AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-os
December 29, 2018 - January 14, 2019
fin
battery on together at the start of a flight, I should have a minimum of
8.5
hrs endurance with the engine battery available if required.
A single main battery is not possible due to the battery trays provided
by
the manufacturer ' this is a certified aircraft, but the electrical
system
is not well defined (no circuit diagram provided as almost all
installations
are bespoke).
The engine battery is used only to extend the engine into the airflow,
run a
fuel pump used during starting and to run the control box.
Extend/retract
cycle times are typically 5 to 7 seconds. The control unit has a 7.5A
c/b,
so that must be approximately the max current. Yes, it is a large
battery
for the task, but it fits the battery tray and is a certified system
(circuit diagram provided this time!) so I am loathe to mess with it.
This
is a top level description of the system
https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en/individual/engine-options/turbo-sustaine
r-e
ngine.html.
Once I have measured the load for each item I will report back.
Regards, Peter
The equipment list is (current draw assumes 12v):
Item
Current (mA)
Notes
LX Nav LX9000 glide computer
500
Max brightness
Flap positioner
30
Provides flap angle - always operating
Trig bridge
20
Interfaces to radio
Remote stick
20
Multi-function stick top
V8 electric vario
150
Sensitive rate of climb +much more
Vario audio
50
estimate
Power FLARM Core ***
165
Proximity warning
Oudie (PDA running gliding s/w)
150
estimate - on-board battery
Radio Trig TY91 ***
240
Unknown speaker load
Transponder Trig TT21 ***
420
Likely to be off for some of flight
TOTAL
1745
Entries marked *** have an unpredictable duty-cycle, load may vary
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 28 December 2018 03:03
| Subject: | Re: Schottky Diode |
4. Since knowing your exact loads are a bit more critical than a typical
a/c, rather than look at mfgr data sheets, consider directly measuring
each
item's current in actual operation. Most data sheets will show you a
conservative number, to be sure the installer doesn't 'short change' the
device's needs.
BINGO!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse-able link |
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
Bob,
I sent you the old parts minus the "sleeve" and I fabricated a new
fuse-link that worked for about 2 flight hours with a new Plane Power
60amp alternator. It failed and when I pulled on the wire, it separated
in the middle of the fuse link 22ga. A picture is attached.
The old Plane Power Alternator was retained as a working spare.
I don't know what to do next. It is not popping the 5amp circuit breaker
but it is "frying" the 22ga wire.
600 hours on the plane. Originally, a PC680 battery replaced with an
EarthX900 two years ago. Plane Power 60amp internally regulated with
built in crowbar.
Z-13/8 architecture and the wire that is failing is from the "Main Power
Distribution Bus" bolt to pin 5 on the S700-2-10 switch.
At this point, I don't understand what is purpose the fuse-link and why
it has started failing.
Thanks for any help,
John Morgensen
On 12/20/2018 2:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 12/20/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Two years ago I had an over-voltage event and the crowbar protection
>> behaved as expected. It popped the 5amp breaker. I had the alternator
>> (Plane Power 60amp internal) repaired and it has behaved normally
>> since then. The alternator stopped working this Sunday. The crimp had
>> failed on the 18ga to 22ga fuse-link. Closer inspection revealed that
>> the insulation under the heat shield on the fuse-link was almost
>> completely gone.
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1. Should I have inspected the fuse-link after the over-voltage
>> incident before putting the plane back in service?
>>
>> 2. Is it acceptable to solder the joint between the 18ga and the 22ga
>> or is a crimp connector required?
>
> I would really like to have that fusible link
> assembly. Can you cut it out and fabricate
> a new one?
>
> When you say "gone" . . . is it melted, charred,
> evaporated? Was it Tefzel wire?
>
> That link normally carries 3A or less. I've
> demonstrated that 22AWG Tefzel will carry
> 20A indefinitely in the open air.
>
> Some combination of factors stacked up to
> cause this particular link to suffer
> damage. A good place to start is careful
> examination of the link.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse-able link |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/29/2018 12:06 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I sent you the old parts minus the "sleeve" and I fabricated a new
> fuse-link that worked for about 2 flight hours with a new Plane Power
> 60amp alternator. It failed and when I pulled on the wire, it
> separated in the middle of the fuse link 22ga. A picture is attached.
>
> The old Plane Power Alternator was retained as a working spare.
>
> I don't know what to do next. It is not popping the 5amp circuit
> breaker but it is "frying" the 22ga wire.
>
> 600 hours on the plane. Originally, a PC680 battery replaced with an
> EarthX900 two years ago. Plane Power 60amp internally regulated with
> built in crowbar.
>
> Z-13/8 architecture and the wire that is failing is from the "Main
> Power Distribution Bus" bolt to pin 5 on the S700-2-10 switch.
>
> At this point, I don't understand what is purpose the fuse-link and
> why it has started failing.
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> John Morgensen
>
> On 12/20/2018 2:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 01:23 PM 12/20/2018, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Two years ago I had an over-voltage event and the crowbar protection
>>> behaved as expected. It popped the 5amp breaker. I had the
>>> alternator (Plane Power 60amp internal) repaired and it has behaved
>>> normally since then. The alternator stopped working this Sunday. The
>>> crimp had failed on the 18ga to 22ga fuse-link. Closer inspection
>>> revealed that the insulation under the heat shield on the fuse-link
>>> was almost completely gone.
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Should I have inspected the fuse-link after the over-voltage
>>> incident before putting the plane back in service?
>>>
>>> 2. Is it acceptable to solder the joint between the 18ga and the
>>> 22ga or is a crimp connector required?
>>
>> I would really like to have that fusible link
>> assembly. Can you cut it out and fabricate
>> a new one?
>>
>> When you say "gone" . . . is it melted, charred,
>> evaporated? Was it Tefzel wire?
>>
>> That link normally carries 3A or less. I've
>> demonstrated that 22AWG Tefzel will carry
>> 20A indefinitely in the open air.
>>
>> Some combination of factors stacked up to
>> cause this particular link to suffer
>> damage. A good place to start is careful
>> examination of the link.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
John,
When you said, ' "Main Power Distribution Bus" bolt to pin 5 on the
S700-2-10 switch', did you mean literally, or was that just shorthand
for fuselink>18ga>breaker>20ga>pin5 ?
Are you absolutely certain that your wiring is an *exact* match for
what's shown in Z-13/8?
Any chance your OV crowbar got tied to the supply side of the CB,
instead of the load side?
Are you absolutely sure that nothing whatsoever got tied to that feed,
somewhere ahead of the CB?
Just spit balling here, but:
22ga wire will carry quite a bit more current than 5A without even
damaging the insulation, much less the wire. Burning it twice implies
either a much higher load on that wire, or (more likely) a dead short to
ground prior to the CB (if the CB is in the circuit). The crowbar
circuit could likely survive long enough to fry the wire without
damaging the crowbar. If that's happening, that implies either the
crowbar is misadjusted, or it's setpoint is drifting, or you're having
actual overvoltage events. Do you have data logging of your instruments?
Can you check the log for voltage levels over time?
Charlie
(BTW, top-posting after a bottom-posted reply makes for really hard reading)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuse-able link |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
That wire did not burn open from an overload. There was a dead short to
ground. Either a wire is shorted to ground or else the Over Voltage Module is
tripping (shorting to ground). And that short circuit is upstream from the circuit
breaker. In other words, something is wired incorrectly. Or else the circuit
breaker is defective.
If the wire is connected from the main power bus to pin 5 on the switch, then
it is NOT wired according to Z-13/8. The circuit breaker needs to be between
the fuselink and the over-voltage module.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486603#486603
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
| Subject: | Transponder question |
What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be
installed by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the
rack? I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had
the plane at the shop for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the
log book and he said that if he had to pull the transponder to look at
the serial number that it would cost more because they'd have to
recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled from
the rack?
--Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/30/2018 9:48 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:
>
> What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be
> installed by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the
> rack? I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I
> had the plane at the shop for the biennial transponder check. I forgot
> the log book and he said that if he had to pull the transponder to
> look at the serial number that it would cost more because they'd have
> to recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled
> from the rack?
>
> --Rick
>
Only thing I've heard about re-cert is if the static system is opened.
My neighbor does xpndr certs; I'll ask him if I see him in the next few
days.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder question |
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
Technically, I don't think that's strictly true... the rule as I recall
it is that high power transmitters (like our transponders and DME
equipment, that can output hundreds or even 1,000 watts) must be
reinstalled by an A&P or repair station. The concern is that if the
antenna connection isn't properly made, it could prove to be a source of
ignition, and fires in airplanes are bad things.
>> I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the plane
at the shop for
the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book, and he said that
if he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial number, that it
would cost more because they'd have to recertify it.
I don't believe that's a general requirement; perhaps it's part of his
repair stations procedures... I don't think an A&P doing an R&R on a
transponder, say, to replace another component has to do a
recertification, whatever your guy meant by that term. They just have to
determine proper function. Readers have a reference?
>> So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled from the rack?
If you improperly reinstall it, you can turn a lot of power into heat.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
In theory, if the connection has slightly different resistance after the
pull and re-install, the propagation pattern for a transmitter in the
1030-1090Mhz frequency at 150-250 watts could be slightly different. So,
in theory a quick look at the ramp checker should be done. As a
practical matter, I've never seen it change anything. Any A&P can
install the transponder, but a repair station must certify it. Unless
you are the builder (manufacturer) of the aircraft and have a proper
test set to be able to certify it yourself as the aircraft manufacturer
in the case of a homebuilt.
Then there is the matter of the shop being jerks. He could wait a day or
two for you to bring in the logs. He could do the ramp check...if it
isn't turned on until he gets there it takes 5 min for the transponder
to warm up (for the old cavity tube variety) or less for solid state. He
can make the choice. If he had inquired before starting the test, he
could have pulled the unit, got the serial number and reinstalled before
doing the test. He is just forgetting that he is in the customer service
business, and you can go elsewhere.
For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only
has to be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you
open the system. Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is
different story. If you just open a connection and put it back together,
any A&P can do a leak check on the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1
minute with no more than 100 ft loss). The certification says the system
meets that leak test, and altitude requirements for the altimeter.
On 12/30/2018 8:48 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:
> What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be
> installed by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the
> rack? I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had
> the plane at the shop for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the
> log book and he said that if he had to pull the transponder to look at
> the serial number that it would cost more because they'd have to
> recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled from
> the rack?
>
> --Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
In all fairness he let me fly home and email him the serial number. Then
he mailed me the sticker for the log book and the bill. It just made me
curious, that's all.
--Rick
On 12/30/2018 11:59 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Then there is the matter of the shop being jerks. He could wait a day
> or two for you to bring in the logs. He could do the ramp check...if
> it isn't turned on until he gets there it takes 5 min for the
> transponder to warm up (for the old cavity tube variety) or less for
> solid state. He can make the choice. If he had inquired before
> starting the test, he could have pulled the unit, got the serial
> number and reinstalled before doing the test. He is just forgetting
> that he is in the customer service business, and you can go elsewhere.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
Slight clarification, which I just learned about on Friday when I had the
inspections (plural) done for my about-to-be-flown-for-the-first-time
BD-4c. There are actually two inspections
1. static system leak check, done once
2. transponder check, done every two years
The second one didn't worry me but I was *very* relieved that my static
system did not leak =F0=9F=98=81
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:22 PM Kelly McMullen wrote
:
> For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only
> has to be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you
> open the system. Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is
> different story. If you just open a connection and put it back together,
> any A&P can do a leak check on the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1
> minute with no more than 100 ft loss). The certification says the system
> meets that leak test, and altitude requirements for the altimeter.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
Transponders have a power output of 100 watts for the duration of a transmi
ssion which is only milliseconds long. The average power output is tiny. The
y can=99t possibly set fire to anything. They don=99t need thick
cables or high power breakers either.
Same for DME.
On Dec 30, 2018, at 23:49, Paul Millner wrote:
Technically, I don't think that's strictly true... the rule as I recall it i
s that high power transmitters (like our transponders and DME equipment, tha
t can output hundreds or even 1,000 watts) must be reinstalled by an A&P or r
epair station. The concern is that if the antenna connection isn't properly m
ade, it could prove to be a source of ignition, and fires in airplanes are b
ad things.
>> I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the pl
ane at the shop for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book, a
nd he said that if he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial numb
er, that it would cost more because they'd have to recertify it.
I don't believe that's a general requirement; perhaps it's part of his repai
r stations procedures... I don't think an A&P doing an R&R on a transponder,
say, to replace another component has to do a recertification, whatever you
r guy meant by that term. They just have to determine proper function. Reade
rs have a reference?
>> So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled from the rack?
If you improperly reinstall it, you can turn a lot of power into heat.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
How is a quick ramp check going to reveal a propagation pattern? Youd need to put
the plane in a radiation proof chamber with absorbing walls and youd need
to position your calibrated antenna at a range of different angles. Or rotate
the aircraft.
On Dec 30, 2018, at 23:59, Kelly McMullen wrote:
In theory, if the connection has slightly different resistance after the pull and
re-install, the propagation pattern for a transmitter in the 1030-1090Mhz frequency
at 150-250 watts could be slightly different. So, in theory a quick look
at the ramp checker should be done. As a practical matter, I've never seen
it change anything. Any A&P can install the transponder, but a repair station
must certify it. Unless you are the builder (manufacturer) of the aircraft and
have a proper test set to be able to certify it yourself as the aircraft manufacturer
in the case of a homebuilt.
Then there is the matter of the shop being jerks. He could wait a day or two for
you to bring in the logs. He could do the ramp check...if it isn't turned on
until he gets there it takes 5 min for the transponder to warm up (for the old
cavity tube variety) or less for solid state. He can make the choice. If he
had inquired before starting the test, he could have pulled the unit, got the
serial number and reinstalled before doing the test. He is just forgetting that
he is in the customer service business, and you can go elsewhere.
For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only has to
be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you open the system.
Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is different story. If you
just open a connection and put it back together, any A&P can do a leak check on
the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1 minute with no more than 100 ft loss). The
certification says the system meets that leak test, and altitude requirements
for the altimeter.
> On 12/30/2018 8:48 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:
> What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be installed
by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the rack? I hadn't thought
much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the plane at the shop
for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book and he said that if
he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial number that it would cost
more because they'd have to recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder
when it's pulled from the rack?
> --Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
Art, you are about to join a very exclusive club of somewhat flamboyant
individuals who, through their fortitude in the pursuit of excellence in
their hobby, have finally finished that last task!
I always marvel at the fact that a seemingly random collection of bits and
pieces numbering thousands, can on a given day defeat the laws of
gravity...even if it isn't really so!
Well done Mate!
Best...
Bob Verwey
082 331 2727
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 14:56, Art Zemon wrote:
> Slight clarification, which I just learned about on Friday when I had the
> inspections (plural) done for my about-to-be-flown-for-the-first-time
> BD-4c. There are actually two inspections
>
> 1. static system leak check, done once
> 2. transponder check, done every two years
>
> The second one didn't worry me but I was *very* relieved that my static
> system did not leak =F0=9F=98=81
>
> Cheers,
> -- Art Z.
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:22 PM Kelly McMullen
> wrote:
>
>> For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only
>> has to be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you
>> open the system. Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is
>> different story. If you just open a connection and put it back together,
>> any A&P can do a leak check on the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1
>> minute with no more than 100 ft loss). The certification says the system
>> meets that leak test, and altitude requirements for the altimeter.
