AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-nm
July 19, 2016 - August 10, 2016
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
I think the point that DJ Merrill was making was that it is trivially
easy to make an email on this list look as if it came from you, while
it's actual sender is unidentified in the email. Consequently a link in
an email that appears to be from you may pose a risk.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 07/19/2016 04:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 02:21 PM 7/19/2016, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Thank you for posting the real URL. Though I have not said anything in
>> the past, I very much appreciate knowing where I will land before I
>> click on a link.
>
> Understand . . . but I've been using the tinyurl extension
> on my browsers since the beginning. I check the ones
> I embed into my emails to make sure they go where I
> intend . . . I think the real risks come from the
> scripts that pour down from some websites . . .
> I've captured some of those scripts; the links
> they can contain are many and cryptic. You need an
> agile malware firewall more than anything else.
> Knowing the name of the host website isn't of much
> value but know too that I went there before you.
>
> As always, each to his own policies and procedures.
> If anything I post incites trepidation, one is
> well advised to ignore the link . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ryan Brown <ribrdb(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
Except it said "doc flies", which is something Bob has been taking about.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 5:27 PM Charlie England wrote:
> Exactly. With nothing but the criptic 'doc files' in the header, there was
> nothing to convince that it wasn't a scammer posing as Bob.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: rayj
> Date:07/19/2016 5:53 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA issues rules for drones
>
>
> I think the point that DJ Merrill was making was that it is trivially
> easy to make an email on this list look as if it came from you, while
> it's actual sender is unidentified in the email. Consequently a link in
> an email that appears to be from you may pose a risk.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
> understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
> And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
> egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
> admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
> -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
>
> On 07/19/2016 04:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > At 02:21 PM 7/19/2016, you wrote:
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Thank you for posting the real URL. Though I have not said anything in
> >> the past, I very much appreciate knowing where I will land before I
> >> click on a link.
> >
> > Understand . . . but I've been using the tinyurl extension
> > on my browsers since the beginning. I check the ones
> > I embed into my emails to make sure they go where I
> > intend . . . I think the real risks come from the
> > scripts that pour down from some websites . . .
> > I've captured some of those scripts; the links
> > they can contain are many and cryptic. You need an
> > agile malware firewall more than anything else.
> > Knowing the name of the host website isn't of much
> > value but know too that I went there before you.
> >
> > As always, each to his own policies and procedures.
> > If anything I post incites trepidation, one is
> > well advised to ignore the link . . .
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
The very first email in my inbox with that subject line, was the one
that contained only the shortened link in the body of the email.
So, no context for me. Perhaps there were other messages on the web
forum that didn't make it to email subscribers, but I had no way to know
that 'doc files' was an ongoing subject line.
Charlie
On 7/19/2016 6:54 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
>
> Except it said "doc flies", which is something Bob has been taking about.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 5:27 PM Charlie England > wrote:
>
> Exactly. With nothing but the criptic 'doc files' in the header,
> there was nothing to convince that it wasn't a scammer posing as Bob.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: rayj
> Date:07/19/2016 5:53 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA issues rules for drones
>
> >
>
> I think the point that DJ Merrill was making was that it is trivially
> easy to make an email on this list look as if it came from you, while
> it's actual sender is unidentified in the email. Consequently a
> link in
> an email that appears to be from you may pose a risk.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness,
> honesty,
> understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our
> system.
> And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness,
> meanness,
> egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
> admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
> -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
>
> On 07/19/2016 04:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > At 02:21 PM 7/19/2016, you wrote:
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Thank you for posting the real URL. Though I have not said
> anything in
> >> the past, I very much appreciate knowing where I will land before I
> >> click on a link.
> >
> > Understand . . . but I've been using the tinyurl extension
> > on my browsers since the beginning. I check the ones
> > I embed into my emails to make sure they go where I
> > intend . . . I think the real risks come from the
> > scripts that pour down from some websites . . .
> > I've captured some of those scripts; the links
> > they can contain are many and cryptic. You need an
> > agile malware firewall more than anything else.
> > Knowing the name of the host website isn't of much
> > value but know too that I went there before you.
> >
> > As always, each to his own policies and procedures.
> > If anything I post incites trepidation, one is
> > well advised to ignore the link . . .
> > --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List< -
> MATRON>
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://wiki.ma
> - List Contributi gt;
> <http://wiki.matronics.com>htt
>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ryan Brown <ribrdb(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
My point was that the subject is about flying not filing. 'doc fLIes' not
fILes.
Downloading a file with no information is certainly dangerous, but clicking
on a link in an aviation related email from an aviation forum didn't seem
very risky.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 6:25 PM Charlie England wrote:
> The very first email in my inbox with that subject line, was the one that
> contained only the shortened link in the body of the email.
>
> So, no context for me. Perhaps there were other messages on the web forum
> that didn't make it to email subscribers, but I had no way to know that
> 'doc files' was an ongoing subject line.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 7/19/2016 6:54 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
>
> Except it said "doc flies", which is something Bob has been taking about.
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 5:27 PM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> Exactly. With nothing but the criptic 'doc files' in the header, there wa
s
>> nothing to convince that it wasn't a scammer posing as Bob.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: rayj
>> Date:07/19/2016 5:53 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA issues rules for drones
>>
>>
>> I think the point that DJ Merrill was making was that it is trivially
>> easy to make an email on this list look as if it came from you, while
>> it's actual sender is unidentified in the email. Consequently a link in
>> an email that appears to be from you may pose a risk.
>>
>> Raymond Julian
>> Kettle River, MN
>>
>> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
>> understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
>> And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
>> egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
>> admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
>> -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
>>
>> On 07/19/2016 04:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> > At 02:21 PM 7/19/2016, you wrote:
>> >> Hi Bob,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for posting the real URL. Though I have not said anything i
n
>> >> the past, I very much appreciate knowing where I will land before I
>> >> click on a link.
>> >
>> > Understand . . . but I've been using the tinyurl extension
>> > on my browsers since the beginning. I check the ones
>> > I embed into my emails to make sure they go where I
>> > intend . . . I think the real risks come from the
>> > scripts that pour down from some websites . . .
>> > I've captured some of those scripts; the links
>> > they can contain are many and cryptic. You need an
>> > agile malware firewall more than anything else.
>> > Knowing the name of the host website isn't of much
>> > value but know too that I went there before you.
>> >
>> > As always, each to his own policies and procedures.
>> > If anything I post incites trepidation, one is
>> > well advised to ignore the link . . .
>>
> > --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List< -
>> MATRON> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://wik
i.ma=EF=BD
>> - List Contributi gt; <http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>> htt
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Well, it wouldn't be that hard to hijack Bob's name and a subject line
that had been used.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 07/19/2016 07:39 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
> My point was that the subject is about flying not filing. 'doc fLIes'
> not fILes.
> Downloading a file with no information is certainly dangerous, but
> clicking on a link in an aviation related email from an aviation forum
> didn't seem very risky.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 6:25 PM Charlie England > wrote:
>
> The very first email in my inbox with that subject line, was the one
> that contained only the shortened link in the body of the email.
>
> So, no context for me. Perhaps there were other messages on the web
> forum that didn't make it to email subscribers, but I had no way to
> know that 'doc files' was an ongoing subject line.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 7/19/2016 6:54 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
>>
>> Except it said "doc flies", which is something Bob has been taking
>> about.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 5:27 PM Charlie England
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. With nothing but the criptic 'doc files' in the
>> header, there was nothing to convince that it wasn't a scammer
>> posing as Bob.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: rayj
>> Date:07/19/2016 5:53 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA issues rules for drones
>>
>> >
>>
>> I think the point that DJ Merrill was making was that it is
>> trivially
>> easy to make an email on this list look as if it came from
>> you, while
>> it's actual sender is unidentified in the email. Consequently
>> a link in
>> an email that appears to be from you may pose a risk.
>>
>> Raymond Julian
>> Kettle River, MN
>>
>> The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity,
>> openness, honesty,
>> understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in
>> our system.
>> And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness,
>> meanness,
>> egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while
>> men
>> admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the
>> second.
>> -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
>>
>> On 07/19/2016 04:50 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> > At 02:21 PM 7/19/2016, you wrote:
>> >> Hi Bob,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for posting the real URL. Though I have not said
>> anything in
>> >> the past, I very much appreciate knowing where I will land
>> before I
>> >> click on a link.
>> >
>> > Understand . . . but I've been using the tinyurl extension
>> > on my browsers since the beginning. I check the ones
>> > I embed into my emails to make sure they go where I
>> > intend . . . I think the real risks come from the
>> > scripts that pour down from some websites . . .
>> > I've captured some of those scripts; the links
>> > they can contain are many and cryptic. You need an
>> > agile malware firewall more than anything else.
>> > Knowing the name of the host website isn't of much
>> > value but know too that I went there before you.
>> >
>> > As always, each to his own policies and procedures.
>> > If anything I post incites trepidation, one is
>> > well advised to ignore the link . . .
>>
>> > --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List< -
>> MATRON>
>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://wiki.ma
>> - List Contributi gt;
>> <http://wiki.matronics.com>htt
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
>> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Check My Soldering |
Folks,
Once again, thank you for your advice. I passed a minor milestone in my
airplane project on Monday evening, building the first wiring components. I
cut off the two splices that I showed you earlier, where I had interleaved
the strands. I redid them from scratch. See photos at the bottom of this
page on my blog:
https://cheerfulcurmudgeon.com/2016/07/19/physical-electrical-considerations-when-mounting-avionics/
Cheers,
-- 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Check My Soldering |
>I redid them from scratch. See photos at the
>bottom of this page on my blog:=C2
>https://cheerfulcurmudgeon.com/2016/07/19/physica
l-electrical-considerations-when-mounting-avionics/
Look'n good! Know what you mean about the heat . . .
living 100 miles from civilization makes quick/n/cheerful
a/c services problematic. I've become an ad hoc
service tech for my own systems and those of some
neighbors. My house machine is again humming nicely
but I'm getting ready to saddle up and service a
the second of two machines in Sun City . . . and
I'm waiting on a part for the a/c in my truck!
There can be a down-side to possession of skills and
too many tools . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
Moving from the middle of the wire to the end... I want FastOn terminals.
Since I am soldering other stuff, I have no qualms about soldering here,
too. Is this the right part?
=8B
Do I crimp then solder then cover with heat shrink? Which crimper tool? Or
should I do something else entirely?
Is 0.250 inch the right size or should I wait until I buy my fuse blocks
and switches to be sure?
Thanks,
-- 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: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Check My Soldering |
I can't tell you how many times I have wished for one of those T-shirts
that says,
NO I WON"T FIX YOUR COMPUTER
-- Art Z.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Look'n good! Know what you mean about the heat . . .
> living 100 miles from civilization makes quick/n/cheerful
> a/c services problematic. I've become an ad hoc
> service tech for my own systems and those of some
> neighbors. My house machine is again humming nicely
> but I'm getting ready to saddle up and service a
> the second of two machines in Sun City . . . and
> I'm waiting on a part for the a/c in my truck!
>
> There can be a down-side to possession of skills and
> too many tools . . .
>
--
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*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA issues rules for drones |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
There is an option in TinyUrl to create a preview link so that anyone
can see where the link will take them.
On 7/19/2016 9:54 PM, rayj wrote:
>
> Well, it wouldn't be that hard to hijack Bob's name and a subject line
> that had been used.
>
> Raymond Julian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
One more question: for uninsulated FastOn terminals, can I safely buy from
the local electronics store or is this like insulated crimp connectors
where I have to watch what I get because cheap automotive-grade parts use
materials which are less-than-ideal for aviation?
-- 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: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
This is a related but different question:
Bob, others, what do you use to crimp fully insulated Ultra Fast or
Ultra Fast Plus terminals? Or is there another non-TE terminal that you
prefer?
( I ask because if you DO try to crimp an Ultra Fast with the common
PIDG crimper, it will barely work! )
=94Daniel
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> One more question: for uninsulated FastOn terminals, can I safely buy
from the local electronics store or is this like insulated crimp
connectors where I have to watch what I get because cheap
automotive-grade parts use materials which are less-than-ideal for
aviation?
>
> -- 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: | Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
Art -
Get your crimper and terminals from SteinAir.
www.steinair.com
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> One more question: for uninsulated FastOn terminals, can I safely buy from
the local electronics store or is this like insulated crimp connectors wher
e I have to watch what I get because cheap automotive-grade parts use materi
als which are less-than-ideal for aviation?
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A concern with terminals, whether crimped or soldered, is the wire breaking from
vibration. Most people crimp terminals because it does not make the wire stiff,
which will lead to eventual breaking. However, a terminal can be soldered
as long as the solder does not wick under the wire insulation. The terminal
should clamp around the wire insulation. Heat shrink may be added for more support.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458429#458429
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
At 08:09 AM 7/20/2016, you wrote:
>Moving from the middle of the wire to the end...
>I want FastOn terminals. Since I am soldering
>other stuff, I have no qualms about soldering
>here, too. Is this the right part?
>
>[]
>
>=8B
>Do I crimp then solder then cover with heat
>shrink? Which crimper tool? Or should I do something else entirely?
>
>Is 0.250 inch the right size or should I wait
>until I buy my fuse blocks and switches to be sure?
.250 is the 95% common choice but
why not these terminals?
Emacs!
You can find them on Digikey at http://tinyurl.com/hkws5dw
These are the premium fast-on parts.
The terminals you've cited can be installed with the
B&C open barrel crimp tool http://tinyurl.com/hxa9wey
This article speaks to the technique for using the two-crimp
tool on sheet metal pins http://tinyurl.com/9c444zm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
Yes, Bob;
Indeed, why not. Just what I was about to start looking for.
Cheers!=C2-=C2- Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:02:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Female FastOn Terminals
At 08:09 AM 7/20/2016, you wrote:
Moving from the middle of the wire to the end... I want FastOn terminals. S
ince I am soldering other stuff, I have no qualms about soldering here, too
. Is this the right part?
=C3=A2=82=AC=B9
Do I crimp then solder then cover with heat shrink? Which crimper tool? Or
should I do something else entirely?
Is 0.250 inch the right size or should I wait until I buy my fuse blocks an
d switches to be sure?
=C2- .250 is the 95% common choice but
=C2- why not these terminals?
=C2-=C2- You can find them on Digikey at http://tinyurl.com/hkws5dw
=C2-=C2- These are the premium fast-on parts.
=C2-=C2- The terminals you've cited can be installed with the
=C2-=C2- B&C=C2- open barrel crimp tool=C2- http://tinyurl.com/hxa9
wey
=C2-=C2- This article speaks to the technique for using the two-crimp
=C2-=C2- tool on sheet metal pins=C2- http://tinyurl.com/9c444zm
=C2- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Mate-n-Lok terminals |
Guys
Since it seems there is, right now in this List, the season of terminals
discussions, I have a couple of questions about the Mate-n-Lok multiple
terminals like this
Which one is the male and which one is the female?
In which are the male pins and the female pins supposed to be installed?
Last question: can I use one of these for AWG #12 wires (Pitot Heat), or are
they not suited for such a high current (10 to 12A)?
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
At 10:36 AM 7/20/2016, you wrote:
>This is a related but different question:
>
>Bob, others, what do you use to crimp fully
>insulated Ultra Fast or Ultra Fast Plus
>terminals? Or is there another non-TE terminal that you prefer?
>
>( I ask because if you DO try to crimp an Ultra
>Fast with the common PIDG crimper, it will barely work! )
>
>=97Daniel
What is the ultra-fast product. That'a a new
one on me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Female FastOn Terminals |
At 10:36 AM 7/20/2016, you wrote:
>This is a related but different question:
>
>Bob, others, what do you use to crimp fully
>insulated Ultra Fast or Ultra Fast Plus
>terminals? Or is there another non-TE terminal that you prefer?
>
>( I ask because if you DO try to crimp an Ultra
>Fast with the common PIDG crimper, it will barely work! )
>
>=97Daniel
What is the ultra-fast product. That'a a new
one on me.
OH . . . yeah . . . THOSE things. I think they're
in the plasti-grip family . . . no metalic insulation
grip. No doubt there is a terminal-friendly too
for this product line. My personal choice would
be to stick with PIDG or their competitive clones
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mate-n-Lok terminals |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Are you familiar with Anderson Powerpole Connectors? If not, you might want to
check them out. I might have seen them mentioned before on this list but if
you havent read about them . . .
http://w8kvk.com/nc4l/page12/Powerpole_Benefits.pdf
https://powerwerx.com/anderson-powerpole-connectors-30amp-bonded?gclid=cpuw3-vvgs4cfue2gqodzaaj-q
There are some good Youtubes on them, too.
Sorry I did not answer your question! :-)
-Kent
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Guys
>
> Since it seems there is, right now in this List, the season of terminals discussions,
I have a couple of questions about the Mate-n-Lok multiple terminals
like this
>
>
>
> Which one is the male and which one is the female?
> In which are the male pins and the female pins supposed to be installed?
>
> Last question: can I use one of these for AWG #12 wires (Pitot Heat), or are
they not suited for such a high current (10 to 12A)?
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mate-n-Lok terminals |
They are basically Unisex-- you can put the contacts in either housing.
I
think it is best to put the females in the part that has the exposed
tubing and the males in the other part.
One thing that I have done when using multiple similar sized housing is to
take one of the contact sets and reverse it so that in that housing (and
it's mate) it cannot be confused with any others. In my setup I have 2 15
pin
mate-n-locks in the same area. This arrangement precludes error. Being
somewhat paranoid, I not only crimp the connectors on the wire (using the
appropriate crimper) but I solder each and use heat-shrink tubing on each
.
Attached is a view of the spiderweb with the connectors.
Rich
In a message dated 7/20/2016 11:41:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
kjashton(at)vnet.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kent or Jackie Ashton
Are you familiar with Anderson Powerpole Connectors? If not, you might
want to check them out. I might have seen them mentioned before on this
list
but if you haven=99t read about them . . .
http://w8kvk.com/nc4l/page12/Powerpole_Benefits.pdf
https://powerwerx.com/anderson-powerpole-connectors-30amp-bonded?gclid=c
puw3
-vvgs4cfue2gqodzaaj-q
There are some good Youtubes on them, too.
Sorry I did not answer your question! :-)
-Kent
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote
:
>
> Guys
>
> Since it seems there is, right now in this List, the season of terminal
s
discussions, I have a couple of questions about the Mate-n-Lok multiple
terminals like this
>
>
>
> Which one is the male and which one is the female?
> In which are the male pins and the female pins supposed to be installed
?
>
> Last question: can I use one of these for AWG #12 wires (Pitot Heat),
or
are they not suited for such a high current (10 to 12A)?
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Mate-n-Lok terminals |
The male pins are the ones which fits inside the female. The female pins ar
e the
ones which surrounds the male. Most mate-n-lock housings will take either m
ale
or female connections or even a mixture of both so that unique connectors c
an be
created which will not permit incorrect connection even if there are multip
le
similar connector bodies present together.
Depending upon which size or series mate-n-locks you have they are certainl
y
capable of carrying Pitot loads and accepting 12 AWG wire. Check the series
you
have against the rating sheets for wire size and current rating as there ar
e
several sizes and ratings available.
Bob McC
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Date: July 20, 2016 at 1:20 PM
>
>
>
> Guys
> =C2-
> Since it seems there is, right now in this List, the season of terminals
> discussions, I have a couple of questions about the Mate-n-Lok multiple
> terminals like this
> =C2-
>
> =C2-
> Which one is the male and which one is the female?
> In which are the male pins and the female pins supposed to be installed?
> =C2-
> Last question: can I use one of these for AWG #12 wires (Pitot Heat), or
are
> they not suited for such a high current (10 to 12A)?
> =C2-
> Thanks
> Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
plz remove me from the list
=C2-James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The first symptoms appeared a couple of weeks ago. The Dynon D-180 rebooted during
decent when the engine was idling. (My D-180 does not have a backup battery
installed.) It happened again a few days later. My first thought was that
the 6-year-old PC680 battery needed charging. But I dismissed that theory because
the D-180 only needs 10 volts to operate. And the battery always cranked
the engine fine. Back on the ground, the battery measured near 13 volts.
Next theory: Maybe the D-180 is not working right?
I fully charged the battery, removed the charger, and waited a couple of days
before measuring the battery voltage at 13. Just to rule out the battery, I
decided to turn on the master switch and landing light (nothing else) and see
how long the battery would last before running down. After turning on the master,
I heard an intermittent clicking sound for a few seconds, then quiet. The
landing light did not come on. Using the positive battery terminal as a reference
point, the voltage on the master contactor small terminal was 4.5 volts.
Maybe a defective master switch? No. The airframe also measured 4.5 volts.
The negative battery terminal was also at 4.5 volts, but only for a couple
of seconds. Then the landing light came on and the battery measured close to
13 volts. I left the landing light on for a half hour before shutting everything
off. The battery measured 12.4 volts. Maybe there was a bad connection at
the battery? I took the M6 battery bolts out and made sure the ring terminals
were clean and put it all back together and charged the battery. The next
day, everything worked and the battery was still close to 13 volts.
Then today I went into the +90 degree F hangar and turned on the master switch
and landing light. Nothing. The battery voltage varied between 2 and 5 volts.
The voltage must have gone above that for a few milliseconds because the
contactor made a faint click noise periodically.
Of course I will buy a new PC680 battery. I thought the failure mode was unusual
and decided to post about it here. Sometimes the battery was putting out
13 volts and sometimes less than 5 volts. Strange.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458450#458450
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
>
> Of course I will buy a new PC680 battery. I thought the failure
> mode was unusual and decided to post about it here. Sometimes the
> battery was putting out 13 volts and sometimes less than 5 volts. Strange.
Please send me your old battery. I'll reimburse the postage.
We'll see what we can find out.
PO Box 130
Medicine Lodge, KS 67104
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)GMAIL.COM> |
Bob,
Does your PO Box accept heavy packages like a battery?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458453#458453
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stephen Richards <stephencliverichards(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Intermittent Battery Failure |
If you have 4.5v from battery neg terminal to frame with a low load current
you must have a high resistance in connection to battery, ground to framew
ork, or in connecting cable or lugs
Clive
-----Original Message-----
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Sent: =8E21/=8E07/=8E2016 01:44
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Intermittent Battery Failure
The first symptoms appeared a couple of weeks ago. The Dynon D-180 reboote
d during decent when the engine was idling. (My D-180 does not have a back
up battery installed.) It happened again a few days later. My first thoug
ht was that the 6-year-old PC680 battery needed charging. But I dismissed
that theory because the D-180 only needs 10 volts to operate. And the batt
ery always cranked the engine fine. Back on the ground, the battery measu
red near 13 volts. Next theory: Maybe the D-180 is not working right?
I fully charged the battery, removed the charger, and waited a couple of
days before measuring the battery voltage at 13. Just to rule out the batt
ery, I decided to turn on the master switch and landing light (nothing else
) and see how long the battery would last before running down. After turni
ng on the master, I heard an intermittent clicking sound for a few seconds,
then quiet. The landing light did not come on. Using the positive batter
y terminal as a reference point, the voltage on the master contactor small
terminal was 4.5 volts. Maybe a defective master switch? No. The airfram
e also measured 4.5 volts. The negative battery terminal was also at 4.5 v
olts, but only for a couple of seconds. Then the landing light came on and
the battery measured close to 13 volts. I left the landing light on for a
half hour before shutting everything off. The battery measured 12.4 volts
. Maybe there was a bad connection at the battery? I took the M6 battery
bolts out and !
made sure the ring terminals were clean and put it all back together and c
harged the battery. The next day, everything worked and the battery was st
ill close to 13 volts.
Then today I went into the +90 degree F hangar and turned on the master s
witch and landing light. Nothing. The battery voltage varied between 2 an
d 5 volts. The voltage must have gone above that for a few milliseconds be
cause the contactor made a faint click noise periodically.
Of course I will buy a new PC680 battery. I thought the failure mode was
unusual and decided to post about it here. Sometimes the battery was putt
ing out 13 volts and sometimes less than 5 volts. Strange.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458450#458450
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 08:34 PM 7/20/2016, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>Does your PO Box accept heavy packages like a battery?
Sure. There is a medium priority mail flat
rate box with inside dims 11 x 8.5 x 5.5
that should hold it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> If you have 4.5v from battery neg terminal to frame with a low load current you
must have a high resistance in connection to battery, ground to framework,
or in connecting cable or lugs
> Clive
Clive, You overlooked the part of my post saying that the positive battery terminal
was used as a reference point for the voltmeter tests.
But I appreciate you trying to help.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458471#458471
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, I had already boxed up the battery with 2" of Styrofoam all around it. The
box is too big for your PO Box. Can I send it to your house instead? I have
the address: 2*9 ***** Lane.
Before boxing it up, I checked the battery voltage once again. It varied between
zero and 12.5. The problem seems to be getting worse. By the time it gets
to you, it might be a completely open circuit. Do you still want me to send
it? I do not know what you can do with it except to cut the case open. I know
that you have many irons in the fire and hate to see you spend time and money
for shipping.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458473#458473
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
Occasional oversize items aren't normally an issue for USPS PO box
subscribers. The clerk just leaves a key in the PO box to a parcel locker,
where the package is placed.
