true, I'd be begging
him to help learn as much as possible so it can be fixed.
If it is true, I hope he receives NO punishment. He
I'm sure learned the lesson enough already not to screw
with flight controls or engines. Had he just found something
smaller to mess with, to test his theory, he may not be
facing the same issues. Either way, in the end if this
is a real problem, it's a good thing to expose it. Far
too many companies and engineers do not think about security
when designing systems, and this will be a good wakeup
call. If it's a hoax, throw him in the slammer for
a while. But right now, my bet is on it being legit.
Tim
On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote:
>
>
> I too believe Boeing, BUT...
>
> I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to
> vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not
> quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where
> erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or
> take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their
> margin of safety.
>
> I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed
> in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where
> no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it
> would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to
> admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people
> for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts
> on them.
>
> Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation
> under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he
> tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully
> serve out his original sentence in the slammer.
>
> -------- Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
Now AVweb has taken up the torch. The FBI has served warrants on Mr.
Roberts who claims to have accessed the flight and engine controls of a
737 through the television system by connecting his laptop to the outlet
that provides the TV signal to the seat back television.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3055-full.html?ET=avweb:e3055:223146a:&st=email#224098
The FBI is a government agency so we have to .................... supply
your own last words.
i read this on the internet so it must be true.
On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote:
>
> I too believe Boeing, BUT...
>
> I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to vulnerable systems,
such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not quite so sure about things
like engine indicating systems, where erroneous indications could lead pilots
to shut down an engine or take other emergency measures that might temporarily
decrease their margin of safety.
>
> I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed in a special
category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where no actual harm is
done or intended. Because of profit worries, it would take a very long time
[never] for an aircraft manufacturer to admit such a defect in design and we should
almost thank such people for exposing these faults before someone with far
less scruples acts on them.
>
> Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation under the
condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he tried any such
hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully serve out his original sentence
in the slammer.
>
> --------
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Position |
If he's telling the truth, he should be given a medal and a substantial
monetary reward.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I don't think it's too far fetched. These days so many companies
> are negligent in isolating systems. It doesn't take much to
> get 2 systems inadvertently tied together. If you think about
> the entertainment system, that may need access to the SATCOM
> link. But so would potentially many other things on the
> plane. So once you have a system like that where other
> systems utilize it, you have potential for hopping from
> one system to another. I'm an IT person myself, and from
> everything I've been able to read so far, I personally think it
> sounds legit. And, I think that all the aviation players in
> the mess will do their best to cover it up or make it go
> away a.s.a.p. But, the fact that the hacker was very
> forthcoming, and had good intentions, is a big bonus. Imagine
> the situation where someone DIDN'T make this known but
> other hackers found out. The consequences are serious.
> So if I were the FBI, I'd be asking him to prove it, and in
> fact I'd send a couple agents up with him and have him
> demonstrate it. And if it is proven true, I'd be begging
> him to help learn as much as possible so it can be fixed.
> If it is true, I hope he receives NO punishment. He
> I'm sure learned the lesson enough already not to screw
> with flight controls or engines. Had he just found something
> smaller to mess with, to test his theory, he may not be
> facing the same issues. Either way, in the end if this
> is a real problem, it's a good thing to expose it. Far
> too many companies and engineers do not think about security
> when designing systems, and this will be a good wakeup
> call. If it's a hoax, throw him in the slammer for
> a while. But right now, my bet is on it being legit.
> Tim
>
>
> On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I too believe Boeing, BUT...
>>
>> I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to
>> vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not
>> quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where
>> erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or
>> take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their
>> margin of safety.
>>
>> I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed
>> in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where
>> no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it
>> would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to
>> admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people
>> for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts
>> on them.
>>
>> Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation
>> under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he
>> tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully
>> serve out his original sentence in the slammer.
>>
>> -------- Jerry King
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Level A software . . . |
At 06:33 PM 5/16/2015, you wrote:
This question is for Bob-
In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
system network.
Wait and see what is reported when the
story is determined to be without merit.
If it smacks of crisis/evil then there's
a mad dash to the tv cameras and word processors
to be 'first'. This is why 99 plus % of all
'crisis flavored' news releases are tiny bits
of fact inflated with lots of floobydust.
Software driven airborne management systems
are subject to a host of robustness tests
and failure modes analysis in the process
of achieving permission to fly. This is
especially true of Level A software.
DO-178 Level E: Crew doesn't give a
rat's rear end and may not even be aware
of the failure to perform . . . like
entertainment systems and coffee makers
in the cabin.
Level D: Crew knows that the thing crapped
and makes plans to write up the squawk . . .
after the next cup of coffee.
Level C: Crew has to react to the failure
in a manner that represents a small increase
in workload but presents no hazard to airframe
or passengers.
Level B: Crew sits upright in seats and gets out
the checklist for implementing plan-B. There
is significant influence on workload but easily
managed to mitigate any hazards to airframe
or passengers.
Level A: The wings fall off . . . or some such.
Software with potential for extreme hazard
has qualification protocols that drive
people-hours for qualification 5 to 10 times
greater than what is needed to write the software
in the first place. NOBODY would be allowed to
load critical software on an aircraft with a
vulnerability suggested by the so-called 'news
report'.
The claim that a 'port of entry' even exits
is floobydust. The idea that some yahoo with
a laptop would have intimate knowledge of the
communications protocols to 'tinker' with
behaviors is laughable.
Too many of our lesser informed citizens are
intellectually crippled when some TV drama spook
sits in his living room with a laptop and brings
down the national power grid. They're unable to
separate real life from Hollywood imaginations.
Too many of those sad creatures hold microphones
in front of tv cameras.
When the 'story' proves vaporous, the last
thing any of those folks will do is get back
in front of the camera to correct the error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple Wire Connections |
Hello,
We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe Processor/Box
to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a pigtail of two
wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we have to use the ring
terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple wires running from the
GEA 24?
I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance
being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance connection as
possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held together with a screw/nut
is the best -- but, wondering if knife type connections or something else
would be as good...?
Thanks,
Valin
Lancair Legacy Project
Colorado
Sent by iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections |
There's plenty in the archives on this one....
As long as both sides of the connector are on the same side of the firewall and
physically tight, you should be OK. The trick is that the actual wire has almost
no elasticity to it so relying on a crimp connection is the weak point.
I have experience with this in the first few hours - after that...I used the method
suggested by the avionics manufacturer.....crimp plus solder quick disconnects
with insulation
to keep the poles apart. Happy now after a couple hundred hours on it.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn(at)starflight.aero>
>Sent: May 18, 2015 3:38 PM
>To: AeroElectric List
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections
>
>
>Hello,
>
>We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe Processor/Box
to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a pigtail of two
wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we have to use the ring
terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple wires running from the
GEA 24?
>
>I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance
being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance connection as
possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held together with a screw/nut
is the best -- but, wondering if knife type connections or something
else would be as good...?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Valin
>Lancair Legacy Project
>Colorado
>
>Sent by iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Level A software . . . |
| From: | Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
Thank you Bob..
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> At 06:33 PM 5/16/2015, you wrote:
>
> This question is for Bob-
> In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to
> the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment
> system network.
>
>
> Wait and see what is reported when the
> story is determined to be without merit.
> If it smacks of crisis/evil then there's
> a mad dash to the tv cameras and word processors
> to be 'first'. This is why 99 plus % of all
> 'crisis flavored' news releases are tiny bits
> of fact inflated with lots of floobydust.
>
> Software driven airborne management systems
> are subject to a host of robustness tests
> and failure modes analysis in the process
> of achieving permission to fly. This is
> especially true of Level A software.
>
> DO-178 Level E: Crew doesn't give a
> rat's rear end and may not even be aware
> of the failure to perform . . . like
> entertainment systems and coffee makers
> in the cabin.
>
> Level D: Crew knows that the thing crapped
> and makes plans to write up the squawk . . .
> after the next cup of coffee.
>
> Level C: Crew has to react to the failure
> in a manner that represents a small increase
> in workload but presents no hazard to airframe
> or passengers.
>
> Level B: Crew sits upright in seats and gets out
> the checklist for implementing plan-B. There
> is significant influence on workload but easily
> managed to mitigate any hazards to airframe
> or passengers.
>
> Level A: The wings fall off . . . or some such.
>
> Software with potential for extreme hazard
> has qualification protocols that drive
> people-hours for qualification 5 to 10 times
> greater than what is needed to write the software
> in the first place. NOBODY would be allowed to
> load critical software on an aircraft with a
> vulnerability suggested by the so-called 'news
> report'.
>
> The claim that a 'port of entry' even exits
> is floobydust. The idea that some yahoo with
> a laptop would have intimate knowledge of the
> communications protocols to 'tinker' with
> behaviors is laughable.
>
> Too many of our lesser informed citizens are
> intellectually crippled when some TV drama spook
> sits in his living room with a laptop and brings
> down the national power grid. They're unable to
> separate real life from Hollywood imaginations.
> Too many of those sad creatures hold microphones
> in front of tv cameras.
>
> When the 'story' proves vaporous, the last
> thing any of those folks will do is get back
> in front of the camera to correct the error.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple Wire Connections |
Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all
consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife
splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at
that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result.
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
Allyson Thorn
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections
-->
Hello,
We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe
Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a
pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we
have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple
wires running from the GEA 24?
I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical
resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance
connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held
together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type
connections or something else would be as good...?
Thanks,
Valin
Lancair Legacy Project
Colorado
Sent by iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections |
| From: | Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
Thanks guys.
Stein, I see where it's okay as long as each temp probe has the same bias for EGTs.
Seems like I'd want the CHTs to be as accurate as possible, though... Is
there a best connection type for accuracy?
Thanks,
Valin
Sent by iPhone
> On May 18, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>
>
> Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all
> consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife
> splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at
> that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
> Allyson Thorn
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM
> To: AeroElectric List
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections
>
> -->
>
> Hello,
>
> We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe
> Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a
> pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we
> have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple
> wires running from the GEA 24?
>
> I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical
> resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance
> connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held
> together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type
> connections or something else would be as good...?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Valin
> Lancair Legacy Project
> Colorado
>
> Sent by iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple Wire Connections |
On 5/18/2015 12:38 PM, Valin & Allyson Thorn wrote:
> I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance
being observed
Not really... the input is high impedance, so a little resistance in the
connectors is not a big deal. The big deal is not extending the wire
with non-thermocouple wire, as that would introduce two cold
junctions... one at the terminals on the thermocouple, and the other at
the other end of the (presumably) copper extension wire. If one end is
cooler than the other, you'll modify the observed TC reading.
Any connector should work; the voltages are small, though, in the
millivolt range. But as long as the two ends of your connection pair are
at the same temperature, you're not introducing an error.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Omega.com sells a line of connectors for thermocouple wires but i agree with Stein.
If the connections are made in the same area of temperature, the errors
are negligible. I have owned a Cozy that used ordinary copper wire between the
thermocouples and the gauges up front. Seemed to work pretty well. I use
thermocouple wire (type J or K) all the way on the two airplanes i built but
i am not sure it really makes much difference over copper wires.
After fiddling with ring-terminal connections, I would just solder the connections
and leave a little extra wire so you can just cut the connection if you need
to pull the engine.
-kent
> On May 18, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Valin & Allyson Thorn wrote:
>
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Stein, I see where it's okay as long as each temp probe has the same bias for
EGTs. Seems like I'd want the CHTs to be as accurate as possible, though...
Is there a best connection type for accuracy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Valin
>
>
>
> Sent by iPhone
>
>> On May 18, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all
>> consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife
>> splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at
>> that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stein
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
>> Allyson Thorn
>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM
>> To: AeroElectric List
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe
>> Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a
>> pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we
>> have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple
>> wires running from the GEA 24?
>>
>> I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical
>> resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance
>> connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held
>> together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type
>> connections or something else would be as good...?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Valin
>> Lancair Legacy Project
>> Colorado
>>
>> Sent by iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple Wire Connections |
At 03:14 PM 5/18/2015, you wrote:
Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all
consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife
splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at
that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result.
Exactly . . .
Somebody once opined that what was good for the
goose was also good for the gander. In this instance,
what's good for the chromel is good for the alumel.
In other words, how ever you splice the wires, the
path of electrons across metalic joints in one wire should
be equal and opposite those on the other wire. While
this still creates tiny errors, they're largely
cancelling and insignificant to system operations.
For more details, see:
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections |
Well, it subtracts the difference across the copper wire from your
readings... so as long as accuracy of your CHT numbers isn't important,
plus or minus 50 degrees, I guess that's OK...
Paul
On 5/18/2015 3:21 PM, Kent or Jackie Ashton wrote:
> i am not sure it really makes much difference over copper wires.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections |
| From: | "Valin" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
Thanks everyone and especially Bob and the article you wrote on thermocouples.
I learned I didn't have a complete and accurate understanding of thermocouples
and their principles.
We are connecting to the thermocouples with thermocouple wires. We already have
the tiny ring terminals, screws, and nuts so might just go ahead and use them
to connect to each thermocouple's pig tail wires that already have ring terminals
on them.
Thanks again!
Valin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442352#442352
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Good morning folks,
I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).
FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be
compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and
121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.
Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with
Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be
compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F?
Many thanks for your input on that.
Cheers Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in the
aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR or
IFR, the transponder still must be checked.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the
altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they
are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference, certified
altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter checks are
normally done together with the transponder check because of the
requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder output and
the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because of the need to
check up to certified altitude, and consequently usually costs 2-3 times
a VFR certification.
It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus
only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is restricted
generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C as well as E
above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder has to be
checked every 24 months.
On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in
the aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR
or IFR, the transponder still must be checked.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Good Morning Kelly.
We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only below
10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin'
Transponder.
That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the USA
without that particular expensive toy!
Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Ok thanks,
seems to be more stringent then under EASA where it is a recommendation
only.
With newer electronics I see the risk for malfunctioning being very low.
Would save some money.