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
Further to this:
A transponder transmission is between 2 and 16 pulses of 45uS width. According
to Bendix King, the KT76A has a peak power output of 200W. Lets say youre in a
busy TCAS environment and your transponder is firing twice per second. Mean radiated
power (worst case) will be 200 * 2 * 16 * 45 * 1e-6 = 18mW. Definitely
not a risk to anything.
On Dec 31, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
Transponders have a power output of 100 watts for the duration of a transmission
which is only milliseconds long. The average power output is tiny. They cant
possibly set fire to anything. They dont need thick cables or high power breakers
either.
Same for DME.
On Dec 30, 2018, at 23:49, Paul Millner wrote:
Technically, I don't think that's strictly true... the rule as I recall it is that
high power transmitters (like our transponders and DME equipment, that can
output hundreds or even 1,000 watts) must be reinstalled by an A&P or repair
station. The concern is that if the antenna connection isn't properly made, it
could prove to be a source of ignition, and fires in airplanes are bad things.
>> I hadn't thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the plane
at the shop for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book, and he
said that if he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial number, that
it would cost more because they'd have to recertify it.
I don't believe that's a general requirement; perhaps it's part of his repair stations
procedures... I don't think an A&P doing an R&R on a transponder, say,
to replace another component has to do a recertification, whatever your guy meant
by that term. They just have to determine proper function. Readers have a
reference?
>> So what can happen to a transponder when it's pulled from the rack?
If you improperly reinstall it, you can turn a lot of power into heat.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You are right...I used the wrong term. It isn't propagation per se, it
is the specific output parameters the FAA wants checked, like exact
frequency, power, etc. They don't normally change, but the theoretical
potential is there, hence a bench check isn't sufficient, there has to
be a check of output from the entire system, including antenna, cable
and connections to the unit. I've experience a few shops that choose to
remove transponder, do bench check, then reinstall and do the ramp check.
On 12/31/2018 6:46 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> How is a quick ramp check going to reveal a propagation pattern? Youd need to
put the plane in a radiation proof chamber with absorbing walls and youd need
to position your calibrated antenna at a range of different angles. Or rotate
the aircraft.
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2018, at 23:59, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> In theory, if the connection has slightly different resistance after the pull
and re-install, the propagation pattern for a transmitter in the 1030-1090Mhz
frequency at 150-250 watts could be slightly different. So, in theory a quick
look at the ramp checker should be done. As a practical matter, I've never seen
it change anything. Any A&P can install the transponder, but a repair station
must certify it. Unless you are the builder (manufacturer) of the aircraft
and have a proper test set to be able to certify it yourself as the aircraft manufacturer
in the case of a homebuilt.
> Then there is the matter of the shop being jerks. He could wait a day or two
for you to bring in the logs. He could do the ramp check...if it isn't turned
on until he gets there it takes 5 min for the transponder to warm up (for the
old cavity tube variety) or less for solid state. He can make the choice. If he
had inquired before starting the test, he could have pulled the unit, got the
serial number and reinstalled before doing the test. He is just forgetting that
he is in the customer service business, and you can go elsewhere.
>
> For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only has
to be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you open the
system. Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is different story. If you
just open a connection and put it back together, any A&P can do a leak check
on the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1 minute with no more than 100 ft loss).
The certification says the system meets that leak test, and altitude requirements
for the altimeter.
>
>> On 12/30/2018 8:48 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:
>> What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be installed
by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the rack? I hadn't
thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the plane at the shop
for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book and he said that if
he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial number that it would cost
more because they'd have to recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder
when it's pulled from the rack?
>> --Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clayton Harper <claytonharper(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder question |
Even though you are not an A&P, it is permissible for you to read the FARs.;):)
Look up 91.411 and 91.413. Those will tell you what is required, and who can
do what. One will mention FAR 43 Appendix E and F. While you are in that area
look at Appendix A and D. If you read those you will know 80% more than 50% of
aircaft mechanics. You may also enjoy Todd Snider Statisticians Blues.
Fun is challenging aviation pros to give you a reference.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 31, 2018, at 7:46 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
>
> How is a quick ramp check going to reveal a propagation pattern? Youd need to
put the plane in a radiation proof chamber with absorbing walls and youd need
to position your calibrated antenna at a range of different angles. Or rotate
the aircraft.
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2018, at 23:59, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> In theory, if the connection has slightly different resistance after the pull
and re-install, the propagation pattern for a transmitter in the 1030-1090Mhz
frequency at 150-250 watts could be slightly different. So, in theory a quick
look at the ramp checker should be done. As a practical matter, I've never seen
it change anything. Any A&P can install the transponder, but a repair station
must certify it. Unless you are the builder (manufacturer) of the aircraft
and have a proper test set to be able to certify it yourself as the aircraft manufacturer
in the case of a homebuilt.
> Then there is the matter of the shop being jerks. He could wait a day or two
for you to bring in the logs. He could do the ramp check...if it isn't turned
on until he gets there it takes 5 min for the transponder to warm up (for the
old cavity tube variety) or less for solid state. He can make the choice. If he
had inquired before starting the test, he could have pulled the unit, got the
serial number and reinstalled before doing the test. He is just forgetting that
he is in the customer service business, and you can go elsewhere.
>
> For those that don't know the full reg on static system checks...it only has
to be certified once every 2 years, regardless of how many times you open the
system. Now if you change altimeter or encoder, that is different story. If you
just open a connection and put it back together, any A&P can do a leak check
on the system (holds 1000 ft AGL for 1 minute with no more than 100 ft loss).
The certification says the system meets that leak test, and altitude requirements
for the altimeter.
>
>> On 12/30/2018 8:48 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:
>> What is it about a transponder that makes the FAA require it only be installed
by a certified shop? Even if it's just been pulled from the rack? I hadn't
thought much about it until a couple weeks ago when I had the plane at the shop
for the biennial transponder check. I forgot the log book and he said that if
he had to pull the transponder to look at the serial number that it would cost
more because they'd have to recertify it. So what can happen to a transponder
when it's pulled from the rack?
>> --Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
Hi Bob,
I'm in process to install a Rotax 912 in my airplane. Previously I had a subaru
EA81 and I had completed my electrical installation per your diagram with the
double ignition. I figure an installation with 2 batteries, no alternator, a
ducatti regulator. My airplane is equiped for night flight (nav lights, icom A200,
intercom, transponder At 50). I use mechanical engine and flight instruments.)
My question: what is the better schema to switch my electrical installation?
Daniel
Envoy de mon iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
By "No Alternator", I assume that you mean no external alternator. But your engine
does have an internal dynamo, correct?
Do you have Bob Nuckolls' book? Download it at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
Individual schematics can be downloaded at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
Z-16 would be a good starting point. I would use a 30 amp fuse instead of a dynamo
fuselink.
What kind of airplane is it?
Post your intended wiring diagram to get suggestions from others.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486628#486628
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
Le 01/01/2019 01:52, user9253 a crit:
>
> By "No Alternator", I assume that you mean no external alternator. But your
engine does have an internal dynamo, correct?
> Do you have Bob Nuckolls' book? Download it at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
> Individual schematics can be downloaded at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
> Z-16 would be a good starting point. I would use a 30 amp fuse instead of a
dynamo fuselink.
Daniel,
I'll second Joe's answer.
If your engine is a 912, it doesn't require a second battery and Z16 is
adequate.
But your mention of two batteries rings a bell. Do you rather mean the
more recent fuel injected, electrically dependent, 912 iS ?
Then it is another kettle of fish and you'll need several separate switches.
Season's greetings
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder Antenna |
I am installing a Garmin 335 transponder, using an existing antenna
that has been on the aluminium airplane for decades. It is a blade
style.
I was surprised to measure with the ohm meter between the cable shield
and the air frame and found infinite resistance. I would have
expected the antenna to have a very good connection to the aluminium
skin.
Or is this some kind of dipole antenna and the measurement to be expected ?
I don't want to power on the transponder until I know the antenna is correct.
Thanks and Happy New Year !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Have you measured between the ground side of the antenna BNC connector
and airframe ground? Or is that what you meant?
On 12/31/2018 10:03 PM, Jeff Page wrote:
>
> I am installing a Garmin 335 transponder, using an existing antenna that
> has been on the aluminium airplane for decades. It is a blade style.
>
> I was surprised to measure with the ohm meter between the cable shield
> and the air frame and found infinite resistance. I would have expected
> the antenna to have a very good connection to the aluminium skin.
>
> Or is this some kind of dipole antenna and the measurement to be expected ?
>
> I don't want to power on the transponder until I know the antenna is
> correct.
>
> Thanks and Happy New Year !
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
This is a Cessna 172, so the aluminum skin is ground.
During the measurement I made, the cable was not connected to the transponder,
but was connected to the antenna.
I measured from the shield of the connector at the transponder end, and the frame
of the airplane.
Unless this is an unusual antenna, I expect this to be a zero ohm reading.
If the blade transponder antennas are standard, then either the cable is bad, or
the antenna is poorly mounted, and I will have to pull up the carpet and inspection
panels to look at it.
I didn't want to do that, only to find out the transponder antenna design is unusual.
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486632#486632
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
/Le 01/01/2019 09:08, Tundra10 a crit://
/
> /I measured from the shield of the connector at the transponder end,
> and the frame of the airplane. Unless this is an unusual antenna, I
> expect this to be a zero ohm reading. If the blade transponder
> antennas are standard, then either the cable is bad, or the antenna is
> poorly mounted, and I will have to pull up the carpet and inspection
> panels to look at it. I didn't want to do that, only to find out the
> transponder antenna design is unusual. /
Jeff,
It would be interesting to know whether the previous transponder was
working.
What are the dimensions of your blade XPDR antenna ?
If it is in the 3.23" skin to top ball park, then the antenna is "usual".
I notice you mentioned the antenna has been sitting on the airplane skin
for decades. Maybe it is a good time for dissassembling, ensuring clean
metal contact, and changing the aging coax ?
Season's greetings
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
It depends on the vintage Cessna. Many from the era before TCAs did not
come with a transponder, only those that were sold with an IFR radio
package were likely to have one. If the blade has been on the airplane a
long time, I'd put odds as more than 50% that the cable is bad. Not to
mention that it is very likely RG-58 or similar variety cable for an old
mode C transponder. You really want RG-400 for an ADS-B transponder. So
I would say it is very worth the effort to remove the old cable, check
the antenna and the cable. If you can find a homebuilder with the
crimper and RG-400, it would be cheaper than ordering the proper length
pre-made cable or having an avionics shop make one up. Expect at least
$3.00 per foot or more for the RG-400. It wasn't that many years ago
that some BNC connectors were either compression or soldered assemblies.
I had one that was produced in the '70s that gave me no amount of grief
on a com radio until I finally spotted that the soldered shield
connection on one end was a cold solder joint. My last aircraft had
transponder cable with compression BNC connector that often came apart
when belly panel had to be removed for annual. Fixed that with a crimp
on connector.
On 1/1/2019 1:08 AM, Tundra10 wrote:
>
> This is a Cessna 172, so the aluminum skin is ground.
> During the measurement I made, the cable was not connected to the transponder,
but was connected to the antenna.
> I measured from the shield of the connector at the transponder end, and the frame
of the airplane.
> Unless this is an unusual antenna, I expect this to be a zero ohm reading.
> If the blade transponder antennas are standard, then either the cable is bad,
or the antenna is poorly mounted, and I will have to pull up the carpet and inspection
panels to look at it.
> I didn't want to do that, only to find out the transponder antenna design is
unusual.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486632#486632
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Recently, while inspecting the engine compartment after some routine maintenance,
I noted a section of "browned and crispy" wire insulation. This particular
wire was one of the 3 phase wires which come from the 30A PMA associated with
the engine. The brown and crispy portion was at the back of a plastic 6 blade
connector half where crimped 1/4 female spade connectors are inserted to mate
with the Regulator/Rectifier. The crimps are good, all spades firmly seated
into the shell, though the spade (associated with the browned wire) location
on the shell also show sign of getting too hot. But only at the one spade connection.
Overheating due to high resistance is the only thing that comes to mind.
I did apply dielectric grease to these particular spades to help them fully
mate and as a corrosion/moisture preventative. I do this routinely on older
cars up here in the Northeast with no issues. Could this be a problem? I
routinely draw 18-22 amps while flying but when topping off the batteries will
draw closer to 30 amps for 10-15 minutes of flying if the batteries have been
drawn down for extended times during non flight activity. Note that the output
from the R/R looked fine but they are a larger gauge wire. (12 versus 14 of
the 3 phase wires into the R/R) Rather lengthy problem description for what appear
to be an overheated wire, open for all thoughts or ideas. The only one
I can come up with is poor connection, though not sure of the mechanism. Thanks,
Happy New Year to all!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486635#486635
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
Le 01/01/2019 18:49, blues750 a crit:
> I did apply dielectric grease to these particular spades to help them fully
mate and as a corrosion/moisture preventative. I do this routinely on older
cars up here in the Northeast with no issues. Could this be a problem? I routinely
draw 18-22 amps while flying but when topp!
Hello,
Just to mention that "dielectric" means "insulating".
Don't know if this is a problem, but gas tight metal to metal is key.
> Rather lengthy problem description for what appear to be an overheated wire,
open for all thoughts or ideas. The only one I can come up with is poor connection,
though not sure of the mechanism.
We have had the same issue with some wires off the voltage regulator
connector. We replaced the wires and spade terminal, paying attention to
the quality of the crimp.
Happy New Year !
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
You're right, I have the internal dynamo, but I saw that someone installed an external
alternator. My aircraft is a zenair Ch 601 hds.
Thanks for the info, I check that.
Daniel
Envoy de mon iPad
> Le 31 dc. 2018 19:52, user9253 a crit :
>
>
> By "No Alternator", I assume that you mean no external alternator. But your
engine does have an internal dynamo, correct?
> Do you have Bob Nuckolls' book? Download it at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
> Individual schematics can be downloaded at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
> Z-16 would be a good starting point. I would use a 30 amp fuse instead of a
dynamo fuselink.
> What kind of airplane is it?
> Post your intended wiring diagram to get suggestions from others.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486628#486628
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
No, it's an old edition 912 UL.
Thanks.
Envoy de mon iPad
> Le 31 dc. 2018 20:37, GTH a crit :
>
>
>> Le 01/01/2019 01:52, user9253 a crit :
>>
>> By "No Alternator", I assume that you mean no external alternator. But your
engine does have an internal dynamo, correct?
>> Do you have Bob Nuckolls' book? Download it at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
>> Individual schematics can be downloaded at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
>> Z-16 would be a good starting point. I would use a 30 amp fuse instead of a
dynamo fuselink.
>
> Daniel,
>
> I'll second Joe's answer.
> If your engine is a 912, it doesn't require a second battery and Z16 is adequate.
> But your mention of two batteries rings a bell. Do you rather mean the more recent
fuel injected, electrically dependent, 912 iS ?
> Then it is another kettle of fish and you'll need several separate switches.
>
> Season's greetings
> --
> Best regards,
> Gilles
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Gilles, I think you may be on to something! I likely "gobbed" on too much dielectric
grease and prevented a good electrical connection as the grease heated
up and spread over the metal to metal connections. My plan is to clean up and
replace the connections, reassemble with no dielectric grease! Thanks for the
reply. Cheers! Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486639#486639
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse-able link |
At 12:06 PM 12/29/2018, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I sent you the old parts minus the "sleeve" and I fabricated a new
>fuse-link that worked for about 2 flight hours with a new Plane
>Power 60amp alternator. It failed and when I pulled on the wire, it
>separated in the middle of the fuse link 22ga. A picture is attached.