But...
It will likely be cheaper to re-box it in a 'flat rate' priority box like
Bob described, than to pay even Standard Rate shipping on something heavy
like a battery.
Charlie
(USPS Operations Support Specialist in a previous life)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:04 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Bob, I had already boxed up the battery with 2" of Styrofoam all around
> it. The box is too big for your PO Box. Can I send it to your house
> instead? I have the address: 2*9 ***** Lane.
> Before boxing it up, I checked the battery voltage once again. It
> varied between zero and 12.5. The problem seems to be getting worse. By
> the time it gets to you, it might be a completely open circuit. Do you
> still want me to send it? I do not know what you can do with it except to
> cut the case open. I know that you have many irons in the fire and hate to
> see you spend time and money for shipping.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458473#458473
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
This sure sounds like a classic bad connection in your wiring plant.
Batteries do not generally fail in this manner with wild swings in output (unless
it is a loose connection to multiple electrode plates internally).
When you put your VOM directly to the 680, was it simply by touching the leads
to the contact bolt tops, or was it via an electrically secure connection?
OTOH, six years is pretty long in the tooth for a 680 in an aviation application.
They are cycle-lifetime limited and will slowly reduce their charge holding
capacity. I have changed out my Odessey 680 four times over the 12 years of
service of my Europa.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458478#458478
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Charlie, I misread Bob's post and thought that he was giving the dimensions
of his PO Box. I will use your suggestion.
-
Rampil, the problem can not be the aircraft wiring because I was measuring voltage
directly between the battery terminals. Well actually on the 6mm stainless
steel bolts that screw into the brass battery terminals.
-
Just to be 100 percent sure that I am not seeing things, I set the battery on my
workbench and connected a 50W 12 volt lamp to it. The lamp lit up and the voltage
dropped from 12.85 to 12.3 So now the battery is working fine. I know
that some of you think that the problem could be in the aircraft. But the only
thing that can make battery voltage drop is a very heavy load or short circuit.
I doubt that is case because there was no heat or smoke or sparks.
I am going to hang onto the battery until after OSH, then do some more testing.
The battery is not going back into the airplane.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458485#458485
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 08:04 AM 7/21/2016, you wrote:
>
>Bob, I had already boxed up the battery with 2" of Styrofoam all
>around it. The box is too big for your PO Box. Can I send it to
>your house instead? I have the address: 2*9 ***** Lane.
I don't have a mailbox. All mail to a street address
for me defaults to the box. If it's too big, it sits
behind the counter. Send it to the box. No sweat.
> Before boxing it up, I checked the battery voltage once
> again. It varied between zero and 12.5. The problem seems to be
> getting worse. By the time it gets to you, it might be a
> completely open circuit. Do you still want me to send it? I do
> not know what you can do with it except to cut the case open. I
> know that you have many irons in the fire and hate to see you spend
> time and money for shipping.
Education was never cheap . . . yeah . . . I'd like to
have it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 08:26 AM 7/21/2016, you wrote:
>Occasional oversize items aren't normally an
>issue for USPS PO box subscribers. The clerk
>just leaves a key in the PO box to a parcel
>locker, where the package is placed.=C2
>But...
>It will likely be cheaper to re-box it in a
>'flat rate' priority box like Bob described,
>than to pay even Standard Rate shipping on something heavy like a battery.
OH YEAH . . . use the flat rate box. There's no
'practical' weight limit on those boxes. It will
fit in the medium, top load box with a published
weight limit of 70 pounds.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 10:23 AM 7/21/2016, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Charlie, I misread Bob's post and thought that he was giving
>the dimensions of his PO Box. I will use your suggestion.
>-
>Rampil, the problem can not be the aircraft wiring because I was
>measuring voltage directly between the battery terminals. Well
>actually on the 6mm stainless steel bolts that screw into the brass
>battery terminals.
>-
>Just to be 100 percent sure that I am not seeing things, I set the
>battery on my workbench and connected a 50W 12 volt lamp to it. The
>lamp lit up and the voltage dropped from 12.85 to 12.3 So now the
>battery is working fine. I know that some of you think that the
>problem could be in the aircraft. But the only thing that can make
>battery voltage drop is a very heavy load or short circuit. I doubt
>that is case because there was no heat or smoke or sparks.
> I am going to hang onto the battery until after OSH, then do some
> more testing. The battery is not going back into the airplane.
Nonetheless, it would be very useful to get
cap/load test data on the battery after being
in service that long.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
OK Bob, I will ship the PC680 to you via USPS flat rate box.
This morning I had checked the battery on the workbench and it lit up a 50 watt
lamp and the voltage was 12.3
Late this afternoon I did another test. I measured open circuit voltage of 12.8
VDC. Then I connected the 50W test lamp but it did not light up. The test
lamp wires were clamped between the brass battery terminals and the M6 bolts and
washers, albeit only finger tight, but tight enough to resist the wires pulling
out. The terminals are clean, no corrosion. While the lamp was connected,
I put a voltmeter on the bolt heads: 0.5 volts. While I was holding the meter
probes on the bolts for several seconds, the lamp suddenly came on and the
voltage went up to 12.4 volts. There was no intermittent external connection.
Whatever the problem is, it is internal to the battery. The failure might
be related to ambient temperature. It was cooler this morning and in the upper
80s this afternoon.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458502#458502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 05:50 PM 7/21/2016, you wrote:
>
>OK Bob, I will ship the PC680 to you via USPS flat rate box.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | connectors explained? |
Has anyone seen a good explanation of all (or most) of the various
connectors, when to use, when not to use, etc. AMP, PIDG, Molex, etc. are
terms that are often thrown around, but never, it seems, explained.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)GMAIL.COM> |
The terms you mentioned are brand names, in use 30 or more years each.
Without being condescending, the best way to start learning about these devices
is to google them when a term comes up that you are unfamiliar with, because
you are asking for an encyclopedia.
Selecting links to the manufacturer is probably best (AMP is a manufacturer).
PIDG are connectors for single wires. Molex are (IMHO) cheap, relatively unreliable
connectors for multiple wires whose popularity may have had to do with their
formerly easy availability at Radio Shack.
If, after you give yourself a bit of baseline, this forum would be a great place
to ask detailed questions about aviation applications of the hardware.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458559#458559
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
What's the basis for the claim that Molex connectors are unreliable?
They're designed to minimise the part cost for mass manufactured products but the
correct tooling is very precise and very expensive. If you use cheap tools
and don't follow the test protocols the connection may well fail prematurely,
but that's not a design flaw in the product.
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:08 AM, rampil wrote:
>
>
> The terms you mentioned are brand names, in use 30 or more years each.
> Without being condescending, the best way to start learning about these devices
is to google them when a term comes up that you are unfamiliar with, because
you are asking for an encyclopedia.
>
> Selecting links to the manufacturer is probably best (AMP is a manufacturer).
> PIDG are connectors for single wires. Molex are (IMHO) cheap, relatively unreliable
connectors for multiple wires whose popularity may have had to do with
their formerly easy availability at Radio Shack.
>
> If, after you give yourself a bit of baseline, this forum would be a great place
to ask detailed questions about aviation applications of the hardware.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458559#458559
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
I'd have to agree that relative to other style connectors for the same
application, the molex style connectors can be unreliable. Not pointing a
finger at the brand (Molex makes more than one style of connector). But the
most common style referred to as 'molex' often has pins made of
corrosion-prone material, and weak contact pressure between the contacts.
In a 30+ year career dealing with electronics, I've seen frequent (and
repeated) failures in everything from consumer electronics to industrial
equipment costing in the high 6 figures. The failures I'm talking about are
not at the wire/pin junction, but at the pin/pin junction; no tooling
issues there.
Just because you see something used in aviation doesn't mean it's high
quality. Another example is the edge connector used in a lot of older high
end panel mount radios, audio panels, etc.
Charlie
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> What's the basis for the claim that Molex connectors are unreliable?
>
> They're designed to minimise the part cost for mass manufactured products
> but the correct tooling is very precise and very expensive. If you use
> cheap tools and don't follow the test protocols the connection may well
> fail prematurely, but that's not a design flaw in the product.
>
> > On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:08 AM, rampil wrote:
> >
> >
> > The terms you mentioned are brand names, in use 30 or more years each.
> > Without being condescending, the best way to start learning about these
> devices is to google them when a term comes up that you are unfamiliar
> with, because you are asking for an encyclopedia.
> >
> > Selecting links to the manufacturer is probably best (AMP is a
> manufacturer).
> > PIDG are connectors for single wires. Molex are (IMHO) cheap, relatively
> unreliable connectors for multiple wires whose popularity may have had to
> do with their formerly easy availability at Radio Shack.
> >
> > If, after you give yourself a bit of baseline, this forum would be a
> great place to ask detailed questions about aviation applications of the
> hardware.
> >
> > --------
> > Ira N224XS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458559#458559
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
If you want more corrosion resistance, use (and pay for) the gold plated con
tacts. I believe Molex manufacture the 062 and 093 series pins in brass plat
ed with two different thicknesses of gold too - your choice. On the other ha
nd if you want pins at 2 cents each then that's your choice too.
Either way the connectors aren't designed for frequent disconnects - 100 cyc
les only is the design limit. Beyond that the contact pressure will fail.
Every single PC manufactured since the original IBM PC has used some kind of
Molex or AMP crimped pin connection with a nylon housing for things like po
wer supply and floppy disc connectors. That's a lot of opportunities for fai
lure and a lot of time to get things right.
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> I'd have to agree that relative to other style connectors for the same app
lication, the molex style connectors can be unreliable. Not pointing a finge
r at the brand (Molex makes more than one style of connector). But the most c
ommon style referred to as 'molex' often has pins made of corrosion-prone ma
terial, and weak contact pressure between the contacts. In a 30+ year career
dealing with electronics, I've seen frequent (and repeated) failures in eve
rything from consumer electronics to industrial equipment costing in the hig
h 6 figures. The failures I'm talking about are not at the wire/pin junction
, but at the pin/pin junction; no tooling issues there.
>
> Just because you see something used in aviation doesn't mean it's high qua
lity. Another example is the edge connector used in a lot of older high end p
anel mount radios, audio panels, etc.
>
> Charlie
>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>>
>> What's the basis for the claim that Molex connectors are unreliable?
>>
>> They're designed to minimise the part cost for mass manufactured products
but the correct tooling is very precise and very expensive. If you use chea
p tools and don't follow the test protocols the connection may well fail pre
maturely, but that's not a design flaw in the product.
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:08 AM, rampil wrote:
>> >
>
>> >
>> > The terms you mentioned are brand names, in use 30 or more years each.
>> > Without being condescending, the best way to start learning about these
devices is to google them when a term comes up that you are unfamiliar with
, because you are asking for an encyclopedia.
>> >
>> > Selecting links to the manufacturer is probably best (AMP is a manufact
urer).
>> > PIDG are connectors for single wires. Molex are (IMHO) cheap, relativel
y unreliable connectors for multiple wires whose popularity may have had to d
o with their formerly easy availability at Radio Shack.
>> >
>> > If, after you give yourself a bit of baseline, this forum would be a gr
eat place to ask detailed questions about aviation applications of the hardw
are.
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Ira N224XS
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458559#458559
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 7/23/2016 7:59 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
> What's the basis for the claim that Molex connectors are unreliable?
I was wondering the same thing. I've been using these types of
connectors for some 30+ years in a wide variety of applications, and it
is pretty rare to see a failure.
The ones that have seen issues were typically due to a bad crimp
installation. Needle nose pliers aren't the proper crimp tool, despite
application by many backyard mechanics... :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
The basis for my opinion regarding molex standard power 0.062 and 0.093 connectors
is based on nearly 50 years experience in electronic/homebrew fab. That includes
five aircraft and big pile of med lab equipment.
The problems I have seen (more than once) is that they corrode and that the pin/socket
combos are not always well fixed in their nylon housings - they pull
out. The wire to contact crimps also occasionally let go on a pull test. And that
is with reasonably expensive hand crimp tooling. When I use molex, I have
for many years felt the need to solder after crimping.
Yes, you can buy gold-plated contacts, but not locally sourced at ACS, Fry's, Rat
Shack, etc. The reason these connectors are used is that they are locally
available, consumer grade, inexpensive products. In their favor, they also will
handle more current than a submini DB connector. In my aircraft I use metal
shell circular connectors through the firewall and CPC connectors from Panel to
fuselage. Inside the panel I use mostly submini DBs and few Molex for multiwire
applications, where I accept the molex issues for minor subsystems.
Can I see a show of hands of homebuilders who have access to the automated, precision
molex crimp fixtures for their homebuilt aircraft? I would submit that
a connector product that requires that amount of care and precision crimping
in fabrication is not a good fit for OBAM aircraft. I would also observe that
in homebuilding and restoring aircraft, that the number of cycles in connecting
and de-mating connectors is far more than a handful and not comparable at all
to a Dell boat anchor where the power cables to the motherboard and drives
are inserted once and (hopefully, but I suppose wishfully in a Dell) never touched
again.
Sorry for being long winded, but I have tried to explain the basis for my opinions.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458571#458571
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
I need to put a connector in the tail section to connect the electric trim
servo (Ray Allen). The wires are small, 22 or 24. What would be the best
choice for a connector in this situation? It would be possible to use a
service loop and splices, but is there a good connector for this
application?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, rampil wrote:
>
> The basis for my opinion regarding molex standard power 0.062 and 0.093
> connectors is based on nearly 50 years experience in electronic/homebrew
> fab. That includes five aircraft and big pile of med lab equipment.
>
> The problems I have seen (more than once) is that they corrode and that
> the pin/socket combos are not always well fixed in their nylon housings -
> they pull out. The wire to contact crimps also occasionally let go on a
> pull test. And that is with reasonably expensive hand crimp tooling. When I
> use molex, I have for many years felt the need to solder after crimping.
>
> Yes, you can buy gold-plated contacts, but not locally sourced at ACS,
> Fry's, Rat Shack, etc. The reason these connectors are used is that they
> are locally available, consumer grade, inexpensive products. In their
> favor, they also will handle more current than a submini DB connector. In
> my aircraft I use metal shell circular connectors through the firewall and
> CPC connectors from Panel to fuselage. Inside the panel I use mostly
> submini DBs and few Molex for multiwire applications, where I accept the
> molex issues for minor subsystems.
>
> Can I see a show of hands of homebuilders who have access to the
> automated, precision molex crimp fixtures for their homebuilt aircraft? I
> would submit that a connector product that requires that amount of care and
> precision crimping in fabrication is not a good fit for OBAM aircraft. I
> would also observe that in homebuilding and restoring aircraft, that the
> number of cycles in connecting and de-mating connectors is far more than a
> handful and not comparable at all to a Dell boat anchor where the power
> cables to the motherboard and drives are inserted once and (hopefully, but
> I suppose wishfully in a Dell) never touched again.
>
> Sorry for being long winded, but I have tried to explain the basis for my
> opinions.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458571#458571
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I'd consider using the machined sub-d crimp pins, with heat shrink over
the joint. Details are in the -Connection book.
If you have other lines to the same general location (LED tail light,
etc), and a fairly open path for the connector to pass through, you
could just use a 9 pin sub-d connector.
Charlie
(interesting that Ira & I share the same experiences with both molex's
and Dells)
On 7/23/2016 12:40 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> I need to put a connector in the tail section to connect the electric
> trim servo (Ray Allen). The wires are small, 22 or 24. What would be
> the best choice for a connector in this situation? It would be
> possible to use a service loop and splices, but is there a good
> connector for this application?
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, rampil > wrote:
>
> >
>
> The basis for my opinion regarding molex standard power 0.062 and
> 0.093 connectors is based on nearly 50 years experience in
> electronic/homebrew fab. That includes five aircraft and big pile
> of med lab equipment.
>
> The problems I have seen (more than once) is that they corrode and
> that the pin/socket combos are not always well fixed in their
> nylon housings - they pull out. The wire to contact crimps also
> occasionally let go on a pull test. And that is with reasonably
> expensive hand crimp tooling. When I use molex, I have for many
> years felt the need to solder after crimping.
>
> Yes, you can buy gold-plated contacts, but not locally sourced at
> ACS, Fry's, Rat Shack, etc. The reason these connectors are used
> is that they are locally available, consumer grade, inexpensive
> products. In their favor, they also will handle more current than
> a submini DB connector. In my aircraft I use metal shell circular
> connectors through the firewall and CPC connectors from Panel to
> fuselage. Inside the panel I use mostly submini DBs and few Molex
> for multiwire applications, where I accept the molex issues for
> minor subsystems.
>
> Can I see a show of hands of homebuilders who have access to the
> automated, precision molex crimp fixtures for their homebuilt
> aircraft? I would submit that a connector product that requires
> that amount of care and precision crimping in fabrication is not a
> good fit for OBAM aircraft. I would also observe that in
> homebuilding and restoring aircraft, that the number of cycles in
> connecting and de-mating connectors is far more than a handful and
> not comparable at all to a Dell boat anchor where the power cables
> to the motherboard and drives are inserted once and (hopefully,
> but I suppose wishfully in a Dell) never touched again.
>
> Sorry for being long winded, but I have tried to explain the basis
> for my opinions.
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458571#458571
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firewall Wire Pass Through |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
Hi all,
On my airplane there are two rectangular/square holes that wire bundles
pass through. One hole is 1 inch by 2 inches and the other is a square 1
inch by 1 inch hole.
What is a best practice and also cost effective way to Fire block these
rather large holes?
Aircraft Spruce has a contraption for this purpose however it is only a 1
inch by 1 inch so it would not be applicable to my larger whole and there
product is a bit pricey.
The previous installation simply had red RTV silicone squirted in between
the wires
Thanks for your help!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/23/2016 1:02 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On my airplane there are two rectangular/square holes that wire
> bundles pass through. One hole is 1 inch by 2 inches and the other is
> a square 1 inch by 1 inch hole.
>
> What is a best practice and also cost effective way to Fire block
> these rather large holes?
>
> Aircraft Spruce has a contraption for this purpose however it is only
> a 1 inch by 1 inch so it would not be applicable to my larger whole
> and there product is a bit pricey.
>
> The previous installation simply had red RTV silicone squirted in
> between the wires
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
The 1x2 is a bit big; do you need that much area?
FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless grab
bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer). Various
diameters typically available from big box stores, or ebay/amazon. I've
also seen 1" stainless flanges on ebay for a reasonable price. Instead
of RTV, use intumescent caulk.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=intumescent%20caulk
You can get the latex based stuff at big box stores, or the better stuff
at ACS. (either is probably good enough, and a lot better than RTV.)
Instead of squirting it in the hole (messy if you need to add/remove
wires), squirt 'strings' of it on a non-stick surface & let them cure.
Then stuff the empty space with the strings.
You'll still need the firesleeve & stainless clamps to finish the job.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
>>The reason these connectors are used is that they are locally available, consumer
grade, inexpensive products.
There's the problem. Using a product because it's locally available rather than
the right item for the job is of course going to give you the impression the
product is no good.
There should be a clue in the fact that although the pins are available for a few
cents each the Molex 093 tool is something like $300, and the AMP mate-n-lok
equivalent hand tool is about $500. And those are hand tools for field repair
and prototyping only, not suitable for manufacture.
If you use decent tooling, have the correct pin for the size of wire, which itself
is correctly stripped to precisely the right length per the manufacturer's
specification and then correctly positioned in the tool which is fully cycled
- they don't fail pull tests. If you insert them into the shells - and remove
them - with the correct tooling only, and only a strictly limited number of times,
then they don't fall out of the shells. If you stick to the design limit
of connect/disconnect cycles, they don't lose grip. But if you can't meet those
parameters, then yes, they'll be "unreliable".
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 13:26, rampil wrote:
>
> grade, inexpensive products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
No expert here but I'd agree, especially for 22-24 gauge wires.
If you want a plug connector, use a 9 pin sub-d. For inline
applications, I zip tie the two plugs together. Cut and retie as
needed. That's what I did in my RV10's tail. Otherwise fabricate a
small mount which I've done for other applications.
If you need to splice individual wires, just use the sub-d pins without
the plug. heat shrink over the joint. Removable with some effort but
otherwise very secure and compact.
All of these connector types require professional grade crimpers and/or
development of some technique to get reliable connections in all
situations. For example, I have a less-than-pro crimper that required
some modification to work reliably. I recall doubling the stripped ends
of 24 gauge wire worked well as well.
Learning about different connector types and learning to use them has
been fun and satisfying for this builder.
On 7/23/2016 2:01 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> I'd consider using the machined sub-d crimp pins, with heat shrink
> over the joint. Details are in the -Connection book.
>
> If you have other lines to the same general location (LED tail light,
> etc), and a fairly open path for the connector to pass through, you
> could just use a 9 pin sub-d connector.
>
> Charlie
> (interesting that Ira & I share the same experiences with both molex's
> and Dells)
>
> On 7/23/2016 12:40 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>> I need to put a connector in the tail section to connect the electric
>> trim servo (Ray Allen). The wires are small, 22 or 24. What would be
>> the best choice for a connector in this situation? It would be
>> possible to use a service loop and splices, but is there a good
>> connector for this application?
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, rampil > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> The basis for my opinion regarding molex standard power 0.062 and
>> 0.093 connectors is based on nearly 50 years experience in
>> electronic/homebrew fab. That includes five aircraft and big pile
>> of med lab equipment.
>>
>> The problems I have seen (more than once) is that they corrode
>> and that the pin/socket combos are not always well fixed in their
>> nylon housings - they pull out. The wire to contact crimps also
>> occasionally let go on a pull test. And that is with reasonably
>> expensive hand crimp tooling. When I use molex, I have for many
>> years felt the need to solder after crimping.
>>
>> Yes, you can buy gold-plated contacts, but not locally sourced at
>> ACS, Fry's, Rat Shack, etc. The reason these connectors are used
>> is that they are locally available, consumer grade, inexpensive
>> products. In their favor, they also will handle more current than
>> a submini DB connector. In my aircraft I use metal shell circular
>> connectors through the firewall and CPC connectors from Panel to
>> fuselage. Inside the panel I use mostly submini DBs and few Molex
>> for multiwire applications, where I accept the molex issues for
>> minor subsystems.
>>
>> Can I see a show of hands of homebuilders who have access to the
>> automated, precision molex crimp fixtures for their homebuilt
>> aircraft? I would submit that a connector product that requires
>> that amount of care and precision crimping in fabrication is not
>> a good fit for OBAM aircraft. I would also observe that in
>> homebuilding and restoring aircraft, that the number of cycles in
>> connecting and de-mating connectors is far more than a handful
>> and not comparable at all to a Dell boat anchor where the power
>> cables to the motherboard and drives are inserted once and
>> (hopefully, but I suppose wishfully in a Dell) never touched again.
>>
>> Sorry for being long winded, but I have tried to explain the
>> basis for my opinions.
>>
>> --------
>> Ira N224XS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458571#458571
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Male and female D-sub crimp pins with a bit of shrink wrap seem like the most elegant
solution to me. Less elegant but OK: two Fast-on tabs. It is almost as
good just to twist and solder a small splice. If you ever need to remove the
device, cut the splice and resolder.
-Kent
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> I need to put a connector in the tail section to connect the electric trim servo
(Ray Allen). The wires are small, 22 or 24. What would be the best choice
for a connector in this situation? It would be possible to use a service loop
and splices, but is there a good connector for this application?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
DINFor information, on research, I see the Molex 093 pins are rated for a maximum
of 25 connection cycles only.
AMP documentation says their circular mil-style connectors are rated for 25 cycles
(tin plated) and 500 cycles (gold plated).
A brief review of Amphenol and ITT Canon Subminiature D connector shows the option
of DIN41652 Class I (500 mating cycles) or Class II (200 mating cycles) depending
on contact material.
On Jul 23, 2016, at 14:57, Kent or Jackie Ashton wrote:
Male and female D-sub crimp pins with a bit of shrink wrap seem like the most elegant
solution to me. Less elegant but OK: two Fast-on tabs. It is almost as
good just to twist and solder a small splice. If you ever need to remove the
device, cut the splice and resolder.
-Kent
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> I need to put a connector in the tail section to connect the electric trim servo
(Ray Allen). The wires are small, 22 or 24. What would be the best choice
for a connector in this situation? It would be possible to use a service loop
and splices, but is there a good connector for this application?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
Lesser the two main problems with the molex type connectors seem to be the c
rimp connection and the corrosion potential of the connectors.