Thanks
Werner
On 21.05.2015 14:44, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the
> altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they
> are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference,
> certified altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter
> checks are normally done together with the transponder check because
> of the requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder
> output and the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because
> of the need to check up to certified altitude, and consequently
> usually costs 2-3 times a VFR certification.
> It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus
> only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is
> restricted generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C
> as well as E above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder
> has to be checked every 24 months.
>
> On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote:
>>
>> The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry
>> made in the aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is
>> only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked.
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
On 5/21/2015 6:29 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> Good morning folks,
>
> I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).
>
> FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be
> compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and
> 121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.
>
> Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with
> Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be
> compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F?
>
> Many thanks for your input on that.
>
> Cheers Werner
The transponder must be checked every 2 years to remain in compliance.
Be sure to tell the shop that you just need a VFR certification; IFR is
a bit more involved.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Probably has something to do with the fact that although you personally
only fly VFR, you are flying, or may fly, in an environment in which IFR,
flight flolowing and other services depend on accurate altitude reports (via
transponder ) from all of the aircraft in the system .
Of course we all know that electronics never fail, that they are never
installed correctly that they never vary in their response.
Maybe instead of thinking why should I do it, you should think of if my
setup is inaccurate and ATC or whoever is looking doesn't have a proper idea
of my altitude perhaps that unseen shadow coming from my rear is made of
aluminum or glass with everybody thinking that the different altitude reports
are correct. As imperfect as the system is, it just may save your bacon.
Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a
transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into some
controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder (certain
incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per
year?
Rich
In a message dated 5/21/2015 6:32:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)gmx.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider
Good morning folks,
I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).
FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be
compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and
121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.
Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with
Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be
compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F?
Many thanks for your input on that.
Cheers Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Good morning Old Bob,
Yes, I guess that is what I was trying to say. I don't know how
tolerant ATC in the lower 48 would be to flying IFR without a
transponder. I did that for about 5 yrs in Alaska, before I added the
transponder, because about 1/3 of the IFR flights I did went through
non-radar areas anyway. I didn't add an encoder until I moved to the
lower 48 and knew I would be basing underneath a Mode C veil. Getting
above 10,000 IFR in the C170B I had was pretty marginal anyway as it
would only do about 13,500 with the cruise prop it had.
These days, if I needed to make cross country trips of any distance, it
would involve more evasion of Mode C areas, especially through the
Rockies where the major roads and valleys seem to have either Class B or
C areas. I'm not fond of the $250 it costs me for IFR certification of
the static system and transponder, but over a couple years I would
probably save that much gas by having all options available. Not mention
the equipment was in the Mooney when I bought it. Narco AT-50 still
going strong with an old TransCal bellows blind encoder.
Kelly
On 5/21/2015 5:56 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Kelly.
> We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only below
> 10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin'
> Transponder.
> That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the USA
> without that particular expensive toy!
> Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Rich,
I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with
altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare that
against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space with
active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of my
output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes wrong.
And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it
does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial
fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.
Werner
> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a
> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into
> some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder
> (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble
> for $1-200.00 per year?
> Rich
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
From what I have seen, the old transponders with cavity tubes needed
testing and every 6-10 years would need to be tuned up with the aging
of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC radars would see it,
others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code. After tuning, has
been perfect.
I don't have enough experience with solid state transponders, but my
guess is they don't need testing, and probably hard fail or continue
working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to realize that and another 10
years to amend the rules.
On 5/21/2015 7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with
> altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare
> that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space
> with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of
> my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes
> wrong.
>
> And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it
> does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a
> partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.
>
> Werner
>> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a
>> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go
>> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a
>> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it
>> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year?
>> Rich
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
All of which may be true.
And, please, Werner, don't consider this as a personal note toward you and
your setup... such is not intended.
Lesee-- 3 different independent altimeters?? I assume that these are all
connected to their own static system and there is no commonality in plumbing
or location of static port(s). I also assume that they each have
separately been checked for accuracy. I will also have to assume that your GPS
is
WAAS. If they all agree then your indications are probably
accurate--------------
However the ATC does not depend on your indication which is, of course
determined by however you set your Kollsman window either correctly or
incorrectly, and static system error (including undetected leaks).
What they see on their scopes may be quite different than your indication
in that they look at more absolute numbers not depending on what your
indication are and not depending on the local baro setting. If memory serves me
correctly, part of the examination includes making a table of inaccuracies
to determine if the entire system is within limits.
That is why there is not barometric setting on an encoder.(available to the
pilot)
All of the aircraft may be off of their indicated altitude but they will
all be off by the same amount and thus their relative altitude indication is
taken away from the possible error of the pilot and/or many other sources.
Rich
In a message dated 5/21/2015 9:19:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)gmx.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider
Rich,
I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with
altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare that
against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space with
active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of my
output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes wrong.
And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it
does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial
fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.
Werner
> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a
> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into
> some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder
> (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble
> for $1-200.00 per year?
> Rich
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much inferior
to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is a generic
solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Again, the testing is not specifically for the transponder, or the encoder
but is a total system check including the static system.
Interestingly enough, if the transponder is removed from it's mounting, at
any time after an inspection, I believe that the testing has to be redone.
Rich
In a message dated 5/21/2015 10:13:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
kellym(at)aviating.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
>From what I have seen, the old transponders with cavity tubes needed
testing and every 6-10 years would need to be tuned up with the aging
of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC radars would see it,
others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code. After tuning, has
been perfect.
I don't have enough experience with solid state transponders, but my
guess is they don't need testing, and probably hard fail or continue
working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to realize that and another 10
years to amend the rules.
On 5/21/2015 7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with
> altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare
> that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space
> with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of
> my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes
> wrong.
>
> And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it
> does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a
> partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense.
>
> Werner
>> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a
>> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go
>> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a
>> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it
>> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year?
>> Rich
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
This is the one I think:
www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/*r15100*a.php
I've used Zeftronics regulators for years. Wonderful designs and products.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Radioflyer wrote:
> skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
>
> Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much
> inferior to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is
> a generic solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics?
> --Jose
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer
support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really
that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442414#442414
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
If you need it for a certificated aircraft, yes, you're sorta stuck with a $200
regulator, whether Zeftronics, PlanePower, etc..
If Experimental, the VR144-series is the solid-state version and sells for less
than $20 at NAPA et al.
Neal
==========================
Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer
support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really
that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
The VR166 that bob discusses in "The Aeroeletric Connection" is a great soli
d state regulator. They can be purchased at any automotive retailer and are a
round the $20 mark. I purchased mine from www.rockauto.com and they are a sh
iny chrome. Looks good on the firewall. They are not adjustable but you can a
d a diode to the field wire if you need to increase the voltage output of th
e alternator. Zeftronics has a PMA regulator that is based on this design.
> On May 21, 2015, at 07:44, DeWitt Whittington w
rote:
>
> This is the one I think:
>
> www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/r15100a.php
>
> I've used Zeftronics regulators for years. Wonderful designs and products.
>
> Dee
>
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> Richmond, VA
> 804-677-4849 iPhone
> 804-358-4333 Home
>
>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Radioflyer wro
te:
.net>
>>
>> Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much i
nferior to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is a g
eneric solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics?
>> --Jose
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroE
lectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
I thought there are potential noise issues here of 'switching'
regulators against 'linear' designs. The switchers have the potential to
cause noise on the audio system, the linear regulators do not induce
noise but are much more expensive.
Peter
On 21/05/2015 17:45, Neal George wrote:
>
> If you need it for a certificated aircraft, yes, you're sorta stuck with a $200
regulator, whether Zeftronics, PlanePower, etc..
>
> If Experimental, the VR144-series is the solid-state version and sells for less
than $20 at NAPA et al.
>
> Neal
> ==========================
>
> Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer
support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really
that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little
doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're
very handy.
I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last
half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those.
Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they"
actually called the little beasties?
They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local
industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my
initial studies on their utility, I purchased all
they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they
didn't have any more. About a year later, another
bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all
of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since.
I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article
on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78.
I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands,
but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them.
My neighbor is looking for some as well.
Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems
able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten.
Thanks,
Ron Cox
McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could
manufacture and sell for any less. These should do
the job for you.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
>> is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?
My experience in my Cessna is that the modern automotive units go into a
voltage runaway if the overvoltage unit trips, or you turn off the
alternator side of the master switch. Bad thing. The only way to recover is
to shut down the engine, thereby stopping alternator power generation.
That's not practical in the air.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
Those are devices made by Rotoloc (_rotoloc.com_ (http://www.rotoloc.com)
).
They used to be carried by Mcmaste carr but I don't see them in the current
online catalog-- perhaps they still have them and the omission was an
over site. I used lots of them of various lengths and diameters.
the mfgr should give you a dealer, or at least a distributor.
Rich
In a message dated 5/21/2015 3:53:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little
doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very
handy.
I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last
half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those.
Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they"
actually called the little beasties?
They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local
industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my
initial studies on their utility, I purchased all
they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they
didn't have any more. About a year later, another
bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all
of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since.
I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article
on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78.
I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands,
but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them.
My neighbor is looking for some as well.
Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems
able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten.
Thanks,
Ron Cox
McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could
manufacture and sell for any less. These should do
the job for you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
| From: | Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks, McMaster-Carr has them, as Bob said. Just ordered some.
They're not identical to the one I was asking about, but will serve the
purpose just as well as the "originals". Probably more substantial, too.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#perforated-base-studs/=xa5g0j
As for Rotaloc (the correct spelling) they do apparently make them.
http://www.rotaloc.com/products/bf/bf_m1_main.html
Thanks to all!
Ron
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:20 PM, wrote:
> Those are devices made by Rotoloc (rotoloc.com <http://www.rotoloc.com>
> ).
>
> They used to be carried by Mcmaste carr but I don't see them in the
> current online catalog-- perhaps they still have them and the omission was
> an over site. I used lots of them of various lengths and diameters.
>
> the mfgr should give you a dealer, or at least a distributor.
>
> Rich
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2015 3:53:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
>
> At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little
> doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very
> handy.
>
> I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last
> half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those.
>
> Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they"
> actually called the little beasties?
>
>
> * They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local industrial surplus
> store called The Yard. After my initial studies on their utility, I
> purchased all they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they didn't
> have any more. About a year later, another bin of them showed up on the
> dusty racks. Bought all of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more
> since. I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article on DIY
> Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78.*I'd like to find a source if
> possible. Don't need thousands,
> but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them.
> My neighbor is looking for some as well.
>
> Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems
> able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten.
>
> Thanks,
> Ron Cox
>
>
> * McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could manufacture and
> sell for any less. These should do the job for you. *
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
Click-Bond has a line of similar devices...
neal
At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little
doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very
handy.
I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last
half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those.
Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they"
actually called the little beasties?
They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local
industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my
initial studies on their utility, I purchased all
they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they
didn't have any more. About a year later, another
bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all
of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since.
I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article
on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78.
I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands,
but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them.
My neighbor is looking for some as well.
Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems
able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten.
Thanks,
Ron Cox
McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could
manufacture and sell for any less. These should do
the job for you.
[Emacs!]
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple Wire Connections |
>> Explain, plz, difference of what? How do you arrive at plus or minus
50 degrees? Just interested in how you got to that much variation.
Each junction between different types of wire registers a voltage
difference... that's how thermocouples work.
Our aircraft thermocouples are typically chromel-alumel (exception is
CHTs for Insight GEM which are iron-constantine. Almost everyone else
uses only chromel-alumel)
If you use copper wire to extend a lead, then you make two junctions
near the engine, chromel-copper and alumel-copper. And you make two
junctions near the instrument, same pairings.
If the end near the engine is 50 degrees warmer than the end near the
instrument, not uncommon, then you introduce a net voltage change...
'cause the chromel - copper - chromel won't cancel out due to the
temperature difference. This is *unlike* the earlier discussion of
dissimilar metal connectors; there both ends of the connector are pretty
much the same temperature.
The voltage change and error is proportional to the temperature
difference between the uncompensated junctions (chromel-copper-chromel
and alumel-copper-alumel). It's not directly proportionate, 'cause the
thermocouple effect is non-linear; but for this kind of differences,
it's close enough to linear to estimate fairly accurately.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
I've had pretty good luck using a flathead screw pointed up through a
large-area countersunk washer:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?clickkey=14605
I scratch up the washer with some 80G. Then dab a little adhesive in the
countersink and the bit recess after most of the threads are through.
--Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting "things" |
At 05:22 PM 5/21/2015, you wrote:
>I've had pretty good luck using a flathead screw
>pointed up through a large-area countersunk washer:
>
><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?clickkey
=14605>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?cl
ickkey=14605
>
>I scratch up the washer with some 80G.=C2 Then
>dab a little adhesive in the countersink and the
>bit recess after most of the threads are through.
>
>--Dave
I fiddled with that process a bit. The biggest 'risk' is
to end up with a stud that is not firmly fastened to its
base. If the builder wishes to use metallic lock nuts on the
stud, it can really ruin your day if the stud twists on its
base after it's glued down to the airframe.
I experimented with several techniques for securing the stud
to the washer that included high strength epoxies under the
head of the stud-screw, in the threads just under the head,
in the threads and under the faying surface of a retaining
nut on the away-side of the washer.
Even sliver soldered a few. Strength was great but finish
was ugly.
I was able to achieve attachments that offered a twist out
resistance about 2x the torque needed to drive the metallic
lock nut. But the process was labor intensive. I didn't think
I could compete well with those parts from McMaster.
If I stumble across any more attractive options, I'll bring
them to the list muy pronto.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
| From: | "Art Zemon" <art(at)zemon.name> |
=0AFolks,=0A =0ASometimes the transponder test finds failures in the pneuma
tic tubing or in the antenna. It's not a bad safety investment, since we al
l share the sky, IMHO.=0A =0A -- Art Z.=0A =0A--[ http://CheerfulCurmudg
eon.com/ ]( http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ )"If I am not for myself, who is
for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hil
lel=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Mounting "things" |
I agree, the MMC solution is quick and easy.