Emacs!
The guys are right. There is a hard-fault
condition that is taking out the fusible
link. Somewhere between your bus bar
and the panel mounted circuit breaker.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com> |
If you tighten the hardware properly or if both halves the spade connection are
good and fit properly, it is impossible to get too much grease on the connection
(unless you count ugly as too much).
Likewise, if you start with a gas tight, metal-to-metal connection grease cannot
get into the joint and cause it to open, be high resistance or be intermittent.
Gas tight means that gas (air) cannot
get between the contacts, so grease, which is much higher molecular weight than
air (much larger molecules), certainly can't get in there.
Putting the dielectric grease onto already tightened or mated connections will
help protect the exposed parts of the connection (although not really necessary
except in very harsh environments), but
will have no effect on the actual connection.
The chances are good that the connection either was defective in the first place
(not a good gas tight connection) or loosened with time for some reason (possibly
the wire to the spade was not
sufficiently supported?). Once it starts to get loose and has measurable resistance,
it heats each time it is used and just gets worse with time until you get
what you now have.
Dick Tasker
blues750 wrote:
>
> Gilles, I think you may be on to something! I likely "gobbed" on too much dielectric
grease and prevented a good electrical connection as the grease heated
up and spread over the metal to metal connections. My plan is to clean up and
replace the connections, reassemble with no dielectric grease! Thanks for
the reply. Cheers! Dave
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486639#486639
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Most common grease is dielectric. Its use should not cause a problem. A properly
crimped joint forces all grease out from between the metals. I have coated
automotive battery terminals with grease and the vehicle still starts fine.
The problem is due to a bad crimp.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486643#486643
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
Joe & Gaggle:
Dielectric Grease is Silicon based all 100% synthetic. Automotive greases,
and oils for that matter which are NOT 100% synthetic, and there should not
be any 100% synthetics. [Yes, I know they advertise 100% synthetic but
unless something has changed no, engine oil is 100% synthetic.] Petroleum
Oils & Greases will trap moisture! Just like the water that is found in
your engine oil. The axle grease on the battery terminals will work for a
long, long time. It is just not the best way to attack the issue. Do you
really need to go the route of the Ultimate Silicon Dielectric Grease
path? Well, not for a automotive battery terminal. BUT! For the whole
$1.00 for a Permatex packet - YES - That is the way to go. And when using
the dielectric grease on terminals of different metals:- copper, silver,
gold, tin, solder and mixtures of them, why take a chance of corrosion.
After all, we know automotive oils do become acidic!
The posted question on WHY use dielectric grease especially since the term
dielectric means Non-Conductive. GREAT QUESTION!
Slop on the dielectric grease to the point of just becoming sloppy.
THEN complete the connection... Fast-On connectors just slide them
together. As they push together the CONTACT POINTS will make both a
mechanical and an electrical contact pushing the dielectric grease out of
the way. YET! The grease will be in enough places to create a oxygen and
moisture barrier. DON'T think you solved the problem for ALL time. The
dielectric grease will migrate and become washed off, by YOU - When you
wash the plane or use engine de-greasers or fly through rain. Use it...
Then re-use it when you cannot see the nice coating you original put on.
Joe - You said it! BAD CRIMP! Yup, I agree 1,000 %. Wrong size
terminal. Wrong size wire for the terminal. Wrong type wire used. Wrong
TOOL used for the crimp.
Little Trick: One job that I worked on where the terminals were in a
particularly difficult location to get at for inspection or repair AND the
piece of equipment was was on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier for extended
periods of time. The requirement was to:
1 - Put Dielectric Grease - IN - the terminal BEFORE CRIMPING.
2 - Dip the wire into Dielectric Grease.
3 - Assemble and then CRIMP.
There were no issues of a resistive connection.
Yes, I do believe in dielectric grease.
And, it's great for keeping your hair in place on dry staticky days.
Barry
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:50 PM user9253 wrote:
>
> Most common grease is dielectric. Its use should not cause a problem. A
> properly crimped joint forces all grease out from between the metals. I
> have coated automotive battery terminals with grease and the vehicle still
> starts fine. The problem is due to a bad crimp.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486643#486643
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Arctic super-flex wire |
Any update on this product?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486649#486649
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Here are a few pics of the connector in case anything can be determined by the
pic. Will post pics of crimps when I remove wires and assess. Thanks for the
input all. Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486650#486650
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/regulator_rectifier_connector_798.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
At 06:38 AM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>
>Here are a few pics of the connector in case anything can be
>determined by the pic. Will post pics of crimps when I remove wires
>and assess. Thanks for the input all. Dave
It is interesting that the nylon housing
appears uniformly discolored suggesting
uniform distribution of 'stress' through
the connector. Loss of conductive integrity
is usually concentrated in one of the
several wires where a failure cascade
began.
This suggests a distributed condition
probably based in inadequate crimps
on all the wires. Presence or lack
of DE grease for moisture exclusion
was probably not a factor in this
failure.
What tool was used to install the
terminals?
DE grease is a good idea for joints
at particular risk for corrosion due
to moisture ingress. We used to pack
a coax connector with DC4 before mating
followed by lotsa wrap with Scotch 33 tape
on towers. Having a connector go south
175 feet up on a tower is a real pain
in the arse, legs, arms, etc, etc.
But generally speaking, very few situations
in aircraft benefit by the addition of
DE grease. If there is a situation where
an electrical joining is subject to
assault from moisture, there will be
features other than electrical joints
also under assault. Keeping the moisture
off is generally better than trying to
keep it out. Ref: the failed attempt
at Cessna to 'seal' contactors that
were receiving splash from rainwater.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
>
>or cap facing down with a #40 drain
>hole added right in the center. Now
>trapped liquid had a place to get
>out.
>
>Barry - You must be associated with the Three Stooges... Remember
>when they were sitting in a row boat and it sprung
>a leak... If you have a hole at one end of the boat leaking water
>in, all you have to do is drill another hole at
>the other end to let the water out! Isn't that correct? That is
>EXACTLY what you are suggesting. Also, you did
>not address the issue of having the rolled edge facing Up where
>water and ice can accumulate.
>
>Bob, if you continue to attack me with your warped logic I will be
>forced to sink your rubber ducky. As much of
>your logic has already has discrepancy holes. BUT! If I am
>incorrect on something and after you thoughtfully
>review my point AND if you have a true improvement to my suggestion
>please post it. Other wise you look like
>you are criticizing just to attack.
>
>Barry
Barry, I have not 'attacked' you, nor have I
suggested any short-falls in your intelligence
or integrity laced with derisive or pejorative
prose.
I have attempted to offer explanations
of cause/effect/remedy for a constellation
of failures. Analysis of those failures
was a prime-directive in my 45+ years at
Cessna (3x), Beech (2x), Lear, Boeing
and Electro-Mech (3x) where my work not
only had to produce beneficial outcomes
but was subject to review by my peers.
Recall that this thread began
with discussions about welding
in a starter contactor (high pressure, small
area contacts) due to weak battery
condition . . . but morphed into
some discussion about failures in
battery contactors (low pressure,
large area contacts) with an entirely
different failure mode.
You first stated that the rolled closure
on the metal housing of a contactor
was 'hermetic' then you suggest
there is some value in orienting that
joint to ward off effects of accumlated
of 'water and ice'?
Moisture gets into non-hermetic devices
with a combination water vapor/liquid
at the leak site AND a pressure differential
due to effects atmosphere (weak) or temperature
(strong). Battery contactors heat up
significantly while energized. When
de-energized, a substantial pressure
differential occurs as the device
cools. If there is moisture at
the location of any leak, it is
sucked inside.
Drilling the hole in the low spot on
a contactor cap facing down has two
benefits. It provides a drain for
liquid condensate AND a pressure
relief that stops a cooling contactor
from 'sucking' moisture across the
non-hermetic seal at the housing-to-
cap interface.
I'm sorry if you feel 'attacked'.
That's not my mission here. This is all
about the simple-ideas in physics that
drive the utility of our favorite machines.
Ideas that were a foundation for a
successful career and, I believe, worthy
of sharing in the OBAM aviation community.
If I mis-understand something, I'm intently
interested in knowing it . . . as a teacher
I have a duty to NOT propagate bad data.
So I invite you to help sift the sands of simple-
ideas and forego disparaging remarks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Arctic super-flex wire |
I sent some to Bob N. and he responded basically that it looked pretty
good. You'll have to search the forum for his exact words.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:27 AM donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> Any update on this product?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486649#486649
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Arctic super-flex wire |
At 09:39 AM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>I sent some to Bob N. and he responded basically that it looked
>pretty good. You'll have to search the forum for his exact words.
>
>On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:27 AM donjohnston
><don@velocity-xl.com>don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
><don@velocity-xl.com>don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>Any update on this product?
>
Without access to the engineering specifications
data, I'm unable to confirm performance beyond
the advertised features. I have no reason to
believe it's not suited to our tasks although
flexibility at low temperatures is not a
problem for us. High flexibility at any
temperature, like the welding cable, is a most
convenient feature when dealing with fat
wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
Bob
It is more than obvious that you (and everyone else) should not waste our ti
me with this gentleman (Barry) opinions.
Just delete them.
Nothing personal, just by having read some of them.
Have an excellent 2019!
Carlos
No dia 02/01/2019, =C3-s 14:16, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> escreveu:
>>
>> or cap facing down with a #40 drain
>> hole added right in the center. Now
>> trapped liquid had a place to get
>> out.
>>
>> Barry - You must be associated with the Three Stooges... Remember when t
hey were sitting in a row boat and it sprung
>> a leak... If you have a hole at one end of the boat leaking water in, al
l you have to do is drill another hole at
>> the other end to let the water out! Isn't that correct? That is EXACTLY w
hat you are suggesting. Also, you did
>> not address the issue of having the rolled edge facing Up where water and
ice can accumulate.
>>
>> Bob, if you continue to attack me with your warped logic I will be forced
to sink your rubber ducky. As much of
>> your logic has already has discrepancy holes. BUT! If I am incorrect on s
omething and after you thoughtfully
>> review my point AND if you have a true improvement to my suggestion pleas
e post it. Other wise you look like
>> you are criticizing just to attack.
>>
>> Barry
>
>
> Barry, I have not 'attacked' you, nor have I
> suggested any short-falls in your intelligence
> or integrity laced with derisive or pejorative
> prose.
>
> I have attempted to offer explanations
> of cause/effect/remedy for a constellation
> of failures. Analysis of those failures
> was a prime-directive in my 45+ years at
> Cessna (3x), Beech (2x), Lear, Boeing
> and Electro-Mech (3x) where my work not
> only had to produce beneficial outcomes
> but was subject to review by my peers.
>
> Recall that this thread began
> with discussions about welding
> in a starter contactor (high pressure, small
> area contacts) due to weak battery
> condition . . . but morphed into
> some discussion about failures in
> battery contactors (low pressure,
> large area contacts) with an entirely
> different failure mode.
>
> You first stated that the rolled closure
> on the metal housing of a contactor
> was 'hermetic' then you suggest
> there is some value in orienting that
> joint to ward off effects of accumlated
> of 'water and ice'?
>
> Moisture gets into non-hermetic devices
> with a combination water vapor/liquid
> at the leak site AND a pressure differential
> due to effects atmosphere (weak) or temperature
> (strong). Battery contactors heat up
> significantly while energized. When
> de-energized, a substantial pressure
> differential occurs as the device
> cools. If there is moisture at
> the location of any leak, it is
> sucked inside.
>
> Drilling the hole in the low spot on
> a contactor cap facing down has two
> benefits. It provides a drain for
> liquid condensate AND a pressure
> relief that stops a cooling contactor
> from 'sucking' moisture across the
> non-hermetic seal at the housing-to-
> cap interface.
>
> I'm sorry if you feel 'attacked'.
> That's not my mission here. This is all
> about the simple-ideas in physics that
> drive the utility of our favorite machines.
> Ideas that were a foundation for a
> successful career and, I believe, worthy
> of sharing in the OBAM aviation community.
> If I mis-understand something, I'm intently
> interested in knowing it . . . as a teacher
> I have a duty to NOT propagate bad data.
> So I invite you to help sift the sands of simple-
> ideas and forego disparaging remarks.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
At 11:11 AM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>Bob
>
>It is more than obvious that you (and everyone else) should not
>waste our time with this gentleman (Barry) opinions.
>Just delete them.
>
>Nothing personal, just by having read some of them.
>
>Have an excellent 2019!
>Carlos
At last count, there were about 1200 subscribers
to the list . . . obviously, ACTIVE participants
number much less but I think it's important to make
sure that poor or unclear data does not go
unchallenged. Of course, any who wish
to bypass the thread are encouraged to do so.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Use heat conductive paste between the metal base of the Ducatti regulator and the
airframe. Cool the fins with forced air.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486659#486659
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Quote from Official AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines
"Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers,"
If someone posts something that you disagree with, it is best not to quote
them or mention their name. Just state the facts about the electrical subject.
Follow Bob's example. He has contradicted my postings in the past without
offending me. (Although I do not like to admit being wrong. LOL)
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486660#486660
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
Exactly Joe!
Check your emails, I did not post my response to the gaggle. It was sent
directly to Bob. After his snide comments.
So, who is attacking whom?
Barry
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019, user9253 wrote:
>
> Quote from Official AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines
> "Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
> polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
> other listers,"
> If someone posts something that you disagree with, it is best not to
> quote
> them or mention their name. Just state the facts about the electrical
> subject.
> Follow Bob's example. He has contradicted my postings in the past without
> offending me. (Although I do not like to admit being wrong. LOL)
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486660#486660
>
>
--
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
If you wash your hands before you go to the bathroom you may have the
makings of a Crew Chief.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi, new to the list. I'm interested in a Stratux for ADS-B in but would prefer
a less visible antenna array for the ADS-B. Are there alternatives? I'm planning
on powering the unit via aircraft power/USB cable.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486662#486662
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
Thanks Joe. You have a suggestion for the heat conductive paste?
Envoy de mon iPhone
> Le 2 janv. 2019 13:20, user9253 a crit :
>
>
> Use heat conductive paste between the metal base of the Ducatti regulator and
the airframe. Cool the fins with forced air.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486659#486659
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
At 04:08 PM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Joe. You have a suggestion for the heat conductive paste?
As I recall, the legacy 912 Ducatti regulators
had epoxy-fill bases . . . VERY low thermal
conductivity. Not much opportunity to suck
more heat out of that side. However, a 12v
computer fan blowing on the top fins would
make a HUGE difference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
Yesterday, I pulled up the carpet and open the inspection panel to get
at the antenna connector. No connection there between the aluminium
airframe and the connector shield.
I unscrewed the antenna and am surprised how well the old Narco AT50
transponder worked. It is doubtful there ever was a ground connection.
The antenna was mounted with a cork gasket and all the original
paint was still on the antenna and the plane.
The antenna turned out to be a Dorne & Margolin DMNI70-2. The nice
label was conveniently located hidden inside against the airplane.
I cleaned up the base of the antenna with Scotchbrite and removed the
paint around the screw holes on the airplane. Alumiprep and Alodine
treated the bare aluminium.
For good measure I will also fabricate a new RG-400 cable.