I
I use them somewhat extensively but I try to circumvent these two problems b
y the following
1. Use the proper crimping tool
2. Solder the crimp
3 use heat shrink tubing for strain relief
4 use an antioxidant paste in the connectors
I even use this goo in gold plated (usually flash) pinned connectors as well
as fast -ins
!vm
Gold
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 7:37 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> I'd have to agree that relative to other style connectors for the same app
lication, the molex style connectors can be unreliable. Not pointing a finge
r at the brand (Molex makes more than one style of connector). But the most c
ommon style referred to as 'molex' often has pins made of corrosion-prone ma
terial, and weak contact pressure between the contacts. In a 30+ year career
dealing with electronics, I've seen frequent (and repeated) failures in eve
rything from consumer electronics to industrial equipment costing in the hig
h 6 figures. The failures I'm talking about are not at the wire/pin junction
, but at the pin/pin junction; no tooling issues there.
>
> Just because you see something used in aviation doesn't mean it's high qua
lity. Another example is the edge connector used in a lot of older high end p
anel mount radios, audio panels, etc.
>
> Charlie
>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>>
>> What's the basis for the claim that Molex connectors are unreliable?
>>
>> They're designed to minimise the part cost for mass manufactured products
but the correct tooling is very precise and very expensive. If you use chea
p tools and don't follow the test protocols the connection may well fail pre
maturely, but that's not a design flaw in the product.
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:08 AM, rampil wrote:
>> >
>
>> >
>> > The terms you mentioned are brand names, in use 30 or more years each.
>> > Without being condescending, the best way to start learning about these
devices is to google them when a term comes up that you are unfamiliar with
, because you are asking for an encyclopedia.
>> >
>> > Selecting links to the manufacturer is probably best (AMP is a manufact
urer).
>> > PIDG are connectors for single wires. Molex are (IMHO) cheap, relativel
y unreliable connectors for multiple wires whose popularity may have had to d
o with their formerly easy availability at Radio Shack.
>> >
>> > If, after you give yourself a bit of baseline, this forum would be a gr
eat place to ask detailed questions about aviation applications of the hardw
are.
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Ira N224XS
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458559#458559
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Use for old ELT batts? |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
I have 3 ELT batts that have expired legally but still put out reasonable voltage.
Any suggested uses with an easily rigged or wired solution? Especially for
a potential emergency (grid down, etc) use.
Thanks in advance
Ron Burnett
Luscombe 8A
Rv-6A
Sent from my iPad
May you have the blessings of the Lord today.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Use for old ELT batts? |
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
Flashlight. The hideously expensive batteries in my 406 ELT are "D" size
but put out 3 volts. Replaced the bulb with an LED in a $5 flashlight
and re-purposed the expired batteries.
john
On 7/23/2016 4:49 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
> I have 3 ELT batts that have expired legally but still put out reasonable voltage.
Any suggested uses with an easily rigged or wired solution? Especially
for a potential emergency (grid down, etc) use.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Ron Burnett
> Luscombe 8A
> Rv-6A
>
> Sent from my iPad
> May you have the blessings of the Lord today.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Use for old ELT batts? |
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
Too funny!
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone so please excuse typos and brevity.
On Jul 23, 2016 8:55 PM, "John Morgensen" wrote:
> john(at)morgensen.com>
>
> Flashlight. The hideously expensive batteries in my 406 ELT are "D" size
> but put out 3 volts. Replaced the bulb with an LED in a $5 flashlight and
> re-purposed the expired batteries.
>
> john
>
>
> On 7/23/2016 4:49 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
>> ronburnett(at)charter.net>
>>
>> I have 3 ELT batts that have expired legally but still put out reasonable
>> voltage. Any suggested uses with an easily rigged or wired solution?
>> Especially for a potential emergency (grid down, etc) use.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>> Luscombe 8A
>> Rv-6A
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> May you have the blessings of the Lord today.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
The wonderful thing about OBAM is that you can do what you think is best!
The downside is that, in the specific application space of OBAM aircraft, there
is precious little hard data on reliability, engineering tradeoffs, etc.
Having said that, I offer my opinion about "connectoring" a Ray Allen trim motor/sensor.
Like the majority opinion, I have used minisubDs, roll pin crimp over cheaper folded
metal contacts, over soldered contacts. I would use them again in this spot
with out hesitation. These connectors do come with tiny screw fastener to
retain the male/female but you are asking for trouble in the tail when the self
retaining feature is not reliable and you can easily drop the screws, washers
and nuts into the fuse. A ty-wrap or friction tape is a good alternative.
No way for the molex connectors here. Primarily because an 0.063 contact is just
not compatible with the tiny signal wires used by Ray Allen.
IMHO solder is a bad choice in this particular spot because of lack of access.
Just image the PITA nature of stripping multiple 24 ga wires inside an access
panel, then soldering them one by one without melting the adjacent insulation.
Much better to put DB-15s on, before installation in the fuselage.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458608#458608
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE out of
the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane on the ground
and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any firewall penetrations
should be minimized. You might consider plugging your rather large openings
with sheet metal similar to the firewall material - hopefully stainless
steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the job.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Baker <jimbaker(at)npacc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
http://www.unifrax.com/products/blankets/fiberfrax-ceramic-fiber-blanket/
Jim Baker
405 426 5377
-----Original Message-----
From: racerjerry <gnking2(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 5:54
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE out of
the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane on the ground
and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any firewall penetrations
should be minimized. You might consider plugging your rather large openings
with sheet metal similar to the firewall material - hopefully stainless
steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the job.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
At 05:27 PM 7/23/2016, you wrote:
>Lesser the two main problems with the molex type connectors seem to
>be the crimp connection and the corrosion potential of the connectors.
>I
>I use them somewhat extensively but I try to circumvent these two
>problems by the following
>
>1. Use the proper crimping tool
>2. Solder the crimp
>3 use heat shrink tubing for strain relief
>4 use an antioxidant paste in the connectors
>I even use this goo in gold plated (usually flash) pinned connectors
>as well as fast -ins
None of these things are inherently 'wrong' . . . but
consider that AMP Mate-n-Lok (Molex cousins) went into
Cessna ship's harnesses since the 60's with none of
these 'enhanced' processes.
Something we have to keep in mind is that when a company
with the stature of AMP, Molex, Ampehnol, et. als. puts
out a new technology with the potential for hundreds of
millions of wire joinings, they'll have done their homework.
Install and use these parts within the limits of their
design goals, your risks are exceedingly low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
> FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless grab
bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer).
!!!WHOA!!! I certainly came to the right place for advice!!!
I just cyber bought a 2fer of stainless steel firewall fire block flanges
for $11.72 !!!DELIVERED!!! (cleverly disguised as Moen exposed flange mount
stainless steel grab rail)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U6EI92/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&p
sc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Santa Amazon will show up on Tuesday with my gifts...according to my
smartphone calculator app...that is $5.82 each for the stainless steel
flanges (ok...plus the cost of the wear and tear and electricity to use my
cutoff wheel and a ride on the belt sander).
The creativity and "resourcefulness" (read Cheap-Ass-Full-Ness) of the
people on this forum is really astounding...I feel right at home!!!
Oh...BTW...the stainless steel clamps used to attach the red fire block
sleeves are also called "CV Joint Boot Clamps" and four can be purchased
DELIVERED for less than 7 bucks
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D4NB4VE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?i
e=UTF8&psc=1
The 1.25 ID Aeroquip fire sleeve (I bought 6 inches for each of my DIY
"Firewall Penetration Kits" can be purchased from Pegasus Racing delivered
for $15.00 (dang...shipping was 8 bucks)....
So the grand total for TWO Firewall Penetration Kits is less than 30 BUCKS
($11.72 + $0.18 + $15.00 =$26.92)!!!
Still...a bit pricey for my standards but well within the threshold of
credit card pain. Well worth the price of admission to this forum!!!
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HElP!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
racerjerry
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
-->
Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE
out of the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane
on the ground and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any
firewall penetrations should be minimized. You might consider plugging
your rather large openings with sheet metal similar to the firewall material
- hopefully stainless steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the
job.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connectors explained? |
| From: | David Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
One more thing to keep in mind in the discussion of 062/093 connectors
(Molex common, AMP Mate-N-Lok etc.) DO NOT MIX gold and tin. A major
manufacturer of audio/broadcast consoles hoped to improve reliability by
changing the socket contacts to gold, while leaving the pin contacts
tin. Reliability went from bad to worse. The tin socket contacts are
made with very high contact pressure, intended to scrape through some of
the oxides that accumulate on the tin mating surfaces. The gold ones are
made with much less contact pressure, because the high pressure would
scrape off the gold. Mixing one contact gold and one tin is a recipe for
an intermittent contact.
Extending the wires from a trim servo has to be one of the most common
FAQs these days. My vote is for solder and shrink (having just done that
this week in my plane.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
Hi All;
I have used these flanges (for grab rails, not firewalls). They are not too heavy
and should do the job nicely.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:26:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
> FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless grab
bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer).
!!!WHOA!!! I certainly came to the right place for advice!!!
I just cyber bought a 2fer of stainless steel firewall fire block flanges
for $11.72 !!!DELIVERED!!! (cleverly disguised as Moen exposed flange mount
stainless steel grab rail)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U6EI92/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&p
sc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Santa Amazon will show up on Tuesday with my gifts...according to my
smartphone calculator app...that is $5.82 each for the stainless steel
flanges (ok...plus the cost of the wear and tear and electricity to use my
cutoff wheel and a ride on the belt sander).
The creativity and "resourcefulness" (read Cheap-Ass-Full-Ness) of the
people on this forum is really astounding...I feel right at home!!!
Oh...BTW...the stainless steel clamps used to attach the red fire block
sleeves are also called "CV Joint Boot Clamps" and four can be purchased
DELIVERED for less than 7 bucks
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D4NB4VE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?i
e=UTF8&psc=1
The 1.25 ID Aeroquip fire sleeve (I bought 6 inches for each of my DIY
"Firewall Penetration Kits" can be purchased from Pegasus Racing delivered
for $15.00 (dang...shipping was 8 bucks)....
So the grand total for TWO Firewall Penetration Kits is less than 30 BUCKS
($11.72 + $0.18 + $15.00 =$26.92)!!!
Still...a bit pricey for my standards but well within the threshold of
credit card pain. Well worth the price of admission to this forum!!!
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HElP!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
racerjerry
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
-->
Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE
out of the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane
on the ground and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any
firewall penetrations should be minimized. You might consider plugging
your rather large openings with sheet metal similar to the firewall material
- hopefully stainless steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the
job.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | sizing shared ground wire |
I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing light
is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems that 20
ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is shared (and
I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that mean that
the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on its own
circuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Stu!!!
Bill Hunter
On Jul 24, 2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
>
> Hi All;
> I have used these flanges (for grab rails, not firewalls). They are not
> too heavy and should do the job nicely.
> Cheers! Stu.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:26:31 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>
> billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>
> > FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless grab
> bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer).
>
> !!!WHOA!!! I certainly came to the right place for advice!!!
>
> I just cyber bought a 2fer of stainless steel firewall fire block flanges
> for $11.72 !!!DELIVERED!!! (cleverly disguised as Moen exposed flange
> mount
> stainless steel grab rail)
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U6EI92/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&p
> sc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>
> Santa Amazon will show up on Tuesday with my gifts...according to my
> smartphone calculator app...that is $5.82 each for the stainless steel
> flanges (ok...plus the cost of the wear and tear and electricity to use my
> cutoff wheel and a ride on the belt sander).
>
> The creativity and "resourcefulness" (read Cheap-Ass-Full-Ness) of the
> people on this forum is really astounding...I feel right at home!!!
>
> Oh...BTW...the stainless steel clamps used to attach the red fire block
> sleeves are also called "CV Joint Boot Clamps" and four can be purchased
> DELIVERED for less than 7 bucks
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D4NB4VE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?i
> e=UTF8&psc=1
>
> The 1.25 ID Aeroquip fire sleeve (I bought 6 inches for each of my DIY
> "Firewall Penetration Kits" can be purchased from Pegasus Racing delivered
> for $15.00 (dang...shipping was 8 bucks)....
>
> So the grand total for TWO Firewall Penetration Kits is less than 30 BUCKS
> ($11.72 + $0.18 + $15.00 =$26.92)!!!
>
> Still...a bit pricey for my standards but well within the threshold of
> credit card pain. Well worth the price of admission to this forum!!!
>
> THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HElP!!!
>
> ..
>
> Cheers!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> racerjerry
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:55 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>
> -->
>
> Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE
> out of the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane
> on the ground and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any
> firewall penetrations should be minimized. You might consider plugging
> your rather large openings with sheet metal similar to the firewall
> material
> - hopefully stainless steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the
> job.
>
> --------
> Jerry King
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
Ken, wire length is important too. Even if the wire capacity is enough
for the amount of current you want to carry, if the wire it long the
voltage drop may be unacceptable and require a larger wire. I assume
from the values you give these are LED lights so at least you don't have
to be concerned about the cold filament current.
FAA AC43.13 has some good charts for figuring out wire size for a
current and length. Look at Figure 11-2 "Conductor chart, continuous
flow" on page 11-30.
Since it sounds like you have a fiberglass airplane and you're using
wires to return your ground instead of the airframe, you should double
the wire length (so you account for the round trip voltage drop).
Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
PP-SEL/A&P-IA
"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know
it?" -Sheldon Cooper
On 7/24/16 12:38 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing
> light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It
> seems that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the
> ground is shared (and I can foresee operating both lights at the same
> time) does that mean that the ground wire should be upsized to 18
> gauge? Each light is on its own circuit with planned 5 amp fuse
> protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
Bill,
Stainless worm drive hose clamps are a lot cheaper, and much easier to
remove/replace when you make wiring changes.
https://www.amazon.com/Worm-Gear-Hose-Clamps/b?ie=UTF8&node=979130011
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 3:11 PM, William Hunter
wrote:
> Thanks Stu!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
> On Jul 24, 2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All;
>> I have used these flanges (for grab rails, not firewalls). They are not
>> too heavy and should do the job nicely.
>> Cheers! Stu.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:26:31 AM
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>>
>> billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> > FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless grab
>> bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer).
>>
>> !!!WHOA!!! I certainly came to the right place for advice!!!
>>
>> I just cyber bought a 2fer of stainless steel firewall fire block flanges
>> for $11.72 !!!DELIVERED!!! (cleverly disguised as Moen exposed flange
>> mount
>> stainless steel grab rail)
>>
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U6EI92/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&p
>> sc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>>
>>
>> Santa Amazon will show up on Tuesday with my gifts...according to my
>> smartphone calculator app...that is $5.82 each for the stainless steel
>> flanges (ok...plus the cost of the wear and tear and electricity to use my
>> cutoff wheel and a ride on the belt sander).
>>
>> The creativity and "resourcefulness" (read Cheap-Ass-Full-Ness) of the
>> people on this forum is really astounding...I feel right at home!!!
>>
>> Oh...BTW...the stainless steel clamps used to attach the red fire block
>> sleeves are also called "CV Joint Boot Clamps" and four can be purchased
>> DELIVERED for less than 7 bucks
>>
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D4NB4VE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?i
>> e=UTF8&psc=1
>>
>>
>> The 1.25 ID Aeroquip fire sleeve (I bought 6 inches for each of my DIY
>> "Firewall Penetration Kits" can be purchased from Pegasus Racing delivered
>> for $15.00 (dang...shipping was 8 bucks)....
>>
>> So the grand total for TWO Firewall Penetration Kits is less than 30 BUCKS
>> ($11.72 + $0.18 + $15.00 =$26.92)!!!
>>
>> Still...a bit pricey for my standards but well within the threshold of
>> credit card pain. Well worth the price of admission to this forum!!!
>>
>> THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HElP!!!
>>
>> ..
>>
>> Cheers!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> racerjerry
>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:55 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE
>> out of the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your airplane
>> on the ground and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any
>> firewall penetrations should be minimized. You might consider plugging
>> your rather large openings with sheet metal similar to the firewall
>> material
>> - hopefully stainless steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the
>> job.
>>
>> --------
>> Jerry King
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Bill, the wires are short so voltage drop is not really a concern. The
question is more related to amp carrying capacity and the fact that there
are two wires for carrying the positive but only one for the negative, and
how to handle that situation.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Ken, wire length is important too. Even if the wire capacity is enough for
> the amount of current you want to carry, if the wire it long the voltage
> drop may be unacceptable and require a larger wire. I assume from the
> values you give these are LED lights so at least you don't have to be
> concerned about the cold filament current.
>
> FAA AC43.13 has some good charts for figuring out wire size for a current
> and length. Look at Figure 11-2 "Conductor chart, continuous flow" on page
> 11-30.
>
> Since it sounds like you have a fiberglass airplane and you're using wires
> to return your ground instead of the airframe, you should double the wire
> length (so you account for the round trip voltage drop).
>
> Bill Putney - WB6RFW
> Chief Engineer
> KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
>
> PP-SEL/A&P-IA
>
> "...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong,
> I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
>
> On 7/24/16 12:38 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing
>> light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems
>> that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is
>> shared (and I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that
>> mean that the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on
>> its own circuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Charlie... good call!!!
Bill Hunter
On Jul 24, 2016 2:43 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Stainless worm drive hose clamps are a lot cheaper, and much easier to
> remove/replace when you make wiring changes.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Worm-Gear-Hose-Clamps/b?ie=UTF8&node=979130011
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 3:11 PM, William Hunter <
> billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stu!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi All;
>>> I have used these flanges (for grab rails, not firewalls). They are not
>>> too heavy and should do the job nicely.
>>> Cheers! Stu.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:26:31 AM
>>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>>>
>>> billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>>>
>>> > FWIW, you can duplicate the pricey Spruce kit by buying a stainless
>>> grab
>>> bar & cutting it about 1-2" out from the flanges (a 2fer).
>>>
>>> !!!WHOA!!! I certainly came to the right place for advice!!!
>>>
>>> I just cyber bought a 2fer of stainless steel firewall fire block flanges
>>> for $11.72 !!!DELIVERED!!! (cleverly disguised as Moen exposed flange
>>> mount
>>> stainless steel grab rail)
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U6EI92/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&p
>>> sc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>>>
>>>
>>> Santa Amazon will show up on Tuesday with my gifts...according to my
>>> smartphone calculator app...that is $5.82 each for the stainless steel
>>> flanges (ok...plus the cost of the wear and tear and electricity to use
>>> my
>>> cutoff wheel and a ride on the belt sander).
>>>
>>> The creativity and "resourcefulness" (read Cheap-Ass-Full-Ness) of the
>>> people on this forum is really astounding...I feel right at home!!!
>>>
>>> Oh...BTW...the stainless steel clamps used to attach the red fire block
>>> sleeves are also called "CV Joint Boot Clamps" and four can be purchased
>>> DELIVERED for less than 7 bucks
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D4NB4VE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?i
>>> e=UTF8&psc=1
>>>
>>>
>>> The 1.25 ID Aeroquip fire sleeve (I bought 6 inches for each of my DIY
>>> "Firewall Penetration Kits" can be purchased from Pegasus Racing
>>> delivered
>>> for $15.00 (dang...shipping was 8 bucks)....
>>>
>>> So the grand total for TWO Firewall Penetration Kits is less than 30
>>> BUCKS
>>> ($11.72 + $0.18 + $15.00 =$26.92)!!!
>>>
>>> Still...a bit pricey for my standards but well within the threshold of
>>> credit card pain. Well worth the price of admission to this forum!!!
>>>
>>> THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HElP!!!
>>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Cheers!!!
>>>
>>> Bill Hunter
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> racerjerry
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:55 AM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall Wire Pass Through
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> Remember that the purpose of a firewall is ..................to keep FIRE
>>> out of the cockpit to give you a minute or two to try to get your
>>> airplane
>>> on the ground and you to a safe place should an engine fire occur. Any
>>> firewall penetrations should be minimized. You might consider plugging
>>> your rather large openings with sheet metal similar to the firewall
>>> material
>>> - hopefully stainless steel. Use stainless pop rivets. RTV won't do the
>>> job.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Jerry King
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458614#458614
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -
>>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Size for total current on the ground path (sum of all load currents) using
your wire capacity chart, but protect (fuse) on the + side for each smaller
wire, just as you would if running separate grounds.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Bill, the wires are short so voltage drop is not really a concern. The
> question is more related to amp carrying capacity and the fact that there
> are two wires for carrying the positive but only one for the negative, and
> how to handle that situation.
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>
>> Ken, wire length is important too. Even if the wire capacity is enough
>> for the amount of current you want to carry, if the wire it long the
>> voltage drop may be unacceptable and require a larger wire. I assume from
>> the values you give these are LED lights so at least you don't have to be
>> concerned about the cold filament current.
>>
>> FAA AC43.13 has some good charts for figuring out wire size for a current
>> and length. Look at Figure 11-2 "Conductor chart, continuous flow" on page
>> 11-30.
>>
>> Since it sounds like you have a fiberglass airplane and you're using
>> wires to return your ground instead of the airframe, you should double the
>> wire length (so you account for the round trip voltage drop).
>>
>> Bill Putney - WB6RFW
>> Chief Engineer
>> KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
>>
>> PP-SEL/A&P-IA
>>
>> "...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong,
>> I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
>>
>> On 7/24/16 12:38 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing
>>> light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems
>>> that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is
>>> shared (and I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that
>>> mean that the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on
>>> its own circuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my temperature
monitoring needs.
One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the
turbocharger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of the
air entering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on a very
hot day.
Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke or
fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an internal
engine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I envision
setting up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a warning if a fire
develops in the engine compartment and the temperature exceeds a preset
limit and then I can react faster than waiting for the really bad day to
develop.
Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine
cowling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two
thermocouples one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and then
wire each pair of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch would remain
in the position to sence the NEED to know information 99 percent of the
time and then flicked to the NICE to know position when it is becomes nice
to know.
Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is
there anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Thanks!
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> Size for total current on the ground path (sum of all load currents) using
> your wire capacity chart, but protect (fuse) on the + side for each smaller
> wire, just as you would if running separate grounds.
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> Bill, the wires are short so voltage drop is not really a concern. The
>> question is more related to amp carrying capacity and the fact that there
>> are two wires for carrying the positive but only one for the negative, and
>> how to handle that situation.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ken, wire length is important too. Even if the wire capacity is enough
>>> for the amount of current you want to carry, if the wire it long the
>>> voltage drop may be unacceptable and require a larger wire. I assume from
>>> the values you give these are LED lights so at least you don't have to be
>>> concerned about the cold filament current.
>>>
>>> FAA AC43.13 has some good charts for figuring out wire size for a
>>> current and length. Look at Figure 11-2 "Conductor chart, continuous flow"
>>> on page 11-30.
>>>
>>> Since it sounds like you have a fiberglass airplane and you're using
>>> wires to return your ground instead of the airframe, you should double the
>>> wire length (so you account for the round trip voltage drop).
>>>
>>> Bill Putney - WB6RFW
>>> Chief Engineer
>>> KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
>>>
>>> PP-SEL/A&P-IA
>>>
>>> "...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong,
>>> I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
>>>
>>> On 7/24/16 12:38 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing
>>>> light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems
>>>> that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is
>>>> shared (and I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that
>>>> mean that the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on
>>>> its own circuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -
>>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my
> temperature monitoring needs.
>
> One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the
> turbocharger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of
> the air entering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that
> on a very hot day.
>
> Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke
> or fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an
> internal engine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I
> envision setting up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a
> warning if a fire develops in the engine compartment and the
> temperature exceeds a preset limit and then I can react faster than
> waiting for the really bad day to develop.
>
> Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the
> engine cowling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing
> two thermocouples one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment
> and then wire each pair of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch
> would remain in the position to sence the NEED to know information 99
> percent of the time and then flicked to the NICE to know position when
> it is becomes nice to know.
>
> Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements
> is there anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just
switching between 2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees
either both wires from one, or both wires from the other. Reason for
switching both leads is that any 'junction' (connector, switch
terminals, etc), particularly when the metal changes, like it would
going through a switch, causes errors in measurement. If both leads are
switched in the same space (meaning same temperature), then the errors
cancel each other.
(Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false
alarms if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two
sensors.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
If you have more probes you can use a rotary switch
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
>> On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>>
>> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my temperature monitoring
needs.
>>
>> One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the turbocharger
intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of the air entering
the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on a very hot day.
>>
>> Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke or fire
like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an internal engine
cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I envision setting up the
Skyview to trigger a red indication and a warning if a fire develops in the
engine compartment and the temperature exceeds a preset limit and then I can
react faster than waiting for the really bad day to develop.
>>
>> Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine cowling
is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two thermocouples one
in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and then wire each pair of wires
to a DPST switch and then this switch would remain in the position to sence
the NEED to know information 99 percent of the time and then flicked to the
NICE to know position when it is becomes nice to know.
>>
>> Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is there
anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
> To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just switching between
2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees either both wires from
one, or both wires from the other. Reason for switching both leads is that
any 'junction' (connector, switch terminals, etc), particularly when the metal
changes, like it would going through a switch, causes errors in measurement.
If both leads are switched in the same space (meaning same temperature), then
the errors cancel each other.
>
> (Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms if
there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
The ground wire can be common but it has to be sized to carry the current of
both lights (5.7A). I'd use a single 18 ga. wire for the ground.
Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
PP-SEL/A&P-IA
"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd
know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 14:35, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Bill, the wires are short so voltage drop is not really a concern. The que
stion is more related to amp carrying capacity and the fact that there are t
wo wires for carrying the positive but only one for the negative, and how to
handle that situation.
>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Ken, wire length is important too. Even if the wire capacity is enough fo
r the amount of current you want to carry, if the wire it long the voltage d
rop may be unacceptable and require a larger wire. I assume from the values y
ou give these are LED lights so at least you don't have to be concerned abou
t the cold filament current.
>>
>> FAA AC43.13 has some good charts for figuring out wire size for a current
and length. Look at Figure 11-2 "Conductor chart, continuous flow" on page 1
1-30.
>>
>> Since it sounds like you have a fiberglass airplane and you're using wire
s to return your ground instead of the airframe, you should double the wire l
ength (so you account for the round trip voltage drop).
>>
>> Bill Putney - WB6RFW
>> Chief Engineer
>> KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
>>
>> PP-SEL/A&P-IA
>>
>> "...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I
'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
>>
>>> On 7/24/16 12:38 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing li
ght is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems that 2
0 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is shared (an
d I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that mean that t
he ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on its own circu
it with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors explained? |
At 05:27 PM 7/23/2016, you wrote:
>Lesser the two main problems with the molex type connectors seem to
>be the crimp connection and the corrosion potential of the connectors.
>I
>I use them somewhat extensively but I try to circumvent these two
>problems by the following
>
>1. Use the proper crimping tool
>2. Solder the crimp
>3 use heat shrink tubing for strain relief
>4 use an antioxidant paste in the connectors
>I even use this goo in gold plated (usually flash) pinned connectors
>as well as fast -ins
None of these things are inherently 'wrong' . . . but
consider that AMP Mate-n-Lok (Molex cousins) went into
Cessna ship's harnesses since the 60's with none of
these 'enhanced' processes.
Something we have to keep in mind is that when a company
with the stature of AMP, Molex, Ampehnol, et. als. puts
out a new technology with the potential for hundreds of
millions of wire joinings, they'll have done their homework.
Install and use these parts within the limits of their
design goals, your risks are exceedingly low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
So we have 5.7 amps flowing through the same ground wire. Size wire for 5.7
amps. However the fuse will have to be bigger due to the inrush of current
through cold filaments, which is greater than steady state. See what the l
amp manufacturer has to say about fuse size.
Cheers!=C2-=C2- Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 12:38:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: sizing shared ground wire
I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing light
is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems that 20
ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is shared (an
d I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that mean that
the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on its own ci
rcuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
>I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The
>landing light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2
>amps. It seems that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but
>since the ground is shared (and I can foresee operating both lights
>at the same time) does that mean that the ground wire should be
>upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on its own circuit with planned 5
>amp fuse protection.
Are these LED or incandescent?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
Stu,
He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an
incandescent. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing light
is a flame thrower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
PP-SEL/A&P-IA
"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know
it?" -Sheldon Cooper
On 7/25/16 5:40 AM, ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net wrote:
> So we have 5.7 amps flowing through the same ground wire. Size wire
> for 5.7 amps. However the fuse will have to be bigger due to the
> inrush of current through cold filaments, which is greater than steady
> state. See what the lamp manufacturer has to say about fuse size.
> Cheers! Stu.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Ken Ryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
> *To: *aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, July 24, 2016 12:38:55 PM
> *Subject: *AeroElectric-List: sizing shared ground wire
>
> I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing
> light is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It
> seems that 20 ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the
> ground is shared (and I can foresee operating both lights at the same
> time) does that mean that the ground wire should be upsized to 18
> gauge? Each light is on its own circuit with planned 5 amp fuse
> protection.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
At 09:35 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>Stu,
>
>He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an
>incandescent. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing
>light is a flame thrower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
Agreed. I'm curious as to why the grounds are shared.
In a TC aircraft, we would have independent grounds
for each appliance. If the ground is not already
pulled in I'd do separate strands. 22AWG is fine
for wiring both lamps as long as the lengths are
not really big. What kind of airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Hi Bill;
You're right. I was thinking "old school."
Cheers!=C2-=C2- Stu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Putney" <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 7:35:18 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: sizing shared ground wire
Stu,
He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an incandescen
t. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing light is a flame th
rower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
PP-SEL/A&P-IA
"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'
d know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
On 7/25/16 5:40 AM, ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net wrote:
So we have 5.7 amps flowing through the same ground wire. Size wire for 5.7
amps. However the fuse will have to be bigger due to the inrush of current
through cold filaments, which is greater than steady state. See what the l
amp manufacturer has to say about fuse size.
Cheers!=C2-=C2- Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 12:38:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: sizing shared ground wire
I have a landing/taxi light that share their ground wire. The landing light
is rated at 3.5 amps while the taxi is rated at 2.2 amps. It seems that 20
ga. wire would be appropriate for each, but since the ground is shared (an
d I can foresee operating both lights at the same time) does that mean that
the ground wire should be upsized to 18 gauge? Each light is on its own ci
rcuit with planned 5 amp fuse protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
The airplane is Just SuperSTOL. The light is LED (Aveo Hercules). The
grounds are shared because the pigtail coming out of the appliance only
provides for one common ground source.
Now for the latest complication. When I read the documentation for the
light, it was of the electronic brochure variety (attached) and when I
looked at it I failed to note that it was actually for three different
models of the same light. Instead I just scanned down for the information I
was looking for (amps). Of course the one that came up first was not the
one I own, and the information was way off.
The actual amperage for the model I have is shown to be 4.2A for taxi and
6.3A for landing, far more than I originally thought. So, I will be pulling
new wires for sure. The wires are about 5 feet long.
Final note, I have wired it so that both lights (when switched on) are
always on the high setting, and the taxi light is always on the wig-wag
setting, and am using two SPST switches, one for landing, one for taxi. In
reality the light will be used for collision avoidance. (I live in
Anchorage and there is a lot of small airplane traffic in this whole area.
Mid-air collisions are a major concern. I also have two beacons, one on top
of the fuselage and one on the bottom.) Probably I will be running just the
(flashing) taxi light most of the time, but it might turn out that running
both will be better. I think only actual testing will determine that.
Ken
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:35 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>
> Stu,
>
> He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an
> incandescent. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing light is
> a flame thrower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm curious as to why the grounds are shared.
> In a TC aircraft, we would have independent grounds
> for each appliance. If the ground is not already
> pulled in I'd do separate strands. 22AWG is fine
> for wiring both lamps as long as the lengths are
> not really big. What kind of airplane?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
On Jul 24, 2016, at 3:35 PM, William Hunter wro
te:
> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my temperature
monitoring needs.
>
> [...]
>
Just a few things to add to Charlie's response.
The chromel/alumel wires used with common K-type thermocouples are practical
ly impossible to solder with typical tin/lead, rosin core electronic solder.
They require high temperature silver solder and appropriate flux. Crimped
or screw-down connectors are much easier to use.
A cheap and easy source for additional chromel/alumel extension wire is to b
uy K-type thermocouples on eBay and cut them up. They can be had for under a
dollar, delivered:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/j88uupr
The ones you see with a threaded metal sensor and spade terminals have fiber
glass insulation on the wires and a braided metal outer sheath (suitable for
under cowl use). The ones with a yellow connector have plastic insulation a
nd a fiberglass sheath (smaller diameter, easier to route in the fuselage).
If you have to splice wires for length, you can use any crimped connector to
join them, as long as the wires twist around each other to make electrical c
ontact independent of the connector.
The normal color convention for positive/negative connections is reversed fo
r thermocouples: red is negative. Swapped connections won't damage anything
but the instrument will read backwards.
Use chromel/alumel wire from the sensor to the switch *and* from the switch t
o the instrument. Don't change to copper wire after the switch.
The following documents might be more than you want to know, but there's a l
ot of interesting info about understanding and applying thermocouples:
- (Australian) AC 21-99, Aircraft Wiring & Bonding, Sec 2, Chap 16, "Thermoc
ouple Wire Soldering & Installation":
http://preview.tinyurl.com/z5fwrzw
- A Stanford University mechanical engineering professor's advice on thermoc
ouples:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jl873l4
- An Acromag white paper on temperature measurement with thermocouples:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/hawrxwt
- A Maxim Integrated application note explaining cold junction compensation:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jm2kku2
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
At 10:54 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>The airplane is Just SuperSTOL. The light is LED (Aveo Hercules).
>The grounds are shared because the pigtail coming out of the
>appliance only provides for one common ground source.
Aha! a package deal.
>Now for the latest complication. When I read the documentation for
>the light, it was of the electronic brochure variety (attached) and
>when I looked at it I failed to note that it was actually for three
>different models of the same light. Instead I just scanned down for
>the information I was looking for (amps). Of course the one that
>came up first was not the one I own, and the information was way off.
>
>The actual amperage for the model I have is shown to be 4.2A for
>taxi and 6.3A for landing, far more than I originally thought. So, I
>will be pulling new wires for sure. The wires are about 5 feet long.
Go 20AWG and 10A fuses for landing and taxi light.
18AWG ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Wow, thanks Bob! That will make my work a lot easier, as I originally ran
all 20AWG, so I will only need to re-do the ground wire. I should have also
told you that the wires are in a bundle, which is inside a plastic conduit.
The actual bundle+conduit is only about 3 feet long.
Ken
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:54 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>
> The airplane is Just SuperSTOL. The light is LED (Aveo Hercules). The
> grounds are shared because the pigtail coming out of the appliance only
> provides for one common ground source.
>
>
> Aha! a package deal.
>
>
> Now for the latest complication. When I read the documentation for the
> light, it was of the electronic brochure variety (attached) and when I
> looked at it I failed to note that it was actually for three different
> models of the same light. Instead I just scanned down for the information I
> was looking for (amps). Of course the one that came up first was not the
> one I own, and the information was way off.
>
> The actual amperage for the model I have is shown to be 4.2A for taxi and
> 6.3A for landing, far more than I originally thought. So, I will be pulling
> new wires for sure. The wires are about 5 feet long.
>
>
> Go 20AWG and 10A fuses for landing and taxi light.
> 18AWG ground.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
I sent the battery along with a note. If the battery appears to be dead, wait
and check it again the next day. Or apply pressure to the front and back side
of the case. There seems to be an intermittent internal open circuit.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458689#458689
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
At 11:50 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>Wow, thanks Bob! That will make my work a lot easier, as I
>originally ran all 20AWG, so I will only need to re-do the ground
>wire. I should have also told you that the wires are in a bundle,
>which is inside a plastic conduit. The actual bundle+conduit is only
>about 3 feet long.
only 3'? Shucks, leave the 20AWG in place.
the benefit to be gained is trivial.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 06:47 PM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I sent the battery along with a note. If the battery appears to be
>dead, wait and check it again the next day. Or apply pressure to
>the front and back side of the case. There seems to be an
>intermittent internal open circuit.
>
>--------
>Joe Gores
Just picked it up today. Need to clear another
battery project off the bench tomorrow and I'll
get yours out to look at. thanks for the heads-up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Already replaced it with 18AWG. The bundle+conduit is only about 3 feet,
but the entire length (one way) is closer to 5 or 6 feet. Anyway, the
ground wire was easy to replace. The others would have been more time
consuming.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:50 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>
> Wow, thanks Bob! That will make my work a lot easier, as I originally ran
> all 20AWG, so I will only need to re-do the ground wire. I should have also
> told you that the wires are in a bundle, which is inside a plastic conduit.
> The actual bundle+conduit is only about 3 feet long.
>
>
> only 3'? Shucks, leave the 20AWG in place.
> the benefit to be gained is trivial.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Ken,
I was gonna' say if the wire to the landing light was only 3' long it was go
nna' be pretty bright in the cockpit at night. :)
Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA
PP-SEL/A&P-IA
"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd
know it?" -Sheldon Cooper
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 19:28, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> Already replaced it with 18AWG. The bundle+conduit is only about 3 feet, b
ut the entire length (one way) is closer to 5 or 6 feet. Anyway, the ground w
ire was easy to replace. The others would have been more time consuming.
>
>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com> wrote:
>> At 11:50 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>>> Wow, thanks Bob! That will make my work a lot easier, as I originally ra
n all 20AWG, so I will only need to re-do the ground wire. I should have als
o told you that the wires are in a bundle, which is inside a plastic conduit
. The actual bundle+conduit is only about 3 feet long.
>>
>> only 3'? Shucks, leave the 20AWG in place.
>> the benefit to be gained is trivial.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Ken,
I live just north of you and bought my red beacons from Alaska Safety. Super
bright, led, 1 inch hole, and tons of pre programmed flashing codes.
If you ever come up to Wasilla, you should check out the beautiful SuperStol
that Mario's Aircraft Service is building. It is truly impressive and a wor
k of art!
Justin
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 00:54, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> The airplane is Just SuperSTOL. The light is LED (Aveo Hercules). The grou
nds are shared because the pigtail coming out of the appliance only provides
for one common ground source.
>
> Now for the latest complication. When I read the documentation for the lig
ht, it was of the electronic brochure variety (attached) and when I looked a
t it I failed to note that it was actually for three different models of the
same light. Instead I just scanned down for the information I was looking f
or (amps). Of course the one that came up first was not the one I own, and t
he information was way off.
>
> The actual amperage for the model I have is shown to be 4.2A for taxi and 6
.3A for landing, far more than I originally thought. So, I will be pulling n
ew wires for sure. The wires are about 5 feet long.
>
> Final note, I have wired it so that both lights (when switched on) are alw
ays on the high setting, and the taxi light is always on the wig-wag setting
, and am using two SPST switches, one for landing, one for taxi. In reality t
he light will be used for collision avoidance. (I live in Anchorage and ther
e is a lot of small airplane traffic in this whole area. Mid-air collisions a
re a major concern. I also have two beacons, one on top of the fuselage and o
ne on the bottom.) Probably I will be running just the (flashing) taxi light
most of the time, but it might turn out that running both will be better. I
think only actual testing will determine that.
>
> Ken
>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com> wrote:
>> At 09:35 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>>
>>> Stu,
>>>
>>> He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an incandes
cent. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing light is a flame t
hrower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
>>
>> Agreed. I'm curious as to why the grounds are shared.
>> In a TC aircraft, we would have independent grounds
>> for each appliance. If the ground is not already
>> pulled in I'd do separate strands. 22AWG is fine
>> for wiring both lamps as long as the lengths are
>> not really big. What kind of airplane?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sizing shared ground wire |
Hi Justin, I never thought of buying beacons from Alaska Safety. Probably
would have saved a lot of money. I have heard of Mario's SuperSTOL. I
believe he is using the same fabric (Oratex) that I am (no painting
required). One thing I learned about the Oratex silver colored fabric that
I am using is that they say that you cannot put antennas inside the
aircraft. Normally on the SuperSTOL guys put the ELT antenna inside the
tail section but I had to come up with a different location because Oratex
folks said I couldn't do that with their silver fabric.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> Ken,
> I live just north of you and bought my red beacons from Alaska Safety.
> Super bright, led, 1 inch hole, and tons of pre programmed flashing codes.
>
> If you ever come up to Wasilla, you should check out the beautiful
> SuperStol that Mario's Aircraft Service is building. It is truly impressive
> and a work of art!
>
> Justin
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 00:54, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> The airplane is Just SuperSTOL. The light is LED (Aveo Hercules). The
> grounds are shared because the pigtail coming out of the appliance only
> provides for one common ground source.
>
> Now for the latest complication. When I read the documentation for the
> light, it was of the electronic brochure variety (attached) and when I
> looked at it I failed to note that it was actually for three different
> models of the same light. Instead I just scanned down for the information I
> was looking for (amps). Of course the one that came up first was not the
> one I own, and the information was way off.
>
> The actual amperage for the model I have is shown to be 4.2A for taxi and
> 6.3A for landing, far more than I originally thought. So, I will be pulling
> new wires for sure. The wires are about 5 feet long.
>
> Final note, I have wired it so that both lights (when switched on) are
> always on the high setting, and the taxi light is always on the wig-wag
> setting, and am using two SPST switches, one for landing, one for taxi. In
> reality the light will be used for collision avoidance. (I live in
> Anchorage and there is a lot of small airplane traffic in this whole area.
> Mid-air collisions are a major concern. I also have two beacons, one on top
> of the fuselage and one on the bottom.) Probably I will be running just the
> (flashing) taxi light most of the time, but it might turn out that running
> both will be better. I think only actual testing will determine that.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 09:35 AM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>>
>> Stu,
>>
>> He didn't say but I'm guessing that his landing light is not an
>> incandescent. A 50W incandescent is pretty weak. A 50W LED landing light is
>> a flame thrower. If it's LED there shouldn't be much if any inrush.
>>
>>
>> Agreed. I'm curious as to why the grounds are shared.
>> In a TC aircraft, we would have independent grounds
>> for each appliance. If the ground is not already
>> pulled in I'd do separate strands. 22AWG is fine
>> for wiring both lamps as long as the lengths are
>> not really big. What kind of airplane?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rd2(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
Hi all,
The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a dedicated
TC for leveling.
The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP in terms
of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and to serve
as its Turn Coordinator ?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
Good question,
I am looking for a HSI replacement for my Century NSD1000 - this looks like it
has great potential...The heading bug is the critical path to full functionality
in my implementation.
If it outputs the same ARINC command strings as their 400W/500W series GPS units,
it will be compatible with S-Tec autopilots via the GPSS interface. I have
a S-Tec 30 working with my 420W using the GPSS interface. The GPSS interface
is also optional for the fifty series.
Let me know if you get a response from Garmin on this one as I am interested as
well!
Ralph Capen
-----Original Message-----
>From: rd2(at)dejazzd.com
>Sent: Jul 26, 2016 2:25 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a dedicated
TC for leveling.
>
>The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
>
>Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP in
terms of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and to serve
as its Turn Coordinator ?
>
>Rumen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
At 06:47 PM 7/25/2016, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I sent the battery along with a note. If the battery appears to be
>dead, wait and check it again the next day. Or apply pressure to
>the front and back side of the case. There seems to be an
>intermittent internal open circuit.
It didn't want to 'work' out of the box.
I'll let it set for awhile. I was hoping
to evaluate the state-of-the-chemistry
but perhaps the stresses of shipping were
too much. I'm imagining an internal weld
fracture. We'll massage it a bit before
I cut the case open.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots
...
On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a
> dedicated TC for leveling.
>
> The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
>
> Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP
> in terms of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and
> to serve as its Turn Coordinator ?
>
> Rumen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:49 PM 7/26/2016, you wrote:
>Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong but it needs to be
>somewhere very close to 14.4.
>
Enersys is 'happy' with anything between
14.1 and 14.7 volts. See:
http://tinyurl.com/hb4s7c4
. . . in particular Figure 6 and first
paragraph on page 13.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Charlie,
>Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms
if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is... The plan would be
to install the Thermocouple on the firewall above the fuel hoses as these
are arguably the likely suspects. Then I would have a temperature read out
(just numerical value) displayed somewhere on the screen below the engine
"guages".
The idea being the display would be white digits until the temperature
indication raises above a predetermined values and then turn red.
Any recommendations on that value should be so as to avoid faulse readings?
Bill Hunter
On Jul 24, 2016 4:57 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my temperature
> monitoring needs.
>
> One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the
> turbocharger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of the
> air entering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on a very
> hot day.
>
> Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke or
> fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an internal
> engine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I envision
> setting up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a warning if a fire
> develops in the engine compartment and the temperature exceeds a preset
> limit and then I can react faster than waiting for the really bad day to
> develop.
>
> Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine
> cowling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two
> thermocouples one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and then
> wire each pair of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch would remain
> in the position to sence the NEED to know information 99 percent of the
> time and then flicked to the NICE to know position when it is becomes nice
> to know.
>
> Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is
> there anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
> To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just switching
between 2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees either both
wires from one, or both wires from the other. Reason for switching both
leads is that any 'junction' (connector, switch terminals, etc),
particularly when the metal changes, like it would going through a switch,
causes errors in measurement. If both leads are switched in the same space
(meaning same temperature), then the errors cancel each other.
(Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms
if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:21 PM 7/26/2016, you wrote:
>At 12:49 PM 7/26/2016, you wrote:
>>Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong but it needs to be
>>somewhere very close to 14.4.
>
>
> Enersys is 'happy' with anything between
> 14.1 and 14.7 volts. See:
>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/hb4s7c4
>
> . . . in particular Figure 6 and first
> paragraph on page 13.
P.S. On page 4 of the same document we find this
Emacs!
It seems that voltages from 13.5 to 15.0
will 'safely' charge an Odyssey (and probably
any other lead-acid technology) with preferences
based on type of service. I've been running some
data plots on a pair of SVLA batteries. Here's a
small excerpt of that data set.
Emacs!
The lower of these 5 plots is performance of a
battery charged at 13.2 volts. The energy stored
is 78% of the upper curve (charged at 14.6v).
Moving up from the bottom we have 13.2v charge,
A Battery Tender recharge, a 13.5v charge, a 14.2v
charge and finally 14.6v charge.
Without going into all the features of the test (a
report will be published), we can see that 13.5 to
14.6v charge potentials produce a well charged
device with an 11% differential in stored energy. What
is not obvious from these plots is the TIME it takes
to reach maximum transfer of recharge energy . . . I
think it took about 6 hours for the 13.5 volt test
charge to drop to 5% of max charge (2.00 amps).
The take away from these experiments combined with the
information from the Odyssey tech manual is that
13.4 is probably way too low for cyclic service (moderate
to heavy use over a few hours interspersed with perhaps
days of idle time). But it seems likely that the battery
feed from the 13.4v bus was chronically undercharged.
If you're still running two batteries with this
same disparity of recharge voltage, it would be
interesting to cap-check the two devices. Sufice
it to say that the performance of any lead-acid
product would perform pretty close to expectations
in aircraft when charged at the legacy 14.2 plus
or minus 0.2 volts. Further, running a bus voltage
as high as 15.0 in cyclic duty doesn't give
Enersys any heartburn.
Is there any way you can get both batteries to operated
at 14.5 volts?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
It's a shame they're blind in the foresight department:
This device could replace every $12,000 HSI installation when the internal gyros
fail.
This device could get every homebuilder into glass screens.
This device could salvage Garmin's monopolistic reputation...
Remember IBM's MicroChannel architecture - and the Sony BetaMax VCR's...both were
proprietary monopolistic versions of other devices that nearly cost these companies
their existence.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Pengilly
Sent: Jul 26, 2016 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots ...
On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, wrote:
Hi all,
The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a dedicated
TC for leveling.
The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP in terms
of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and to serve
as its Turn Coordinator ?
Rumen
==========
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
No suggestions from me about a good temperature threshold for the fire alarm
except that it's just begging for some experimentation :-)
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:29 PM, William Hunter w
rote:
>
> Thanks Charlie,
>
> >Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms i
f there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is... The plan would be
to install the Thermocouple on the firewall above the fuel hoses as these a
re arguably the likely suspects. Then I would have a temperature read out (j
ust numerical value) displayed somewhere on the screen below the engine "gua
ges".
>
> The idea being the display would be white digits until the temperature ind
ication raises above a predetermined values and then turn red.
>
> Any recommendations on that value should be so as to avoid faulse readings
?
>
> Bill Hunter
>
> On Jul 24, 2016 4:57 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
.com>
>
>
>> On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>>
>> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my temperatur
e monitoring needs.
>>
>> One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the turbo
charger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of the air en
tering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on a very hot day
.
>>
>> Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke or
fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an internal e
ngine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I envision settin
g up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a warning if a fire develop
s in the engine compartment and the temperature exceeds a preset limit and t
hen I can react faster than waiting for the really bad day to develop.
>>
>> Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine c
owling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two thermocouple
s one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and then wire each pair
of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch would remain in the position
to sence the NEED to know information 99 percent of the time and then flic
ked to the NICE to know position when it is becomes nice to know.
>>
>> Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is t
here anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
> To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just switching b
etween 2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees either both wire
s from one, or both wires from the other. Reason for switching both leads is
that any 'junction' (connector, switch terminals, etc), particularly when t
he metal changes, like it would going through a switch, causes errors in mea
surement. If both leads are switched in the same space (meaning same tempera
ture), then the errors cancel each other.
>
> (Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms i
f there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
>
> Charlie
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
I'll light the fuse and let you know
Bill Hunter
On Jul 26, 2016 6:22 PM, "Alec Myers" wrote:
> No suggestions from me about a good temperature threshold for the fire
> alarm except that it's just begging for some experimentation :-)
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:29 PM, William Hunter
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Charlie,
>
> >Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms
> if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is... The plan would be
> to install the Thermocouple on the firewall above the fuel hoses as these
> are arguably the likely suspects. Then I would have a temperature read out
> (just numerical value) displayed somewhere on the screen below the engine
> "guages".
>
> The idea being the display would be white digits until the temperature
> indication raises above a predetermined values and then turn red.
>
> Any recommendations on that value should be so as to avoid faulse
> readings?