FWIW, a few more details: I was able to find some Hysol in cartridges that
looked and smelled like the stuff that comes with clickbonds called
Hysol/Loctite 8000.
Also, I recall bending the edge of the washer slightly in 3-4 places with
some duckbills. Picture attached.
That prevents squeeze-out of the glue under the washer's flange, and allows
for a little cavity between the washer and the screw.
Of course the customer is always right, so they must have had some pretty
good glue (insulation?) to justify metal locknuts so close to the adhesive
;-)
--Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpondertest |
Just to be clear....what is tested depends on what the aircraft has
installed, and its desired use.
There are aircraft that have transponders without an altitude
encoder...only the transponder signal output is tested. There are VFR
only aircraft with transponder and encoder, where the transponder with
Mode C output is looked at to match altimeter at field elevation and
maybe one more altitude. There are IFR aircraft with transponder and
encoder that need certification of the altimeter, encoder and static
system at 500 ft intervals up to max certified altitude.
To show that they are related but separate...if a transponder is removed
for repair/alignment or to just clean the contacts, only a ramp check of
the transponder output is needed.
If an IFR aircraft needs the static system opened, to replace something,
repair a line, etc. the A&P doing the work can do a simple leak
check...no repeat of full static system is required.
Two most common failures I have seen are static system plumbing leaks
(including instrument housing leaks), and coax to the antenna failure.
Antennas rarely fail for anything other than physical damage.
On 5/22/2015 4:53 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Sometimes the transponder test finds failures in the pneumatic tubing
> or in the antenna. It's not a bad safety investment, since we all
> share the sky, IMHO.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Housman <europaa070(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder test |
All the replies I have seen so far have assumed that your aircraft is registered
in the US. If not, then The FAA regs do not apply.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS
A070
Airframe complete
Working on aviaonics
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:29 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transpondertest
-->
Good morning folks,
I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss).
FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be compliant with
FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and
121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play.
Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with Transponder equipped
you need to perform a regular system check to be compliant with the FAR's
according to FAR 43 APP F?
Many thanks for your input on that.
Cheers Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Alternator Shunt |
I have added a 40 amp alternator to my airplane / engine and would like to reverse
the flow thru the shunt since it is bolted in place and would be inconvenient
to relocate.
I am fairly sure it just has a built in resistor for measuring the drop across
it so it should be O.K. I have changed the high side of the amp meter read out
to the new inlet.
Am I safe to ass u me this is o.k.?
Bobby
Jabiru 3300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Shunt |
| From: | "highwire" <ronmarks(at)gmail.com> |
Sure. A standard ammeter shunt is a special resistor that drops 50 milli-volts
at rated current. So, you've got the idea, swap the current terminals, swap the
voltage terminals then. You're back in business.
ron
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442479#442479
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state |
At 04:09 PM 5/21/2015, you wrote:
>
> >> is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?
>
>My experience in my Cessna is that the modern automotive units go into a
>voltage runaway if the overvoltage unit trips, or you turn off the
>alternator side of the master switch. Bad thing. The only way to recover is
>to shut down the engine, thereby stopping alternator power generation.
>That's not practical in the air.
>
>Paul
There's a reason for this phenomenon. It has roots in
the aviation adaptation of the legacy Ford regulators onto
aircraft. We had a discussion about this a few years back.
The attached .pdf is a snapshot of that discussion.
Bottom line is that the Ford style regulators are good
and useful device when wired as shown in the 'Connection
and the pages of this List. However, one should not
emulate the manner in which Cessna adapted this regulator
to their production aircraft. It was a good thing while
the regulators retained their original form-fit-function
but as the solid state replacements adapted to brand-and-
model-unique automotive products, their ability to function
in a Cessna was compromised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
What are people using these days to label wires?
I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected
the label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one
finds around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm
looking for an easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of
the tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does
stuff like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What
size tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in
again?
Thanks, Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
Bill, I have one. It is a KROY. Prints on heat shrinkable tubing of
various types.
I don't know if I would say that the markings are really permanent, however
as I see some scuffing. I don't know how it would last with various
fluids. I used it extensively in the beginning. Since I ran out of the relatively
expensive tubing and am too lazy to reorder it, I have been labeling with
hand written labels with a scotch tape overlay. The clear tubing seems to
make more sense and be more permanent.
Rich
In a message dated 5/27/2015 11:37:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
billp(at)wwpc.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Putney
What are people using these days to label wires?
I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected
the label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one
finds around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm
looking for an easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of
the tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does
stuff like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What
size tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in
again?
Thanks, Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
I've used two types of shrink-tube labelers. One was a stand-alone device
like a label printer, built-in keyboard, etc. It was somewhat limited in
what you can print but certainly got the point across.
The other was attached to a laptop and had basic word processing and
graphics abilities, and the requisite learning curve.
Durability was never an issue although I haven't tested gas and oil.
Like printers, they both seem to rely more on media sales than hardware for
their profit. That was frustrating for a tightwad like me, and the fact
that a lot of the tube got wasted as leader and trailer made it worse.
I found I can get satisfactory results using a fine Sharpie on
other-than-black tube.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> What are people using these days to label wires?
>
> I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
> under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected the
> label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one finds
> around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm looking for an
> easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
>
> I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of the
> tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does stuff
> like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What size
> tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
>
> Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
> will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in
> again?
>
> Thanks, Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
PS-its a lot easier to write on if you get rolls of tubing that's ironed
flat to begin with. --D
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> What are people using these days to label wires?
>
> I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
> under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected the
> label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one finds
> around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm looking for an
> easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
>
> I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of the
> tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does stuff
> like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What size
> tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
>
> Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
> will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in
> again?
>
> Thanks, Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
I have a K-sun Bee-3. It's done 4 planes now and still works fine.
The shrink tube prints just fine and has lasted 3 years now and I haven't notice
any coming off or fading. I paid around a $100 IIRC. The cartridges are rather
spendy, $35 or so each and you may need 2-3 to do a plane.
The trick is to print several labels at a time and then manually cut them, otherwise
it spools off too much tubing between prints.
Tim
> On May 27, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> What are people using these days to label wires?
>
> I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them under
clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected the label from
all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one finds around an airplane.
I'm doing some major renovation and I'm looking for an easier way but
I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
>
> I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of the tubing.
I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does stuff like hydraulic
fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What size tubing to order
for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
>
> Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that will
print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in again?
>
> Thanks, Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <tojimberry(at)gmail.com> |
I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It works very
well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no evidence of deterioration,
including firewall forward. There are ways to cut down on the before-
and after- label waste that Dave referred to, but you can't eliminate it
entirely.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
David, what labelers did you try? I've seen some that come with 5'
length cartridges. Sounds like an expensive way to buy heat shrink
tubing but then I guess my time is worth something...
Thanks, Bill
On 5/27/15 10:04, David Saylor wrote:
> I've used two types of shrink-tube labelers. One was a stand-alone
> device like a label printer, built-in keyboard, etc. It was somewhat
> limited in what you can print but certainly got the point across.
>
> The other was attached to a laptop and had basic word processing and
> graphics abilities, and the requisite learning curve.
>
> Durability was never an issue although I haven't tested gas and oil.
>
> Like printers, they both seem to rely more on media sales than
> hardware for their profit. That was frustrating for a tightwad like
> me, and the fact that a lot of the tube got wasted as leader and
> trailer made it worse.
>
> I found I can get satisfactory results using a fine Sharpie on
> other-than-black tube.
>
> --Dave
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
> >
>
> What are people using these days to label wires?
>
> I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide
> them under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing
> protected the label from all sorts of bad things like water and
> other liquids one finds around an airplane. I'm doing some major
> renovation and I'm looking for an easier way but I still want to
> keep track of the wire ends.
>
> I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside
> of the tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using
> these? Does stuff like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess
> up the label? What size tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22
> shielded?
>
> Is there any wire list software that works with any of the
> labelers that will print labels from the wire list without having
> to type it back in again?
>
> Thanks, Bill
>
> ==========
> -
> 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
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
Will the 1/4" Rhino tape shrink down enough to be tight on 22 AWG Tefzel?
Bill
On 5/27/15 10:31, Jim Berry wrote:
>
> I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It works
very well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no evidence of
deterioration, including firewall forward. There are ways to cut down on the
before- and after- label waste that Dave referred to, but you can't eliminate
it entirely.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <tojimberry(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, they will.
billp(at)wwpc.com wrote:
> Will the 1/4" Rhino tape shrink down enough to be tight on 22 AWG Tefzel?
>
> Bill
>
> On 5/27/15 10:31, Jim Berry wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It works
very well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no evidence
of deterioration, including firewall forward. There are ways to cut down on the
before- and after- label waste that Dave referred to, but you can't eliminate
it entirely.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442621#442621
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
Sorry, I don't recall the brands. I do remember they both spit out a lot
of unused tubing. Like Tim said, if you print in batches the waste is much
less.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
> David, what labelers did you try? I've seen some that come with 5'
> length cartridges. Sounds like an expensive way to buy heat shrink tubing
> but then I guess my time is worth something...
>
> Thanks, Bill
>
> On 5/27/15 10:04, David Saylor wrote:
>
> I've used two types of shrink-tube labelers. One was a stand-alone device
> like a label printer, built-in keyboard, etc. It was somewhat limited in
> what you can print but certainly got the point across.
>
> The other was attached to a laptop and had basic word processing and
> graphics abilities, and the requisite learning curve.
>
> Durability was never an issue although I haven't tested gas and oil.
>
> Like printers, they both seem to rely more on media sales than hardware
> for their profit. That was frustrating for a tightwad like me, and the
> fact that a lot of the tube got wasted as leader and trailer made it worse.
>
> I found I can get satisfactory results using a fine Sharpie on
> other-than-black tube.
>
> --Dave
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>
>> What are people using these days to label wires?
>>
>> I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
>> under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected the
>> label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one finds
>> around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm looking for an
>> easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
>>
>> I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of the
>> tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does stuff
>> like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What size
>> tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
>>
>> Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
>> will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in
>> again?
>>
>> Thanks, Bill
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> 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
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
I don't think so. I ended up with rolls of 1/4, 3/16, and 1/8 for the
Sharpie method. 1/8 will fit all but the smallest wire you would label.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Will the 1/4" Rhino tape shrink down enough to be tight on 22 AWG Tefzel?
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 5/27/15 10:31, Jim Berry wrote:
>
>> tojimberry(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It
>> works very well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no
>> evidence of deterioration, including firewall forward. There are ways to
>> cut down on the before- and after- label waste that Dave referred to, but
>> you can't eliminate it entirely.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
For the smallest wire you can put a piece of smaller heat shrink on
first, then the larger printed one.
I ended up not doing any of that. My panel was built by Stein so I have
all the markings from his work and on my work now I just pay attention
to wire color.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Saylor
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler?
I don't think so. I ended up with rolls of 1/4, 3/16, and 1/8 for the
Sharpie method. 1/8 will fit all but the smallest wire you would label.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Bill Putney wrote:
Will the 1/4" Rhino tape shrink down enough to be tight on 22 AWG
Tefzel?
Bill
On 5/27/15 10:31, Jim Berry wrote:
I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It
works very well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no
evidence of deterioration, including firewall forward. There are ways to
cut down on the before- and after- label waste that Dave referred to,
but you can't eliminate it entirely.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
-
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: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
The tricky thing about the dymo shrink tube size is that it is given as the FLAT
width, AKA the printable size, rather than diameter. So 1/4 tube WILL NOT fit
over 3/16 wire.
I think a formula that should work is
Diameter = (2/PI)*Width
Amazon claims it shrinks 3:1.
It works great, although the label can be partially rubbed off (lightened) with
friction.
> On May 27, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> Will the 1/4" Rhino tape shrink down enough to be tight on 22 AWG Tefzel?
>
> Bill
>
> On 5/27/15 10:31, Jim Berry wrote:
>>
>> I used the Dymo Rhino Pro 5000 with their pricey heat shrink tubing. It works
very well, and after 7-8 years the labels are holding up well; no evidence of
deterioration, including firewall forward. There are ways to cut down on the
before- and after- label waste that Dave referred to, but you can't eliminate
it entirely.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442608#442608
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
| From: | "jhausch" <jimhausch(at)gmail.com> |
I work in the industrial automation space. We are a distributor for Phoenix Contact
located in WI.
Phoenix has a printing system called the "Marking Box". There are two printers
in that kit - one for terminal block markers (cards of tiny tags) and one for
roll material. The roll material can be placards, wrap labels, shrink tube,
and many other types of labels...
Weblink:
https://www.phoenixcontact.com/online/portal/us?1dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a/usen/web/main/products/subcategory_pages/thermal_transfer_printers_p-12-01-04/6d229357-988b-41e3-963d-1411a53fb384
This video short of shows the kit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrzzS_tIObg
They have a nice "booklet" of sample materials for both printers, but, unfortunately,
not a good way to look at all of what is available on their website. I've
actually just emailed them and asked if there is a decent online resource
showing the roll material available. If I get a reply, I will post that link
here, too.
If you can find your local Phoenix distributor, ask them if they print roll material
to order (some provide this service or can refer you to a customer of theirs
who has the Marking Box). If so, ask for a sample booklet for the roll material
and a catalog. You can then usually send them a spreadsheet (or, even
better, a file for the printer made in the free SW used with the printers) and
they can quote you a price to print the job.
If you are in the Upper Midwest (WI, MN, IA, N. IL, ND, SD, NE), I could provide
this service, but let me first figure out if there is an easy way to pick out
the right material for the job. Also, what is this worth to you? What's a
fair price for you to send me a spreadsheet of desired labels and me to mail back
those labels pre-printed..... (think in terms of what would be an acceptable
"minimum charge" and what would be an acceptable "max charge per label")
Another major player in the wire labeling world is "Brady". Get friendly with
an electrician who owns a handheld Brady labeler and maybe they would lend it
out. Those print sticker-style wrap around labels, too.
If you have any friends that work in manufacturing, ask them for the name of their
favorite controls integrator and/or panel shop. Those folks usually have
the means of printing wire labels, too.