Thanks for everyone's comments and advice.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric-List mission and decorum |
At 01:33 PM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>Exactly Joe!
>
>Check your emails, I did not post my response to
>the gaggle.=C2 It was sent directly to Bob.=C2 After his snide comments.
>So, who is attacking whom?
Barry,
You are not being attacked. You have
offered many 'knowledge nuggets' in
both practice and physics that were simply
wrong. I and others have simply argued to
correct such offers. You have accused
me of being on drugs, indulging in
'three stooges logic' and then suggested
you might have to sink my 'rubber duck'
although the significance of that statement
eludes me.
No one is allowed to insult me. It's
an easy choice one makes. Either an assertion
is true and demands further reflection
or it's false and deserves no further
notice. Taking umbrage is a waste of time
and emotional capital.
This is not a public forum . . . it's a
classroom where answers for failure are
sought and the outcomes of repeatable
experiments are shared. Contributors
to those goals are welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The cork gasket should not have mattered. The ground connection should
be across the screws and nuts or nut plates. At least that is how most
antennas are designed. Those old Narco transponders were pretty tolerant
of marginal coax connections. You do want the base of the antenna to
aircraft skin joint to be sealed. Often done with narrow bead of clear
or white RTV after the antenna is mounted.
On 1/2/2019 2:42 PM, Jeff Page wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I pulled up the carpet and open the inspection panel to get
> at the antenna connector. No connection there between the aluminium
> airframe and the connector shield.
>
> I unscrewed the antenna and am surprised how well the old Narco AT50
> transponder worked. It is doubtful there ever was a ground connection.
> The antenna was mounted with a cork gasket and all the original paint
> was still on the antenna and the plane.
>
> The antenna turned out to be a Dorne & Margolin DMNI70-2. The nice
> label was conveniently located hidden inside against the airplane.
>
> I cleaned up the base of the antenna with Scotchbrite and removed the
> paint around the screw holes on the airplane. Alumiprep and Alodine
> treated the bare aluminium.
>
> For good measure I will also fabricate a new RG-400 cable.
>
> Thanks for everyone's comments and advice.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
OK, had a chance to remove the wires from the connector shell. I would like to
think all my crimps looked like the "good looking crimp and wire" I cannot imagine
I would have proceeded without having them otherwise. But... the other
wires look pretty p*ss poor! The bare wire had hardened insulation which I peeled
off to inspect wire condition. Seems like a lot of corrosion for such a
"young" connection! In reading Bob's related reply, I can easily be lead to
believe that those (my) crimps are in the "neophyte" category for these particular
terminals. I cannot recall the crimp tool name I used, but it is oe I purchased
from SteinAir expressedly for doing open barrel crimps. Thoughts, insights,
and opinions??
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486668#486668
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/crimps_146.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: When / where to use dielectric grease? |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob, I need to look at the crimping tool box to see what I used to do the
crimps. As always, appreciated the insight!! Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486669#486669
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine switch for a rotax 912 uls |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, the Ducatti Regulator bottom is mostly a non-heat conductive material.
But there is an aluminum perimeter about 5 mm wide that can be coated with
heat conductive paste. Some people use Zinc oxide that they buy at drug
stores. Others use heat conductive paste from computer stores or from home
improvement stores. Rotax spark plugs are supposed to be installed with heat
conductive paste. That same product can be used under the regulator.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486670#486670
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Open Barrel Crimp Tools |
At 06:37 PM 1/2/2019, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob, I need to look at the crimping tool box to see what I
>used to do the crimps. As always, appreciated the insight!! Dave
>
>
Just for grins, check out these
documents from my website . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/qual_crimp.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/TBO%20Quality%20Crimp%20Handbook.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/crimping%20my%20style.pdf
There are discussions on crimp
quality and in particular, pull tests
to see if your tool/terminal/wire
combination is producing the
desired wire grip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A brown-out alternative? |
| From: | "zwakie" <mz(at)cariama.nl> |
As promised: I have now tested my little circuit it in-situ on the plane, and I
can confirm that I no longer have brownouts and cannot observe any ill effects.
I do not have the tools to do detailed measurements on the timing aspects, current
back-flow and such, so I cannot report on that part. I do feel pretty confident
that this design will meet my objectives though, time will tell...
--------
Marcel Zwakenberg
Europa XS TG || 912ULS || PH-SBR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486681#486681
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal E. George" <ngeorge(at)cmg.aero> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric-List mission and decorum |
Well said, Bob.
Much more eloquent that warranted...
Neal George
=========
From: On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Barry,
You are not being attacked. You have
offered many 'knowledge nuggets' in
both practice and physics that were simply
wrong. I and others have simply argued to
correct such offers. You have accused
me of being on drugs, indulging in
'three stooges logic' and then suggested
you might have to sink my 'rubber duck'
although the significance of that statement
eludes me.
No one is allowed to insult me. It's
an easy choice one makes. Either an assertion
is true and demands further reflection
or it's false and deserves no further
notice. Taking umbrage is a waste of time
and emotional capital.
This is not a public forum . . . it's a
classroom where answers for failure are
sought and the outcomes of repeatable
experiments are shared. Contributors
to those goals are welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A brown-out alternative? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Good work Marcel.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486685#486685
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A brown-out alternative? |
At 05:15 AM 1/3/2019, you wrote:
>
>As promised: I have now tested my little circuit it in-situ on the
>plane, and I can confirm that I no longer have brownouts and cannot
>observe any ill effects.
>
>I do not have the tools to do detailed measurements on the timing
>aspects, current back-flow and such, so I cannot report on that
>part. I do feel pretty confident that this design will meet my
>objectives though, time will tell...
>
>--------
>Marcel Zwakenberg
>Europa XS TG || 912ULS || PH-SBR
>
Thank you for advancing this idea and
sharing your findings!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
I would like to go with a similar setup: 60A B&C Main Alt + 30A B&C Aux Alt. Single
battery. Both alternators will be ON during normal ops. Shall the Main Alt
fail, I plan to shed loads and if possible continue home VFR Day with stopovers
if needed.
For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min 14.1V to recharge
the battery -correct?
1. What would be the best regulator setup for both alternators? Two main linear
regulators or one main and one standby?
2. How do I recognize the Aux Alt has failed if the loads did not exceed 60A or
the voltage didn't drop to 14.1V? Can this be checked only by switching of the
Main Alt?
thanks! Happy New Year!
Igor
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486688#486688
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Igor,
That is exactly the system that I built for my BD-4C. I used B&C's voltage
regulators. The backup regulator is set at a lower voltage than the primary
so the field on the backup alternator doesn't get energized unless the
primary fails (which makes the voltage drop).
After engine start, I turn on the switches for both alternators.
Your bus voltage is your primary diagnostic:
- Voltage drops below the set point for the primary voltage regulator
means that the primary alternator is not producing power
- Voltage drops below the set point for the backup voltage regulator
means that neither alternator is producing power
This does not identify the cause, only the symptom. It could be a tripped
field circuit breaker. It could be a failed component. Maybe you simply
forgot to turn on the alternator switch.
In addition to the voltage display on my EFIS, I added a current sensor to
the output of each of the two alternators and I display both of those
values. No particular reason; I just think it's cool to see the data.
If you want to see my wiring diagram, which is specific for the B&C
alternators and voltage regulators, take a look at engine.pdf
.
The whole set of diagrams (maybe useful to you?) is in N2468Z Wiring
Diagrams
*g*on Google Drive.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM supik wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I would like to go with a similar setup: 60A B&C Main Alt + 30A B&C Aux
> Alt. Single battery. Both alternators will be ON during normal ops. Shall
> the Main Alt fail, I plan to shed loads and if possible continue home VFR
> Day with stopovers if needed.
>
> For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min 14.1V
> to recharge the battery -correct?
>
> 1. What would be the best regulator setup for both alternators? Two main
> linear regulators or one main and one standby?
>
> 2. How do I recognize the Aux Alt has failed if the loads did not exceed
> 60A or the voltage didn't drop to 14.1V? Can this be checked only by
> switching of the Main Alt?
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Igor,
That is exactly the system that I built for my BD-4C. I used B&C's voltage
regulators. The backup regulator is set at a lower voltage than the primary
so the field on the backup alternator doesn't get energized unless the
primary fails (which makes the voltage drop).
After engine start, I turn on the switches for both alternators.
Your bus voltage is your primary diagnostic:
- Voltage drops below the set point for the primary voltage regulator
means that the primary alternator is not producing power
- Voltage drops below the set point for the backup voltage regulator
means that neither alternator is producing power
This does not identify the cause, only the symptom. It could be a tripped
field circuit breaker. It could be a failed component. Maybe you simply
forgot to turn on the alternator switch.
In addition to the voltage display on my EFIS, I added a current sensor to
the output of each of the two alternators and I display both of those
values. No particular reason; I just think it's cool to see the data.
If you want to see my wiring diagram, which is specific for the B&C
alternators and voltage regulators, take a look at engine.pdf
.
The whole set of diagrams (maybe useful to you?) is in N2468Z Wiring
Diagrams
*g*on Google Drive.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM supik wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I would like to go with a similar setup: 60A B&C Main Alt + 30A B&C Aux
> Alt. Single battery. Both alternators will be ON during normal ops. Shall
> the Main Alt fail, I plan to shed loads and if possible continue home VFR
> Day with stopovers if needed.
>
> For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min 14.1V
> to recharge the battery -correct?
>
> 1. What would be the best regulator setup for both alternators? Two main
> linear regulators or one main and one standby?
>
> 2. How do I recognize the Aux Alt has failed if the loads did not exceed
> 60A or the voltage didn't drop to 14.1V? Can this be checked only by
> switching of the Main Alt?
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks a lot Art!
I'll check your diagrams..
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486693#486693
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Jim,
You're welcome. I drew those diagrams in LibreOffice and the source files
are available, too, if you want them.
Finally, please be aware that there are differences between those diagrams
and the airplane. I have the "field mods" on paper but have not updated the
diagrams, yet.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:10 PM wrote:
> Thanks for publishing your entire set of schematics. Very nice job. Your
> system is very similar to what I intend to build, and it's good to have an
> "example" for the documentation I want to produce for mine.
>
> Jim Parker
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator/shunt question
> From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
> Date: Thu, January 03, 2019 1:02 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Igor,
>
> That is exactly the system that I built for my BD-4C. I used B&C's voltage
> regulators. The backup regulator is set at a lower voltage than the primary
> so the field on the backup alternator doesn't get energized unless the
> primary fails (which makes the voltage drop).
>
> After engine start, I turn on the switches for both alternators.
>
> Your bus voltage is your primary diagnostic:
>
> - Voltage drops below the set point for the primary voltage regulator
> means that the primary alternator is not producing power
> - Voltage drops below the set point for the backup voltage regulator
> means that neither alternator is producing power
>
> This does not identify the cause, only the symptom. It could be a tripped
> field circuit breaker. It could be a failed component. Maybe you simply
> forgot to turn on the alternator switch.
>
> In addition to the voltage display on my EFIS, I added a current sensor to
> the output of each of the two alternators and I display both of those
> values. No particular reason; I just think it's cool to see the data.
>
> If you want to see my wiring diagram, which is specific for the B&C
> alternators and voltage regulators, take a look at engine.pdf
> .
> The whole set of diagrams (maybe useful to you?) is in N2468Z Wiring
> Diagrams
>
> *g*on Google Drive.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Art Z.
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM supik wrote:
>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I would like to go with a similar setup: 60A B&C Main Alt + 30A B&C Aux
>> Alt. Single battery. Both alternators will be ON during normal ops. Shall
>> the Main Alt fail, I plan to shed loads and if possible continue home VFR
>> Day with stopovers if needed.
>>
>> For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min
>> 14.1V to recharge the battery -correct?
>>
>> 1. What would be the best regulator setup for both alternators? Two main
>> linear regulators or one main and one standby?
>>
>> 2. How do I recognize the Aux Alt has failed if the loads did not exceed
>> 60A or the voltage didn't drop to 14.1V? Can this be checked only by
>> switching of the Main Alt?
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
>
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
One thing I find odd about the blade transponder antenna, is that the entire body
is a chunk of aluminum. There is a horizontal band with a plastic? covering.
So it seems the radiating element is pretty shielded inside.
It is a Dorne & Margolin DM NI 70-2 if anyone is familiar with it.
Photo attached.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486694#486694
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/antenna_903.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
How did you manage that with LibreOffice, Art?=C2- I've never been able
to get anything other than the most rudimentary drawings out of it.=C2- I
'd appreciate you sharing your source files.=C2- I would definitely use i
t to improve my POH.
> wrote:
Jim,
You're welcome. I drew those diagrams in LibreOffice and the source files a
re available, too, if you want them.
Finally, please be aware that there are differences between those diagrams
and the airplane. I have the "field mods" on paper but have not updated the
diagrams, yet.
Cheers,=C2- =C2- -- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:10 PM wrote:
Thanks for publishing your entire set of schematics.=C2- Very nice job.
=C2- Your system is very similar to what I intend to build, and it's good
to have an "example" for the documentation I want to produce for mine.=C2
-=C2-
Jim Parker
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator/shunt question
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Thu, January 03, 2019 1:02 pm
Igor,
That is exactly the system that I built for my BD-4C. I used B&C's voltage
regulators. The backup regulator is set at a lower voltage than the primary
so the field on the backup alternator doesn't get energized unless the pri
mary fails (which makes the voltage drop).
After engine start, I turn on the switches for both alternators.
Your bus voltage is your primary diagnostic:
- Voltage drops below the set point for the primary voltage regulator me
ans that the primary alternator is not producing power
- Voltage drops below the set point for the backup voltage regulator mea
ns that neither alternator is producing power
This does not identify the cause, only the symptom. It could be a tripped f
ield circuit breaker. It could be a failed component. Maybe you simply forg
ot to turn on the alternator switch.
In addition to the voltage display on my EFIS, I added a current sensor to
the output of each of the two alternators and I display both of those value
s. No particular reason; I just think it's cool to see the data.
If you want to see my wiring diagram, which is specific for the B&C alterna
tors and voltage regulators, take a look at engine.pdf. The whole set of di
agrams (maybe useful to you?) is in N2468Z Wiring Diagrams=C2-gon Google
Drive.
Cheers,=C2- =C2- -- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM supik wrote:
Bob,
I would like to go with a similar setup: 60A B&C Main Alt + 30A B&C Aux Al
t. Single battery. Both alternators will be ON during normal ops. Shall the
Main Alt fail, I plan to shed loads and if possible continue home VFR Day
with stopovers if needed.
For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min 14.1V
to recharge the battery -correct?
1. What would be the best regulator setup for both alternators? Two main l
inear regulators or one main and one standby?
2. How do I recognize the Aux Alt has failed if the loads did not exceed 6
0A or the voltage didn't drop to 14.1V? Can this be checked only by switchi
ng of the Main Alt?
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <speedy11(at)aol.com> |
Do GPS antennae have an electronic front and rear?When physically attaching an
antenna to an airplane there is a designed direction for strength and best aerodynamic
airflow.But, if I mount a GPS antenna inside the airplane on a glare
shield, does the orientation matter?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Art, at what voltage did you setup your Aux Alt? What is the max Voltage the Standby
Regulator will allow?
Thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486700#486700
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS Antennae |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
Le 04/01/2019 05:51, speedy11(at)aol.com a crit:
>
> But, if I mount a GPS antenna inside the airplane on a glare shield,
> does the orientation matter?