>
> Bill Hunter
>
> On Jul 24, 2016 4:57 PM, "Charlie England" wrote:
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>
>
> On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
>>
>> I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my
>> temperature monitoring needs.
>>
>> One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the
>> turbocharger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of the
>> air entering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on a very
>> hot day.
>>
>> Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke or
>> fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an internal
>> engine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I envision
>> setting up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a warning if a fire
>> develops in the engine compartment and the temperature exceeds a preset
>> limit and then I can react faster than waiting for the really bad day to
>> develop.
>>
>> Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine
>> cowling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two
>> thermocouples one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and then
>> wire each pair of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch would remain
>> in the position to sence the NEED to know information 99 percent of the
>> time and then flicked to the NICE to know position when it is becomes nice
>> to know.
>>
>> Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is
>> there anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>> To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just switching
> between 2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees either both
> wires from one, or both wires from the other. Reason for switching both
> leads is that any 'junction' (connector, switch terminals, etc),
> particularly when the metal changes, like it would going through a switch,
> causes errors in measurement. If both leads are switched in the same space
> (meaning same temperature), then the errors cancel each other.
>
> (Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false alarms
> if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two sensors.)
>
> Charlie
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
> What I meant was that measuring different temp ranges (inlet vs cowl),
they're likely to have different normal ranges. So, setting up the alarm
point in the efis would be different for each source.
Thanksthe plan would be for the selector switch to live in the
COWL TEMP setting 99.3 percent of the time (watching for an engine fire)
so the cowl temp predetermined trigger point is really all that I am
interested inI guess I can just SWAG 500F as the trigger point
for the white to red digits in Dynon and after watching the digits
during some normal very hot day operations I can see what the usual
engine cowl internal temps will be (and the rate of increase) and then
adjust accordingly. I wonder if I can teach the nice Dynon girl to say
=9CWarning=9D or =9CEngine Fire=9D or
somethinga calm British accent would be really cool?!?!?
The engine turbo intercooler exhaust is simply a Gee Wizz indication for
the remainder 0.7 percent so no real concern for the trigger, colors, or
British babe voice.
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie England
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
Sorry; no idea. What I meant was that measuring different temp ranges
(inlet vs cowl), they're likely to have different normal ranges. So,
setting up the alarm point in the efis would be different for each
source.
-------- Original message --------
From: William Hunter
Date:07/26/2016 7:29 PM (GMT-06:00)
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
Thanks Charlie,
>Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false
alarms if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two
sensors.)
I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is... The plan would
be to install the Thermocouple on the firewall above the fuel hoses as
these are arguably the likely suspects. Then I would have a temperature
read out (just numerical value) displayed somewhere on the screen below
the engine "guages".
The idea being the display would be white digits until the temperature
indication raises above a predetermined values and then turn red.
Any recommendations on that value should be so as to avoid faulse
readings?
Bill Hunter
On Jul 24, 2016 4:57 PM, "Charlie England" > wrote:
>
On 7/24/2016 5:35 PM, William Hunter wrote:
I do not have sufficient pins left over in my Dynon EMS for my
temperature monitoring needs.
One of the items I do not need to monitor on a regular basis is the
turbocharger intercooler outlet temperature (the actual temperature of
the air entering the engine inlet) as I just really need to see that on
a very hot day.
Since this airplane is a pusher there is no visual indication of smoke
or fire like on a tractor airplane so I would really like to have an
internal engine cowling temperature indication using a thermocouple. I
envision setting up the Skyview to trigger a red indication and a
warning if a fire develops in the engine compartment and the temperature
exceeds a preset limit and then I can react faster than waiting for the
really bad day to develop.
Since the engine inlet temperature is a NICE to know item and the engine
cowling is a NEED to know... I was thinking about installing two
thermocouples one in the inlet and one in the engine compartment and
then wire each pair of wires to a DPST switch and then this switch would
remain in the position to sence the NEED to know information 99 percent
of the time and then flicked to the NICE to know position when it is
becomes nice to know.
Other than the usual solid connectors and quality switch requirements is
there anything special to consider with thermocouple wires?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
To keep accuracy, you need to switch both leads. If you're just
switching between 2 sensors, use a DPDT switch, so that the meter sees
either both wires from one, or both wires from the other. Reason for
switching both leads is that any 'junction' (connector, switch
terminals, etc), particularly when the metal changes, like it would
going through a switch, causes errors in measurement. If both leads are
switched in the same space (meaning same temperature), then the errors
cancel each other.
(Don't forget that your alarm setting in the Dynon may cause false
alarms if there's a big difference in 'normal' temps between the two
sensors.)
Charlie
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter wro
te:
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C2=B0C and flame temp varies from ~945=C2
=B0C to 1,950=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter
><billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C2=B0C and flame
>temp varies from ~945=C2=B0C to 1,950=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
>Eric
It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
beans. There were two techniques that showed
promise. One involved temperature sensors at
ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
of rise in the differential between the
two.
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion
of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
material in that area would present a sharp
drop in resistance which was detected by
the electronics.
We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
the servoed pitch trim controller for the
Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
Duncan Aviation.
The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
the engine space but it was a specialty
product that was custom-manufactured to
the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
With software one could place one or more
temperature sensors about the engine spaces
and write scanning/interpretation routines
to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
a kind of universal fire detection system
that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
temperatures are identified and cataloged,
a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
conditions markedly outside the normal
parameters was detected.
It's an interesting design study that
was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
of market opportunities. Under the cowl
fires just don't figure into a significant
percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter < billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>
> For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C3=82=C2=B0C and flame temp varies fro
m ~945=C3=82=C2=B0C
> to 1,950=C3=82=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
> fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
> a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
>
> No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
> beans. There were two techniques that showed
> promise. One involved temperature sensors at
> ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
> circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
> exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
> of rise in the differential between the
> two.
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire. The
> 'thermistor' looked for all the world like
> a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
> metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
> conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
> of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
> would see an infinite number of thermistors
> all tied in parallel. But should any portion
> of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
> material in that area would present a sharp
> drop in resistance which was detected by
> the electronics.
>
> We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
> the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
> the servoed pitch trim controller for the
> Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
> Duncan Aviation.
>
> The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
> kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
> the engine space but it was a specialty
> product that was custom-manufactured to
> the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
>
> With software one could place one or more
> temperature sensors about the engine spaces
> and write scanning/interpretation routines
> to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
>
> For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
> a kind of universal fire detection system
> that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
> and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
> temperatures are identified and cataloged,
> a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
> conditions markedly outside the normal
> parameters was detected.
>
> It's an interesting design study that
> was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
> of market opportunities. Under the cowl
> fires just don't figure into a significant
> percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
A number of years ago, there were a few guys playing with optical flame
sensors (triggered by the light spectrum of actual flame, instead of heat).
Idea was quicker & more discriminating detection of actual fire, vs just
high temps. Conversation kinda faded away, so I don't know if they ever got
it implemented. IIRC, the detectors were a bit pricey, so given the rather
low odds of fire, I never pursued it for myself. William may have more
motivation, flying a pusher.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
I'm thinking extreme analog/tinker-toy technology, here, but why not a
cotton string across the cowl outlet that holds open a spring-loaded N.O.
switch. Fire would presumably burn it through quickly. A cross-check with
a cowl air temp indicator would help confirm actual fire vs. "the old
string finally rotted-through between annuals."
Since we now fly in the digital age, the obvious modern solution is a belly
cam to show the flames licking out of the cowl exit.
-Stormy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter < billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>
> For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C3=82=C2=B0C and flame temp varies fro
m ~945=C3=82=C2=B0C
> to 1,950=C3=82=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
> fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
> a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
>
> No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
> beans. There were two techniques that showed
> promise. One involved temperature sensors at
> ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
> circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
> exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
> of rise in the differential between the
> two.
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire. The
> 'thermistor' looked for all the world like
> a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
> metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
> conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
> of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
> would see an infinite number of thermistors
> all tied in parallel. But should any portion
> of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
> material in that area would present a sharp
> drop in resistance which was detected by
> the electronics.
>
> We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
> the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
> the servoed pitch trim controller for the
> Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
> Duncan Aviation.
>
> The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
> kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
> the engine space but it was a specialty
> product that was custom-manufactured to
> the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
>
> With software one could place one or more
> temperature sensors about the engine spaces
> and write scanning/interpretation routines
> to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
>
> For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
> a kind of universal fire detection system
> that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
> and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
> temperatures are identified and cataloged,
> a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
> conditions markedly outside the normal
> parameters was detected.
>
> It's an interesting design study that
> was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
> of market opportunities. Under the cowl
> fires just don't figure into a significant
> percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
>> The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
-There's something that looks a lot like this run in a circle around the wheel
wells of various jet transport aircraft I've see, presumably to detect brake/tire
fires when the undercarriage is retracted.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
That=92s an interesting idea=85
If you=92re just looking at an =91extreme rise=92 temperature, you could
put a bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the
impedance drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically
it=92s pretty similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire,
heatshrink, and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Good information and great ideas (I especially like the string idea)!!!
The Velocity design is such that the engine cooling air gets ducted to the
top of the engine via NACA ducts on the top aft portion of the airplane
roof. This cooling air flows through sealed ducting to a plenum on top of
the engine and then the air is forced down through the cylinder cooling fins
to the bottom of the engine where the exhaust system is located. The air
then flows around the exhaust system and then gets sucked out through the
aft cowling holes by the propeller.
Like in a traditional Cessna, the air at the top half of the engine is cool
ambient air and then as it flows down through the engine and flows against
the exhaust pipes it heats up. The Velocity engine compartment can get
rather hot in the front of the engine between the engine and the firewall
(especially at the top) because the air can stagnate. I am working on
designing cooling louvers in the bottom cowling so as to help draw the hot
air out of the forward section of the engine compartment. Here is a picture
of a really professional installation I stole from the internet so you can
get the idea.
Mounted directly to the firewall on the passenger compartment side (cold
side) of the firewall is a 5 gallon fuel collector tank made of fiberglass.
Since this booger might want to turn into a Molotov Cocktail if the
conditions are right (by "right" I really mean "really.REALLY.WRONG") I am
keenly interested in proactively monitoring the engine cowling temperature.
On a tractor airplane, if there is a fire in the engine compartment the
cowling will belch smoke and the paint will bubble and flames would be
visible.On a pusher airplane.not so much.
I think my strategy will be to install a thermocouple at the top of the
firewall on a "L" bracket with the thermocouple sensor end pointing down and
I will cover the wires in Aeroquip fire sleeve from the probe all the way to
the firewall penetration pass through.
I will then place the cowling temperature digital readout on the Skyview
screen in a location under the CHT readouts. The digital readout will
just look like "COWL 285F" in white text. I will monitor the readout for a
few flights and if the temp routinely gets to 300F but no higher I will then
set the Skyview system to change the digits from white to yellow at 400F and
then to red at 500F as a wake up.
If I am ever flying along fat, dumb, and happy and I see the digits rapidly
change from white to yellow to red as the indication shoots up to the 4
digits.and then.the digits begin to display "XXXX" then I guess the day has
become bad and I am still fat.and dumb.but no longer happy.
THANKS AGAIN for your advice!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Hooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
That's an interesting idea.
If you're just looking at an 'extreme rise' temperature, you could put a
bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the impedance
drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically it's pretty
similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire, heatshrink,
and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
wrote:
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Good information and great ideas (I especially like the string idea)!!!
I think my strategy will be to install a thermocouple at the top of the
firewall on a "L" bracket with the thermocouple sensor end pointing down and
I will cover the wires in Aeroquip fire sleeve from the probe all the way to
the firewall penetration pass through.
I will then place the cowling temperature digital readout on the Skyview
screen in a location under the CHT readouts. The digital readout will
just look like "COWL 285F" in white text. I will monitor the readout for a
few flights and if the temp routinely gets to 300F but no higher I will then
set the Skyview system to change the digits from white to yellow at 400F and
then to red at 500F as a wake up.
If I am ever flying along fat, dumb, and happy and I see the digits rapidly
change from white to yellow to red as the indication shoots up to the 4
digits.and then.the digits begin to display "XXXX" then I guess the day has
become bad and I am still fat.and dumb.but no longer happy.
THANKS AGAIN for your advice!!!
.
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Hooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
That's an interesting idea.
If you're just looking at an 'extreme rise' temperature, you could put a
bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the impedance
drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically it's pretty
similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire, heatshrink,
and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
wrote:
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect
ric.com> wrote:
> The other technique, and the one most popular with our customers involved r
outing a kind of linear thermistor around the engine's potential hot spots d
uring a fire. The 'thermistor' looked for all the world like a piece of semi
-rigid coax cable. Thin metal jacket (stainless I think). Center conductor o
f solid metal. A 'dielectric' of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one would see an infinite number of the
rmistors all tied in parallel. But should any portion of the 'coax' be expo
sed to flame, the thermistor material in that area would present a sharp dro
p in resistance which was detected by the electronics.
That's the technique that Bombardier uses in their products (at least the on
es I flew). The thermistor loops are installed around the hot section and p
ylon of each engine, along the anti-ice bleed air ducts, inside the APU encl
osure and on the ceiling of the main wheel wells. Unfortunately I no longer
have access to the electronic manuals and my hard copy is in a box somewher
e, so I can't post the technical description.
Boeing took a different route that, to my mind, seems a bit more fiddly and l
ess robust. See the attached PDF excerpt from the B-737NG systems manual. I
'm not sure if this system is a relic from the original 1960's design, or a l
ater revision.
Eric
P.S. In case the PDF doesn't come through, here's the pertinent text: "Eac
h engine contains two overheat/fire detector loops. Each loop provides both f
ire and overheat detection. When the temperature reaches the Overheat Set Po
int, the gas in the detector loop expands, closing the Overheat Pressure Swi
tch. This decreases the resistance of the detector. The Engine and APU Fire D
etection Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the overheat conditio
n. As temperature increases to the Fire Set Point, the gas continues to expa
nd and closes the Fire Pressure Switch, further decreasing the resistance. T
he Engine and APU Fire Detection Module uses the decrease in resistance to s
et the fire condition."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Of course you could always use the technique that Burt Rutan used in the
SS1 engine.. I think that he wrapped a copper (or other low fusing wire
around the engine, ran a small current through it and if there were a bre
ach in
the containment vessel, the wire would burn through and open the circuit.
Alternately use an EGT probe in the area of question.
Rich
In a message dated 7/27/2016 1:23:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sportav8r(at)gmail.com writes:
I'm thinking extreme analog/tinker-toy technology, here, but why not a
cotton string across the cowl outlet that holds open a spring-loaded N.O.
switch. Fire would presumably burn it through quickly. A cross-check wi
th a
cowl air temp indicator would help confirm actual fire vs. "the old strin
g
finally rotted-through between annuals."
Since we now fly in the digital age, the obvious modern solution is a
belly cam to show the flames licking out of the cowl exit.
-Stormy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<_nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com_ (mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com) >
wrote:
At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter <_
billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com) > wrote:
I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C2=B0C and flame temp varies from ~945
=C2=B0C
to 1,950=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
Eric
It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
beans. There were two techniques that showed
promise. One involved temperature sensors at
ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
of rise in the differential between the
two.
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion
of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
material in that area would present a sharp
drop in resistance which was detected by
the electronics.
We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
the servoed pitch trim controller for the
Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
Duncan Aviation.
The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
the engine space but it was a specialty
product that was custom-manufactured to
the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
With software one could place one or more
temperature sensors about the engine spaces
and write scanning/interpretation routines
to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
a kind of universal fire detection system
that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
temperatures are identified and cataloged,
a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
conditions markedly outside the normal
parameters was detected.
It's an interesting design study that
was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
of market opportunities. Under the cowl
fires just don't figure into a significant
percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> The other technique, and the one most popular with our customers involved routing
a kind of linear thermistor around the engine's potential hot spots during
a fire. The 'thermistor' looked for all the world like a piece of semi-rigid
coax cable. Thin metal jacket (stainless I think). Center conductor of solid
metal. A 'dielectric' of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion of the 'coax' be exposed to
flame, the thermistor material in that area would present a sharp drop in resistance
which was detected by the electronics.
That's the technique that Bombardier uses in their products (at least the ones
I flew). The thermistor loops are installed around the hot section and pylon
of each engine, along the anti-ice bleed air ducts, inside the APU enclosure and
on the ceiling of the main wheel wells. Unfortunately I no longer have access
to the electronic manuals and my hard copy is in a box somewhere, so I can't
post the technical description.
Boeing took a different route; one that, to my mind, seems a bit more fiddly and
less robust. The following is an excerpt from the B-737NG systems manual.
I'm not sure if this system is a relic of the original 1960's design, or a later
revision.
>>>
Each engine contains two overheat/fire detector loops. Each loop provides both
fire and overheat detection. When the temperature reaches the Overheat Set Point,
the gas in the detector loop expands, closing the Overheat Pressure Switch.
This decreases the resistance of the detector. The Engine and APU Fire Detection
Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the overheat condition.
As temperature increases to the Fire Set Point, the gas continues to expand
and closes the Fire Pressure Switch, further decreasing the resistance. The Engine
and APU Fire Detection Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the
fire condition.
<<<
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
You might try cooling the battery. If that does not bring it to life, try some
gentle pounding with your fists.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458806#458806
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tin Contact Finish |
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
Folks,
This has nothing to do with airplanes.
I was idling away my evening browsing through digikey.com (don't ask me why
this is fun!) and noticed some connectors are brass colored and others,
like
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557
, are grey. By carefully reading the specs, I see that the grey one is
brass with a tin "contact finish".
Why would you choose all brass vs. brass with a tin contact finish?
Thanks,
-- 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: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tin Contact Finish |
Art my guess would be that the brass wants to go back to the sea when there
is a hint of moisture...it turns green with envy, which leads to other
problems!
On Thursday, 28 July 2016, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This has nothing to do with airplanes.
>
> I was idling away my evening browsing through digikey.com (don't ask me
> why this is fun!) and noticed some connectors are brass colored and others,
> like
> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557
> , are grey. By carefully reading the specs, I see that the grey one is
> brass with a tin "contact finish".
>
> Why would you choose all brass vs. brass with a tin contact finish?
>
> Thanks,
> -- 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
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tin Contact Finish |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Tin is supposed to be easier to solder to.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458826#458826
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Squeezing a battery |
I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it o
n the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery i
n and out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I do
n't mind having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (
better than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze i
t? I don't think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's alrea
dy going to be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do th
ese batteries need room to thermally expand at all?
Thank you
Sebastien
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
Attachment was too big.
Sebastien
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:36, Sebastien wrote:
>
> I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it
on the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery
in and out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I d
on't mind having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (
better than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze i
t? I don't think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's alrea
dy going to be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do th
ese batteries need room to thermally expand at all?
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Sebastien
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/28/2016 12:36 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it on
the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery in and
out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I don't mind
having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (better
than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze it? I don't
think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's already going to
be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do these batteries
need room to thermally expand at all?
>
> Thank you
>
> Sebastien
Is the clamping effect to the firewall itself (still some space moving
battery side to side)? If so, you can shim the battery box out from the
firewall with a washer or two under each mounting bolt.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
I don't want to shim out with washers as I'm worried about stressing the firewall
but I will make two full sized plates to shim out if I have to. A good point
thank you.
Sebastien
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:07, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
>> On 7/28/2016 12:36 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it on
the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery in
and out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I don't
mind having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (better
than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze it? I don't
think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's already going to
be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do these batteries
need room to thermally expand at all?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Sebastien
> Is the clamping effect to the firewall itself (still some space moving battery
side to side)? If so, you can shim the battery box out from the firewall with
a washer or two under each mounting bolt.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
| From: | William DeLacey <whd721(at)msn.com> |
It looks like somewhere between 10 to 30 washers could give you a snug fit as desired.
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Attachment was too big.
>
>
>
> Sebastien
>
>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:36, Sebastien wrote:
>>
>> I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it on
the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery in
and out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I don't
mind having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (better
than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze it? I don't
think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's already going to
be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do these batteries
need room to thermally expand at all?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Sebastien
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tin Contact Finish |
At 10:26 PM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>This has nothing to do with airplanes.
>
>I was idling away my evening browsing through
><http://digikey.com>digikey.com (don't ask me why this is fun!) and
>noticed some connectors are brass colored and others, like
><http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557>http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557
>, are grey. By carefully reading the specs, I see that the grey one
>is brass with a tin "contact finish".
>
>Why would you choose all brass vs. brass with a tin contact finish?
It's a combination of effects on performance influenced
by environmental stresses.
A freshly made up, bright metal joint is at that moment,
as good as it can get. But where the conductive materials
come together, there are usually risks for the surface
finished of those materials to degrade. Degradation
always raises the resistance of the joint. If the joint
carries much current, there's a snowballing effect that
leads to loss of integrity of the joint.
Connectors must have openable joints . . . you want to
plug and unplug the wires for installation and/or
maintenance. The interface between movable cannot
benefit from the advantages of gas-tight connections
offered by crimping or soldering.
Depending on criticality of the application and the
environment, bare brass might be just fine . . . one
example is in the fabrication of fast-on terminals
where by design, there is a lot of PRESSURE at the
interface.
Pins and sockets in connectors are another matter.
Here we generally see smooth bore female pins which
engage equally smooth male pins. Large area, low
pressure interface. Here you will probably never
see bare base metal pins. At a minimum, they will
be plated with tin or perhaps even gold.
Gold is the plating of choice for its resistance
to corrosion but tin is probably used in 90% of
terrestrial, consumer and industrial applications.
I've see some bare-metal products in fast-ons and
ring terminals but it's rare . . . and on very
pedestrian applications.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator failure mode |
I just finished a leak check after other mx during which the alternator was
removed. All went well except I got an over-voltage. I started with the
field breaker pulled and before I even checked bus voltage just habitually
reset the field. It immediately popped. Then I saw the voltmeter at 18.1
and stable.
I shut down right away. All I could think was that I put the plug on the
alternator upside down so I checked that--turns out that's impossible and
it was well seated. So I plugged it back in, pulled the field breaker,
started the engine. Reset the breaker and everything is normal: I'm seeing
30+ amps at about 14.5V.
Installed:
PlanePower 12V internally regulated 60A.
Knuckolls crowbar overvoltage module
Two things are odd: the field breaker wouldn't reset right away after
shutdown. Maybe too hot?
And bus voltage was reading 18V even when the field breaker was popped. How
is that possible?
Any comments or explanations?
--Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New smartphone app for pilots |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
Just a quick update that avAltimeter now supports iPads with Barometer hardware.
That includes the iPad Mini 4, the iPad Air 2, and the iPad Pro series, in addition
to the iPhone 6 and later.
The new version, 1.0.5, made it into the App Store today.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458887#458887
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
At 03:33 PM 7/29/2016, you wrote:
>I just finished a leak check after other mx
>during which the alternator was removed. All
>went well except I got an over-voltage. I
>started with the field breaker pulled and before
>I even checked bus voltage just habitually reset
>the field. It immediately popped. Then I saw the voltmeter at 18.1 and
stable.
18.1 volts AFTER the breaker popped?
>I shut down right away. All I could think was
>that I put the plug on the alternator upside
>down so I checked that--turns out that's=C2
>impossible and it was well seated. So I plugged
>it back in, pulled the field=C2 breaker, started
>the engine. Reset the breaker and everything is
>normal: =C2 I'm seeing 30+ amps at about 14.5V.
I thought PlanePower alternators were fitted
with their own ov protection. Can you share
a schematic of how your alternator is wired?
Are you using the field breaker as an alternator
control switch?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
I'll draw up a schematic but it's very standard. The OV module runs the
field to ground, as usual.
Yes, the OV continued after the breaker popped. I understand how weird
that seems--nothing in the system makes 18V. I'm glad it was just a leak
check and I was able to just shut down.
Now, I'm going by the VM in the EFIS. Could be a glitch there but until now
the built in VM has always been flawless. And the breaker wouldn't reset so
I believe it was in an OV condition. I can download the recoded data from
the run.
Yes, the breaker is the only control. Otherwise the alternator comes on
with the battery. I had the breaker pulled before start because of of some
extended battery-on tests.
Again, it didn't last long but it was very strange to see the OV and the
breaker popped--I had to tell myself to shut down instead of analyze,
before the magic smoke came out...
--Dave
PS: FWIW in the past I have, um, "tested" the OV module...we have both
flavors of GPU in the shop...the OV works great. --d
On Friday, July 29, 2016, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:33 PM 7/29/2016, you wrote:
>
> I just finished a leak check after other mx during which the alternator
> was removed. All went well except I got an over-voltage. I started with t
he
> field breaker pulled and before I even checked bus voltage just habituall
y
> reset the field. It immediately popped. Then I saw the voltmeter at 18.1
> and stable.
>
>
> 18.1 volts AFTER the breaker popped?
>
> I shut down right away. All I could think was that I put the plug on the
> alternator upside down so I checked that--turns out that's=C3=82 impossib
le and
> it was well seated. So I plugged it back in, pulled the field=C3=82 break
er,
> started the engine. Reset the breaker and everything is normal: =C3=82 I'
m
> seeing 30+ amps at about 14.5V.