One last comment about sticky wrap around labels: They are available in many sizes
and the printers can print very small. The labels usually have a print area
and a clear area. When you wrap them on the wire, you start on the printed
end so the clear then covers and protects the printed part. These are likely
easier and cheaper to use than shrink tubing, but it is important to find the
right size (just like with shrink tube) so you don't have a wrap label that
is too big.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442680#442680
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Danielson <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
I have the Rhino 4200. The heat shrink cartridges are a bit pricey. I pay around
$20 for 5' of tubing. As others have mentioned, printing multiple labels on
a single run will eliminate most of the waste.
When I started, I created plain English labels.
http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-10-19-IMG_20131019_153845_468a.jpg
But this was going to get expensive. So I created a wire numbering scheme to reduce
the length of the labels.
http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-11-06-IMG_20131106_095231_784.jpg
http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-12-13-IMG_20131213_101714_071.jpg
The downside of course is that it requires a key.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442756#442756
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
Good Morning All,
If I may add a comment, the very best way to identify a wire is to print
directly on the wire. When I did the wiring for my airplane about ten years
ago, there were several shops that would run out the length of wire I
specified with whatever numbers or symbols I requested. Not sure if anyone is
now
providing such a service.
It should be even easier today as the newest equipment has pre loaded reels
of various sizes and it is all computer controlled.
The machines are way too expensive for a one off builder or for a small
shop, but if you are near a big operator, the new wire marking machines are
really nice and the product is well worth the money they charge.
Heat shrink tubing for numbers will add a lot of bulk to the bundle!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 5/27/2015 2:30:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
saylor.dave(at)gmail.com writes:
Sorry, I don't recall the brands. I do remember they both spit out a lot
of unused tubing. Like Tim said, if you print in batches the waste is much
less.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bill Putney <_billp(at)wwpc.com_
(mailto:billp(at)wwpc.com) > wrote:
David, what labelers did you try? I've seen some that come with 5' length
cartridges. Sounds like an expensive way to buy heat shrink tubing but then
I guess my time is worth something...
Thanks, Bill
On 5/27/15 10:04, David Saylor wrote:
I've used two types of shrink-tube labelers. One was a stand-alone device
like a label printer, built-in keyboard, etc. It was somewhat limited in
what you can print but certainly got the point across.
The other was attached to a laptop and had basic word processing and
graphics abilities, and the requisite learning curve.
Durability was never an issue although I haven't tested gas and oil.
Like printers, they both seem to rely more on media sales than hardware
for their profit. That was frustrating for a tightwad like me, and the fact
that a lot of the tube got wasted as leader and trailer made it worse.
I found I can get satisfactory results using a fine Sharpie on
other-than-black tube.
--Dave
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bill Putney <_billp(at)wwpc.com_
(mailto:billp(at)wwpc.com) > wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Putney <_billp(at)wwpc.com_
(mailto:billp(at)wwpc.com) >
What are people using these days to label wires?
I use to print out labels on a spreadsheet, cut them out and slide them
under clear heat shrink tubing. That worked great. The tubing protected the
label from all sorts of bad things like water and other liquids one finds
around an airplane. I'm doing some major renovation and I'm looking for an
easier way but I still want to keep track of the wire ends.
I see now that there are tubing labelers that print on the outside of the
tubing. I'm wondering if anyone has had experience using these? Does stuff
like hydraulic fluid, oil, avgas or water mess up the label? What size
tubing to order for 18-22 AWG and 2x22 shielded?
Is there any wire list software that works with any of the labelers that
will print labels from the wire list without having to type it back in again?
Thanks, Bill
==========
-
Electric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
_blank">_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heat Shrink Tubing Labeler? |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> if you are near a big operator, the new wire marking machines are really nice
and the product is well worth the money they charge.
>
> Heat shrink tubing for numbers will add a lot of bulk to the bundle!
Do you know what these shops would charge for labeling wires?
The additional bulk with heat shrink tubing is minimal and I mitigated that by
staggering the heat shrink tubing when I used it in bundles.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442836#442836
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
Hi Bob,
I hate to be a nag, but our DAR inspection is tomorrow and I'll be starting
ground/flight tests after that. How's the antenna coming?
Thanks!
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active VOR antenna
At 13:03 2015-05-08, you wrote:
>
>About a 24-30" run between antenna location and Garmin GTN-650 radio.
>
>I would plan a short pigtail ~4" off the end of the antenna with a female
>BNC connector. Similar with the power wire. To allow the canard to be
>removed for maintenance and inspection, connectors local to the antenna
>installation area are required.
>
>Thanks,
>-James
Oops . . . missed this. Will do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Honeywell switches |
| From: | "spcialeffects" <spcialeffects(at)aol.com> |
Hi all. Does anyone know where i can buy these honeywell switches from, preferably
in the UK? Many thanks Frank
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/20090222_switches2_535.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
I'm at the early stages of planning my electrical system. I've got the Aeroelectric
connection book and am studying the diagrams to see which would fit my admittedly
rough plan.
I'm strongly considering the EFII electronic fuel and ignition system. Obviously
the electrical system design would be paramount to the success of this system.
What is the opinion of the group on the best design idea to follow? The z13-8
with the sd-8 alternator and a single battery? The z19 with dual battery and
electronic ignition, or just throw my hands up in the air and pick up the bus
manager system that EFII sells?
I'm leaning toward the z13-8 but I've got a question on what would happen if a
battery were to short internally. Would the alternator or backup alternator continue
to supply power to the busses to power the engine electronics?
Like I said, early stages here. Any advice is very welcomed.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442966#442966
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator Noise plus Volts & Amps Fluctuating |
I had the opportunity to do a 7+ hour X/C a week or two ago and it was
driven into my head that I have a soft ~3 CPS noise in my headsets and
the voltmeter and ammeter readings are fluctuating at the same time and
frequency as the noise. If I turn off the alternator, the noise goes
silent and the ammeter and voltmeter stabilize too.
The ammeter shunt is measuring battery charge or discharge and the
voltmeter comes off of the buss downstream of the diode. Both gauges are
analog, and the needles are bouncing up and down by a half volt
(13.5-14V) and a half amp or thereabouts. The alternator is the B&C 40
amp unit and the regulator is the Ford unit recommended 15 years ago
when the airplane was built. All of the components have been in service
for 14 years and have approximately 950 hours of use on them.
Any suggestions on rectifying this condition?
Thanks,
Kyle Boatright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Noise plus Volts & Amps Fluctuating |
At 09:31 PM 6/3/2015, you wrote:
>I had the opportunity to do a 7+ hour X/C a week or two ago and it
>was driven into my head that I have a soft ~3 CPS noise in my
>headsets and the voltmeter and ammeter readings are fluctuating at
>the same time and frequency as the noise. If I turn off the
>alternator, the noise goes silent and the ammeter and voltmeter stabilize too.
>
>The ammeter shunt is measuring battery charge or discharge and the
>voltmeter comes off of the buss downstream of the diode. Both gauges
>are analog, and the needles are bouncing up and down by a half volt
>(13.5-14V) and a half amp or thereabouts. The alternator is the
>B&C 40 amp unit and the regulator is the Ford unit recommended 15
>years ago when the airplane was built. All of the components have
>been in service for 14 years and have approximately 950 hours of use on them.
>
>Any suggestions on rectifying this condition?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kyle Boatright
The voltage regulator sense voltage shares
a path with alternator field current in this
regulator. This condition is well known in
architectures of this type and is offten called
the 'galloping ammeter'. In the older Cessnas,
I recommend replacing everything from the bus
bar to the regulator which would include breaker,
alternator switch and wires.
Doing any ONE thing might 'cure' the problem but
it's the sum-total of environmentally driven resistance
creep that finally stacks up to cause the instability.
You may cure it with one replacement but only by
replacing ALL will you get back to as-new condition.
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
As always KISS rules!
Think very carefully about your mission.....
On 4 June 2015 at 03:56, Jump4way wrote:
>
> I'm at the early stages of planning my electrical system. I've got the
> Aeroelectric connection book and am studying the diagrams to see which
> would fit my admittedly rough plan.
>
> I'm strongly considering the EFII electronic fuel and ignition system.
> Obviously the electrical system design would be paramount to the success of
> this system. What is the opinion of the group on the best design idea to
> follow? The z13-8 with the sd-8 alternator and a single battery? The z19
> with dual battery and electronic ignition, or just throw my hands up in the
> air and pick up the bus manager system that EFII sells?
>
> I'm leaning toward the z13-8 but I've got a question on what would happen
> if a battery were to short internally. Would the alternator or backup
> alternator continue to supply power to the busses to power the engine
> electronics?
>
> Like I said, early stages here. Any advice is very welcomed.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442966#442966
>
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Essential Bus feed |
Hi Guys
Am I missing something: Why can't the feed to the Essential Bus be a
simple changeover switch (1-3) to select which source you require the
power to come from, thus eliminating the diode
Regards: John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator with no battery? |
Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming loose,
solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in flight by
aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running at cruise
power)?
It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alternator,
it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
But I recall (years ago) that a friend was driving home from a trip at night and
his battery had some type of failure. He said that it took a couple hours but
eventually his headlights were so dim that he had to stop until the battery
could be replaced.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442980#442980
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Alternator with no battery? |
That sounds a lot more like an alternator failure than a battery failure. W
hen the alternator quit=2C or was no longer able to supply all the load=2C
the battery took over the load until it was drained to a level insufficient
to maintain sufficient voltage to power the vehicle and it stopped. A new
battery would not "solve" this problem without some restoration or repair b
eing done to the charging system as well.
Some running alternators will maintain system loads without a battery=2C bu
t should the alternator be "stalled" with heavy loads it may or may not res
tart on load reduction depending on the particular components in question.
Bob McC
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with no battery?
> From: don@velocity-xl.com
> Date: Thu=2C 4 Jun 2015 02:22:48 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
om>
>
> Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming
loose=2C solenoid failing=2C battery falling out of the plane=2C being sto
len in flight by aliens=2C etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engi
ne running at cruise power)?
>
> It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alter
nator=2C it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is runni
ng.
>
> But I recall (years ago) that a friend was driving home from a trip at ni
ght and his battery had some type of failure. He said that it took a couple
hours but eventually his headlights were so dim that he had to stop until
the battery could be replaced.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442980#442980
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It is VERY unusual for a battery to short internally, especially a modern AGM type.
There was one recent accident attributed to a shorted battery.
Read this thread: http://tinyurl.com/FEW-P51 The type of battery in this incident is not known. Having two batteries wired per Z-19 (assumed) did not keep the engine running
I think that it is more likely that a propeller will break or a wing will fall
off than for an AGM battery to short out. But if it is a concern, then two
contactors can be used, one for the battery and one for the alternator (s). I
agree with you that Z13-8 is a good choice. The SD-8 should be able to keep
the engine running without a battery if need be.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442988#442988
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Many alternators will keep generating when the battery is disconnected. Your friend's
experience sounds more like an alternator failure than a battery failure.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442990#442990
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus feed |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Why can't the feed to the Essential Bus be a simple changeover switch (1-3)
to select which source you require the power to come from, thus eliminating the
diode
That switch would be a single point of failure. When it fails, essential equipment
is lost. Having both a diode and a switch provides two current paths.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442991#442991
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus feed |
Also, if it's on a switch, unless it's a progressive switch,
you will drop power to the bus when it is in between positions,
so everything will reboot that it powers. YOu CAN use a switch
or relay depending on the load, but you would still want the
diode. That way it gets power whenever there is source
power. The difference would be that when the switch is
in the proper position you wouldn't have any diode drop.
But it adds more complexity.
Tim
On 6/4/2015 8:24 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
>> Why can't the feed to the Essential Bus be a simple changeover switch (1-3)
to select which source you require the power to come from, thus eliminating
the diode
>
> That switch would be a single point of failure. When it fails, essential equipment
is lost. Having both a diode and a switch provides two current paths.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the replies. I'm definitely concerned about deviating from the KISS
method.
It would be interesting to know more about the exact cause of that electrical system
failure in the link provided. Bob answered one of my questions in the link
provided about what happens when a battery has an internal short.
I have a separate question about grounding. I know it's recommended to have a single
point grounding system located usually at the firewall. In the RV-8 I'm
building the battery is mounted aft for cg purposes and I have chosen to ground
the battery locally to the fuselage with the intent of having a forest of tabs
at the firewall which the engine would ground to the hot side of the firewall
and the avionics and various other grounds would ground to on the cold side.
My question is would this be considered adequate? The EFII manual says all grounds
should go back to the battery negative terminal which goes against what
I have up to now.
Thoughts?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442997#442997
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | power supply for testing |
Would this item be an acceptable choice for testing my electrical system?
Could it be used without any battery in the system? My avionics etc. are
all Dynon.
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Regulated-Switching-Computer-Project/dp/B00D7CWSCG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1433430384&sr=8-5&keywords=12+volt+DC+power+supply&pebp=1433430415435&perid=1MV8XVM71ACD3B1WWBYZ
Thanks,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus feed |
In my setup, I took a multi-fuse Bussman fuse block (pic) and cut the
interior center conductor to create a main bus and essential bus. I
silver-soldered a copper tab on the smaller essential bus side of the
center conductor (left side in the pic) to wire battery power to the
essential bus through an =93essential bus=94 switch which is normally
off. The main bus provides power to the essential side through a diode
and all is powered. In an emergency, I can turn off the master switch
and power the essential bus via the essential bus switch. Sorry, don=92t
have a better pic but you get the idea, I hope
-Kent
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:24 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why can't the feed to the Essential Bus be a simple changeover switch
(1-3) to select which source you require the power to come from, thus
eliminating the diode
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
I just want to make sure I am understanding the diagrams on pages 11-16 to
11-19 correctly. Using a 2-10 switch as an example. Here is how I
understand the connections at the different switch positions. Also, looking
at the back of the switch, keyway up, from top to bottom, the left side is
6,5,4 and the right side is 3,2,1. The switches I have from Bob of 12 years
ago are tabs not screws.