>
Hi Stan,
When installing our GPS antenna on the glareshield we did not pay any
attention to the orientation.
Everything has been woring great since then, even in the hangar.
http://contrails.free.fr/gps_en.php
Furthermore, if orientation did matter, reception would depend on the
heading of the airplane, which is not desirable.
Hope this helps,
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Igor,
The backup voltage regulator came preset to 13.0 volts. Per a discussion
here, I am going to increase it to 13.5 volts.
You might want to look at the manual for the regulator on B&C Aero's
website. It is available here:
http://www.bandc.aero/standbyalternatorcontroller14vhomebuilt.aspx
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:49 AM supik wrote:
>
> Art, at what voltage did you setup your Aux Alt? What is the max Voltage
> the Standby Regulator will allow?
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A brown-out alternative? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It would be an interesting experiment to see if the brownout-DC-DC converter
would work without the relay. The purpose of the relay is to provide
milliseconds of delay in opening the circuit after cranking the engine. When the
engine starts, human reaction time for releasing the start button provides a
delay. If the engine does not start, the need for a delay depends on the battery
voltage. Doesn't the battery voltage start recovering within a few milliseconds
after engine cranking begins?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486703#486703
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Ernest,
I used LibreOffice Draw. Here are the drawings:
https://github.com/azemon/N114AC_wiring
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:12 PM Ernest Christley wrote:
> How did you manage that with LibreOffice, Art? I've never been able to
> get anything other than the most rudimentary drawings out of it. I'd
> appreciate you sharing your source files. I would definitely use it to
> improve my POH.
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS Antennae |
At 10:51 PM 1/3/2019, you wrote:
>Do GPS antennae have an electronic front and rear?
>When physically attaching an antenna to an airplane there is a
>designed direction for strength and best aerodynamic airflow.
>But, if I mount a GPS antenna inside the airplane on a glare shield,
>does the orientation matter?
>
>Stan Sutterfield
No . . . they are omni-directional
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
At 03:52 PM 1/3/2019, you wrote:
>
>One thing I find odd about the blade transponder antenna, is that
>the entire body is a chunk of aluminum. There is a horizontal band
>with a plastic? covering. So it seems the radiating element is
>pretty shielded inside.
>
>It is a Dorne & Margolin DM NI 70-2 if anyone is familiar with it.
That whole chunk of aluminum above
the plastic insulator IS the antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A brown-out alternative? |
At 06:57 AM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
>
>It would be an interesting experiment to see if the brownout-DC-DC converter
> would work without the relay. The purpose of the relay is to provide
>milliseconds of delay in opening the circuit after cranking the engine.
Yes, a delay greater than the dropout delay
in the starter contactor.
> When the
>engine starts, human reaction time for releasing the start button provides a
>delay. If the engine does not start, the need for a delay depends
>on the battery
>voltage. Doesn't the battery voltage start recovering within a few
>milliseconds
>after engine cranking begins?
Usually . . . if the battery is
relatively robust and in good
condition. Try it without
the relay. It can't do anything
worse than not work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
| From: | "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
This would be easier for me to understand if the plastic insulator went all the
way around.
It only goes halfway, so the aluminum at the tip of the antenna is the same solid
chunk of aluminum as at the base, which is connected to the shield of the cable
and the aluminum skin of the aircraft.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486708#486708
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna |
At 09:33 AM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
>
>This would be easier for me to understand if the plastic insulator
>went all the way around.
>
>It only goes halfway, so the aluminum at the tip of the antenna is
>the same solid chunk of aluminum as at the base, which is connected
>to the shield of the cable and the aluminum skin of the aircraft.
If only one side of the blade is insulated
then the antenna's feed-point is at the
center of the insulated side with
some form of matching not unlike
a 'gamma match' on a 1/4 wave vertical.
This allows the whole antenna to be formed
from a single piece of metal for mechanical
robustness, total ground at DC, yet presents
a 50 ohm load to the transmission line.
Antenna design and fabrication often seems
like magic . . . looking through the myriad
of patents can leave one in awe for those
to have mastered the art! Just did a quick
search on 'blade antennas' hoping that the
antenna under discussion might pop up . . .
https://tinyurl.com/ya24kfgu
good luck with that!
I think I've got some data on that design
buried around here somewhere. If I run
across the article, I'll post it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Art, that's my concern.. I think that's not enough Volts to charge the battery..
art(at)zemon.name wrote:
> Igor,
>
>
> The backup voltage regulator came preset to 13.0 volts. Per a discussion here,
I am going to increase it to 13.5 volts.
> You might want to look at the manual for the regulator on B&C Aero's website. It is available here:http://www.bandc.aero/standbyalternatorcontroller14vhomebuilt.aspx (http://www.bandc.aero/standbyalternatorcontroller14vhomebuilt.aspx)
>
>
> Cheers,
> -- Art Z.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:49 AM supik wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Art, at what voltage did you setup your Aux Alt? What is the max Voltage the
Standby Regulator will allow?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ (https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/)"Be kind, for
everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486712#486712
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
At 01:32 PM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
>
>Art, that's my concern.. I think that's not enough Volts to charge
>the battery..
>
One does not CHARGE a battery with the standby
alternator . . . you only support the bus
at some level that prevents DISCHARGING
the battery.
The idea is to minimize loads to some
level at or below what the standby
alternator will deliver thus holding
the battery in reserve for approach
to landing
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay sticking |
Upon examination of the removed starter relay I see that it is a continuous
duty relay. It has now been replaced with an intermittent duty relay of
appropriate capacity. Thank you for the help everyone but looks like this
one was obvious.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:18 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:14 PM 12/24/2018, you wrote:
>
> We had a strange event last week with our O-200 powered CH750. After
> running the battery down during a fuel gauge calibration that lasted over
> an hour, one of our pilots tried to start the engine to taxi back but with
> the already depleted battery and a less than perfect start procedure they
> gave up after a couple weak start attempts. I walked over to the aircraft
> to brief them on a prop start and when I asked for the master on the
> starter ran.
>
>
> The vast majority of starter contactor
> sticking events occur during an attempt
> to crank the engine with a weak battery.
> The fact that you got immediate starter
> action on closure of the master switch
> says your starter contactor was 'stuck'
> shut.
>
> Shut the master off, cycled the start button rapidly a dozen times,
> master on again and the starter ran again. I could hear the starter relay
> clicking loudly each time power was applied so it does not seem like there
> was a physical failure of the relay but more some electrical short
> activating the relay each time power was applied.
>
>
> Contacts are welded . . .
>
>
> The build team inspected the relay and found a loose connection.
> Tightening it took the problem from continuous to intermittent; in their
> words "it's fixed but it did it again once".
>
> We have removed the relay for replacement, I still think the switch is
> suspect but they've decided the problem is the relay. Does the aeroelectric
> list think there would be value in cutting open the relay and examining it?
> Any suggestions on how best to do so?
>
>
> Go to a car parts store and pick
> up a starter contactor that looks
> like the one in the aircraft spruce
> catalog . . . it will work just fine.
> See if the contactor is marked "diode
> suppressed" or has the word diode on it
> anywhere or on the packaging.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 01:32 PM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Art, that's my concern.. I think that's not enough Volts to charge the battery..
> >
> >
>
> One does not CHARGE a battery with the standby
> alternator . . . you only support the bus
> at some level that prevents DISCHARGING
> the battery.
>
> The idea is to minimize loads to some
> level at or below what the standby
> alternator will deliver thus holding
> the battery in reserve for approach
> to landing
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I don't get it. B&C says the standby alt can be configured with both the normal
or the standby regulator. Therefore I assume that this 30A alt is able to charge
a battery.
Flipping 1 switch I am able to shed loads immediately to 19amps (that's what the
e-bus typically consumes). Now I have approx. 11amps left depending on RPM -why
not use that power to charge the battery?
thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486716#486716
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
OK - this may be my first "contribution" to the discussion, based on
what I've learned here. Here goes:
Igor,
If I understand correctly, other than briefly after starting (when the
60-amp alternator would be handling the duties), the battery should
already be fully charged, and operating strictly as a "backup" to the
dual-alternator system. Thus, if the primary (60Amp) alternator were to
fail, the backup (30Amp) alternator would take over powering the
aircraft's electrical system. It is only if BOTH the primary (60Amp)
and backup (30Amp) alternators were to fail that the battery would begin
to be discharged.
If both alternators were to fail while the battery was still being
recharged, you'd likely still be on the ground taxiing, and I would
think that would constitute enough of an 'emergency' to scrub the
flight...
Bob, et al, how'd I do?
Jim Parker (Complete rookie at all things electrical, but hopefully
beginning to have a clue...)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator/shunt question
From: "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, January 04, 2019 5:34 pm
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 01:32 PM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Art, that's my concern.. I think that's not enough Volts to charge the battery..
> >
> >
>
> One does not CHARGE a battery with the standby
> alternator . . . you only support the bus
> at some level that prevents DISCHARGING
> the battery.
>
> The idea is to minimize loads to some
> level at or below what the standby
> alternator will deliver thus holding
> the battery in reserve for approach
> to landing
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I don't get it. B&C says the standby alt can be configured with both the
normal or the standby regulator. Therefore I assume that this 30A alt is
able to charge a battery.
Flipping 1 switch I am able to shed loads immediately to 19amps (that's
what the e-bus typically consumes). Now I have approx. 11amps left
depending on RPM -why not use that power to charge the battery?
thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486716#486716
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
If your primary alt failed in the first ten minutes of flight your battery
may not be fully charged. If this is true just return to the departure
airport. If the battery was fully charged before take off and the alt
failure was more than 10 to 15 minutes later your battery is fully
recharged anyway. Either way you do not need to charge the battery with the
secondary alt.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 15:39 supik
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> > At 01:32 PM 1/4/2019, you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Art, that's my concern.. I think that's not enough Volts to charge
> the battery..
> > >
> > >
> >
> > One does not CHARGE a battery with the standby
> > alternator . . . you only support the bus
> > at some level that prevents DISCHARGING
> > the battery.
> >
> > The idea is to minimize loads to some
> > level at or below what the standby
> > alternator will deliver thus holding
> > the battery in reserve for approach
> > to landing
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I don't get it. B&C says the standby alt can be configured with both the
> normal or the standby regulator. Therefore I assume that this 30A alt is
> able to charge a battery.
>
> Flipping 1 switch I am able to shed loads immediately to 19amps (that's
> what the e-bus typically consumes). Now I have approx. 11amps left
> depending on RPM -why not use that power to charge the battery?
>
> thanks,
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486716#486716
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.co wrote:
> OK - this may be my first "contribution" to the discussion, based on
> what I've learned here. Here goes:
>
> Igor,
>
> If I understand correctly, other than briefly after starting (when the
> 60-amp alternator would be handling the duties), the battery should
> already be fully charged, and operating strictly as a "backup" to the
> dual-alternator system. Thus, if the primary (60Amp) alternator were to
> fail, the backup (30Amp) alternator would take over powering the
> aircraft's electrical system. It is only if BOTH the primary (60Amp)
> and backup (30Amp) alternators were to fail that the battery would begin
> to be discharged.
>
> If both alternators were to fail while the battery was still being
> recharged, you'd likely still be on the ground taxiing, and I would
> think that would constitute enough of an 'emergency' to scrub the
> flight...
>
> Bob, et al, how'd I do?
>
> Jim Parker (Complete rookie at all things electrical, but hopefully
> beginning to have a clue...)
>
>
> ------
Jim,
That's exactly my idea. thanks!
Normal flight starts with a healthy battery and 2 alternators.
Main alternator fails: load shedding follows, Stby alternator takes over the reduced
load & keeps the battery charged. I land, refuel and continue home in Day
VFR with load shedded and battery maintained charged. I am not forced to replace
or repair the Main alt after my first landing.
In case the Stby alternator fails too (dual alt failure) -land ASAP (emergency)
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486719#486719
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.co wrote:
>> OK - this may be my first "contribution" to the discussion, based on
>> what I've learned here. Here goes:
>>
>> Igor,
>>
>> If I understand correctly, other than briefly after starting (when the
>> 60-amp alternator would be handling the duties), the battery should
>> already be fully charged, and operating strictly as a "backup" to the
>> dual-alternator system. Thus, if the primary (60Amp) alternator were to
>> fail, the backup (30Amp) alternator would take over powering the
>> aircraft's electrical system. It is only if BOTH the primary (60Amp)
>> and backup (30Amp) alternators were to fail that the battery would begin
>> to be discharged.
>>
>> If both alternators were to fail while the battery was still being
>> recharged, you'd likely still be on the ground taxiing, and I would
>> think that would constitute enough of an 'emergency' to scrub the
>> flight...
>>
>> Bob, et al, how'd I do?
>>
>> Jim Parker (Complete rookie at all things electrical, but hopefully
>> beginning to have a clue...)
>>
>>
>> ------
>
> Jim,
>
> That's exactly my idea. thanks!
>
> Normal flight starts with a healthy battery and 2 alternators.
>
> Main alternator fails: load shedding follows, Stby alternator takes over the
reduced load & keeps the battery charged. I land, refuel and continue home in
Day VFR with load shedded and battery maintained charged. I am not forced to replace
or repair the Main alt after my first landing.
>
> In case the Stby alternator fails too (dual alt failure) -land ASAP (emergency)
>
> --------
> Igor
>
>
I think one tripping point for some, is that the lower setpoint for the
standby alt is so that it will automatically come on line if the primary
fails. (The lower setpoint means that the standby regulator sees no need
to supply field current, since the system is already above its setpoint.
A byproduct is that when the system voltage drops to the standby
setpoint, the low voltage monitor will notify the pilot that he's now
running on 'backup' alternator power. If the standby had the same
setpoint, you'd never get a notification of the primary's failure. So,
you get multiple uses from one adjustment, instead of extra hardware.
Another tripping point is 'keeping the battery charged'. That's not
what's happening on a typical flight. We crank up (slight discharge),
then the alternator picks up all the a/c loads plus recharges the
battery. Once the battery is fully charged (fairly quickly for a healthy
battery and an uneventful start), the alternator isn't 'keeping the
battery charged'; it's just supplying the electrical loads of the a/c.
(Over the course of a typical flight, and for quite a while afterward,
the battery doesn't need to be kept charged. I've had normal starts from
a no-name generic SLA battery after it's been sitting in the plane for a
month or more.) So.... once you've been flying for 10-15 minutes, in all
probability your battery is fully charged. At any point in the flight
after that, you have a fully charged battery on board if the primary alt
fails. The standby then takes over at 13+ volts, running the a/c
appliances, which will operate just fine on 12V. Since you're operating
above the fully charged voltage level of the battery, it will not
discharge during the flight.
You always have the option to use the same regulator setpoints for both
alternators, and set up some other monitoring system to notify you
and/or switch to the backup. I'm running two identical alternators on my
alternative engine and will be doing just that.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
> If the standby had the same
> setpoint, you'd never get a notification of the primary's failure.
>
The Stby setpoint would be 14.1V (good enough for bat recharge and monitoring funciton
of the Stby alt comming online) and the Main alt's setpoint 14.7V. Does
that make sense?
[quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
> Another tripping point is 'keeping the battery charged'. That's not
> what's happening on a typical flight. We crank up (slight discharge),
> then the alternator picks up all the a/c loads plus recharges the
> battery. Once the battery is fully charged (fairly quickly for a healthy
> battery and an uneventful start), the alternator isn't 'keeping the
> battery charged'; it's just supplying the electrical loads of the a/c.