>
>
> I thought PlanePower alternators were fitted
> with their own ov protection. Can you share
> a schematic of how your alternator is wired?
>
> Are you using the field breaker as an alternator
> control switch?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John B <jbsoar(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
Bob-
Is there anything worng with using the field breaker as an alternator
control switch? Why would anyone ever want to shut off the alternator?
John B
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:33 PM 7/29/2016, you wrote:
>
> I just finished a leak check after other mx during which the alternator
> was removed. All went well except I got an over-voltage. I started with t
he
> field breaker pulled and before I even checked bus voltage just habituall
y
> reset the field. It immediately popped. Then I saw the voltmeter at 18.1
> and stable.
>
>
> 18.1 volts AFTER the breaker popped?
>
> I shut down right away. All I could think was that I put the plug on the
> alternator upside down so I checked that--turns out that's=C3=82 impossib
le and
> it was well seated. So I plugged it back in, pulled the field=C3=82 break
er,
> started the engine. Reset the breaker and everything is normal: =C3=82 I'
m
> seeing 30+ amps at about 14.5V.
>
>
> I thought PlanePower alternators were fitted
> with their own ov protection. Can you share
> a schematic of how your alternator is wired?
>
> Are you using the field breaker as an alternator
> control switch?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
At 03:07 AM 7/30/2016, you wrote:
>Bob-
>Is there anything worng with using the field
>breaker as an alternator control switch?=C2 Why
>would anyone ever want to shut off the alternator?
It's a legacy thing. Since day one, TC aircraft have
had crew operated controls for all power sources. First
as independent switches and more recently as the 'split
rocker' switch.
Unless you've tested all permutations of operating
conditions, sticking with the legacy systems controls
is the least risk approach. But if one can 'live' with
the potential for dealing with an in-flight anomaly
that requires a new way of dealing with things, then
using a breaker as the occasionally operated 'switch'
is a personal choice.
In this case, there appears to be an anomaly that
presented as an alternator/regulator combination
which (1) went ov and (2) failed to shut down when
the ov system operated.
So there are two questions. (1) What are the
physics that explain the observed events and (2)
rational behind a decision to go non-legacy
controls of the electrical system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
>
>Yes, the breaker is the only control. Otherwise
>the alternator comes on with the battery. I had
>the breaker pulled before start because of of some extended battery-on
tests.=C2
>
Okay . . . it would be a good lick to open the
breaker, clip an ammeter across the breaker,
battery on, engine not running. CONFIRM that
what appears to be field excitation current
is running through the breaker.
>Again, it didn't last long but it was very
>strange to see the OV and the breaker popped--I
>had to tell myself to shut down instead of
>analyze, before the magic smoke came out...
Good move . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator failure mode |
7/31/2016
Hello John B, You wrote: =9CWhy would anyone ever want to shut off
the alternator?=9D
In order to ensure that their low voltage warning system is working.
The checklist for the shut down procedure at the end of each flight in
my EAB KIS TR-1
airplane includes turning the alternator OFF (via a switch in the field
breaker line) while the engine
is still running and ensuring that:
1) The flashing light for the low voltage warning system starts
flashing.
2) The Garmin GNS 430W and the Garmin GTX 327 transponder keep working
normally on battery
power alone.
Item 2 above is essential if I am to return to my home base inside the
Washington DC SFRA.
They would also be nice / essential to have on cross country if my
alternator failed** and I wanted
to communicate with ATC or a tower prior to making a landing before the
battery
ran out of amps.
OC
**PS: In just my small circle of acquaintance pilots I know of two
instances (one a type certificated airplane, the other an EAB) where the
alternator
stopped working because of interrupted field current. One was a loose
wire the other an inadvertent alternator shut down. Neither airplane
was equipped with low voltage warning and the situation was only
discovered after the battery ran down and things stopped working.
===========
From: John B <jbsoar(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator failure mode
Bob-
Is there anything worng with using the field breaker as an alternator
control switch? Why would anyone ever want to shut off the alternator?
John B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Grounding Questions |
Folks,
I am planning the wiring for stuff that goes in the wings of my plane and
wondering about how to properly ground it. The plane is a BD-4C, metal,
high wing. The salient points are:
1) The wings are removable and will come off during each annual, which
means I will build a wiring harness that goes from the back of the
instrument panel to a connector at the wing root, and
2) I need to run the wires through a conduit inside 2x2 inch channel to get
from the top of the cabin to behind the instrument panel.
I see several choices:
I could ground everything to the airframe in the wing and trust the the
wing spar makes an electrically sound connection when I install the wing. I
don't like this idea, even though it would *probably* be fine.
I could run a ground wire for each device from the wing root connector to
the grounding block behind the instrument panel. E.g., a wire from the left
position/strobe light, a second wire from the right position/strobe light,
etc.
I could combine the grounds for "like devices." E.g., combine the grounds
for the position/strobe lights in both wings, combine the grounds for the
fuel senders in both wings, and combine the grounds for the landing lights
in both wings.
I could combine all of the grounds at the wing root and run a single wire
to the grounding block behind the instrument panel.
What thoughts do you have? Thanks.
-- 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I think you are overly obsessing the issue. All of your wing electrics
are resistive loads, not radio frequency gizmos. You might gain a
smidgeon of accuracy in the fuel sender with a separate ground, but
separate grounds for all the rest won't make a hoot of difference. Make
a ground connection from wing root to fuselage near wing root. Ground
each item locally in the wing. No need to run separate wire from wing
root to your central ground point. You could run a separate ground for
the fuel sender to central ground, but not likely to make a noticeable
difference. TC aircraft use local grounds for all that stuff.
You don't say if you plan traditional nav and strobe lights or LEDs. I
recommend the latter for lower current draw and no need for a high
voltage strobe power supply, and mostly eliminates the one RFI noise
source in wings. LEDs will be similar in cost for quality units, so
money isn't much of a factor.
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am planning the wiring for stuff that goes in the wings of my plane
> and wondering about how to properly ground it. The plane is a BD-4C,
> metal, high wing. The salient points are:
>
> 1) The wings are removable and will come off during each annual, which
> means I will build a wiring harness that goes from the back of the
> instrument panel to a connector at the wing root, and
> 2) I need to run the wires through a conduit inside 2x2 inch channel to
> get from the top of the cabin to behind the instrument panel.
>
> I see several choices:
>
> I could ground everything to the airframe in the wing and trust the the
> wing spar makes an electrically sound connection when I install the
> wing. I don't like this idea, even though it would /probably/ be fine.
>
> I could run a ground wire for each device from the wing root connector
> to the grounding block behind the instrument panel. E.g., a wire from
> the left position/strobe light, a second wire from the right
> position/strobe light, etc.
>
> I could combine the grounds for "like devices." E.g., combine the
> grounds for the position/strobe lights in both wings, combine the
> grounds for the fuel senders in both wings, and combine the grounds for
> the landing lights in both wings.
>
> I could combine all of the grounds at the wing root and run a single
> wire to the grounding block behind the instrument panel.
>
> What thoughts do you have? Thanks.
>
> -- 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: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Hi Art. Everything on my BD-4 wingtips is grounded to the wing spar with no d
ifficulties. I think your spar is a much better ground than any wire could b
e as far as lights and pitot heat. You're adding weight and complexity to no
purpose. Drill a hole in the end of each spar and put a nutplate or rivet n
ut in.
I would definitely run wires to your single point ground for the fuel gauges
. My wing is fibreglass and the fuel gauges were grounded to the fuse and a l
ittle corrosion on the ring terminal was enough to throw them off significan
tly.
Also leave plenty of extra wire in the wings for when you take them off. It'
s awful having to remove a wing to plug a wire back in that you pulled loose
removing a wingtip. I would leave an extra 2-3' sticking out of the wing ti
p and an extra 3' at the wing root. Remember as you pull the wings off the d
istance gets almost 2 feet longer before the wing comes off and you can unpl
ug the wire.
Sebastien
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 09:18, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I am planning the wiring for stuff that goes in the wings of my plane and w
ondering about how to properly ground it. The plane is a BD-4C, metal, high w
ing. The salient points are:
>
> 1) The wings are removable and will come off during each annual, which mea
ns I will build a wiring harness that goes from the back of the instrument p
anel to a connector at the wing root, and
> 2) I need to run the wires through a conduit inside 2x2 inch channel to ge
t from the top of the cabin to behind the instrument panel.
>
> I see several choices:
>
> I could ground everything to the airframe in the wing and trust the the wi
ng spar makes an electrically sound connection when I install the wing. I do
n't like this idea, even though it would probably be fine.
>
> I could run a ground wire for each device from the wing root connector to t
he grounding block behind the instrument panel. E.g., a wire from the left p
osition/strobe light, a second wire from the right position/strobe light, et
c.
>
> I could combine the grounds for "like devices." E.g., combine the grounds
for the position/strobe lights in both wings, combine the grounds for the f
uel senders in both wings, and combine the grounds for the landing lights in
both wings.
>
> I could combine all of the grounds at the wing root and run a single wire t
o the grounding block behind the instrument panel.
>
> What thoughts do you have? Thanks.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I'd agree, but I'd avoid rivnuts like the plague they are. I've never
met a rivnut that didn't spin. If you use 'em, at some point you'll be
fighting to get the screw out so you can drill them out to replace with
plate nuts.
On 7/31/2016 11:28 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> Hi Art. Everything on my BD-4 wingtips is grounded to the wing spar
> with no difficulties. I think your spar is a much better ground than
> any wire could be as far as lights and pitot heat. You're adding
> weight and complexity to no purpose. Drill a hole in the end of each
> spar and put a nutplate or rivet nut in.
>
> I would definitely run wires to your single point ground for the fuel
> gauges. My wing is fibreglass and the fuel gauges were grounded to the
> fuse and a little corrosion on the ring terminal was enough to throw
> them off significantly.
>
> Also leave plenty of extra wire in the wings for when you take them
> off. It's awful having to remove a wing to plug a wire back in that
> you pulled loose removing a wingtip. I would leave an extra 2-3'
> sticking out of the wing tip and an extra 3' at the wing root.
> Remember as you pull the wings off the distance gets almost 2 feet
> longer before the wing comes off and you can unplug the wire.
>
> Sebastien
>
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 09:18, Art Zemon > wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I am planning the wiring for stuff that goes in the wings of my plane
>> and wondering about how to properly ground it. The plane is a BD-4C,
>> metal, high wing. The salient points are:
>>
>> 1) The wings are removable and will come off during each annual,
>> which means I will build a wiring harness that goes from the back of
>> the instrument panel to a connector at the wing root, and
>> 2) I need to run the wires through a conduit inside 2x2 inch channel
>> to get from the top of the cabin to behind the instrument panel.
>>
>> I see several choices:
>>
>> I could ground everything to the airframe in the wing and trust the
>> the wing spar makes an electrically sound connection when I install
>> the wing. I don't like this idea, even though it would /probably/ be
>> fine.
>>
>> I could run a ground wire for each device from the wing root
>> connector to the grounding block behind the instrument panel. E.g., a
>> wire from the left position/strobe light, a second wire from the
>> right position/strobe light, etc.
>>
>> I could combine the grounds for "like devices." E.g., combine the
>> grounds for the position/strobe lights in both wings, combine the
>> grounds for the fuel senders in both wings, and combine the grounds
>> for the landing lights in both wings.
>>
>> I could combine all of the grounds at the wing root and run a single
>> wire to the grounding block behind the instrument panel.
>>
>> What thoughts do you have? Thanks.
>>
>> -- 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: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
=8B
strobe position lights.pdf
=8B
Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
-- 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*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Gents,
I have been using this product (SparkBright Eclipse) to monitor the
battery voltage on my Europa for a couple years now and it seems to work
great. I have a second one which will be installed on the Little Toot
Sport Biplane project which is almost complete.
http://www.sparkbright.co.uk/battery-voltage-monitors.php
Simple Red/Yellow/Green indication. If you see RED, battery is
discharging. If you see YELLOW, battery is charged but the alternator
isn=99t providing sufficient voltage to maintain. If you see
GREEN, battery is charged and alternator is providing sufficient voltage
to maintain. If you see alternating RED/GREEN you have an over-voltage
situation with the alternator/regulator.
It=99s a simple two wire install (red & black) and only requires a
small hole in the panel for mounting.
I have no interest in the company other than as a satisfied user.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jul 31, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Owen Baker wrote:
7/31/2016
Hello John B, You wrote: =9CWhy would anyone ever want to shut off
the alternator?=9D
In order to ensure that their low voltage warning system is working.
The checklist for the shut down procedure at the end of each flight in
my EAB KIS TR-1
airplane includes turning the alternator OFF (via a switch in the field
breaker line) while the engine
is still running and ensuring that:
1) The flashing light for the low voltage warning system starts
flashing.
2) The Garmin GNS 430W and the Garmin GTX 327 transponder keep working
normally on battery
power alone.
Item 2 above is essential if I am to return to my home base inside the
Washington DC SFRA.
They would also be nice / essential to have on cross country if my
alternator failed** and I wanted
to communicate with ATC or a tower prior to making a landing before the
battery
ran out of amps.
OC
**PS: In just my small circle of acquaintance pilots I know of two
instances (one a type certificated airplane, the other an EAB) where the
alternator
stopped working because of interrupted field current. One was a loose
wire the other an inadvertent alternator shut down. Neither airplane
was equipped with low voltage warning and the situation was only
discovered after the battery ran down and things stopped working.
===========
From: John B <jbsoar(at)gmail.com <>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator failure mode
Bob-
Is there anything worng with using the field breaker as an alternator
control switch? Why would anyone ever want to shut off the alternator?
John B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Art,
Looks good except all your Local Grounds from the wing spar and carry throug
h are unnecessary. The spar grounds itself to the carry through quite well e
ven when coated with oil. Obviously anything mounted in the fiberglass wingt
ips will need a ground wire connected to the spar at the tip end.
Are you planning on using shielded wire in the spar or count on the spar to b
e your shielding? You might want to use shielded wire from the panel to the f
irst connector as the installation instructions suggest. Further than that I
'm not sure it would add anything and connecting the shield to ground might b
e problematic. You need to keep the in-spar connector as simple as possible t
o make wing removal and installation as simple and safe as possible. Remembe
r to make sure the wire from the panel hangs out the carry through a MINIMUM
of one foot.
Sebastien
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 15:11, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
> =8B
> strobe position lights.pdf
> =8B
> Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Art,
Looks good except all your Local Grounds from the wing spar and carry throug
h are unnecessary. The spar grounds itself to the carry through quite well e
ven when coated with oil. Obviously anything mounted in the fiberglass wingt
ips will need a ground wire connected to the spar at the tip end.
Are you planning on using shielded wire in the spar or count on the spar to b
e your shielding? You might want to use shielded wire from the panel to the f
irst connector as the installation instructions suggest. Further than that I
'm not sure it would add anything and connecting the shield to ground might b
e problematic. You need to keep the in-spar connector as simple as possible t
o make wing removal and installation as simple and safe as possible. Remembe
r to make sure the wire from the panel hangs out the carry through a MINIMUM
of one foot.
Sebastien
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 15:11, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
> =8B
> strobe position lights.pdf
> =8B
> Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Also is the red box in your diagram a connector or the nav strobe unit itsel
f? If the latter you will need to add a connector at the tip end of the spar
so that you can disconnect the light for wing tip removal. Make sure you ha
ve enough slack in the wires so that the connectors hang out a foot from bot
h the spar and the wing tip each.
Sebastien
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 15:11, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
> =8B
> strobe position lights.pdf
> =8B
> Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
At 03:38 PM 7/31/2016, you wrote:
>Art,
>
>Looks good except all your Local Grounds from the wing spar and
>carry through are unnecessary. The spar grounds itself to the carry
>through quite well even when coated with oil. Obviously anything
>mounted in the fiberglass wingtips will need a ground wire connected
>to the spar at the tip end.
>
>Are you planning on using shielded wire in the spar or count on the
>spar to be your shielding? You might want to use shielded wire from
>the panel to the first connector as the installation instructions
>suggest. Further than that I'm not sure it would add anything and
>connecting the shield to ground might be problematic. You need to
>keep the in-spar connector as simple as possible to make wing
>removal and installation as simple and safe as possible. Remember to
>make sure the wire from the panel hangs out the carry through a
>MINIMUM of one foot.
That's what I would do if it were my airplane . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
At 02:24 PM 7/31/2016, you wrote:
>Gents,
>
>I have been using this product (SparkBright Eclipse) to monitor the
>battery voltage on my Europa for a couple years now and it seems to
>work great. I have a second one which will be installed on the
>Little Toot Sport Biplane project which is almost complete.
>
><http://www.sparkbright.co.uk/battery-voltage-monitors.php>http://www.sparkbright.co.uk/battery-voltage-monitors.php
I ordered one in to play with about ten years ago . . .
maybe more. It performs electrically as advertised
but a bit dim for sunlight visability. They may have
boosted the light output of their LED choices. I'll
suggest good critical review.
The other factor to ponder considers utility. You
generally don't benefit from a green light saying
everything is okay 99.99% of the time. If your
alternator is fitted with ov protection, you'd
never see a red light since the alternator is
brought to heel in tens of milliseconds . . .
whereupon the bus volts drop to battery voltage.
This leaves ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW voltage as
the only really useful function . . . and you
do want to make sure you're going to see it
under all anticipated lighting conditions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Sebastien & Bob,
Thank you for your suggestions. I shielded the strobe wire between the
switch and the spar tube. I left the wires running inside the spar tube
unshielded.
I don't know what the red box represents because all I have right now is
the installation doc, no hardware. I added connectors at the wing tips to
the drawing, just in case the red box is not a connector of some sort. And
I will definitely be sure that I have nice long service loops for removing
the wings and the wing tips.
Here is the updated drawing. =8B
strobe position lights.pdf
=8B
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> Art,
>
> Looks good except all your Local Grounds from the wing spar and carry
> through are unnecessary. The spar grounds itself to the carry through qui
te
> well even when coated with oil. Obviously anything mounted in the
> fiberglass wingtips will need a ground wire connected to the spar at the
> tip end.
>
> Are you planning on using shielded wire in the spar or count on the spar
> to be your shielding? You might want to use shielded wire from the panel
to
> the first connector as the installation instructions suggest. Further tha
n
> that I'm not sure it would add anything and connecting the shield to grou
nd
> might be problematic. You need to keep the in-spar connector as simple as
> possible to make wing removal and installation as simple and safe as
> possible. Remember to make sure the wire from the panel hangs out the car
ry
> through a MINIMUM of one foot.
>
> Sebastien
>
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 15:11, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
> =8B
> strobe position lights.pdf
>
> =8B
> Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, wha
t
> am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
>
>
--
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: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Questions |
Looks great Art.
Sebastien
> On Jul 31, 2016, at 22:09, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Sebastien & Bob,
>
> Thank you for your suggestions. I shielded the strobe wire between the swi
tch and the spar tube. I left the wires running inside the spar tube unshiel
ded.
>
> I don't know what the red box represents because all I have right now is t
he installation doc, no hardware. I added connectors at the wing tips to the
drawing, just in case the red box is not a connector of some sort. And I wi
ll definitely be sure that I have nice long service loops for removing the w
ings and the wing tips.
>
> Here is the updated drawing. =8B
> strobe position lights.pdf
> =8B
> Cheers,
> -- Art Z.
>
>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> Art,
>>
>> Looks good except all your Local Grounds from the wing spar and carry thr
ough are unnecessary. The spar grounds itself to the carry through quite wel
l even when coated with oil. Obviously anything mounted in the fiberglass wi
ngtips will need a ground wire connected to the spar at the tip end.
>>
>> Are you planning on using shielded wire in the spar or count on the spar t
o be your shielding? You might want to use shielded wire from the panel to t
he first connector as the installation instructions suggest. Further than th
at I'm not sure it would add anything and connecting the shield to ground mi
ght be problematic. You need to keep the in-spar connector as simple as poss
ible to make wing removal and installation as simple and safe as possible. R
emember to make sure the wire from the panel hangs out the carry through a M
INIMUM of one foot.
>>
>> Sebastien
>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 15:11, Art Zemon wrote:
>>>
>>> Kelly & Sebastien & Charlie,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your suggestions. How does this wiring plan look to you?
>>> =8B
>>> strobe position lights.pdf
>>> =8B
>>> Be nice, please. It's my first attempt at a wiring diagram. :-)
>>>
>>> -- Art Z.
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>>
>>> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, wha
t am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
>
>
>
> --
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what a
m I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure mode |
| From: | "zwakie" <mz(at)cariama.nl> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> This leaves ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW voltage as the only really useful function
. . . and you do want to make sure you're going to see it under all anticipated
lighting conditions.
Just a FYI: SparkBright can do custom notifications. I will use one in my new panel
as well, and I have the same reasoning you have Bob: I will have mine go
green once the alternator comes on-line for 30 seconds and then go off, only go
live again when one of the set thresholds is crossed (OV, no-charge, etc.).
--------
Marcel Zwakenberg
XS TG || 912ULS || PH-SBR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459026#459026
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
The Rotax Installation Manual tells us that when the engine is not running,
the circuit between regulator C terminal and the battery must be broken to
avoid running down the battery. But the Z-16 does not seem to account for
this.
Does the relay that breaks the connection between the "Dynamo" and the
"Voltage Regulator" serve the same purpose? That is, does opening that
relay accomplish the same thing (avoiding battery run down) as would a
relay in the C wire itself?
Thanks.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 Question |
Sorry guys. I answered my own question. The connection is broken by the
battery contactor. Again, sorry for my error. --Ken
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> The Rotax Installation Manual tells us that when the engine is not
> running, the circuit between regulator C terminal and the battery must be
> broken to avoid running down the battery. But the Z-16 does not seem to
> account for this.
>
> Does the relay that breaks the connection between the "Dynamo" and the
> "Voltage Regulator" serve the same purpose? That is, does opening that
> relay accomplish the same thing (avoiding battery run down) as would a
> relay in the C wire itself?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 Question |
At 12:49 PM 8/1/2016, you wrote:
>Sorry guys. I answered my own question. The connection is broken by
>the battery contactor. Again, sorry for my error. --Ken
The battery/alternator switch breaks "C"
loose too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 Question |
Bob,
Help me understand this. It looks like the battery/alternator switch opens
the S704-1 relay, which in turns opens the connection between the generator
and the regulator-rectifier. Are you saying that that has the same effect
as actually breaking the C with the battery?
Ken
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 12:49 PM 8/1/2016, you wrote:
>
> Sorry guys. I answered my own question. The connection is broken by the
> battery contactor. Again, sorry for my error. --Ken
>
>
> The battery/alternator switch breaks "C"
> loose too.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-16 Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Are you saying that that has the same effect as actually breaking the C with
the battery?
Since the battery contactor and the dynamo relay are controlled by the same switch,
shutting off the master switch disconnects both the battery and dynamo.
Even though regulator terminal "C" has not been disconnected with a dedicated switch,
terminal "C" is no longer receiving voltage because both power sources
(battery & dynamo) have been disconnected.
If only the dynamo relay is shut off, but the battery contactor remains on, then
regulator terminal "C" will still be getting voltage from the battery and
the regulator will still be enabled. However, the regulator can not output any
voltage or current because it is not receiving any AC power from the disconnected
dynamo.
Without alternating power input, the rectifier/regulator can not supply an output
regardless of whether the regulator is enabled via terminal "C" or not.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459052#459052
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net> |
I have a friend building a RANS S-19. Not flown yet - new Rotax 912 ULS, PC-680
battery and Dynon panel. The charging voltage seems low. We've measured it at
the battery and it agrees closely with the Dynon readout. The voltage at 1900
rpm today was 13.5 v, but has been seen to be only in the upper 12 v range sometimes
when taxiing. Some other readings - 2000 rpm 13.4 v, 2400 13.7, 3500 13.8,
4000 13.9. We ran the lights and panel for awhile with the engine off to
get the battery voltage down to about 10.5, then started the engine and got similar
readings. The two brand new voltage regulators, the Rotax supplied Ducati
and a Silent Hektik, produced the same results. Electrical is basically as per
Bob's Z-16. Now I'm wondering about the possibility of a bad battery, or possibly
even a weak dynamo. Any thoughts or suggestions for possible tests?
--------
John Evens
Thorp T-18 N71JE (built & flying)
Kitfox SS7 N27JE (building)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459057#459057
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Hooper <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | Aux power to learn avionics |
Forgive my naive question which has probably been addressed before on this
list. I did search before posting.
I have purchased a 2001 Cessna T182T. To learn all the systems on the
ground I purchased a Schauer JAC2024H battery charger from Aircraft Spruce,
with the typical Cessna plug for external power.
I hooked it up, turned on the charger, turned on master, then avionics and
sat there studying for a bout 10 minutes when I noticed that the battery
voltage was graducally dropping. I fear I was actually draining the main
battery which is getting close to replacement time.