Keyway up
Down
Middle
Up
5 to
6
6
4
2 to
3
1
1
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Hello Group
Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
Thanks
Hari
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
Hari,
I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
Mine were Eaton.
I know that there are others out there:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though.
If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you think
you will ever need!
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Hariharan Gopalan
Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
Hello Group
Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
ThanksHari
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
My airplane is wired using the original
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/allelect.pdf> All Electric on a
Budget. Is there any way to test the system downstream of the SD-8? I
would rather not remove the SD-8 and turn it using a drill and I don't even
know if that would work. Can I just apply power and ground to the red and
black wires coming out of the voltage regulator for the SD-8?
Ross
N9PT
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Read the Amazon user reviews. There is a high percentage of dissatisfied customers.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443008#443008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
Thanks Joe. Any suggestions for an alternative?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:45 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Read the Amazon user reviews. There is a high percentage of dissatisfied
> customers.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443008#443008
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Can I just apply power and ground to the red and black wires coming out of the
voltage regulator for the SD-8?
That would work. Or connect a high wattage 12-volt test lamp to the same red and
black wires and turn on the AUX ALT switch. The lamp should illuminate from
aircraft battery power. Whenever connecting external power, there is chance
of reversing polarity which can damage avionics.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443011#443011
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Some builders just use an automotive battery along with a battery charger.
There is a used power supply on eBay, item number 360632236168 HP DL380 400W Power
Supply HP. But it requires soldering. I am not necessarily recommending
it, just saying that it is available.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443013#443013
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I think that your plan will work OK. Bob's Z figures have some grounding diagrams.
Audio systems are vulnerable to grounding errors. The headset jacks should
not be grounded to the airframe. Instead, separate ground wires should run
back to the radio or intercom.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443015#443015
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
I am already set up with an auto battery plus charger (I use it to power a
small ATV winch in my shop for lifting things) so it would be simple for me
to go that route. Wasn't sure if that was safe power for expensive airplane
stuff.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:19 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Some builders just use an automotive battery along with a battery charger.
> There is a used power supply on eBay, item number 360632236168 HP DL380
> 400W Power Supply HP. But it requires soldering. I am not necessarily
> recommending it, just saying that it is available.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443013#443013
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington, but these
are AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
Thanks
Hari
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ralph E. Capen
wrote:
> recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Hari,
>
> I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
> Mine were Eaton.
>
> I know that there are others out there:
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
> is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though.
>
> If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you
> think you will ever need!
>
> Ralph
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Hariharan Gopalan
>
> Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
>
>
> Hello Group
> Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
> ThanksHari
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
See this thread from a couple of weeks ago:
Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Ideas on a "cost effective " ground p
ower ?
| =C2- |
| =C2- | | =C2- | =C2- | =C2- | =C2- | =C2- |
| Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Ideas on a "cost e...Matronics Emai
l Lists BBS Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists =C2- =C2-Get E
mail Distribution Too!=C2- =C2-=C2-FAQ=C2- =C2-Search=C2- =C2
-Memberlist=C2- =C2-Usergroups=C2- =C2-... |
| |
| View on forums.matronics.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| =C2- |
On Thursday, June 4, 2015 10:31 AM, Neal George wrote:
Bulletproof:
=C2- http://www.hamradio.com/detail.cfm?pid=H0-004436 =C2- neal
=C2- ===========Thanks Joe. Any suggestions for an
alternative? =C2- =C2- =C2- On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:45 AM, user92
r9253"
Read the Amazon user reviews.=C2- There is a high percentage of dissatisf
ied customers.
--------
Joe Gores
=C2-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
At 12:41 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
>
>I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington,
>but these are AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
>
>https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
The 'ratings' on switches are generally
application-centric . . . but just because
the numbers are given in volts/amps AC
does not mean the switch is not suitable
for DC as well. See:
http://tinyurl.com/pcnf7gs
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
At 12:19 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>
>Some builders just use an automotive battery along with a battery charger.
>There is a used power supply on eBay, item number 360632236168 HP
>DL380 400W Power Supply HP. But it requires soldering. I am not
>necessarily recommending it, just saying that it is available.
See http://tinyurl.com/oyahfcf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
At 11:35 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>My airplane is wired using the original
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/allelect.pdf>All Electric on a
>Budget. Is there any way to test the system downstream of the
>SD-8? I would rather not remove the SD-8 and turn it using a drill
>and I don't even know if that would work. Can I just apply power
>and ground to the red and black wires coming out of the voltage
>regulator for the SD-8?
>
>Ross
>N9PT
>RV-6A
What is your concern? A drill motor won't turn it fast
enough anyhow. Is this system not working in flight?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
At 10:09 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>Would this item be an acceptable choice for testing my electrical
>system? Could it be used without any battery in the system? My
>avionics etc. are all Dynon.
>
><http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Regulated-Switching-Computer-Project/dp/B00D7CWSCG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1433430384&sr=8-5&keywords=12+volt+DC+power+supply&pebp=1433430415435&perid=1MV8XVM71ACD3B1WWBYZ>http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Regulated-Switching-Computer-Project/dp/B00D7CWSCG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1433430384&sr=8-5&keywords=12+volt+DC+power+supply&pebp=1433430415435&perid=1MV8XVM71ACD3B1WWBYZ
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ken
Yes
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
I had an "incident" at Oshkosh 10 years ago and it has taken me this long to
get the plane back together. I replaced a bunch of avionics along the way
and changed some wiring around. Since the plane has been sitting for 10
years, I am checking out all of my electrical systems including the charging
systems.
I just want to check that when I flip the switch to link the SD-8 with the
battery contractor that it is actually happening and that the electric flow
from the SD-8 is making it to the battery contractor.
Ross
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8
At 11:35 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
My airplane is wired using the original All Electric on a Budget
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/allelect.pdf> . Is there any way to
test the system downstream of the SD-8? I would rather not remove the SD-8
and turn it using a drill and I don't even know if that would work. Can I
just apply power and ground to the red and black wires coming out of the
voltage regulator for the SD-8?
Ross
N9PT
RV-6A
What is your concern? A drill motor won't turn it fast
enough anyhow. Is this system not working in flight?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
This is the style that I like.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=wKZwVcm9LYjLogTalqbQDQ&url=http://m.ebay.com/itm/New-30-AMP-Green-LED-Toggle-Switch-Illuminates-When-ON-12-VOLT-84909-/271527899661&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFbW5f5L9tsUV5FVUmmGib0D0h-wQ
On Jun 4, 2015 12:44 PM, "Hariharan Gopalan" wrote:
> Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
>
> I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington, but
> these are AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
>
> https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ralph E. Capen
> wrote:
>
>> recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>>
>> Hari,
>>
>> I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
>> Mine were Eaton.
>>
>> I know that there are others out there:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
>> is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though.
>>
>> If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you
>> think you will ever need!
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Hariharan Gopalan
>>
>> Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
>>
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Group
>> Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
>> ThanksHari
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> 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
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
The Eatons were marked as 9931 - but I can't find them any more
Try:
http://www.engravers.net/rocker-sw.html
These are what I will use as replacements if necessary....
-----Original Message-----
From: Hariharan Gopalan
Sent: Jun 4, 2015 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington, but these are
AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
ThanksHari
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
Hari,
I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
Mine were Eaton.
I know that there are others out there:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though.
If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you think
you will ever need!
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Hariharan Gopalan
Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
Hello Group
Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
ThanksHari
==========
-
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
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
At 02:08 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>I had an "incident" at Oshkosh 10 years ago and it has taken me this
>long to get the plane back together. I replaced a bunch of avionics
>along the way and changed some wiring around. Since the plane has
>been sitting for 10 years, I am checking out all of my electrical
>systems including the charging systems.
>
>I just want to check that when I flip the switch to link the SD-8
>with the battery contractor that it is actually happening and that
>the electric flow from the SD-8 is making it to the battery contractor.
>
>Ross
That system is stone simple, but it also
doesn't really perform at less than cruise
rpm. Since it's a standby system not necessary
for purposeful flight, suggest you let testing
go until all other matters are resolved. As
long as you are wired right, there's a 99.9%
probability that it will perform as advertised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
Oooops - mine are rocker not toggle.....
----Original Message-----
From: Hariharan Gopalan
Sent: Jun 4, 2015 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington, but these are
AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
ThanksHari
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
Hari,
I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
Mine were Eaton.
I know that there are others out there:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though.
If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you think
you will ever need!
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Hariharan Gopalan
Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
Hello Group
Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
ThanksHari
==========
-
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
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
Thanks, Bob. The only change I am making from Figure Z-8 is to incorporate
the S-704-1 between the alternate feed E-bus switch and the E-Bus as shown
in Z-13/8 which was not in Z-8. I am also going to hook my SD-8 switch to
this relay so that when I turn on the SD-8 the alternate feed to the E-bus
will also come on line. My reasoning is that in the case of a main
alternator failure I would first switch on the SD-8 and then turn of the
Main Alternator switch with no downtime for the stuff connected to the
E-Bus.
Ross
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8
At 02:08 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
I had an "incident" at Oshkosh 10 years ago and it has taken me this long to
get the plane back together. I replaced a bunch of avionics along the way
and changed some wiring around. Since the plane has been sitting for 10
years, I am checking out all of my electrical systems including the charging
systems.
I just want to check that when I flip the switch to link the SD-8 with the
battery contractor that it is actually happening and that the electric flow
from the SD-8 is making it to the battery contractor.
Ross
That system is stone simple, but it also
doesn't really perform at less than cruise
rpm. Since it's a standby system not necessary
for purposeful flight, suggest you let testing
go until all other matters are resolved. As
long as you are wired right, there's a 99.9%
probability that it will perform as advertised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
At 09:31 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the replies. I'm definitely concerned about deviating
>from the KISS method.
>
>It would be interesting to know more about the exact cause of that
>electrical system failure in the link provided. Bob answered one of
>my questions in the link provided about what happens when a battery
>has an internal short.
>
>I have a separate question about grounding. I know it's recommended
>to have a single point grounding system located usually at the
>firewall. In the RV-8 I'm building the battery is mounted aft for cg
>purposes and I have chosen to ground the battery locally to the
>fuselage with the intent of having a forest of tabs at the firewall
>which the engine would ground to the hot side of the firewall and
>the avionics and various other grounds would ground to on the cold
>side. My question is would this be considered adequate?
The central point ground on the firewall is
the process and technology of choice IRRESPECTIVE
of where your ground your battery.
See http://tinyurl.com/n9rgrg8
Ground all but panel mounted stuff on the
firewall including EFII stuff. Craft an
auxiliary ground bus for the panel mounted
goodies. See figure Z-15, View =A
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
At 03:36 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>Thanks, Bob. The only change I am making from Figure Z-8 is to
>incorporate the S-704-1 between the alternate feed E-bus switch and
>the E-Bus as shown in Z-13/8 which was not in Z-8. I am also going
>to hook my SD-8 switch to this relay so that when I turn on the SD-8
>the alternate feed to the E-bus will also come on line. My
>reasoning is that in the case of a main alternator failure I would
>first switch on the SD-8 and then turn of the Main Alternator switch
>with no downtime for the stuff connected to the E-Bus.
. . . except what's the hurry? when an alternator fails, and
l assuming you have a diligently maintained main battery, you've
got time to finish you cup of coffee and put the sunflower seeds
away so you don't make a mess during system reconfiguration.
There's no urgency involved. Low volts warn light ON. Take
a sip. Main alternator switch OFF. Take last sip.
E-bus alternate feed ON. Put coffee cup away. Master
battery switch OFF. Pick up sunflower seeds that
fell between your legs. ASSUMING you have an SD-8
installed for standby service, then turn it ON.
If this whole sequence takes two minutes or 10
seconds is immaterial to the energy budget that
sets the conduct of your flight . . . and nothing
goes dark that you didn't intend to go dark.
A well crafted system with a Plan-B has no emergencies
hence no reason to raise your respiration rate
much sphincter tension.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
Thanks, Bob. Is there some reason my plan should not be used? The E-Bus
alternate relay is already there. Instead of the four leisurely steps you
describe, there are only two. Turn on SD-8, Turn off Alt/Bat main.
Ross
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8
At 03:36 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
Thanks, Bob. The only change I am making from Figure Z-8 is to incorporate
the S-704-1 between the alternate feed E-bus switch and the E-Bus as shown
in Z-13/8 which was not in Z-8. I am also going to hook my SD-8 switch to
this relay so that when I turn on the SD-8 the alternate feed to the E-bus
will also come on line. My reasoning is that in the case of a main
alternator failure I would first switch on the SD-8 and then turn of the
Main Alternator switch with no downtime for the stuff connected to the
E-Bus.
. . . except what's the hurry? when an alternator fails, and
l assuming you have a diligently maintained main battery, you've
got time to finish you cup of coffee and put the sunflower seeds
away so you don't make a mess during system reconfiguration.
There's no urgency involved. Low volts warn light ON. Take
a sip. Main alternator switch OFF. Take last sip.
E-bus alternate feed ON. Put coffee cup away. Master
battery switch OFF. Pick up sunflower seeds that
fell between your legs. ASSUMING you have an SD-8
installed for standby service, then turn it ON.
If this whole sequence takes two minutes or 10
seconds is immaterial to the energy budget that
sets the conduct of your flight . . . and nothing
goes dark that you didn't intend to go dark.
A well crafted system with a Plan-B has no emergencies
hence no reason to raise your respiration rate
much sphincter tension.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
Jim, finished one of these and was disappointed in performance.
The thing is so tiny that it's hard to troubleshoot,
assembled a second just in case.
I think the best plan-b for now is to install
a quasi-sleeve dipole . . . except that the 'sleeve'
is just a piece of wire. I forget how long you said
your antenna conduit was, hopefully considerably
more than 26".
Make the antenna from wire stiff enough to push
into the tube on the end of the coax. Wouldn't
put a connector in the counterpoise. Just thread
it to the ship's interior on installation and tape
it sort out of the way.
Emacs!
I've got a couple other antenna projects on the bench
but some buys waving credit cards have purchased some
keyboard/hammer-n-tongs time . . . and I've got a couple
of pots boiling for B&C. I'd like to pursue the
active antenna experiment. It would be useful to field
test the idea in close proximity to transponder and
vhf/comm transmitters!