> (Over the course of a typical flight, and for quite a while afterward,
> the battery doesn't need to be kept charged.
>
That's correct, we are not talking about a typical flight. It's a 'get aircraft
home mode' in good weather and day conditions (sorry for repeating myself again).
The calculated typical e-bus draw is supposed to be at 19Amps.
With intermittent loads (engine start, flaps extension/retraction etc) the loads
will get above 30Amps for a short period of time where the battery's capacity
will take over. After the peak draw is over, the Stby alternator would be able
to recharge the battery again. This assures that I land with a fully charged
battery -good for another engine start.
Shall the Stby alt fail in flight (dual alt failure), this would leave me with
a fully charged battery for 'emergency land ASAP mode' anytime except shortly
after the battery took over to supply some peak draw, where I expect the peak
draws to happen during take off and landing, not so much during cruise..
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486721#486721
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
It seems that you want to do something that a standby system was never
meant to do. If you insist on being able to make multiple departures after
the primary alt quits, maybe you should use 2 60 amp alternators with
independant controls. a better plan would be to use tje secondary system as
dezigned and continue your flight as far as the fuel on board allows, land
and make repairs and then continue on. Irf your car breaks down do stop for
repairs or try to drive it home?
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 18:06 supik
> [quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> > If the standby had the same
> > setpoint, you'd never get a notification of the primary's failure.
> >
>
>
> The Stby setpoint would be 14.1V (good enough for bat recharge and
> monitoring funciton of the Stby alt comming online) and the Main alt's
> setpoint 14.7V. Does that make sense?
>
>
> [quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> > Another tripping point is 'keeping the battery charged'. That's not
> > what's happening on a typical flight. We crank up (slight discharge),
> > then the alternator picks up all the a/c loads plus recharges the
> > battery. Once the battery is fully charged (fairly quickly for a healthy
> > battery and an uneventful start), the alternator isn't 'keeping the
> > battery charged'; it's just supplying the electrical loads of the a/c.
> > (Over the course of a typical flight, and for quite a while afterward,
> > the battery doesn't need to be kept charged.
> >
>
>
> That's correct, we are not talking about a typical flight. It's a 'get
> aircraft home mode' in good weather and day conditions (sorry for repeating
> myself again). The calculated typical e-bus draw is supposed to be at
> 19Amps.
>
> With intermittent loads (engine start, flaps extension/retraction etc) the
> loads will get above 30Amps for a short period of time where the battery's
> capacity will take over. After the peak draw is over, the Stby alternator
> would be able to recharge the battery again. This assures that I land with
> a fully charged battery -good for another engine start.
>
> Shall the Stby alt fail in flight (dual alt failure), this would leave me
> with a fully charged battery for 'emergency land ASAP mode' anytime except
> shortly after the battery took over to supply some peak draw, where I
> expect the peak draws to happen during take off and landing, not so much
> during cruise..
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486721#486721
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/4/2019 8:00 PM, supik wrote:
>
> [quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
>>
>> If the standby had the same
>> setpoint, you'd never get a notification of the primary's failure.
>>
>
>
> The Stby setpoint would be 14.1V (good enough for bat recharge and monitoring
funciton of the Stby alt comming online) and the Main alt's setpoint 14.7V. Does
that make sense?
>
>
> [quote="ceengland7(at)gmail.com"]On 1/4/2019 6:39 PM, supik wrote:
>
>>
>> Another tripping point is 'keeping the battery charged'. That's not
>> what's happening on a typical flight. We crank up (slight discharge),
>> then the alternator picks up all the a/c loads plus recharges the
>> battery. Once the battery is fully charged (fairly quickly for a healthy
>> battery and an uneventful start), the alternator isn't 'keeping the
>> battery charged'; it's just supplying the electrical loads of the a/c.
>> (Over the course of a typical flight, and for quite a while afterward,
>> the battery doesn't need to be kept charged.
>>
>
> That's correct, we are not talking about a typical flight. It's a 'get aircraft
home mode' in good weather and day conditions (sorry for repeating myself again).
The calculated typical e-bus draw is supposed to be at 19Amps.
>
> With intermittent loads (engine start, flaps extension/retraction etc) the loads
will get above 30Amps for a short period of time where the battery's capacity
will take over. After the peak draw is over, the Stby alternator would be
able to recharge the battery again. This assures that I land with a fully charged
battery -good for another engine start.
>
> Shall the Stby alt fail in flight (dual alt failure), this would leave me with
a fully charged battery for 'emergency land ASAP mode' anytime except shortly
after the battery took over to supply some peak draw, where I expect the peak
draws to happen during take off and landing, not so much during cruise..
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --------
> Igor
>
>
Well, the designer is a pretty sharp dude. I suspect that if the system
operation would be stable at those settings, he'd have used them. I
suspect that you'll find that system voltage in an a/c isn't
particularly stable, and setting the margin that close will give lots of
'nuisance trips'. But this is experimental aviation; give it a shot &
let us know how it goes.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
donvansanten(at)gmail.com wrote:
> It seems that you want to do something that a standby system was never meant
to do. If you insist on being able to make multiple departures after the primary
alt quits, maybe you should use 2 60 amp alternators with independant controls.
a better plan would be to use tje secondary system as dezigned and continue
your flight as far as the fuel on board allows, land and make repairs and then
continue on. Irf your car breaks down do stop for repairs or try to drive
it home?
>
I understand, the system wasn't designed with my plan in mind. The question is:
Is it possible to apply my idea as requested or won't physics allow it?
When I look at the gear driven main B&C 462H (60amp) alternator -it is supposed
to deliver 41.3Amps at cruise RPM 2450. This is 11.3 Amps more than the 30Amps
Stby Alt. This would not leave me with 2 identical alternators either.
One can wait for a week or more before the replacement unit arrives in Europe.
We have a completely different network here. Further, you will hardly find a service
center willing to touch an experimental.
It is quite common in airlines that items get on MEL (minimum equipment list) if
they fail and the airplane can depart for another flight although limited by
weather or any other restriction. It doesn't mean that you are grounded as soon
as something fails, provided there is a backup system available and functional.
Not to compare to cars..
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486724#486724
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> :
>
> operation would be stable at those settings, he'd have used them. I
> suspect that you'll find that system voltage in an a/c isn't
> particularly stable, and setting the margin that close will give lots of
> 'nuisance trips'. But this is experimental aviation; give it a shot &
> let us know how it goes.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
That's a good point Charlie, it might trigger the Stby Alt (online) warning light
for example right after engine start, taxiing with all el. equipment on. The
same might happen in an aircraft with single battery and single alternator setup
when after engine start and on idle rpm a lot of el. equipment is turned
on.
Anything else to consider?
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486725#486725
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/4/2019 9:18 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> :
>>
>> operation would be stable at those settings, he'd have used them. I
>> suspect that you'll find that system voltage in an a/c isn't
>> particularly stable, and setting the margin that close will give lots of
>> 'nuisance trips'. But this is experimental aviation; give it a shot &
>> let us know how it goes.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> That's a good point Charlie, it might trigger the Stby Alt (online) warning light
for example right after engine start, taxiing with all el. equipment on.
The same might happen in an aircraft with single battery and single alternator
setup when after engine start and on idle rpm a lot of el. equipment is turned
on.
>
> Anything else to consider?
>
> --------
> Igor
>
With the exception of some of the really small alternators, like the
small Permanent Magnet 'dynamos', That doesn't happen. (Empirical
evidence, looking at virtually all planes flying (and cars driving) with
modern alternators.)
What I'm talking about is normal operation, as larger loads come & go in
the system, if the two setpoints are only .5V apart.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/4/2019 9:02 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> donvansanten(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> It seems that you want to do something that a standby system was never meant
to do. If you insist on being able to make multiple departures after the primary
alt quits, maybe you should use 2 60 amp alternators with independant controls.
a better plan would be to use tje secondary system as dezigned and continue
your flight as far as the fuel on board allows, land and make repairs and
then continue on. Irf your car breaks down do stop for repairs or try to drive
it home?
>>
>
> I understand, the system wasn't designed with my plan in mind. The question is:
Is it possible to apply my idea as requested or won't physics allow it?
>
> When I look at the gear driven main B&C 462H (60amp) alternator -it is supposed
to deliver 41.3Amps at cruise RPM 2450. This is 11.3 Amps more than the 30Amps
Stby Alt. This would not leave me with 2 identical alternators either.
>
> One can wait for a week or more before the replacement unit arrives in Europe.
We have a completely different network here. Further, you will hardly find a
service center willing to touch an experimental.
>
> It is quite common in airlines that items get on MEL (minimum equipment list)
if they fail and the airplane can depart for another flight although limited
by weather or any other restriction. It doesn't mean that you are grounded as
soon as something fails, provided there is a backup system available and functional.
Not to compare to cars..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
To address the supply chain delay issue, I'd suggest a consult with B&C
about whether their regulators are 'married' to their alternators. There
are *many* off-the-shelf automotive alternators that will fit on the
forward mount of a Lyc. And with proper hookup to an alternator made for
external regulation a regulator is just a regulator. So with the right
automotive part # in hand, you should be able to local source a
temporary replacement for the belt driven model.
To address the short term 'continue the mission' issue, I note that the
462H data sheet says that "may be used as either a Primary or a Standby
Alternator, depending on your electrical system configuration."
With that knowledge in hand, and care in the regulator mounting
locations and harness design, if you have a primary *alternator* failure
you'd have the option upon next landing to move the standby alternator
control to the primary regulator. Now the only failure that keeps you at
13.5V would be failure of the primary *regulator*. If it's that
important to have 100% dispatch, carry a spare regulator.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> On 1/4/2019 9:18 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > > :
> > >
> > > operation would be stable at those settings, he'd have used them. I
> > > suspect that you'll find that system voltage in an a/c isn't
> > > particularly stable, and setting the margin that close will give lots of
> > > 'nuisance trips'. But this is experimental aviation; give it a shot &
> > > let us know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > That's a good point Charlie, it might trigger the Stby Alt (online) warning
light for example right after engine start, taxiing with all el. equipment on.
The same might happen in an aircraft with single battery and single alternator
setup when after engine start and on idle rpm a lot of el. equipment is turned
on.
> >
> > Anything else to consider?
> >
> > --------
> > Igor
> >
> > With the exception of some of the really small alternators, like the
> >
>
> small Permanent Magnet 'dynamos', That doesn't happen. (Empirical
> evidence, looking at virtually all planes flying (and cars driving) with
> modern alternators.)
>
> What I'm talking about is normal operation, as larger loads come & go in
> the system, if the two setpoints are only .5V apart.
This might be indeed the limiting factor.. I'll check the battery's minimum charging
voltage with the manufacturer.
Thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486728#486728
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
14.7 volts is a little too much for continuous charging. You do not want to
damage the battery. Odyssey recommends 13.6 for continuous float charge.
There are hundreds of RV-12s flying whose Ducati regulators are set at 13.8
volts, enough to keep the battery charged. How about setting the main
regulator at 14.3 or 14.4 and set the standby regulator at 13.7 or 13.8 which
will keep the battery charged. And there will be enough voltage differential
spread to warn of low voltage if the main alternator fails.
> For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min
> 14.1V to recharge the battery -correct?
No, 13.8 is enough.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486729#486729
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> 14.7 volts is a little too much for continuous charging. You do not want to
> damage the battery. Odyssey recommends 13.6 for continuous float charge.
> There are hundreds of RV-12s flying whose Ducati regulators are set at 13.8
> volts, enough to keep the battery charged. How about setting the main
> regulator at 14.3 or 14.4 and set the standby regulator at 13.7 or 13.8 which
> will keep the battery charged. And there will be enough voltage differential
> spread to warn of low voltage if the main alternator fails.
>
> > For this setup I need the Aux Alternator to be able to charge at min
> > 14.1V to recharge the battery -correct?
> No, 13.8 is enough.
I am planing to go with the Concorde RG-25XC (12V, 24Ah)
Thanks for mentioning this, but still, 14.4 - 13.8 gives a 0.6V difference.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486730#486730
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
In one of the previous posts, Bob replies to OP:
'SB-1 is set too low. It only needs to be 0.7v or
so below your main alternator set point.
Bob . . .'
So 0.6V difference might actually work.. ??
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486731#486731
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
No alternator should be run at greater than 80% of its rating for any
length of time. So don't figure the backup at more than 24 amps. Even an
AGM battery will charge (perhaps slowly) at any voltage over 13 volts.
Almost all 14 V aircraft electrowhizzies will operate fine on 13V.
If you intend to limp home on the back up alternator, know what you need
electrically and assume you get only partial recharge of battery after
starter draw. I don't know how high adjustable regulators will let you
go, but there really isn't much reason to have the primary operate above
14.5, and you probably want the standby to be at something more like
13.5-13.8.
Not sure what the mission is calling for two alternators with one
battery. I've been flying 2.5 years in my RV-10 with one alternator, one
Odyssey 925L battery, and a backup battery on each of two EFIS. The
Odyssey is considerably cheaper than a Concorde or Gill, has very
comparable capacity and better cranking. Also fits in the battery tray
with room to spare. Of course if battery fails where only certified
aircraft batteries are available, the Concorde will bolt right in.
If you are trying to power two electronic ignitions, you may want to
think about 2 batteries.
Kelly
On 1/4/2019 8:02 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> donvansanten(at)gmail.com wrote:
>> It seems that you want to do something that a standby system was never meant
to do. If you insist on being able to make multiple departures after the primary
alt quits, maybe you should use 2 60 amp alternators with independant controls.
a better plan would be to use tje secondary system as dezigned and continue
your flight as far as the fuel on board allows, land and make repairs and
then continue on. Irf your car breaks down do stop for repairs or try to drive
it home?
>>
>
>
> I understand, the system wasn't designed with my plan in mind. The question is:
Is it possible to apply my idea as requested or won't physics allow it?
>
> When I look at the gear driven main B&C 462H (60amp) alternator -it is supposed
to deliver 41.3Amps at cruise RPM 2450. This is 11.3 Amps more than the 30Amps
Stby Alt. This would not leave me with 2 identical alternators either.
>
> One can wait for a week or more before the replacement unit arrives in Europe.
We have a completely different network here. Further, you will hardly find a
service center willing to touch an experimental.
>
> It is quite common in airlines that items get on MEL (minimum equipment list)
if they fail and the airplane can depart for another flight although limited
by weather or any other restriction. It doesn't mean that you are grounded as
soon as something fails, provided there is a backup system available and functional.
Not to compare to cars..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486724#486724
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
80 percent is a good rule of thumb for alternator output. But it is not written
in
stone. Operating temperature is the real deciding factor. If an alternator is
kept cool, it can be operated at 100 percent continuously. Manufactures' ratings
are most likely conservative (unless made in China). So alternators could even
put out more than 100 percent as long as they are kept cool.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486733#486733
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Kellym wrote:
> No alternator should be run at greater than 80% of its rating for any length
of time.
I will comply with that requirement. Typical draw on e-bus: 19Amps
Kellym wrote:
> Not sure what the mission is calling for two alternators with one battery.
IFR capability without the need to declare emergency if only 1 alternator fails
and continue to destination or conveniently divert to a better suitable (wx)
airport. Limited by fuel, not by battery capacity remaining. I wouldn't like to
perform a missed approach on battery only and cycle the flaps, lights, fuel
pump for another approach..