*Am I doing something wrong? *
I have also purchased a battery minder for continuous, low voltage charging
to keep the battery healthy. Advise will be much appreciated.
--
--
*Phil Hooper*President
*Harvest Development & Media Inc.*
19851 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 204
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
*voice:* 714.693.8745
*fax:* 714.777.0134
*web:* http://www.hdmnet.com/
*email:* phil(at)hdmnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Your voltages sound normal for the Rotax charging system. I have a Van's RV-12
with similar voltages, same engine, same battery. The engine starts so quickly
that the battery does not run down much. 13.8 volts seems to be working fine
for hundreds of flying RV-12s. The bad news is that the Ducati regulators
have a high failure rate.
A John Deere regulator gives a few tenths of a volt more, but the terminals are
swapped around and the mounting holes do not align. Search eBay for AM101406,
or MIA881279, or JDR1406.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459060#459060
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aux power to learn avionics |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I do not know why, but Aircraft Spruce's description says,
> "Not intended for use as a DC power supply."
Without knowing how the Cessna is wired, all I can suggest is to connect the charger
directly to the battery to see if that makes a difference.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459061#459061
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Proposed Electrical System for SuperSTOL/Rotax 914 |
Okay, I've finally got something. ALL comments and criticisms are welcome.
Attached to this message are two files:
1. Text as a .pdf file
2. Diagram as a .jpg image
The text contains an overview, load analysis, start up and shut down
procedures, emergency procedures, etc. The diagram hopefully shows all the
necessary detail.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aux power to learn avionics |
The system that you had turned on was drawing more than the 20 amps that the charger
was able to produce.
If you are going to run your stuff for an extended period, you need a power supply
capable of mainlining a set voltage with the amount of current flowing.
In my RV6A, I can use a good portion of my avionics with a 30 AMP power supply
and maintain voltage sufficient to not discharge the battery.
Right or wrong is not the answer here - with a 20A charger, you have too much stuff
turned on for the charger to keep up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Hooper
Sent: Aug 1, 2016 7:34 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux power to learn avionics
Forgive my naive question which has probably been addressed before on this list.
I did search before posting.
I have purchased a 2001 Cessna T182T. To learn all the systems on the ground I
purchased a Schauer JAC2024H battery charger from Aircraft Spruce, with the typical
Cessna plug for external power.
I hooked it up, turned on the charger, turned on master, then avionics and sat
there studying for a bout 10 minutes when I noticed that the battery voltage was
graducally dropping. I fear I was actually draining the main battery which
is getting close to replacement time.
Am I doing something wrong?
I have also purchased a battery minder for continuous, low voltage charging to
keep the battery healthy. Advise will be much appreciated.
--
--
Phil Hooper
President
Harvest Development
& Media Inc.
19851 Yorba Linda
Blvd., Suite 204
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
voice:
714.693.8745
fax:
714.777.0134
web: http://www.hdmnet.com/
email: phil(at)hdmnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Proposed Electrical System for SuperSTOL / Rotax 914 |
I tried posting this but it was returned saying the attachments are too
large, although combined they are less than 200k. I will try again...
Okay, I've finally got something. ALL comments and criticisms are welcome.
Attached to this message are two files:
1. Text as a .pdf file
2. Diagram as a .jpg image
The text contains an overview, load analysis, start up and shut down
procedures, emergency procedures, etc. The diagram hopefully shows all the
necessary detail.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "jrevens" <jrevens(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Joe. The issue came up in our minds because another friend with a new S-19
does seem to be running a few tenths higher with the same engine, etc., and
I was thinking about the recent discussions on this forum stating that 14.2 to
14.5 or so was what you really wanted with these batteries. The one in question
actually is using a different regulator... the Silent Hektik. It's really
a nice looking regulator & rated for much higher amperage. He just swapped it
out with a Ducati to see if there was a difference.
--------
John Evens
Thorp T-18 N71JE (built & flying)
Kitfox SS7 N27JE (building)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459069#459069
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent Battery Failure |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There are lots of owners of Rotax powered aircraft in the USA who would replace
the Ducati regulator with a Silent Hektik if they could find a dealer willing
to sell to USA customers.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459089#459089
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Brewer <alpha(at)concordnc.com> |
| Subject: | Tin contact finish |
To answer the question, "Why a tin contact finish." According to Jim
Weir, of Kitplanes Magazine, at a Oshkosh forum this week, the
explanation was that you have "wiping contact" that will not corrode.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
Hi Bob,
I made one of these to troubleshoot a sluggish starter on a Long-EZ from your excellent discussion here http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf I suspect I have some bad solder joints in connectors on copper-clad aluminum cables and thinking of the best way to test for excessive resistance. I am thinking:
I could test each connector joint by isolating the cable & connector and probing
between the clean bare cable and the connector, or
Alternatively, perhaps I could test the entire cable run and the solenoids by
disconnecting the cable it at the battery and the starter, activating the master
and starter solenoids with a portable battery and probing between the battery-end
and the starter-end.
Or could I disconnect the starter cable at the starter, active the master and
starter solenoids with the usual switchology and probe between the battery post
and the starter-end of the cables. Does connection to the battery affect the
test?
Whats your preferred strategy here? Thanks.
-Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net |
Bob,
Several months ago I sent you the burned coils from my Jabiru 3300 PM alternator.
At the time I had not removed the rare earth magnet rotor??
I have since replaced it with a 40 amp alternator and it is a much better system.
I soon forgot about it due to age related whatever.
Anyway I ran across it today ( while looking for something else ) and was wondering
if you were interested in it I would send it to you.
I vaguely remember you stating you were working with PM Alts.
Bobby
Jabiru 3300 260 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Disconnect the starter and replace it with a high wattage load. Connect the negative
side of the high wattage load to the starter housing. Turn on the battery
contactor and the starter contactor. Connect the RED voltmeter lead to the
POSITIVE battery post. Then using the black voltmeter probe, measure the voltage
drop at various points between the positive battery post and the high wattage
load. Harbor Freight sells a 100 amp battery load tester for $22.
http://www.harborfreight.com/100-amp-612v-battery-load-tester-61747.html
Read the reviews before buying it.
Repeat the above test measuring voltage drop between the negative battery post
and the starter housing.
Disclaimer: I have never had to perform this test.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459126#459126
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Kent,
Of the three methods that you posted, I like #2 the best except that I suggest
you disconnect the aircraft battery negative terminal, not the positive terminal.
That will allow you to test the positive battery connection too.
Method 3 has the problem of aircraft battery current flowing through the cable
under test between the battery and the master contactor. That current will affect
the test.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459129#459129
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aux power to learn avionics |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
BTW, Batteries are made to be drained!
No harm, no foul! You just need to recharge your lead acid battery
when you are done studying. Discharging your battery to the point where
your avionics quits (probably about 10 volts(here I am guessing that the avionics
is universal 12-24 compatible)) will not harm the battery.
Some avionics (with poor design) may complain more.
And yes, The voltage was probably declining due to current draw in
excess of charger supply
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459155#459155
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Another option: Disconnect the aircraft battery negative terminal. Assuming that
the master contactor has a single coil terminal and the starter contactor
has two coil terminals, unbolt the master contactor from the firewall and isolate
it from ground. Energize both contactors with an aux battery. The aux battery
positive should be connected directly to the battery contactor positive
stud, not to the nuts.
Now the resistance of the starter circuit can be measured at any location between
the aircraft battery positive post and the disconnected negative battery-cable
end.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459156#459156
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:51 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Another option: Disconnect the aircraft battery negative terminal. Assuming
that the master contactor has a single coil terminal and the starter contactor
has two coil terminals, unbolt the master contactor from the firewall and isolate
it from ground. Energize both contactors with an aux battery. The aux
battery positive should be connected directly to the battery contactor positive
stud, not to the nuts.
> Now the resistance of the starter circuit can be measured at any location between
the aircraft battery positive post and the disconnected negative battery-cable
end.
Yes, I can see that. This is a Long-EZ with battery & master solenoid in the
nose on fiberglass structure and a starter solenoid on the aft metal firewall.
I dont see the need to dismount the solenoids but your suggestion would allow
me to test the whole circuit from the battery area.
I dont know the internal resistance of my Skytec starter. I suppose I can measure
it separately.
However, I think today Ill just measure the resistance of some assembled joints
on various large cables I have in the shop and compare that to some of the roughly
soldered joints in the airplane cables. If that doesnt reveal a bad joint,
Ill try something else.
Thanks for the help.
-Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The reason that I suggested isolating the battery contactor from ground is because
its coil is connected in parallel with the starter motor when the starter
contactor is energized. Your fiberglass airplane might be wired differently than
metal aircraft.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459167#459167
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
> Yes, I can see that. This is a Long-EZ
> with battery & master solenoid in the nose on
> fiberglass structure and a starter solenoid on
> the aft metal firewall. I don=99t see the need
> to dismount the solenoids but your suggestion
> would allow me to test the whole circuit from the battery area.
What gage wire is used for
battery and ground leads that
run the length of the aircraft?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
At 02:01 PM 8/2/2016, you wrote:
>Jackie Ashton
>
>Hi Bob,
>
> I made one of these to troubleshoot a
> sluggish starter on a Long-EZ from your
> excellent discussion
> here
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
> I suspect I have some bad solder joints in
> connectors on copper-clad aluminum cables and
> thinking of the best way to test for excessive resistance. I am thinking:
>
> I could test each connector joint by
> isolating the cable & connector and probing
> between the clean bare cable and the connector, or
>
> Alternatively, perhaps I could test the
> entire cable run and the solenoids by
> disconnecting the cable it at the battery and
> the starter, activating the master and starter
> solenoids with a portable battery and probing
> between the battery-end and the starter-end.
>
> Or could I disconnect the starter cable
> at the starter, active the master and starter
> solenoids with the usual switchology and probe
> between the battery post and the starter-end of
> the cables. Does connection to the battery affect the test?
>
> What=99s your preferred strategy here? Thanks.
>
>-Kent
>
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
At 02:01 PM 8/2/2016, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
> I made one of these to troubleshoot a sluggish starter on a
> Long-EZ from your excellent discussion
> here http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf I suspect
> I have some bad solder joints in connectors on copper-clad aluminum
> cables and thinking of the best way to test for excessive
> resistance. I am thinking:
Hmmmm . . . that tool is useful for evaluating
the quality of any one joint and it assumes that
you have some notion of the resistance value
representing a quality joint . . .
> I could test each connector joint by isolating the cable &
> connector and probing between the clean bare cable and the connector, or
>
> Alternatively, perhaps I could test the entire cable run
> and the solenoids by disconnecting the cable it at the battery and
> the starter, activating the master and starter solenoids with a
> portable battery and probing between the battery-end and the starter-end.
>
> Or could I disconnect the starter cable at the starter,
> active the master and starter solenoids with the usual switchology
> and probe between the battery post and the starter-end of the
> cables. Does connection to the battery affect the test?
One of my favorite tools for chasing this
dragon (and similar issues) is this modified
battery tester from Harbor Freight.
Emacs!
In this instance, the device is also used as a high
current load for my test bench . . . you may not want
to cut the leads so short. In any case, this mod
allows you to bolt the load into the system with
good mechanical/electrical integrity.
When you strip the wires to attach fat-wire lugs,
be sure to find ANOTHER wire buried in with the
strands of the fat-wire. This is the SENSE wire
for the voltmeter.
To troubleshoot integrity of your cranking
circuit, connect (-) lead to crankcase. (+)
lead to the BATTERY side of your starter
contactor. With the master switch ON, you
should read battery voltage. Then crank the
puppy up to some handy value . . . say 150
amps. The voltage should NOT be less than
9v.
If less, the next handy-tool for one-man
diagnostics is a very long set of leads for
your multimeter that will let you clip to
the (-) side of the battery and then take
successive measurements of VOLTAGE at battery(+),
battery side of battery contactor and crankcase
while generating the same, test load as before.
These readings will let you evaluate ground and
supply segments of the cranking circuit INDEPENDENT
of starter controls.
The next test may be a two person test . . . disconnect
the (+) lead from your starter motor and connect
(+) lead of your HarborFreight tool to the starter
motor power lead. While someone presses the start
switch in the cockpit, repeat the votlage measurement
under the 150A load. You need to do this with some
dispatch . . . starter contactors should not be
energized for more than 10 second or so without a cooling
period of a minute or so.
Once you have the numbers observed in these
experiments, the combination of conditions that
add up to your perceived performance issue will
be easily deduced.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
I am in the process of gathering information for the installation of an ADS
-B in my all wood airplane. The Transponder that I am considering uses 2 a
ntennas for the UAT 978 MHz portion. I am considering using the small rod
antenna which is similar to that used for the transponder. Since it is a d
ifferent frequency than the xponder I will purchase the one specifically fo
r the UAT. I am assuming that it is OK to mount this antenna inside the wo
od fuselage. Is this correct? Also I believe that it will need a ground p
lane. Is there a recommended configuration for the ground of this antenna?
Would the 2 antennas be set up identically?
Roger
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There was a recent thread about transponder antennas that might help:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16762861&sid=0fdc43cf144daf15623736558e046890
I have read that a transponder antenna may also be used for 978 MHZ.
At the iFly booth in OSH, I was impressed by the pinBuddy dual band ADS-B receiver
that is a fraction of the size and uses a fraction of the power of the Stratux.
http://www.uavionix.com/
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459185#459185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
At 04:11 PM 8/2/2016, you wrote:
>
>Disconnect the starter and replace it with a high wattage
>load. Connect the negative side of the high wattage load to the
>starter housing. Turn on the battery contactor and the starter
>contactor. Connect the RED voltmeter lead to the POSITIVE battery
>post. Then using the black voltmeter probe, measure the voltage
>drop at various points between the positive battery post and the
>high wattage load. Harbor Freight sells a 100 amp battery load tester for $22.
>http://www.harborfreight.com/100-amp-612v-battery-load-tester-61747.html
Agreed. This is a useful tool for chasing this
dragon (and similar issues). I've modified this
one for improved electrical/mechanical integrity.
Emacs!
In this instance, the device is also used as a high
current load for my test bench . . . you may not want
to cut the leads so short.
When you strip the wires to attach fat-wire lugs,
be sure to find ANOTHER wire buried in with the
strands of the fat-wire. This is the SENSE wire
for the voltmeter.
To troubleshoot integrity of your cranking
circuit, connect (-) lead to crankcase. (+)
lead to the BATTERY side of your starter
contactor. With the master switch ON, you
should read battery voltage. Then crank the
puppy up to some handy value . . . say 150
amps. The voltage should NOT be less than
9v.
If less, the next handy-tool for one-man
diagnostics is a very long set of leads for
your multimeter that will let you clip to
the (-) side of the battery and then take
successive measurements of VOLTAGE at battery(+),
battery side of battery contactor and crankcase
while generating the same, test load as before.
These readings will let you evaluate ground and
supply segments of the cranking circuit INDEPENDENT
of starter controls.
The next test may be a two person test . . . disconnect
the (+) lead from your starter motor and connect
(+) lead of your HarborFreight tool to the starter
motor power lead. While someone presses the start
switch in the cockpit, repeat the votlage measurement
under the 150A load. You need to do this with some
dispatch . . . starter contactors should not be
energized for more than 10 second or so without a cooling
period of a minute or so.
Once you have the numbers observed in these
experiments, the combination of conditions that
add up to your perceived performance issue will
be easily deduced.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
AWG 2 Bob. I am doing a few more tests and will post results.
-Kent
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> What gage wire is used for
> battery and ground leads that
> run the length of the aircraft?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna |
There was a recent thread about transponder antennas that might help:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16762861&sid=0fdc43cf144daf
15623736558e046890
I have read that a transponder antenna may also be used for 978 MHZ.
At the iFly booth in OSH, I was impressed by the pinBuddy dual band ADS-B r
eceiver that is a fraction of the size and uses a fraction of the power of
the Stratux.
http://www.uavionix.com/
--------
Joe Gores
Thanks Joe! I was also at OSH and I am seriously looking at the SkyguardT
WX ADS-B unit. It is 2020 compliant, seems to have all the ADS-B features,
can be used with your old style mode C transponder, and is reasonable pric
ed.
Xmit and receive antennas are not included. They recommend using the 978MH
z antenna for the UAT rather than the standard transponder antenna. I belie
ve I will fabricate my antennas since they are simple, using a BNC connecto
r, piece of brazing rod 77mm, and a copper ground plane.
Does anyone have any experience with this device? All comments welcomed.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna |
>
>
>Xmit and receive antennas are not
>included.=C2 They recommend using the 978MHz
>antenna for the UAT rather than the standard
>transponder antenna. I believe I will fabricate
>my antennas since they are simple, using a BNC
>connector, piece of brazing rod 77mm, and a copper ground plane.
Keep in mind that the BNC connector's solder
pot was never intended to be a structural feature.
The moment arm of that antenna mast being buffeted
in the wind imposes a serious stress to the
non-ferrous material . . . which HAS a finite
service life under vibratory stress.
These antennas are not expensive . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zeqau4d
Notice that TED (and others) have
incorporated extra support at the base
of the antenna rod which is, if I recall
correctly, one piece of metal all the way
through. A piece of wire soldered into
the tail-end of a BNC connector will need
some similar attention.
Further, there is little value added for tweaking
the length for 978 Mhz vs. 1050. Recall that
your VHF comm antenna works fine over a range of
118 to 135 Mhz . . . a bandwidth of 7 percent
either side of center. The spread of frequencies
of interest at ADS-B/Xpndr is only 3.5 percent.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using the "Poor man's 4-wire milliohmmeter" |
One of my favorite tools for chasing this
dragon (and similar issues) is this modified
battery tester from Harbor Freight.
http://tinyurl.com/jdtw499
In this instance, the device is also used as a high
current load for my test bench . . . you may not want
to cut the leads so short. In any case, this mod
allows you to bolt the load into the system being
evaluated with good mechanical/electrical integrity.
When you strip the wires to attach fat-wire lugs,
be sure to find ANOTHER wire buried in with the
strands of the fat-wire. This is the SENSE wire
for the voltmeter. Strip the sense wire too
such that fat-wire and sense-wire strands
drop into the wire-grip of the terminal.
To troubleshoot integrity of your cranking
circuit, connect (-) lead to crankcase. (+)
lead to the BATTERY side of your starter
contactor. With the master switch ON, you
should read battery voltage. Then crank the
puppy up to some handy value . . . say 150
amps. The voltage should NOT be less than
9v.
The next handy-tool for one-man
diagnostics is a very long set of leads for
your multimeter that will let you clip to
the (-) side of the battery and then take
successive measurements of VOLTAGE at battery(+),
battery side of battery contactor and crankcase
while generating the same, test load as before.
These readings will let you evaluate ground and
supply segments of the cranking circuit INDEPENDENT
of starter controls.
The next test may be a two person test . . . disconnect
the (+) lead from your starter motor and connect
(+) lead of your HF tool to the starter
motor power lead. While someone presses the start
switch in the cockpit, repeat the votlage measurement
under the 150A load. You need to do this with some
dispatch . . . starter contactors should not be
energized for more than 10 second or so without a cooling
period of a minute or so.
Once you have the numbers observed in these
experiments, the combination of conditions that
add up to your perceived performance issue will
be easily deduced.
Using this adjustable, relatively static load
to emulate starter currents allows you to make
meaningful voltage drop measurements . . .
a nearly impossible task when using the starter
as a load.
This tool is also handy for checking your alternator
output. Bolt it into the system, run engine
above minimum rpm for full output . . . crank
up the HF load and demonstrate your alternator's
state of health. Far too many owner/operators
have wasted a lot of time taking alternators
off the airplane and transporting it to some
test facility.
it's a really good thing to KNOW what part
is bad BEFORE you get out the wrenches and
hammers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna |
=C2-
Xmit and receive antennas are not included.=C3=82=C2- They recommend usin
g the 978MHz antenna for the UAT rather than the standard transponder anten
na. I believe I will fabricate my antennas since they are simple, using a B
NC connector, piece of brazing rod 77mm, and a copper ground plane.
=C2- These antennas are not expensive . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zeqau4d
=C2- Further, there is little value added for tweaking
=C2- the length for 978 Mhz vs. 1050. Recall that
=C2- your VHF comm antenna works fine over a range of
=C2- 118 to 135 Mhz . . . a bandwidth of 7 percent
=C2- either side of center.=C2- The spread of frequencies
=C2- of interest at ADS-B/Xpndr is only 3.5 percent.
You convinced me. I will buy the antennas. In looking
further on Ebay, the 978MHz antenna is only $=C2=BD more
so I think I will spring for the difference.
I plan to mount these inside an all wood fuselage. Do you
see any problem with that?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna |
>You convinced me.=C2 I will buy the antennas.=C2 In looking
>further on Ebay, the 978MHz antenna is=C2 only $=C2=BD more
>so I think I will spring for the difference.=C2
>
>I plan to mount these inside an all wood fuselage.=C2 Do you
>see any problem with that?
Nope. Mount them on circles of aluminum
with a diameter of 6". Mount them pointing
down . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom |
Hello Group, I would like to add a 2nd radio to my Flightcom 403mc without
installing an audio panel. I think if I use a switch to separate the mike k
ey and mike audio between the 2 radios for transmitting purposes that would
work, but can I just turn down the volume on either radio instead of separ
ating the phone audio? If I am listening to atis on one radio and then a tr
ansmission comes in on the other will there be an overload problem? Thanks
John Robinson RV-7A 90 hours.=C2-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Do you want to listen to both radios at the same time or only one at a time?
Do you intend to listen to music or other audio on the aux input, pin 18?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459219#459219
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom |
| From: | "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The audio output from two radios should not be connected together without some
kind of isolation.
The audio from the second radio could connect to pin 18 on the intercom, the
music aux input. But switching the intercom to "isolate" will disable it.
Audio input on pin 21 will mute the audio input on pm 18 unless the wire connected
to pin 24 is cut.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459221#459221
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom |
Thanks Joe for the input. I have a 2nd belly antenna which has coax coming
into the cockpit and is set up for my handheld in case my one and only GNC3
00XL fails. It would be nice if the GNC300XL had a feature to allow monitor
ing of the standby frequency but it doesn't. If I install my 2nd radio it w
ould have its own antenna. Perhaps installing a 2-50 switch for the audio,
on-on-(on), com 1, com 2, and using the spring loaded (on) as both audio to
listen to ATIS or whatever? I know when I use to rent Cessna's, the audio
panel would have a "both" switch that I would use when I wanted to listen t
o ATIS without leaving the other controller. I just don't know what goes on
in an audio panel that makes it safe to listen to both audios and why I co
uld not do it without an audio panel? Thanks for any additional advice. =C2
- =C2-
From: user9253 <fransew(at)gmail.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 7:21 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Adding a 2nd radio to my 403MC flightcom
The audio output from two radios should not be connected together without s
ome kind of isolation.
=C2- The audio from the second radio could connect to pin 18 on the inter
com, the music aux input.=C2- But switching the intercom to "isolate" wil
l disable it.
=C2- Audio input on pin 21 will mute the audio input on pm 18 unless the
wire connected to pin 24 is cut.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459221#459221
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin GTX 335 Install nonsense(?) |
Greetings all,
I'll soon be installing a GTX335 transponder in my LongEz. The (stc)
install manual has some items I find curious related to the antennas.
While it does say if I'm replacing a different GTX transponder (I'm
replacing a 327) the existing transponder antenna is fine, it ALSO says
that the minimum radius for the transponder antenna ground plane is 12"!
Mine is 2.7" (1/4 wave at 1090 MHz). Anyone have any knowledge of what
they are trying to optimize?
Also it goes on to say the minimum radius for the gps antenna ground plane
is 7.5"! The gps antenna that goes with the GNS250XL has no ground plane
at all... Anyone have any idea what they are after here?
Also, the manual goes on and on about all the bonding required between
antenna ground planes, the avionics rack etc. My aircraft is a LongEz
(i.e. fiberglass) and I don't have any explicit "bonding" at all (though I
DO have very carefully planned and implemented power returns etc. In fact,
my transponder ground plane is encapsulated in fiberglass (except where it
is electrically connected to the coax connector).
My experience and existing knowledge tempts me to ignore all of the above
but, on the other hand, I'm still learning things that surprise me everyday.
Can someone enlighten me as to the technical benefits to be had by changing
my existing configuration to be in line with what Garmin is mandating in
their installation manual?
Thanks in advance!
Steve Stearns
LongEz N45FC
Boulder/Longmont CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GTX 335 Install nonsense(?) |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
First, and most important, and Im sure you know that TSO installation instructions
do not apply to you.
Theoretically, the benefit of ground planes increases with size, in the limit,
a ground (surface of the earth) antenna ground plane which is the entire earth
is optimal. However the benefit decreases exponentially with size. Modern "active"
gps antennae have a ground plane which is a fraction of an inch on a side
and they are designed to work just fine. It does have a ground plane, it is
just encapsulated inside that plastic lump. Transponder transmitter antennae
have slightly more critical requirements to optimize impedance load and transmission
pattern. If your transponder performance was OK with existing antenna,
it will almost certainly work with the new one.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459263#459263
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery charging |
| From: | "Steve Kelly" <amsk22(at)gmail.com> |
I have a small 9ah sealed lead-acid battery in the back of my plane that I use
mainly to operate some things on the ground without having to use the main battery
which is on the firewall. It is also available, should I need it in flight
to power a few items such as the com or the flight display.