In the mean time, let's get your airplane flying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Testing SD-8 System in Figure Z-8 |
At 05:11 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>Thanks, Bob. Is there some reason my plan should not be used? The
>E-Bus alternate relay is already there. Instead of the four
>leisurely steps you describe, there are only two. Turn on SD-8,
>Turn off Alt/Bat main.
That will work...
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the reply. It seems from the picture you linked that it is acceptable
to ground the battery locally. The z-15 seems to show that it is best to ground
the battery at the firewall ground. Yet again, I'm confused, is my local battery
ground acceptable?
For the avionics ground bus, should that be isolated from the airframe then tied
to the firewall ground or can I just mount another forest of tabs behind the
panel direct to the airframe for avionics grounds then tie that one to the firewall?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443046#443046
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the reply. It seems from the picture you linked that it is acceptable
to ground the battery locally. From what I understand you to say, is acceptable.
The z-15 seems to show that it is best to ground the battery at the firewall
ground. Yet again, I'm confused, is my local battery ground acceptable?
For the avionics ground bus, should that be isolated from the airframe then tied
to the firewall ground or can I just mount another forest of tabs behind the
panel direct to the airframe for avionics grounds then tie that one to the firewall?
It seems to me that it should be isolated from the airframe in some manner.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443047#443047
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
Yes, any switch can be used for either AC or DC but you need to be aware
that the current handling ability is much less at DC.
Bill
On 5/06/2015 3:41 AM, Hariharan Gopalan wrote:
> Thanks Ralph. Do you have a part number for the eaton switches?
>
> I found some LT series Illuminated toggle switches by Carlington, but
> these are AC rated. Wonder if we can use these for DC applications?
>
> https://www.carlingtech.com/toggle-switches-lt-series
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ralph E. Capen > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hari,
>
> I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements.
> Mine were Eaton.
>
> I know that there are others out there:
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909
> is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them
> though.
>
> If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of
> spares you think you will ever need!
>
> Ralph
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Hariharan Gopalan
>
> Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
>
>
> Hello Group
> Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
> ThanksHari
>
>
> ==========
> -
> 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
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
At 06:33 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply. It seems from the picture you linked that it
>is acceptable to ground the battery locally. The z-15 seems to show
>that it is best to ground the battery at the firewall ground. Yet
>again, I'm confused, is my local battery ground acceptable?
It is not preferable . . . but since tens of
thousands of airplanes have performed successfully
with rear-mounted, airframe grounded batteries,
it's an acceptable alternative.
>For the avionics ground bus, should that be isolated from the
>airframe then tied to the firewall ground or can I just mount
>another forest of tabs behind the panel direct to the airframe for
>avionics grounds then tie that one to the firewall?
"Avionics grounds" are that plethora of
wires that bring power and shield grounds
together . . . ideally in as close proximity
to that collection of appliances as practical.
A forest of tabs is exceedingly bulky for
this application. Better to fabricate something
like this
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
Much more compact and installer friendly
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
At 07:01 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>Yes, any switch can be used for either AC or DC but you need to be
>aware that the current handling ability is much less at DC
yyeaaahhhh . . . sorta . . . check the aricle I cited.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
We aren't in opposed camps on this, Bob. My caution was simply against
using a switch rated at say 40 Amps in an application that was required
to handle 40 Amps DC. I agree that for our applications that simply wont
be an issue, as the only place where high currents are involved is
handled by a contactor, relay or whatever it is termed in your part of
the world.
Bill
On 5/06/2015 10:32 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>> Yes, any switch can be used for either AC or DC but you need to be
>> aware that the current handling ability is much less at DC
>
> yyeaaahhhh . . . sorta . . . check the aricle I cited.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active VOR antenna |
Thanks for the reply and progress report. I was really hoping for a
successful test, but yes...the immediate goal is getting the bird
through Phase I.
The conduit is sufficient to install what you have described below.
Maybe that will be enough?..I guess we=99re going to find out one
way or another.
I=99ll report back with what we find in the coming weeks.
Thanks again.
-James
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active VOR antenna
Jim, finished one of these and was disappointed in performance.
The thing is so tiny that it's hard to troubleshoot,
assembled a second just in case.
I think the best plan-b for now is to install
a quasi-sleeve dipole . . . except that the 'sleeve'
is just a piece of wire. I forget how long you said
your antenna conduit was, hopefully considerably
more than 26".
Make the antenna from wire stiff enough to push
into the tube on the end of the coax. Wouldn't
put a connector in the counterpoise. Just thread
it to the ship's interior on installation and tape
it sort out of the way.
I've got a couple other antenna projects on the bench
but some buys waving credit cards have purchased some
keyboard/hammer-n-tongs time . . . and I've got a couple
of pots boiling for B&C. I'd like to pursue the
active antenna experiment. It would be useful to field
test the idea in close proximity to transponder and
vhf/comm transmitters!
In the mean time, let's get your airplane flying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
Sigh... Let me try this again:
Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming loose,
solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in flight by
aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running at cruise
power)?
It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alternator,
it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443059#443059
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
I had a friend, a fellow ham radio operator, who experienced one
connection to the battery in his Mitsubishi Express van some years ago.
The alternator did its stuff, trying to re-establish 14 volts or so at
the battery terminal - and fried much of the onboard electronics,
including his radio transceiver, in the process.
Bill
On 5/06/2015 12:37 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> Sigh... Let me try this again:
>
> Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming loose,
solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in flight
by aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running at cruise
power)?
>
> It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alternator,
it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443059#443059
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
Bill,
There is a commonly held belief that running an alternator without a batter
y can be risky because voltage regulation can be problematic.=C2- The bat
tery acts as a big voltage stabilizer which allows the regulator to work pr
operly.=C2- If the battery is somehow disconnected then that stabilizatio
n disappears and the regulator may not be able to handle it, causing a volt
age run-away situation.
Once upon a time, I had to clean-up after one of these events.=C2- It was
a 12-volt system on a boat.=C2- Someone had turned-off the main battery
switch while the engine was running and the buss voltage went way above the
normal 14 volts.=C2- The event took-out a VHF radio, a radar, and an aut
omotive stereo.=C2-
Bill Maxwell's reply above describes a similar scenario in a car.
Anecdoteally...
BobN has suggested that some aircraft (I think he mentioned a Bonanza or Ba
ron) can operate in an alternator-only, no-battery-in-the-circuit mode, but
I don't have any knowledge of this.=C2- Perhaps the aircraft in question
has a very exotic regulator.=C2- BobN can speak to this better than I.
I have had auto mechanics tell me that if you disconnect the battery while
the engine is running - DON'T DO THAT!=C2- But if you do, it will void th
e warranty on the electronic components of the vehicle.
Design Notes:I think of the battery/alternator system as being symbiotic.
=C2- The alternator cannot make electricity without a little initial help
from the battery and the battery acts as a voltage stabilizing force when
high-current events occur.=C2- And, of course, batteries cannot sustain l
oads indefinitely by themselves.=C2- They work together as a team.
Whenever I design an electrical system, I make it so that if you open the b
attery contactor, the circuit also turns-off the alternator, so that you ca
nnot deliberately take the battery out of the circuit with the alternator o
n.=C2- I consider an alternator running with no battery in the circuit to
be an invalid state.
You will notice that the old red Cessna master/alternator rocker switch doe
s exactly the same thing.=C2- It allows the pilot to turn the alternator
field on and off independent of the battery master but when you turn-off th
e master it turns-off the alternator field thru the mechanical interlock bu
ilt into the switch.
Now to your question - What happens if the battery somehow gets disconnecte
d in flight due to master contactor failure, wire failure, aliens, etc?
I see two possibilities:1. The regulator keeps on regulating and buss volta
ge remains stable.
2. The reguator can no longer keep the voltage stable and buss voltage goes
up.=C2- If you have over-voltage protection, it trips and keeps your avi
onics from being fried but leaves you without power. (unless you have some
kind of backup power source)
How your particular system will respond is anybody's guess.=C2- If you ha
ve over-voltage protection, you could test it with little risk to your avio
nics??? (preferable on the ground ;)
There was discussion a while back here on the List about testing some of th
ese hypotheses, but that would take some hefty test fixtures and some effor
t.=C2- I would like to play on that team if anyone is interested in a tea
m effort.
-JeffL
On Thursday, June 4, 2015 8:18 PM, Bill Maxwell wrote:
I had a friend, a fellow ham radio operator, who experienced one connect
ion to the battery in his Mitsubishi Express van some years ago. The altern
ator did its stuff, trying to re-establish 14 volts or so at the battery te
rminal - and fried much of the onboard electronics, including his radio tra
nsceiver, in the process.
Bill
On 5/06/2015 12:37 PM, donjohnston wrote:
m>
Sigh... Let me try this again:
Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming l
oose, solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in f
light by aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running
at cruise power)?
It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alterna
tor, it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443059#443059
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
The OP asked not for analysis of the reported automotive failure, but
> Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming loose,
> solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in flight by
> aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running at cruise
> power)?
> It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alternator,
> it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
In most cases it would, but there are other problems due to the high ripple component
of some alternators Rotax for instance recommends a 22,000 uF capacitor
specifically to smooth the ripple from their PM alternator in case the battery
is not functioning. Homebuilders using low impedance capacitors with heavy screw
terminals are on the right track. Some LSA manufacturers use tiny caps with
thin wires, not a good recipe if you really want to get pulses of current at
the full alternator rating into and out of the capacitor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
An open battery contactor with an external regulator that is sensing
voltage at the battery is going to go high voltage and be expensive.
Different situation wih the sense wire on the alternator side of the
contactor or an internal regulator. No guarantees but I have seen those
continue to function fine when a flooded cell battery went open circuit.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
dlj04(at)josephson.com wrote:
> The OP asked not for analysis of the reported automotive failure, but
>
>
> > Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output
>
A thousand "thank you's" kind sir! :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443067#443067
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
Anecdoteally...
BobN has suggested that some aircraft (I think he mentioned a Bonanza
or Baron) can operate in an alternator-only,
no-battery-in-the-circuit mode, but I don't have any knowledge of
this. Perhaps the aircraft in question has a very exotic
regulator. BobN can speak to this better than I.
Actually, I designed several regulators
for Beech wherein the a requirement in the
RFQ was that the regulator, when paired with
the Bonanza and Baron alternators of the time,
would come alive self-excited . . . and run
self excited with no battery on line.
This was my first, second and third
regulator designs . . . had no idea if
anything 'special' was needed. As it
turn out, nothing really special. What
was NOT spec'd was the recovery profile
from a large load change . . . especially
a load dump. The overshoot would trip
the ov protection . . . but the transient
was still inside DO-160 qualification
levels.
What I discovered then was that the alternator
output was stable but subject to pretty
big, transient swings of voltage for large
changes in load. Like turning a 100+
watt landing light on/off . . . or perhaps
cycling an electrically driven, landing
gear pump.
Loss of battery in a stable load configuration
would probably go unnoticed and represent
no threat to system hardware. If the hardware
is DO-160 qualified, then transients of 20 volts
for one second and 40 volts for 100 milliseconds
are tolerated. It's the no-battery scenario
that drove selection of the test requirements
spelled out in DO-160. See
http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal
I'll do some playing with no-battery
systems then next time I get on the bench.
I have had auto mechanics tell me that if you disconnect the battery
while the engine is running - DON'T DO THAT! But if you do, it will
void the warranty on the electronic components of the vehicle.
Yeah . . . the same physics applies here.
In AUTOMOTIVE parlance, a "load dump" is
battery disconnect while alternator is under
heavy load . . . and the BATTERY is a substantial
part of that load. i.e. the battery is badly
discharged and the alternator is working hard
to replace stored energy. This generates the
same scenario as operating an airplane, alternator
only and turning off some heavy load.
Don't know about that 'void the warranty' thingy,
not sure how anyone would KNOW that it was a
deliberate disconnection. No doubt, some
dealerships are inclined to behaviors not
unlike some avionics techs of days gone by:
"Gee, I think a spike got it".
Most OEM equipment in cars is designed with
goals equal to or greater than DO160. I've
seen some specs for things like heated seat
controllers. An OEM brought one out to the BEECH
EMC building for testing services. The requirements
document from GM was about 1/2" thick!
You will notice that the old red Cessna master/alternator rocker
switch does exactly the same thing. It allows the pilot to turn the
alternator field on and off independent of the battery master but
when you turn-off the master it turns-off the alternator field thru
the mechanical interlock built into the switch.
I was at Cessna when the split-rocker master switch
was birthed. The functionality of the split-rocker
master has been emulated in most of the Z-figures
http://tinyurl.com/kdqwahq
This was a time when not all appliances were
vetted to DO-160 input voltage conditions . . .
and the alternators could not be counted on
to self-excite. Airplanes we delivered the
year before with generators would start up and
run very happily generator only. To this day,
so will Beechjets and Hawkers. This was very
EARLY in the switch from generators to alternators in
aircraft and we were certainly not designers
of engine drive power sources. So the split
rocker was a hedge against having to re-educate
pilots who knew less than we did!
Now to your question - What happens if the battery somehow gets
disconnected in flight due to master contactor failure, wire failure,
aliens, etc?
I see two possibilities:
1. The regulator keeps on regulating and buss voltage remains stable.
True 99% of the time
2. The reguator can no longer keep the voltage stable and buss
voltage goes up. If you have over-voltage protection, it trips and
keeps your avionics from being fried but leaves you without power.
(unless you have some kind of backup power source)
No
How your particular system will respond is anybody's guess. If you
have over-voltage protection, you could test it with little risk to
your avionics??? (preferable on the ground ;)
It's not a guess. The physics is well known.
There was discussion a while back here on the List about testing some
of these hypotheses, but that would take some hefty test fixtures and
some effort. I would like to play on that team if anyone is
interested in a team effort.
I've got some work to do at B&C this year and
I'm going to rebuilt their alternator test stand
with modern instrumentation and loads. I'll be
working on some products that will be tested for
these conditions.