Planing for one mag & one electronic ign.
Kellym wrote:
> I don't know how high adjustable regulators will let you
> go, but there really isn't much reason to have the primary operate above
> 14.5, and you probably want the standby to be at something more like
> 13.5-13.8.
Thanks, I made a mistake by aiming the set points too high. I will aim for 14.4
for the Main and 13.8 for the Stby Alt.
Kellym wrote:
> Of course if battery fails where only certified
> aircraft batteries are available, the Concorde will bolt right in.
You are right, I would prefer Odyssey but the Concorde is available of the shelf
in Europe.
I was thinking about one more bkp battery, but with the dual Alternator setup I
shall be fine for the mission without adding additional weight and complexity.
Shall thinks go really bad, the bkp EFIS has its own battery.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486735#486735
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> 80 percent is a good rule of thumb for alternator output. But it is not written
in
> stone. Operating temperature is the real deciding factor. If an alternator
is
> kept cool, it can be operated at 100 percent continuously. Manufactures' ratings
> are most likely conservative (unless made in China). So alternators could even
> put out more than 100 percent as long as they are kept cool.
I think this is a figure (80) you have to comply with when calculating your load
analysis.. Its continuous operation should not exceed 80%, intermittent loads
might force it up to 100% for a short period of time.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486736#486736
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I don't know what EFIS you plan on. The Dynon backup batteries are
definitely less wt than a backup alternator. I don't know European
guidance for emergency on electrical failure. I don't want to be
continuing on battery only more than 30 min in IMC if possible. I don't
know I would want to continue much more if I had backup alternator. I
will probably revisit, at least as a mental exercise, what I would gain
from a standby alternator and the cost/benefit, as well as complexity to
add one. Given my home flight area usually allows VFR 360 days a year,
IFR capability is mostly for out-of-state trips. Mechanically it is
simple, although may require reconfiguration of oil filter adapter.
Kelly
On 1/5/2019 5:52 AM, supik wrote:
> Kellym wrote:
>> Not sure what the mission is calling for two alternators with one battery.
>
>
> IFR capability without the need to declare emergency if only 1 alternator fails
and continue to destination or conveniently divert to a better suitable (wx)
airport. Limited by fuel, not by battery capacity remaining. I wouldn't like
to perform a missed approach on battery only and cycle the flaps, lights, fuel
pump for another approach..
>
> Planing for one mag & one electronic ign.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator/shunt question
Cc: it
>No alternator should be run at greater than 80% of its rating for
>any length of time.
That is a legacy rule of thumb (a very sore one at that)
left over from the days when a full-up electrical
system was driven with a generator . . . perhaps
as small as 25A . . . and batteries offered
a small fraction of today's products.
The idea was that you didn't want to launch
into the blue with a partially discharged battery
with running loads that used all of the generator
output leaving the battery un-attended.
Later the rule was modified to suggest that
the engine driven power source be capable
of running all necessary loads while recharging
the battery in some time frame . . . I don't
recall the number.
At least this change called for doing
purposeful load analysis and testing
to meet the 'time' irrespective of
any 'percentage'.
>So don't figure the backup at more than 24 amps.
Hold that thought . . .
>Even an AGM battery will charge (perhaps slowly) at any
>voltage over 13 volts. Almost all 14 V aircraft electrowhizzies
>will operate fine on 13V.
They DO160 qualify down to 10.0 volts
Emacs!
>If you intend to limp home on the back up alternator, know what
>you need electrically and assume you get only partial
>recharge of battery after starter draw.
If you've lost primary alternator minutes
after departure, given the performance of
modern batteries the order of the day
is return home. There is almost no scenario
where one would be electrically deprived
of energy to do the task whether the
battery is being recharged or not . . . what
is the operational incentive for arriving
back home with a dead main alternator and
100% charge on the battery?
Starting an engine (200A x 12.5v x 10 sec)
takes something on the order of 25,000
Watt seconds, 7 Watt-hours or 0.5 Ampere-hours
of battery capacity. On some airports that
would be replaced before you launched.
Assume you used another 0.5 Ah fiddling
with stuff before engine start . . . what
risk is added to your flight by departing
with 90 to 95 percent of battery capacity
remaining and TWO alternators?
Of course if battery fails where only certified aircraft batteries
are available, the Concorde will bolt right in. If you are trying
to power two electronic ignitions, you may want to think about 2 batteries.
In my never humble opinion, anyone who suffers
battery failure away from home should be flogged
with his own headset cord.
EVERY away-from-home battery replacement is
foretold HOURS of operation before the
battery fails to crank an engine. If there's
an insidious down-side to dual alternators,
it has roots in the idea: "got two alternators,
I can run the battery until it craps
completely."
In the years of this List we've studied
'Dark-n-Stormy' night stories published in
the popular journals. The stories told
a great deal about the pilot's ignorance of
system condition and operations; very
little about emergency management.
I've often opined that the educated pilot
flying a MAINTAINED electrical system matched to
the mission has about 0.01% chance of suffering
an EMERGENCY with foundation in an electrical
failure.
Things break in airplanes all the time . . .
were it not so, FBO shops would be out of
business. The key to bullet-proofing yourself
and your airplane against bad days in the
cockpit starts with LOAD ANALYSIS with
scenarios divided up into the various flight
conditions, picking an architecture that
reduces FAILURE MODE EFFECTS ANALYSIS outcomes
to acceptable risks and finally MAINTAINING
the equipment to minimum performance standards
set by YOU.
No single failure of any electro-whizzy should
be cause for breaking a sweat in the cockpit.
Here's are exemplar load analysis in Excel
and paper forms that go to the same exercise . . .
https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn
Falling short on any of those points
only serves to make you more a passenger
and less a pilot-in-command of your aircraft.
This fellow had dual alternators, batteries out
the wazoo and STILL wound up being a passenger
in his own airplane:
https://tinyurl.com/yckwghyv
>>I understand, the system wasn't designed with my plan in mind. The
>>question is: Is it possible to apply my idea as requested or won't
>>physics allow it?
>>When I look at the gear driven main B&C 462H (60amp) alternator -it
>>is supposed to deliver 41.3Amps at cruise RPM 2450. This is 11.3
>>Amps more than the 30Amps Stby Alt. This would not leave me with 2
>>identical alternators either.
You can answer that question with due
diligence to planning and operations.
There are airplanes flying around out there
with a single 8A alternator on a vacuum
pump pad as the PRIMARY source of electrical
energy. Those airplanes operated within
LIMITS have probably never suffered an
electrical emergency.
>>One can wait for a week or more before the replacement unit arrives
>>in Europe. We have a completely different network here. Further,
>>you will hardly find a service center willing to touch an experimental.
A critical component of your design and
operations protocols. One of the columns
in your load analysis should include a study
of electrical demands for 'minimized' loads
with the largest alternator inop. No amount
of discussions here about rules-of-thumb
will replace the need for matching hardware
and operations to design goals. Unlike the
stuff rolling off the line at Textron, we are
NOT working with cookie-cutter airplanes and
textbook missions.
In your case, it is entirely practical to task
the 'standby alternator' with routine flight
duties. In this case, you have alternator #1 and
and alternator #2. Each is capable of operating
the aircraft within limits defined by a
considered load analysis. In this instance,
both controllers would be LR3C set for 14.2 Volts.
>>It is quite common in airlines that items get on MEL (minimum
>>equipment list) if they fail and the airplane can depart for
>>another flight although limited by weather or any other
>>restriction. It doesn't mean that you are grounded as soon as
>>something fails, provided there is a backup system available and
>>functional. Not to compare to cars..
Exactly. I've never owned an airplane.
I've always rented. Up-side: got a lot
of experience in various models. Down-side:
seldom if ever knew the finer details of
the ship's electrical/avionics systems.
Hence, my personal protocols for use of
these aircraft called for certain items
in the flight bag.
https://tinyurl.com/yc26xryh
I could always plan to get where I wanted
to go even if the panel was completely
dark . . .
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
Dont know if this has been covered before but an aircraft that needs those electrons
for an electronic fuel injection as well as an electronic ignition system
changes the backup storage or generation requirements considerably.
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 5, 2019, at 9:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I don't know what EFIS you plan on. The Dynon backup batteries are definitely
less wt than a backup alternator. I don't know European guidance for emergency
on electrical failure. I don't want to be continuing on battery only more than
30 min in IMC if possible. I don't know I would want to continue much more
if I had backup alternator. I will probably revisit, at least as a mental exercise,
what I would gain from a standby alternator and the cost/benefit, as well
as complexity to add one. Given my home flight area usually allows VFR 360
days a year, IFR capability is mostly for out-of-state trips. Mechanically it
is simple, although may require reconfiguration of oil filter adapter.
> Kelly
>
>> On 1/5/2019 5:52 AM, supik wrote:
>>
>> Kellym wrote:
>>> Not sure what the mission is calling for two alternators with one battery.
>> IFR capability without the need to declare emergency if only 1 alternator fails
and continue to destination or conveniently divert to a better suitable (wx)
airport. Limited by fuel, not by battery capacity remaining. I wouldn't like
to perform a missed approach on battery only and cycle the flaps, lights, fuel
pump for another approach..
>> Planing for one mag & one electronic ign.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
At 10:05 AM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>Don=99t know if this has been covered before but
>an aircraft that needs those electrons for an
>electronic fuel injection as well as an
>electronic ignition system changes the
>backup storage or generation requirements considerably.
Absolutely! That's what the load analysis
and FMEA are all about. Detailed discussions
about any one feature of the system will
be incomplete until that feature's duties,
limitations and effect on FMEA are thoroughly
understood.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Kellym wrote:
> I don't know what EFIS you plan on. The Dynon backup batteries are
> definitely less wt than a backup alternator. I don't know European
> guidance for emergency on electrical failure. I don't want to be
> continuing on battery only more than 30 min in IMC if possible. I don't
> know I would want to continue much more if I had backup alternator. I
> will probably revisit, at least as a mental exercise, what I would gain
> from a standby alternator and the cost/benefit, as well as complexity to
> add one. Given my home flight area usually allows VFR 360 days a year,
> IFR capability is mostly for out-of-state trips. Mechanically it is
> simple, although may require reconfiguration of oil filter adapter.
> Kelly
>
> On 1/5/2019 5:52 AM, supik wrote:
>
>
> > Kellym wrote:
> > > Not sure what the mission is calling for two alternators with one battery.
> >
> >
> > IFR capability without the need to declare emergency if only 1 alternator
fails and continue to destination or conveniently divert to a better suitable
(wx) airport. Limited by fuel, not by battery capacity remaining. I wouldn't like
to perform a missed approach on battery only and cycle the flaps, lights,
fuel pump for another approach..
> >
> > Planing for one mag & one electronic ign.
> >
> >
>
The plan with Main Alternator failure:
IMC or NIGHT: Shed loads (1 switch) Land at nearest suitable airport. Then continue
back home DAY only and VMC. The remaining configuration allows for a safe
VFR day flight.
VFR & DAY: Shed loads (1 switch) Continue to destination, divert or fly back home
with stopovers to refuel.
Europe's regulation is to be able to maintain ships critical items on battery for
a minimum of 30min. My load analysis gives me an estimate of around 50min on
battery only (calculated with 75% battery's capacity).
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486740#486740
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 10:05 AM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Dont know if this has been covered before but an aircraft that needs those
electrons for an electronic fuel injection as well as an electronic ignition
system changes the backup storage or generation requirements considerably.
>
> Absolutely! That's what the load analysis
> and FMEA are all about. Detailed discussions
> about any one feature of the system will
> be incomplete until that feature's duties,
> limitations and effect on FMEA are thoroughly
> understood.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
I haven't found any special backup storage or generation requirements if running
a combination of 1 Mag and 1 Electronic Ignition.
Maybe I miss something??
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486742#486742
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
>
>I haven't found any special backup storage or generation
>requirements if running a combination of 1 Mag and 1 Electronic Ignition.
>
>Maybe I miss something??
Are we talking one or two alernators?
How much power is required by the
electronic ignition?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Open Barrel Crimp Tools |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob, here is a pic of the crimp tool I used. As I dug the tool out to take a picture,
It dawned on me that I had used this on 14ga wires. The tool is not suitable
for that size wire. So, it seems reasonable/likely that the crimps were
not formed correctly. Bad crimp, high resistance, crispy wire...?
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486744#486744
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/crimp_tool_542.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't found any special backup storage or generation requirements if running
a combination of 1 Mag and 1 Electronic Ignition.
> >
> > Maybe I miss something??
>
> Are we talking one or two alernators?
> How much power is required by the
> electronic ignition?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Two alternators
Surefly Electronic Ign 1.2 Amps
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486745#486745
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Solder sleeve review... |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey Gang, here is a pic of a couple of splices I did with Ray-Chem solder sleeves.
I overlapped the two wire ends under the solder band and then used a heat
gun with reflector set at 650. Was wondering if I should have tinned the ends
prior to ensure better wetting of the strands. Open to comments and ideas.
These wires are the three phase wires of a 30A PMA going to a R/R connector.
In a previous post, I had some bad crimps and overheated some wires at the connector
shell. This is part of the repair process. I am mainly interested if
whether or not these are typically reasonable solder sleeve splices.
If not, any reason not to reheat the solder again? Crimp versus solder if I do
this again?
Appreciate all thoughts and insights. Dave...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486746#486746
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/solder_sleeve_288.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
At 01:37 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>Hey Gang, here is a pic of a couple of splices I did with Ray-Chem
>solder sleeves. I overlapped the two wire ends under the solder
>band and then used a heat gun with reflector set at 650. Was
>wondering if I should have tinned the ends prior to ensure better
>wetting of the strands. Open to comments and ideas. These wires
>are the three phase wires of a 30A PMA going to a R/R connector. In
>a previous post, I had some bad crimps and overheated some wires at
>the connector shell. This is part of the repair process. I am
>mainly interested if whether or not these are typically reasonable
>solder sleeve splices.
>If not, any reason not to reheat the solder again? Crimp versus
>solder if I do this again?
>
>Appreciate all thoughts and insights. Dave...
Sure doesn't hurt. Depending on the age
of your wire and the solder-sleeves, activity
of the flux in the sleeve may be marginal.
Your shrink-and seal looks good so tinning
the wires is a good thing to try.
If you look through a solder-sleeve catalog
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Terminals-and-Splices/Tyco-Raychem%20_SolderSleeves.pdf
you find a ton of part numbers differentiated
by the number and sizes of strands of wire being
poked into each end. The idea is that the solder-flux
ring needs to contain the optimum volume of flux and
solder to make up the joint.
When we by solder sleeves off eBay and mate up
with less than optimal wire, there is more risk
of not having enough solder than for having
too much.
Hence, your suggestion for pre-tinning is not
all that out of line. It's always a good idea
to make some practice joints with your proposed
materials thus reducing risks for the results
you've illustrated.
Emacs!
You might also consider making a fixture from a pair
of alligator clips. Mash a flat in the barrel end and
solder them together at approx 90 degree angle.
This tool will keep things lined up while you do the
shrink-magic thingy while avoidign the BBQ thingy on your fingers.
This published installation guide . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Terminals-and-Splices/Tyco-Raychem_SolderSleeves_Installation.pdf
. . . as you may have discovered,
is a bit simplistic. A little practice and some shade-tree
tooling will raise the quality of your joints markedly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
>
>Two alternators
>Surefly Electronic Ign 1.2 Amps
Okay. If your design goals for operations
with aux alternator only are gasping for
amps, consider turning off the electronic
ignition for alt-out ops.