This battery feeds buss #2 with a #14 wire, again coming from the back of the
plane.
I have been charging this with a battery charger, but would like to be able to
charge it off the main buss when the engine is running.
My thoughts are to run another wire back to the battery from the main buss with
a diode and a resistor of some sort to limit the current so the wire (or fuse)
doesn't burn up. Am I on the right track here?
I have some 3A diodes here and hopefully can use a #20 wire. No idea what to
use for a resistor value or if this would even work.
I would appreciate any feedback on this idea.
Thanks, Steve
--------
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459270#459270
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
How about connecting buss #1 & #2 together with a DSS 2x121-0045B Schottky diode?
Doing that will be electrically the same as your proposal, except that the wire
will be shorter and no additional fuse or resistor is used.
It is unlikely that the fuse protecting the existing 14 AWG wire will ever blow
from charging current, unless the aux battery is completely run down or defective.
Have you ever seen the aux battery charging current go above 15 amps?
The diode will drop about 0.3 to 0.35 volts at your intended load current.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459274#459274
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
Long #14 wire from Aux Battery to main buss.
It's early yet, but my first thoughts revolves around a hypothetical short to ground
in the middle of the wire. Would not you need a fuse at both ends to adequately
protect the wire?
Or am I full of crap?
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459285#459285
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "Steve Kelly" <amsk22(at)gmail.com> |
Joe,
I think that would work to charge the battery, but I'm not sure that would do
what I want. My intention here is to be able to turn on this small accessory
buss without turning on the main and lighting up the entire electrical system
just to use a few items while on the ground. This is something I always disliked
with factory planes where everything comes on with the master switch just
so you could run cockpit lites or listen to ATIS.
The way I have it set up is through an on-off-on switch. This switch feeds buss
#2 and power comes into the switch from both batteries. The buss can only
be fed from 1 battery at a time. The master switch must be on to get power from
battery #1. And there is a fuse at both feeds to the switch.
Also, there already is an extra #20 wire in place that I could use to charge
the battery if you think that might work.
Thanks for the input, Steve
--------
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459286#459286
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
> On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Steve Kelly wrote:
>
>
> I have a small 9ah sealed lead-acid battery in the back of my plane that I use
mainly to operate some things on the ground without having to use the main battery
which is on the firewall. It is also available, should I need it in flight
to power a few items such as the com or the flight display.
> This battery feeds buss #2 with a #14 wire, again coming from the back of the
plane.
> I have been charging this with a battery charger, but would like to be able
to charge it off the main buss when the engine is running.
It seems like this could all be automated using Bobs diagrams something like so:
- Charge both the main and 2nd battery from the alternator with the 2nd battery
being fed through a 30V 9A Schottky diode that allows to to charge but isolates
the 2nd battery unless you select your essential bus.
- Setup a main and essential bus. Feed the E-bus from the main bus through a diode.
I have set up Main & E-bus arrangements a couple of ways (using fuseblocks).
Once I used a large (14 fuse?) bussman fuse block and a small 6-fuse block
and connected them with the diode. Another time I used a large bussman fuse
block, opened it up and cut the center conductor to make two separate fuseblocks.
I brazed a tab on the smaller end which became the E-bus side and the
other side became the main bus side. Then I fed the E-bus side with a diode from
the main side.
- When you need the E-bus items, throw a switch that powers the E-bus from the
2nd battery.
- If either battery needs a charge, put the charger on the common charging circuit.
-Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Regulator for use with O-200 generator |
Friend needs a regulator to replace a VR300-14-20 on his O-200 powered experimental
and doesn't really want to spend 200+ for it. Does anyone know what the equivalent
would be for this Delco regulator?
Rodney Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Steve,
There is more than one way to accomplish your goal. Both Jerry and Kent offer
good suggestions. And your plan will work too. Since there are two power sources,
fuse the 20 AWG wire at both ends and use a Schottky diode because it has
a lower voltage drop. The aux battery will not charge if the diode drops too
much voltage. You do not need a resistor. That 20 gauge wire has enough resistance.
If the fuse protecting it blows, no harm will be done. It will just
be back in the same situation that it is in now without that 20 gauge wire.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459290#459290
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Skipping the Endurance Bus |
Folks,
Please double-check my logic. I am designing the electrical system for my
BD-4C, which is a largely mechanical airplane. Totaling up the typical
current draw for everything except pitot heat, I am at 21 amps. Max draw is
28 amps. Since a B&C backup alternator can supply 30 amps at cruise RPM, it
seems that I don't need an endurance bus at all. Instead, I would have the
following emergency procedure:
In Case of Alternator Failure
1. Primary alternator OFF
2. Backup alternator ON
3. Pitot heat OFF (unless required for flight)
I do still need to add a couple of items to my equipment list but neither
draws much current: electronic ignition and a second com radio.
Does this make sense? Am I missing something?
-- 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: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | How to Switch Five Devices |
Question for y'all: I want a single switch to turn my EFIS on and off. That
means it will power on/off five devices. There isn't much current, less
than 2 A total. What is the right way to construct this?
- Bring all of the "red wires" together a few inches from the switch,
splice them to a single piece of wire, and put the FastOn connector on the
single wire?
- Use a little FastOn tab block like this?
http://www.te.com/usa-en/product-41484.html
- Something else?
Thanks,
-- 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*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
That's the logic I used.
Primary alternator, secondary alternator (20a), battery.
My ultimate backup is my iPad with Foreflight connected to a Stratus II that should
be able to run for at least five hours.
If I have failures on all of those then someone up there really doesn't like me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459301#459301
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | SuperSTOL / Rotax 914 proposed wiring |
This is the third time I have tried to post this, but the previous two have
been denied because because of the attachments (even though their combined
size is only about 200kb). I will try one more time.
Attached is a proposed wiring diagram (.jpg file) and narrative (.pdf file)
with things such as description, load analysis, emergency procedures, etc.
All comments are welcome.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to Switch Five Devices |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
How about putting all 5 wires into the barrel of one faston made for a larger wire
size like 14 or 12 AWG? Use heat shrink for strain relief.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459303#459303
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SuperSTOL / Rotax 914 proposed wiring |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
It's bizarre you're getting those denied messages because I've received
all three. Are you sure the message isn't coming back from a
subscriber's mail server?
--Rick
On 8/7/2016 7:45 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> This is the third time I have tried to post this, but the previous two
> have been denied because because of the attachments (even though their
> combined size is only about 200kb). I will try one more time.
>
> Attached is a proposed wiring diagram (.jpg file) and narrative (.pdf
> file) with things such as description, load analysis, emergency
> procedures, etc. All comments are welcome.
>
> Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 8/7/2016 9:36 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Please double-check my logic. I am designing the electrical system for
> my BD-4C, which is a largely mechanical airplane. Totaling up the
> typical current draw for everything except pitot heat, I am at 21
> amps. Max draw is 28 amps. Since a B&C backup alternator can supply 30
> amps at cruise RPM, it seems that I don't need an endurance bus at
> all. Instead, I would have the following emergency procedure:
>
> In Case of Alternator Failure
>
> 1. Primary alternator OFF
> 2. Backup alternator ON
> 3. Pitot heat OFF (unless required for flight)
>
> I do still need to add a couple of items to my equipment list but
> neither draws much current: electronic ignition and a second com radio.
>
> Does this make sense? Am I missing something?
>
> -- 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/
The only question would be whether you intend to fly IFR, & actually
need pitot heat. Plan B might be in order, because that alone would
probably take almost half your backup alt's capacity.
On a tangent to that...
A friend who's a retired Pratt engineer built an RV-6A a number of years
ago. His choice of engine monitor had the option of adding air data, so
his regular ASI was hooked to the standard pitot, and the ASI input on
the monitor was hooked to a 'pitot port' installed in the pressurized
section of the cowl above the engine. Airspeed indications of the two
indicators agreed with each other within a couple of knots, over the
speed range of the plane.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
Further along, in the EAC book Bob provides a procedure for testing the regulator
in flight and suggests wiring the regulator sense directly to the battery if
there is a difference between the battery voltage and the bus voltage. My voltage
regulator in 12 inches from the battery which leads me to wonder:
Is there any reason NOT to have the regulator sense battery voltage directly at
the battery? Any reason to have holes in the firewall to sense anywhere else?
Thank you.
Sebastien
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:36, Sebastien wrote:
>
> I recently built a battery holder for an Odyssey PC545 battery to mount it on
the firewall. Thought I had left a bit of wiggle room to get the battery in and
out but now that it's bolted to the firewall it's in there tight. I don't mind
having to remove 5 bolts every couple years to remove the battery (better
than remaking the holder) but will it damage the battery to squeeze it? I don't
think there is much if any pressure on the battery but it's already going to
be stressed sitting in the heat in the engine compartment. Do these batteries
need room to thermally expand at all?
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Sebastien
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeezing a battery |
At 09:12 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>
>Further along, in the EAC book Bob provides a procedure for testing
>the regulator in flight and suggests wiring the regulator sense
>directly to the battery if there is a difference between the battery
>voltage and the bus voltage. My voltage regulator in 12 inches from
>the battery which leads me to wonder:
>
>Is there any reason NOT to have the regulator sense battery voltage
>directly at the battery? Any reason to have holes in the firewall to
>sense anywhere else?
Yes . . . that lead may draw some small current
that would discharge the battery of a parked airplane.
Moving it to the battery is a TROUBLE SHOOTING
activity . . . not a suggestion for architecture.
The properly fabricated system operates as
advertised with the sense lead watching the
main bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
Charlie,
Good catch. Yes, this will be an IFR airplane. To the electrical load
analysis that I have already done, I still need to add the second comm
radio and the second EFIS screen, but those are minor loads compared to the
pitot heat.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> The only question would be whether you intend to fly IFR, & actually need
> pitot heat. Plan B might be in order, because that alone would probably
> take almost half your backup alt's capacity.
>
--
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*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "Steve Kelly" <amsk22(at)gmail.com> |
Some interesting ideas. What exactly is a schottky diode. Is it different than
a standard diode.
If the small battery was very low in charge how much current do you think could
flow in the 20 wire?
Steve
--------
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459313#459313
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, a Schottky diode is different than a standard diode, but I have no idea how
they are made. All I know is that they have half of the voltage drop.
Sorry, I do not know what the maximum charging current will be in a dead 9AH
battery. You could test it to find out.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459314#459314
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gnking2(at)verizon.net> |
I guess that you can use Ohm's Law to find a resistance that would limit your maximum
charging rate. Let's say you want to limit the charging rate to 3A for
a #20 wire NOT in a bundle. With 14 volts, a 4.7 ohm resistance would do it.
Problem is resistor heat dissipation ability at these values. Such setup would
require a large 42 watt resistor (W=volts x amps). A 50 Watt 5 ohm resistor
would be the nearest commercial size. Google / Newark Electronics shows several
types in the $7 range.
When faced with similar problems, sometimes I use things like an old automotive
12 volt coil ignition resistor to limit current. Or, on the bench, I use different
wattage light bulbs; but remember that actual resistance changes somewhat
(increases), as the resistor heats up.
I am almost betting that you could use a small 3A diode at each end of your wire
to also serve as the "fuse" because the usual failure mode is that they explode
and pop open. But certain people here, who I highly respect, may yell at
me for suggesting this.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459323#459323
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Finally I have a diagram |
Fellow Listers,
I finally have a diagram for my SuperSTOL / Rotax 914 electrical. I would
appreciate feedback as I am now at the implementation stage.
I have tried on several occasions to post the diagram along with an
accompanying .pdf file with text giving description, load analysis,
emergency procedures, etc. Unfortunately, each time my submission has been
rejected saying the attachments are too large, even though they are only
200 kilobytes combined. So I have had to come up with a work around.
You can view my work either by going to this page:
http://test-ken.com/superstol/electrical/index.html
or by simply downloading the two files directly:
Diagram: http://test-ken.com/images/SuperSTOL-Rotax914-
Electrical-Diagram.jpg
Text: http://test-ken.com/pdfs/SuperSTOL914ElectricalSystem.pdf
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Ken Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A lead acid battery is just about dead at 11 volts. If the charging voltage is
14, then only 3 volts has to be dropped. The internal resistance of the battery
will drop the voltage. There are too many variables to calculate the current.
I would just wire it without a resistor. Then discharge the battery and
go flying to see if a 7.5 amp fuse blows. If it does, increase the wire and
fuse size. Or do not run the battery down until it is almost dead. :D
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459333#459333
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "kenryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
If you do as Joe suggests and the fuse blows, another option would be to run another
20 awg wire (if that would be easier).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459346#459346
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
At 07:54 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>On 8/7/2016 9:36 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
>>Folks,
>>
>>Please double-check my logic. I am designing the electrical system
>>for my BD-4C, which is a largely mechanical airplane. Totaling up
>>the typical current draw for everything except pitot heat, I am at
>>21 amps. Max draw is 28 amps. Since a B&C backup alternator can
>>supply 30 amps at cruise RPM, it seems that I don't need an
>>endurance bus at all. Instead, I would have the following emergency procedure:
>>
>>In Case of Alternator Failure
>>
>>Primary alternator OFF
>>Backup alternator ON
>>Pitot heat OFF (unless required for flight)
>>I do still need to add a couple of items to my equipment list but
>>neither draws much current: electronic ignition and a second com radio.
>>
>>Does this make sense? Am I missing something?
Do you have a battery contactor?
The e-bus structure eliminates the load
of a battery contactor during endurance
ops.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to Switch Five Devices |
At 07:00 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>
>How about putting all 5 wires into the barrel of one faston made for
>a larger wire size like 14 or 12 AWG? Use heat shrink for strain relief.
Multiple wires into an 'oversize' terminal
are perfectly acceptable. Probably won't need
heat shrink if you bring the insulation grip
down to support the bundle. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
At 10:10 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>Charlie,
>
>Good catch. Yes, this will be an IFR airplane. To the electrical
>load analysis that I have already done, I still need to add the
>second comm radio and the second EFIS screen, but those are minor
>loads compared to the pitot heat.
Have you ever shared a proposed disribution
diagram? It would be MUCH easier to for
electron-herders to convert words into
copper-reality when offering advise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GTX 335 Install nonsense(?) |
Ira, Bob N. and the group:
I appreciate the reply. I do know the TSO installation instructions are
not obligatory but they also are the only installation instructions I
received.
I understand and appreciate your information regarding ground planes.
Where I am still interested in knowing more is the magnitude of the
differences between what they specify and what I have already installed.
Sure, bigger is better from an RF standpoint but would I or the FAA notice
the difference in a real life A/B comparison?
Bob, do you have any thoughts on this? I consider you one of the better
people out there to sift the meaningful theoretical benefits out from all
of the inconsequential ones...
Also, anyone want to render an opinion on all of the specified bonding? My
background leads me to conclude that "bonding" a 1/4 wave-radius ground
plane on my transponder antenna is a decidedly bad idea...
Steve Stearns
LongEz N45FC
Boulder/Longmont CO
Ira wrote:
*First, and most important, and Im sure you know that TSO installation
instructionsdo not apply to you.Theoretically, the benefit of ground planes
increases with size, in the limit,a ground (surface of the earth) antenna
ground plane which is the entire earthis optimal. However the benefit
decreases exponentially with size. Modern "active"gps antennae have a
ground plane which is a fraction of an inch on a sideand they are designed
to work just fine. It does have a ground plane, it isjust encapsulated
inside that plastic lump. Transponder transmitter antennaehave slightly
more critical requirements to optimize impedance load and
transmissionpattern. If your transponder performance was OK with existing
antenna,it will almost certainly work with the new one.*
Steve original wrote:
*I'll soon be installing a GTX335 transponder in my LongEz. The (stc)
install manual has some items I find curious related to the antennas.*
*While it does say if I'm replacing a different GTX transponder (I'm
replacing a 327) the existing transponder antenna is fine, it ALSO says
that the minimum radius for the transponder antenna ground plane is 12"!
Mine is 2.7" (1/4 wave at 1090 MHz). Anyone have any knowledge of what
they are trying to optimize?*
*Also it goes on to say the minimum radius for the gps antenna ground plane
is 7.5"! The gps antenna that goes with the GNS250XL has no ground plane
at all... Anyone have any idea what they are after here?*
*Also, the manual goes on and on about all the bonding required between
antenna ground planes, the avionics rack etc. My aircraft is a LongEz
(i.e. fiberglass) and I don't have any explicit "bonding" at all (though I
DO have very carefully planned and implemented power returns etc. In fact,
my transponder ground plane is encapsulated in fiberglass (except where it
is electrically connected to the coax connector).*
*My experience and existing knowledge tempts me to ignore all of the above
but, on the other hand, I'm still learning things that surprise me
everyday.*
*Can someone enlighten me as to the technical benefits to be had by
changing my existing configuration to be in line with what Garmin is
mandating in their installation manual?*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
Bob,
Thank you for mentioning the contactor. Yes, I will need one. No, I had not
gotten far enough through my design to remember it. And no, I had not
realized that the contactor uses significant power to stay closed. I'll add
it to the list.
I found White-Rodgers contactors at Aircraft Spruce and the data sheet
lists continuous power of 9 or 10 W which I figure to be approximately 0.75
A at 13.8 V. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/11-03161.pdf
Does that sound right for planning purposes?
-- Art Z.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:54 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>
> On 8/7/2016 9:36 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Please double-check my logic. I am designing the electrical system for my
> BD-4C, which is a largely mechanical airplane. Totaling up the typical
> current draw for everything except pitot heat, I am at 21 amps. Max draw is
> 28 amps. Since a B&C backup alternator can supply 30 amps at cruise RPM, it
> seems that I don't need an endurance bus at all. Instead, I would have the
> following emergency procedure:
>
> In Case of Alternator Failure
>
> Primary alternator OFF Backup alternator ON Pitot heat OFF (unless
> required for flight)
> I do still need to add a couple of items to my equipment list but neither
> draws much current: electronic ignition and a second com radio.
>
> Does this make sense? Am I missing something?
>
> Do you have a battery contactor?
> The e-bus structure eliminates the load
> of a battery contactor during endurance
> ops.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
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: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping the Endurance Bus |
Bob,
Here are the diagrams that I have so far:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOP2gb9_3RQUHpIMjNfa0NnQW8
The overview is basically my table-of-contents and it has the list of
devices with power requirements.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:10 PM 8/7/2016, you wrote:
>
> Charlie,
>
> Good catch. Yes, this will be an IFR airplane. To the electrical load
> analysis that I have already done, I still need to add the second comm
> radio and the second EFIS screen, but those are minor loads compared to the
> pitot heat.
>
>
> Have you ever shared a proposed disribution
> diagram? It would be MUCH easier to for
> electron-herders to convert words into
> copper-reality when offering advise.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
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*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "Steve Kelly" <amsk22(at)gmail.com> |
Ok. I think I will give that a try. Is there a particular diode you would recommend
to use for this.
I am not quite ready to run the engine yet, so I will try to test it using the
main battery to charge. This will make it easier to check current flow at different
stages of battery discharge on batt #2. Do you think the main battery
alone will give about the the same current flow as if the alternator was on
line.
Steve
--------
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459382#459382
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
You can't charge a 12v battery from another 12v battery. You need ~14v to
actually charge, which the 12v battery can't deliver.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Steve Kelly wrote:
>
> Ok. I think I will give that a try. Is there a particular diode you
> would recommend to use for this.
> I am not quite ready to run the engine yet, so I will try to test it
> using the main battery to charge. This will make it easier to check
> current flow at different stages of battery discharge on batt #2. Do you
> think the main battery alone will give about the the same current flow as
> if the alternator was on line.
> Steve
>
> --------
> Steve
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459382#459382
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with Charlie.
The diode that I recommended in a previous post, DSS 2x121-0045B Schottky, has
mounting holes, an isolated (insulated) base, two independent diodes in one
case, low voltage drop, high current capability. The disadvantage is that it
costs $20 plus shipping. It is available from Mouser or Digikey. Other Schottky
diodes are available in a TO-220 case for as little as a dollar, but the
case might need to be insulated from the aircraft and the terminals are not as
robust.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459389#459389
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Try searching ebay; I've seen some pretty good deals there.
On 8/9/2016 8:10 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> I agree with Charlie.
> The diode that I recommended in a previous post, DSS 2x121-0045B Schottky,
has mounting holes, an isolated (insulated) base, two independent diodes in
one case, low voltage drop, high current capability. The disadvantage is that
it costs $20 plus shipping. It is available from Mouser or Digikey. Other Schottky
diodes are available in a TO-220 case for as little as a dollar, but the
case might need to be insulated from the aircraft and the terminals are not
as robust.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | Ed <decaclops(at)gmail.com> |
Howdy,
I've wired up my landing lights using the Tridon flasher and two
switches according to the WIGWAG WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER page 5.0 diagram
and I can't get them to work right. When I put the first switch in the
center wig wag, position, the flasher just buzzes. When the second
switch is put in the center position, I sometimes get 1 flash and then
it just hangs with one light lit. I reversed the 2 and 3 wires at the
flasher and the behavior switches sides.
For lights I'm using the Baja Designs Squadron Pro Leds at 42w each and
I put the 5w 75 ohm resistors across them as in the drawing LED WIGWAG
WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER, page 1.0.
I've verified the wiring and the switch functions with a continuity
tester. I changed out the flasher and it worked perfectly for about a
half a minute. I turned it off to install the switches back in the panel
and when I tried it again, same hang up.
Any ideas?
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 8/9/2016 6:56 PM, Ed wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've wired up my landing lights using the Tridon flasher and two
> switches according to the WIGWAG WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER page 5.0
> diagram and I can't get them to work right. When I put the first
> switch in the center wig wag, position, the flasher just buzzes. When
> the second switch is put in the center position, I sometimes get 1
> flash and then it just hangs with one light lit. I reversed the 2 and
> 3 wires at the flasher and the behavior switches sides.
>
> For lights I'm using the Baja Designs Squadron Pro Leds at 42w each
> and I put the 5w 75 ohm resistors across them as in the drawing LED
> WIGWAG WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER, page 1.0.
>
> I've verified the wiring and the switch functions with a continuity
> tester. I changed out the flasher and it worked perfectly for about a
> half a minute. I turned it off to install the switches back in the
> panel and when I tried it again, same hang up.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Ed Holyoke
I can't find the flasher on their web site, but if it's buzzing, that
sounds like it's one of the old style mechanical 'vibrator' style
flashers. If you use them with LED lights, the lights probably don't
draw enough current to make the flasher 'switch' between the lights.
FWIW....
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | Ed <decaclops(at)gmail.com> |
Yup, and that's why I put the resistor across the light per Bob's
drawing. B&C doesn't seem to carry the flasher anymore but it is still
available if you look around for it. Tridon EL13A-2.
Ed
On 8/9/2016 5:42 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/2016 6:56 PM, Ed wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I've wired up my landing lights using the Tridon flasher and two
>> switches according to the WIGWAG WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER page 5.0
>> diagram and I can't get them to work right. When I put the first
>> switch in the center wig wag, position, the flasher just buzzes. When
>> the second switch is put in the center position, I sometimes get 1
>> flash and then it just hangs with one light lit. I reversed the 2 and
>> 3 wires at the flasher and the behavior switches sides.
>>
>> For lights I'm using the Baja Designs Squadron Pro Leds at 42w each
>> and I put the 5w 75 ohm resistors across them as in the drawing LED
>> WIGWAG WITH B&C SSF-1 FLASHER, page 1.0.
>>
>> I've verified the wiring and the switch functions with a continuity
>> tester. I changed out the flasher and it worked perfectly for about a
>> half a minute. I turned it off to install the switches back in the
>> panel and when I tried it again, same hang up.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
> I can't find the flasher on their web site, but if it's buzzing, that
> sounds like it's one of the old style mechanical 'vibrator' style
> flashers. If you use them with LED lights, the lights probably don't
> draw enough current to make the flasher 'switch' between the lights.
>
> FWIW....
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459415#459415
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
There are flashers specifically for LED lights that will operate with
the light (no pun intended) load of LEDs. They are used on cars and
motorcycles, particularly when incandescent lamps are replaced with LEDs.
One of the reasons for installing LEDs is that they draw much less
current. Another is that the run very cool. Adding a resistor across
them defeats the purposes and the advantage is gone. The resistor has
to sink the current that an incandescent bulb would draw. This creates
heat just as it does when the incandescent bulb is lit.
I consider the resistor to be a jury rigged cure that is best dealt with
by using the correct components.
Lyle
On 8/9/2016 10:53 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=459415#459415
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig Wag difficulties |
| From: | Ed <decaclops(at)gmail.com> |
Howdy Lyle,
July 19, 2016 - August 10, 2016
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-nm