I don't think we're going to learn anything new
but we can probably put some sense of scale and
order on the anecdotal tales based on a few
nuggets of physical fact and too little data
on circumstance . . . like that 'shorted battery'
thing in the NTSB report. I can assure you that
far too little is known about what brought that
airplane down. I have no foundation to argue about
the shorted battery . . . but I'm exceedingly
skeptical that battery failure was root cause
or even a major contributor. This was an automotive
conversion engine and the fact that the builder
had two batteries wired in parallel in the first
place raises some questions as to design goals
and understanding of the physics. A short in
one of two paralleled batteries would cause so
anomalous system readings but it doesn't bring
down the bus. Something else was going on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> A short in one of two paralleled batteries would cause so anomalous system readings
> but it doesn't bring down the bus. Something else was going on.
Bob, this is very interesting. Can you explain the physics that apply when two
batteries are connected in parallel and one of them shorts internally? I had
always assumed that a low voltage on one battery would drag down the voltage
of a parallel battery. Pilots who fly aircraft with two batteries need to know
what symptoms will be and what action to take, if any.
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443077#443077
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
Sounds like another good case for an OVM.
> On Jun 5, 2015, at 05:02, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr
ic.com> wrote:
>
> Anecdoteally...
>
> BobN has suggested that some aircraft (I think he mentioned a Bonanza or B
aron) can operate in an alternator-only, no-battery-in-the-circuit mode, but
I don't have any knowledge of this. Perhaps the aircraft in question has a
very exotic regulator. BobN can speak to this better than I.
>
> Actually, I designed several regulators
> for Beech wherein the a requirement in the
> RFQ was that the regulator, when paired with
> the Bonanza and Baron alternators of the time,
> would come alive self-excited . . . and run
> self excited with no battery on line.
>
> This was my first, second and third
> regulator designs . . . had no idea if
> anything 'special' was needed. As it
> turn out, nothing really special. What
> was NOT spec'd was the recovery profile
> from a large load change . . . especially
> a load dump. The overshoot would trip
> the ov protection . . . but the transient
> was still inside DO-160 qualification
> levels.
>
> What I discovered then was that the alternator
> output was stable but subject to pretty
> big, transient swings of voltage for large
> changes in load. Like turning a 100+
> watt landing light on/off . . . or perhaps
> cycling an electrically driven, landing
> gear pump.
>
> Loss of battery in a stable load configuration
> would probably go unnoticed and represent
> no threat to system hardware. If the hardware
> is DO-160 qualified, then transients of 20 volts
> for one second and 40 volts for 100 milliseconds
> are tolerated. It's the no-battery scenario
> that drove selection of the test requirements
> spelled out in DO-160. See
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal
>
>
> I'll do some playing with no-battery
> systems then next time I get on the bench.
>
>
>
> I have had auto mechanics tell me that if you disconnect the battery while
the engine is running - DON'T DO THAT! But if you do, it will void the war
ranty on the electronic components of the vehicle.
>
> Yeah . . . the same physics applies here.
> In AUTOMOTIVE parlance, a "load dump" is
> battery disconnect while alternator is under
> heavy load . . . and the BATTERY is a substantial
> part of that load. i.e. the battery is badly
> discharged and the alternator is working hard
> to replace stored energy. This generates the
> same scenario as operating an airplane, alternator
> only and turning off some heavy load.
>
> Don't know about that 'void the warranty' thingy,
> not sure how anyone would KNOW that it was a
> deliberate disconnection. No doubt, some
> dealerships are inclined to behaviors not
> unlike some avionics techs of days gone by:
> "Gee, I think a spike got it".
>
> Most OEM equipment in cars is designed with
> goals equal to or greater than DO160. I've
> seen some specs for things like heated seat
> controllers. An OEM brought one out to the BEECH
> EMC building for testing services. The requirements
> document from GM was about 1/2" thick!
>
>
> You will notice that the old red Cessna master/alternator rocker switch do
es exactly the same thing. It allows the pilot to turn the alternator field
on and off independent of the battery master but when you turn-off the mast
er it turns-off the alternator field thru the mechanical interlock built int
o the switch.
>
> I was at Cessna when the split-rocker master switch
> was birthed. The functionality of the split-rocker
> master has been emulated in most of the Z-figures
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kdqwahq
>
> This was a time when not all appliances were
> vetted to DO-160 input voltage conditions . . .
> and the alternators could not be counted on
> to self-excite. Airplanes we delivered the
> year before with generators would start up and
> run very happily generator only. To this day,
> so will Beechjets and Hawkers. This was very
> EARLY in the switch from generators to alternators in
> aircraft and we were certainly not designers
> of engine drive power sources. So the split
> rocker was a hedge against having to re-educate
> pilots who knew less than we did!
>
>
>
> Now to your question - What happens if the battery somehow gets disconnect
ed in flight due to master contactor failure, wire failure, aliens, etc?
>
> I see two possibilities:
> 1. The regulator keeps on regulating and buss voltage remains stable.
>
> True 99% of the time
>
>
> 2. The reguator can no longer keep the voltage stable and buss voltage goe
s up. If you have over-voltage protection, it trips and keeps your avionics
from being fried but leaves you without power. (unless you have some kind o
f backup power source)
>
> No
>
>
> How your particular system will respond is anybody's guess. If you have o
ver-voltage protection, you could test it with little risk to your avionics?
?? (preferable on the ground ;)
>
>
> It's not a guess. The physics is well known.
>
>
> There was discussion a while back here on the List about testing some of t
hese hypotheses, but that would take some hefty test fixtures and some effor
t. I would like to play on that team if anyone is interested in a team effo
rt.
>
> I've got some work to do at B&C this year and
> I'm going to rebuilt their alternator test stand
> with modern instrumentation and loads. I'll be
> working on some products that will be tested for
> these conditions.
>
> I don't think we're going to learn anything new
> but we can probably put some sense of scale and
> order on the anecdotal tales based on a few
> nuggets of physical fact and too little data
> on circumstance . . . like that 'shorted battery'
> thing in the NTSB report. I can assure you that
> far too little is known about what brought that
> airplane down. I have no foundation to argue about
> the shorted battery . . . but I'm exceedingly
> skeptical that battery failure was root cause
> or even a major contributor. This was an automotive
> conversion engine and the fact that the builder
> had two batteries wired in parallel in the first
> place raises some questions as to design goals
> and understanding of the physics. A short in
> one of two paralleled batteries would cause so
> anomalous system readings but it doesn't bring
> down the bus. Something else was going on.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
This is very interesting. Thanks to everyone for participating.
So is it safe to say that the battery is providing a type of surge suppression
(or power leveling or fluctuation dampening) function in this circuit?
And if it's correct that the absence of the battery could cause an over voltage
situation, is there a way to mitigate that? Or is that scenario so unlikely that
it's not worth protecting against?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443107#443107
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
I'm still trying to find the exact part number, Hari, for our Honeywell,
lighted rocker switches for our Sportsman. We bought them through John
Stark in Columbus, Georgia, who built our panel. I'll see if Doug Hanson,
my partner who is the electrical guru knows.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Hariharan Gopalan
wrote:
> Hello Group
>
> Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
What about a power supply from an old computer?
Thanks
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:41 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:09 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>> Would this item be an acceptable choice for testing my electrical system?
Could it be used without any battery in the system? My avionics etc. are al
l Dynon.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Regulated-Switching-Computer-Project/dp/B
00D7CWSCG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1433430384&sr=8-5&keywords=12+vol
t+DC+power+supply&pebp=1433430415435&perid=1MV8XVM71ACD3B1WWBYZ
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ken
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> What about a power supply from an old computer?
> Thanks
> Rich
A computer power supply could be used, but be careful with polarity. A computer
power supply has both positive and negative outputs. The negative output has
a much smaller output rating, so use the positive output. A computer power
supply voltage is only 12 volts, whereas an aircraft usually operates between
13 and 14 volts. But that should not matter for most equipment.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443127#443127
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
On 6/6/15 12:00 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator with no battery?
> From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Thanks to everyone for participating.
>
> So is it safe to say that the battery is providing a type of surge suppression
> (or power leveling or fluctuation dampening) function in this circuit?
Yes.
>
> And if it's correct that the absence of the battery could cause an over voltage
> situation, is there a way to mitigate that? Or is that scenario so unlikely that
> it's not worth protecting against?
>
There is a way to mitigate that, if you want. An overvoltage protection
circuit can take a runaway alternator/regulator offline in the case of
an open battery. This is probably a less likely possibility at least for
lead-acid batteries than the possibility of the OVP taking the
alternator offline at inconvenient times for other reasons. Systems
engineering is based on understanding and weighing all of the
foreseeable consequences -- more protection does not necessarily equate
to fewer failure experiences. As Bob has explained in the past, modern
aircraft loads are much more tolerant of overvoltage conditions than was
the case years ago.
Having had such an experience in my Mooney when the regulator ground
wire came loose, I can report that it was preferable to manually shed
loads known to be voltage-sensitive (no DME for you today!), add
additional loads like pitot heat and landing lights to bring the voltage
down. You can manage the situation, rather than pop the alternator
offline (particularly automatically, with no possibility for reset) and
trust the battery to supply the energy for the remainder of the flight.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | "haribole" <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com> |
Digikey part number 432-1283-ND for the Carlington LT series seems like a good
fit for 15A and under.
http://tinyurl.com/q9o57pu
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443150#443150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
Thanks Joe
Rich
In a message dated 6/6/2015 11:10:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
fransew(at)gmail.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"
> What about a power supply from an old computer?
> Thanks
> Rich
A computer power supply could be used, but be careful with polarity. A
computer power supply has both positive and negative outputs. The negative
output has a much smaller output rating, so use the positive output. A
computer power supply voltage is only 12 volts, whereas an aircraft usually
operates between 13 and 14 volts. But that should not matter for most equip
ment.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443127#443127
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator with no battery? |
It seems that the answer presented is that 'many' alternator
installations will continue to provide power but may be subject to being
'stalled' by heavy loads.
Specificity would seem to be required to take this further. The next
question would seem to be, "what components and configuration are you
curious about"?
So, I have (3) B&C LR3C-14 regulators controlling (2) B&C alternators.
Another question might be "Is there a difference between a battery
losing a cell (partial failure) and a 'broken battery cable' or (total
failure)"?
Bill "just following along out of curiosity" Watson
On 6/4/2015 10:37 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> Sigh... Let me try this again:
>
> Does anyone know what the impact of a loss of battery output (wire coming loose,
solenoid failing, battery falling out of the plane, being stolen in flight
by aliens, etc.) on the output of the alternator (with engine running at cruise
power)?
>
> It would seem to me that if the load is less than the output of the alternator,
it should continue to put out power as long as the engine is running.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443059#443059
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
I bought something like this. I don't remember which vendor.
This one has adjustable voltage. I bought one in this voltage range,
so that I could have 14.2V after dropping through a protection diode.
If the unit is not plugged in, but is "back fed" voltage from the
airplane battery, it will be damaged, so put an eBus diode in series,
then adjust the output voltage as desired.
http://tinyurl.com/lq7je4b
A computer power supply produces quite a lot of current at 5V, but not
so much as 12V. Some models require a load on the 5V output to
regulate properly.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: power supply for testing
> From: A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com>
>
> What about a power supply from an old computer?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rich
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:41 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
> ectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 10:09 AM 6/4/2015, you wrote:
>>> Would this item be an acceptable choice for testing my electrical system?
> Could it be used without any battery in the system? My avionics etc. are al
> l Dynon.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Regulated-Switching-Computer-Project/dp/B
> 00D7CWSCG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1433430384&sr=8-5&keywords=12+vol
> t+DC+power+supply&pebp=1433430415435&perid=1MV8XVM71ACD3B1WWBYZ
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
One of my partners in the Sportsman sent me this information on our rocker
switches:
"We have Honeywell AML-24 series switches. (various models, depending on
function)"
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:11 PM, DeWitt Whittington <
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm still trying to find the exact part number, Hari, for our Honeywell,
> lighted rocker switches for our Sportsman. We bought them through John
> Stark in Columbus, Georgia, who built our panel. I'll see if Doug Hanson,
> my partner who is the electrical guru knows.
>
> Dee
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> Richmond, VA
> 804-677-4849 iPhone
> 804-358-4333 Home
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Hariharan Gopalan
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Group
>>
>> Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rossmickey(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | LED Light for SD-8 On Indication |
I wanted to install an LED "ON" indicator light for when I switch on the SD-8 alternate
power supply. I rigged an LED so it works with the 12 Volt system and
tried it on the switch which goes to ground for ON. It works fine when it is
the only thing on the switch. When I hook up the SD-8 relay to it ( as wired for
the original Z-8 diagram with NO self excite) which is also a switch to ground
for on, the LED lights up even in the off position. Since the LED ground and
SD-8 relay ground share the same terminal, my only explanation is that the
LED is finding a ground somewhere along the SD-8 relay pathway. I have stared
at the drawing until my eyes are crossed and can't figure out what's happening.
Is my SD-8 wiring screwed up or is there actually a way for the LED to find a ground
along the pathway? If so, I guess I am SOL on hooking an on indicator light.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | D-Sub connector use |
My left wing contains my Dynon ADAHRS module, which is normally connected
to the Skyview Network using a D-Sub 9 connector. The wing also has an Aveo
LED light that has 4 wires (nav power, strobe power, ground,
snynchronization). The nav light draws 0.6 amps and the strobe draws 3.2
amps (peak).
Wire sizes are 22 gauge for the ADAHRS and strobe sync wire, and 20 gauge
for the strobe power, nav power and ground.
I want a connector at the wing root to facilitate wing folding (or
removal). Can I use a D-Sub 15 connector for this purpose. I hope so
because I already spent the day completing it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Light for SD-8 On Indication |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Can you attach a drawing of your schematic showing how the LED is wired? I can
not visualize how the LED is connected. LEDs require very little current to
illuminate. Sometimes a solid state switch (when off) will leak enough current
to turn on an LED. A schematic will be very helpful to others who are trying
to answer your question.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443199#443199
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub connector use |
At 07:56 PM 6/7/2015, you wrote:
>My left wing contains my Dynon ADAHRS module, which is normally
>connected to the Skyview Network using a D-Sub 9 connector. The wing
>also has an Aveo LED light that has 4 wires (nav power, strobe
>power, ground, snynchronization). The nav light draws 0.6 amps and
>the strobe draws 3.2 amps (peak).
>
>Wire sizes are 22 gauge for the ADAHRS and strobe sync wire, and 20
>gauge for the strobe power, nav power and ground.
>
>I want a connector at the wing root to facilitate wing folding (or
>removal). Can I use a D-Sub 15 connector for this purpose. I hope so
>because I already spent the day completing it.
>
The D-sub is rated for the voltages and
currents in your application . . . and
the lowly d-connectors have cousins qualified
for space travel . . . but they're still
a 'non-environmental' connector. This
means that while they are electrically
capable by virtue of the pins and sockets,
they are vulnerable to the effects of moisture,
dust, mud, oil, etc.
It's a low-risk experiment. There are
no hazards to airframe or crew associated
with loss of function . . . and there's
a high probability of long and satisfactory
service. But be aware and keep an eye on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Light for SD-8 On Indication |
At 07:54 PM 6/7/2015, you wrote:
I wanted to install an LED "ON" indicator light for when I switch on
the SD-8 alternate power supply. I rigged an LED so it works with
the 12 Volt system and tried it on the switch which goes to ground
for ON. It works fine when it is the only thing on the switch. When
I hook up the SD-8 relay to it ( as wired for the original Z-8
diagram with NO self excite) which is also a switch to ground for on,
the LED lights up even in the off position. Since the LED ground and
SD-8 relay ground share the same terminal, my only explanation is
that the LED is finding a ground somewhere along the SD-8 relay
pathway. I have stared at the drawing until my eyes are crossed and
can't figure out what's happening.
If I am interpreting your narrative correctly,
then for some reason, there is a 'sneak path'
to ground with the switch open. One fix for
this phenomenon is to add a diode in the relay
control lead that breaks sneak-path to ground
looking at the relay.
Emacs!
The 64 dollar question is where the sneak-path
is coming from. As shown, I too am unable to
identify the problem . . . UNLESS . . . your
SD-8 is not tied to the always-hot side of
the battery but instead tied to the switched
side and is finding a sneak path through the
system components on the main bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub connector use |
Thanks Bob. I think the location will be dry.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:56 PM 6/7/2015, you wrote:
>
> My left wing contains my Dynon ADAHRS module, which is normally connected
> to the Skyview Network using a D-Sub 9 connector. The wing also has an Aveo
> LED light that has 4 wires (nav power, strobe power, ground,
> snynchronization). The nav light draws 0.6 amps and the strobe draws 3.2
> amps (peak).
>
> Wire sizes are 22 gauge for the ADAHRS and strobe sync wire, and 20 gauge
> for the strobe power, nav power and ground.
>
> I want a connector at the wing root to facilitate wing folding (or
> removal). Can I use a D-Sub 15 connector for this purpose. I hope so
> because I already spent the day completing it.
>
>
> The D-sub is rated for the voltages and
> currents in your application . . . and
> the lowly d-connectors have cousins qualified
> for space travel . . . but they're still
> a 'non-environmental' connector. This
> means that while they are electrically
> capable by virtue of the pins and sockets,
> they are vulnerable to the effects of moisture,
> dust, mud, oil, etc.
>
> It's a low-risk experiment. There are
> no hazards to airframe or crew associated
> with loss of function . . . and there's
> a high probability of long and satisfactory
> service. But be aware and keep an eye on it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
Yesterday I was disconnecting the D-Sub 9 cable from my Dynon ADAHRS so
that I could double check that I had the correct wires going to the D-Sub
15 on the other end. When I unscrewed the long screws that are part of the
back shell, I noticed that one of the nuts on the ADAHRS box was turning.
This was not a big problem, because the wing is still open and I was able
to grab it with pliers which allowed me to remove the connector. But once
the wing is buttoned up, it would be very difficult to repeat the process.
The only solution I can think of is a special inspection opening, just to
address this fault. Also, I don't know if that turning nut represents any
other hazard, like something coming loose in flight and shorting out my
ADAHRS.
Any advice would be appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Light for SD-8 On Indication |
I followed an article Jim Weir wrote back in 2000 for Kitplanes.
http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/KP0009A/KPtext.doc
http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/KP0009A/KP0009A.htm
I know the switch is not leaking because the light works as intended when it
is hooked up to the switch by itself. It is only when I connect the wire
that goes to the SD-8 relay that the light turns on apparently finding a
ground pathway through that system.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Light for SD-8 On Indication
Can you attach a drawing of your schematic showing how the LED is wired? I
can not visualize how the LED is connected. LEDs require very little
current to illuminate. Sometimes a solid state switch (when off) will leak
enough current to turn on an LED. A schematic will be very helpful to
others who are trying to answer your question.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443199#443199
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: d-sub spin out |
Greetings,
Don't know if it is ever a good idea to "bury anything electronic as given
enough time and vibration it will fail--perhaps not in your life time.
Additionally, you may want to get it out and in for updates or upgrading.
One suggestion is to mount the device directly on the inspection panel
covering the opening referred to below. For service, remove the panel with
attached device, unplug it and do what needs to be done.
In terms of the sub-d fixation problem.. If the device is out of warranty,
open the case, use some loctite on the retaining nut, tighten appropriately
and close.
the screws that hold these things in are generally #6 and this "twirling
problem is not unique.
If the device is in warranty send it back to dynon and let them deal with
it.
Rich
In a message dated 6/8/2015 10:10:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes:
Yesterday I was disconnecting the D-Sub 9 cable from my Dynon ADAHRS so
that I could double check that I had the correct wires going to the D-Sub 15
on the other end. When I unscrewed the long screws that are part of the
back shell, I noticed that one of the nuts on the ADAHRS box was turning. This
was not a big problem, because the wing is still open and I was able to
grab it with pliers which allowed me to remove the connector. But once the
wing is buttoned up, it would be very difficult to repeat the process. The
only solution I can think of is a special inspection opening, just to address
this fault. Also, I don't know if that turning nut represents any other
hazard, like something coming loose in flight and shorting out my ADAHRS.
Any advice would be appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub connector use |
Ken,
Even though they are non-environmentally secure, you can do a little to
ward off effects of the environment. 1 use good contact pins (gold plated I
use AMP) 2. before mating the connectors give them a goober of dielectric
grease. This is available through many outlets, probably auto stores, as it
is the grease type material that you see on some of the connectors in a car.
This stuff keeps out moisture and O2 even though the gold contacts aren't
supposed to oxidize. If you use any plug affairs that are not gold-- this
stuff is a must (IMNSHO)
Rich
In a message dated 6/8/2015 10:12:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes:
Thanks Bob. I think the location will be dry.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<_nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com_ (mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com) > wrote:
At 07:56 PM 6/7/2015, you wrote:
My left wing contains my Dynon ADAHRS module, which is normally connected
to the Skyview Network using a D-Sub 9 connector. The wing also has an Aveo
LED light that has 4 wires (nav power, strobe power, ground,
snynchronization). The nav light draws 0.6 amps and the strobe draws 3.2 amps
(peak).
Wire sizes are 22 gauge for the ADAHRS and strobe sync wire, and 20 gauge
for the strobe power, nav power and ground.
I want a connector at the wing root to facilitate wing folding (or
removal). Can I use a D-Sub 15 connector for this purpose. I hope so because I
already spent the day completing it.
The D-sub is rated for the voltages and
currents in your application . . . and
the lowly d-connectors have cousins qualified
for space travel . . . but they're still
a 'non-environmental' connector. This
means that while they are electrically
capable by virtue of the pins and sockets,
they are vulnerable to the effects of moisture,
dust, mud, oil, etc.
It's a low-risk experiment. There are
no hazards to airframe or crew associated
with loss of function . . . and there's
a high probability of long and satisfactory
service. But be aware and keep an eye on it.
Bob . . .
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | LED Light for SD-8 On Indication |
Thanks, Bob. You are interpreting my problem correctly. The relay is
connected to the "hot" side of the battery contactor so that is not the
problem. I would prefer to find out why this is happening rather than
placing a diode but if I do what diode should I use?
The only difference between what is shown below and my system is that the
50MV/10A is located between the battery contactor and relay rather than
being between the relay and the capacitor as shown in your diagram. I also
am wiring the switch so that the ground is on the #2 terminal and the wire
to the relay is attached to the #3 terminal. Neither of these things should
change how my system is reacting unless the ground is being found through
the load meter. I guess I could bypass the shunt and see if that clears up
the problem.
Ross
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, June 08, 2015 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED Light for SD-8 On Indication
If I am interpreting your narrative correctly, then for some reason, there
is a 'sneak path' to ground with the switch open. One fix for this
phenomenon is to add a diode in the relay control lead that breaks
sneak-path to ground looking at the relay.
The 64 dollar question is where the sneak-path is coming from. As shown, I
too am unable to identify the problem . . . UNLESS . . . your SD-8 is not
tied to the always-hot side of the battery but instead tied to the switched
side and is finding a sneak path through the system components on the main
bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D F <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: power supply for testing |
I just use a cheap 12v AGM battery for a UPS or alarm system. Works great, is safe,
and I just charge it periodically. Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
I'm at the early stages of planning my electrical system. I've got the Aeroelectric
connection book and am studying the diagrams to see which would fit my admittedly
rough plan.
I'm strongly considering the EFII electronic fuel and ignition system. Obviously
the electrical system design would be paramount to the success of this system.
What is the opinion of the group on the best design idea to follow? The z13-8
with the sd-8 alternator and a single battery? The z19 with dual battery and
electronic ignition, or just throw my hands up in the air and pick up the bus
manager system that EFII sells?
I'm leaning toward the z13-8 but I've got a question on what would happen if a
battery were to short internally. Would the alternator or backup alternator continue
to supply power to the busses to power the engine electronics?
Like I said, early stages here. Any advice is very welcomed.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443235#443235
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical system planning |
I can't comment on the battery shorting internally other than it is an
extremely rare occurrence especially if you follow Bob's advice of replacing
your battery on a regular basis.
Here is what Bob's says in his latest version of the book.
"If I were building an airplane today, my ship would be fitted with Figure
Z-13/8 electrical system with an 18 AH battery and dual Emagair ignition
systems. I can deduce no other configuration that delivers more value."
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jump4way
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:10 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical system planning
I'm at the early stages of planning my electrical system. I've got the
Aeroelectric connection book and am studying the diagrams to see which would
fit my admittedly rough plan.
I'm strongly considering the EFII electronic fuel and ignition system.
Obviously the electrical system design would be paramount to the success of
this system. What is the opinion of the group on the best design idea to
follow? The z13-8 with the sd-8 alternator and a single battery? The z19
with dual battery and electronic ignition, or just throw my hands up in the
air and pick up the bus manager system that EFII sells?
I'm leaning toward the z13-8 but I've got a question on what would happen if
a battery were to short internally. Would the alternator or backup
alternator continue to supply power to the busses to power the engine
electronics?
Like I said, early stages here. Any advice is very welcomed.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443235#443235
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system planning |
| From: | "Jump4way" <andydelk(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the advice. I'm moving ahead with the Z-13/8 architecture as described
by Bob in his book.
I do have a question regarding the feeder line from the battery contactor to the
main battery buss as well as the feeder to the E-bus. In the RV-8 I'm building,
I have the battery mounted aft. I currently have my main power bus, diode,
ebus, and one main battery buss mounted forward of the panel with the battery,
battery contactor, and one 6 slot battery buss fuse panel mounted near the
battery in the aft portion of the fuselage.
What I would like to do is tie the forward battery buss fuse panel (8 slots) to
the aft battery buss fuse panel to accomodate shorter wire runs for the various
devices to be connected. The z-13/8 diagram calls for wire runs of less than
6 inches from the battery contactor to the battery buss as well as from the
main battery bus to the ebus relay. Is there a way to safely do what I would
like or should I just get a larger main battery buss fuse panel and mount it aft
then run each of the devices all the way to the back of the fuselage?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443237#443237
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical system planning |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
>
>
>I can't comment on the battery shorting internally other than it is an
>extremely rare occurrence especially if you follow Bob's advice of
>replacing
>your battery on a regular basis.
>
>Here is what Bob's says in his latest version of the book.
>
>"If I were building an airplane today, my ship would be fitted with
>Figure
>Z-13/8 electrical system with an 18 AH battery and dual Emagair
>ignition
>systems. I can deduce no other configuration that delivers more value."
>
>Ross
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Jump4way
>Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:10 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical system planning
>
>
>
>I'm at the early stages of planning my electrical system. I've got the
>Aeroelectric connection book and am studying the diagrams to see which
>would
>fit my admittedly rough plan.
>
>I'm strongly considering the EFII electronic fuel and ignition system.
>Obviously the electrical system design would be paramount to the
>success of
>this system. What is the opinion of the group on the best design idea
>to
>follow? The z13-8 with the sd-8 alternator and a single battery? The
>z19
>with dual battery and electronic ignition, or just throw my hands up in
>the
>air and pick up the bus manager system that EFII sells?
>
>I'm leaning toward the z13-8 but I've got a question on what would
>happen if
>a battery were to short internally. Would the alternator or backup
>alternator continue to supply power to the busses to power the engine
>electronics?
>
>Like I said, early stages here. Any advice is very welcomed.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443235#443235
>
>
Not really applicable; pmags will self power like a mag once the engine is running.
Plus the fact that auto style systems like efii use much more current (energy)
due to the injection pumps.
Charlie
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Internal Shorting of Batteries |
Hi,
I see internal shorting of batteries mentioned often here. I have to
assume that the batteries in question are multi-cell lead acid
batteries. I am puzzled about how such a battery can and will short
internally to the extent that it disables the entire charging system.
Does it start with the melt down of one cell that leads to a high
April 26, 2015 - June 08, 2015
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mt