The engine will run fine and improve your
energy head-room for continued flight. Should
your mag become recalcitrant too (exceedingly
unlikely) . . . the electronic ignition will
be ready to pick up the slack. I suggest that
a lower, non-charging bus voltage for main alternator
out ops makes a lot of sense. You want to
tap 100% of aux alternator capability before
you worry about the battery . . . which in
all likelihood contains a lot of snort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> > Two alternators
> > Surefly Electronic Ign 1.2 Amps
>
> Okay. If your design goals for operations
> with aux alternator only are gasping for
> amps, consider turning off the electronic
> ignition for alt-out ops.
>
> The engine will run fine and improve your
> energy head-room for continued flight. Should
> your mag become recalcitrant too (exceedingly
> unlikely) . . . the electronic ignition will
> be ready to pick up the slack. I suggest that
> a lower, non-charging bus voltage for main alternator
> out ops makes a lot of sense. You want to
> tap 100% of aux alternator capability before
> you worry about the battery . . . which in
> all likelihood contains a lot of snort.
>
>
> Bob . . .
As mentioned before, I expect to be at 19Amps with Main Alt out ops (load shed),
that calculation includes the electr ignition. With a 30Amps Stby Alt online
what sense would make it to turn off the electr. ignition?
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486749#486749
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
I have received the components and assembled the Stratux. Is the reason it uses
two separate antennas for the two ADS-B frequencies because the computer board
takes two USB receivers, one for each frequency. Some other integrated ADS-B
in receivers can utilize a single antenna which can be remote. Would that be
due to different circuitry inside the unit? It would be nice to get rid of
the rabbit ear antennas I the cockpit. Any help/comments appreciated. John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486750#486750
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/shunt question |
At 04:08 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Two alternators
> > > Surefly Electronic Ign 1.2 Amps
> >
> > Okay. If your design goals for operations
> > with aux alternator only are gasping for
> > amps, consider turning off the electronic
> > ignition for alt-out ops.
> >
> > The engine will run fine and improve your
> > energy head-room for continued flight. Should
> > your mag become recalcitrant too (exceedingly
> > unlikely) . . . the electronic ignition will
> > be ready to pick up the slack. I suggest that
> > a lower, non-charging bus voltage for main alternator
> > out ops makes a lot of sense. You want to
> > tap 100% of aux alternator capability before
> > you worry about the battery . . . which in
> > all likelihood contains a lot of snort.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>As mentioned before, I expect to be at 19Amps with Main Alt out ops
>(load shed), that calculation includes the electr ignition. With a
>30Amps Stby Alt online what sense would make it to turn off the
>electr. ignition?
if you're not gasping for amps . . . then
nothing . . .
If you've accomplished a righteous load analysis
then you're golden.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob! I did look at some NASA QC document with a few small pics regarding
solder sleeve splices.
but...the question remains in my mind. Maybe something more definitive. Should
I redo these splices or reheat? Can I do a resistance check and volt check
though each wire to ascertain quality of splice? I would like to do a check for
volts of each phase wire while running to see how close each phase is. I would
go from the back of the connector to aircraft ground, use a 30 volt AC range
on the meter. What I don't know is how much voltage to expect from each individual
phase wire on a 30A PMA. Any general rules of thumb?
As always, appreciate the help and enlightenment!! Dave..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486753#486753
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:21 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>=C2 =C2 =C2 -- Art Z.
>
>Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
nice one Art! That's a keeper.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
At 06:31 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob! I did look at some NASA QC document with a few small
>pics regarding solder sleeve splices.
>
>but...the question remains in my mind. Maybe something more
>definitive. Should I redo these splices or reheat? Can I do a
>resistance check and volt check though each wire to ascertain
>quality of splice? I would like to do a check for volts of each
>phase wire while running to see how close each phase is. I would go
>from the back of the connector to aircraft ground, use a 30 volt AC
>range on the meter. What I don't know is how much voltage to expect
>from each individual phase wire on a 30A PMA. Any general rules of thumb?
>
>As always, appreciate the help and enlightenment!! Dave..
There are probably no risks for failure
for the joints you have . . . unless they
are exceedingly small area under the heat
shrink. There's no way to 'test' these
joints with measurements. You could cut away
the heat shrink and save the existing
stripped ends by heating them with an
iron and wiping them off.
Do you have any more sleeves?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/5/2019 6:21 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
Now, explain it to my wife.
;-)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
One way to measure the resistance in a circuit is to connect a heavy load and
measure the voltage drop. An automotive headlight makes a good load. The
voltage drop depends on the wire diameter and length, but should be less than
1/2 volt. The theoretical voltage drop can be calculated using ohms law.
Measure the current and look up the wire resistance in a table.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486760#486760
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Is that supposed to be earth ground in the bag?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486761#486761
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas? |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
Yes, there are two different receivers in there, each with its own
antenna. You could use a tee to tie one antenna to both receivers I
guess. Personally I like that each receiver gets an antenna optimized
for its particular frequency. You can certainly remote mount the two
antennas. Open Flight Solutions sells a plastic holder with a suction
cup to hold them in a rear window, for instance. I've also seen some 3D
printed versions on, probably, thingiverse.
The Stratux is built on a Raspberry Pi single board computer and a
couple software defined radios. I'm pretty sure every other ADS-B
receiver has custom receiver and decoder circuitry inside it.
--Rick
On 1/5/2019 6:34 PM, farmrjohn wrote:
>
> I have received the components and assembled the Stratux. Is the reason it uses
two separate antennas for the two ADS-B frequencies because the computer board
takes two USB receivers, one for each frequency. Some other integrated ADS-B
in receivers can utilize a single antenna which can be remote. Would that
be due to different circuitry inside the unit? It would be nice to get rid of
the rabbit ear antennas I the cockpit. Any help/comments appreciated. John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486750#486750
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 |
Does anyone know if these two play well together?
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Alternator/shunt question
> Cc: it
>
> In your case, it is entirely practical to task
> the 'standby alternator' with routine flight
> duties. In this case, you have alternator #1 and
> and alternator #2. Each is capable of operating
> the aircraft within limits defined by a
> considered load analysis. In this instance,
> both controllers would be LR3C set for 14.2 Volts.
Bob,
What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure except for a preflight
check? As long as the remaining alternator is capable of handling the
actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486764#486764
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger Curtis <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
CiAgICAKCgoKLS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0tLQpGcm9tOiB1c2VyOTI1
MyA8ZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20+IApEYXRlOiAwMS8wNS8yMDE5ICAyMzowNCAgKEdNVC0wNTow
MCkgClRvOiBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIApTdWJqZWN0OiBBZXJvRWxl
Y3RyaWMtTGlzdDogUmU6IEZ1bm55IHBob3RvIAoKLS0+IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3Nh
Z2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAidXNlcjkyNTMiIDxmcmFuc2V3QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4KCklzIHRoYXQgc3Vw
cG9zZWQgdG8gYmUgZWFydGggZ3JvdW5kIGluIHRoZSBiYWc/CgotLS0tLS0tLQpKb2UgR29yZXMK
CgoKVGhhdCBpcyBob3cgeW91IGdldCB0byBncm91bmQgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHdoZW4geW91IGFyZSBh
dCAxMCwwMDAgZmVldCEKUm9nZXIKCgo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
>
>Bob,
>
>What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure
>except for a preflight check? As long as the remaining alternator is
>capable of handling the actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
It's pretty easy to get wound up with
worries about failures . . . especially
un-annunciated or hidden failures. Electro-
whizzies top the list . . . mostly due
to a general lack of understanding for
crafting a failure-tolerant system from
reasonably reliable parts.
Check out the chapter on system reliability
in the 'Connection. We almost never
concern ourselves with dual failures.
Your posting properly notes that once
airborne, you'd have no notice for
loss of the #2 alternator . . . which
is sitting there spinning away with
nothing to do.
Failure rates on equipment items must
certainly be in many hundreds if not
a few thousands of hours. Consider
two devices, say alternators, having
MTBF numbers on the order of 1000
hours.
To deduce such numbers, one has to
either test a bunch of alternators
for thousands of hours (time consuming
and expensive) or do an analysis
based on stress levels to critical
features and/or a statistical process
study of field history. One thing
we do know about automotive alternators
is that they tend to run a long time.
Then what is the likelihood that two
alternators with demonstrated service
histories will crap out on the same
airplane in a single 4-hour window
(one tank of fuel)? The answer is
vanishingly small if not zero.
If the #2 alternator does fail in
flight, you won't know about it until
next pre-flight . . . unless you add
#2 alternator testing to your shutdown
checklist.
The bid takeaway here is that the
probability for one alternator failure
is small, dual failures is practically
zero.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL |
82
At 11:36 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if these two play well together?
Transponder/DME/ADSB antennas are
generic devices and not specific
to the panel equipment they are paired
with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
At 09:52 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>One way to measure the resistance in a circuit is to connect a heavy load and
>measure the voltage drop. An automotive headlight makes a good load. The
>voltage drop depends on the wire diameter and length, but should be less than
>1/2 volt. The theoretical voltage drop can be calculated using ohms law.
>Measure the current and look up the wire resistance in a table.
But consider the 'fault' he is hoping to
detect. A 'poor' connection between the
two strands MIGHT have a very low cross
section but its LENGTH is near zero.
I'd venture to say that two joints in
identical wires, one with the desired
over-lap under the shrink and the other
simply tacked end-to-end on the strands
would be indistinguishable from each
other by external observation of
resistance.
I suspect his joints are electrically
adequate and with the mechanical support
of the solder-sleeve shrink, they'll
probably be just fine. However, one's
sense of craftsmanship may dictate
that they should be cut open, cleaned
up and corrected. It's easy to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I am using their UAT version for my Dynon ADS-B In receiver(uAvionics
dual freq), and their 1090 version for my Dynon ADS-B Out transponder
(Trig 1090ES). No problems. For the GDL-82 obviously you would want the
UAT version.
On 1/5/2019 10:36 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if these two play well together?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
Twin piston engined aircraft routinely have two alternators online simultaneously
and it is widely accepted that due to different set points on their respective
regulators that only one with carry a load when both are operational. It is
immaterial which.
Preflight procedures are to isolate each alternator in turn and verify that in
either case the remaining alternator carries the electrical load demanded of it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 05:05, supik wrote:
>
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Re: Alternator/shunt question
>> Cc: it
>>
>> In your case, it is entirely practical to task
>> the 'standby alternator' with routine flight
>> duties. In this case, you have alternator #1 and
>> and alternator #2. Each is capable of operating
>> the aircraft within limits defined by a
>> considered load analysis. In this instance,
>> both controllers would be LR3C set for 14.2 Volts.
>
>
> Bob,
>
> What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure except for a
preflight check? As long as the remaining alternator is capable of handling the
actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486764#486764
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder sleeve review... |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
> However, one's
> sense of craftsmanship may dictate
> that they should be cut open, cleaned
> up and corrected.
Kinda what I was thinking... [Embarassed] Thanks to all who replied.
I have a another "problem" to present to the group, just need to
figure out how to ask the question... :D
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486773#486773
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
At 09:38 AM 1/6/2019, you wrote:
>
>Twin piston engined aircraft routinely have two alternators online
>simultaneously and it is widely accepted that due to different set
>points on their respective regulators that only one with carry a
>load when both are operational. It is immaterial which.
This was a 'hard sell' for years after
alternators replaced generators. Generator
wear rates are related to ampere-hours of
service due to brush wear while alternator
wear is largely independent of electrical
demand in service. It was prudent to have
dual regulators 'talk' to each other to
balance the load between two generators.
Emacs!
Equalizer busses are still present on the
starter-generators of some production turbine
aircraft.
>Preflight procedures are to isolate each alternator in turn and
>verify that in either case the remaining alternator carries the
>electrical load demanded of it.
>
When alternators came along, there were
a number of 'paralleling' schemes implemented
with varying degrees of success. Some designers
more aware of the practical results for accurate
paralleling have adopted the run-em-both-and-let-
the-'good'-one-carry-the-loads approach.
The same idea was carried out with the B&C
standby alternator philosophy . . . leave both
on line but set the s/b alternator deliberately
low while adding an "alternator loaded" warning
feature to annunciate failure of the main
alternator.
This is illustrated in Figure Z-12. The
same philosophy could be incorporated in
Igor's RV by controlling the #2 alternator
with an SB-1 regulator . . . but I perceive
little value to be gained with the increase
in complexity.
It made a lot of sense to let us shoe-horn
the standby systems onto TC aircraft (the
FAA's professional worriers worried less).
Simply adding a second alternator with stock
LR-3 regulator offers the same reliability.
I proposed a paralleling system for the Cessna
303 waaayy back when. Demonstrated it and then
had to price it. Powers-that-be of the era
decided the advantages were not worth the cost.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for the tip on the remote mount. Now I'm also considering switching to
the remote gps antenna. That way the stratux could be mounted in the shade vs.
in direct sunlight even though it has a built in fan. John
rick(at)beebe.org wrote:
> Yes, there are two different receivers in there, each with its own antenna.
You could use a tee to tie one antenna to both receivers I guess.
Personally I like that each receiver gets an antenna optimized
for its particular frequency. You can certainly remote mount the two
antennas. Open Flight Solutions sells a plastic holder with a suction
cup to hold them in a rear window, for instance. I've also seen some
3D printed versions on, probably, thingiverse.
> The Stratux is built on a Raspberry Pi single board computer and a couple
software defined radios. I'm pretty sure every other ADS-B receiver
has custom receiver and decoder circuitry inside it.
>
> --Rick
>
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486774#486774
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL |
82
The Delta Pop transponder antenna should work fine if you already own one. I
f you still need to buy one they do have a UAT antenna tuned more precisely f
or 978mhz that would be perfect. They are close enough for the task that ei
ther will work.
Tim
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 8:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec
tric.com> wrote:
>
> At 11:36 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
.com>
>>
>> Does anyone know if these two play well together?
>
> Transponder/DME/ADSB antennas are
> generic devices and not specific
> to the panel equipment they are paired
> with.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
When utilizing LR-3 regulators for both alternators set at the same volts output
will they share the loads equally? 50:50? If yes, wouldn't you adjust regulator
#2 (30amp alt) slightly lower to prevent it from running at 100% if the loads
get high? Very unlikely that I will routinely get above 60amps, that's more
of a hypothetical question.
System monitoring & failure identification:
Would be monitoring the respective bus voltages & amp outputs from the respective
alternators adequate?
Main distribution bus fed from alt #1
E-bus fed from alt #2
Thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486783#486783
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
At 07:21 PM 1/6/2019, you wrote:
>
>When utilizing LR-3 regulators for both alternators set at the same
>volts output will they share the loads equally? 50:50?
No . . . not with reliability
> If yes, wouldn't you adjust regulator #2 (30amp alt) slightly
> lower to prevent it from running at 100% if the loads get high?
> Very unlikely that I will routinely get above 60amps, that's more
> of a hypothetical question.
Independently controlled alternators/generators
on the same bus will not accurately parallel.
>System monitoring & failure identification:
>
>Would be monitoring the respective bus voltages & amp outputs from
>the respective alternators adequate?
>
>Main distribution bus fed from alt #1
>E-bus fed from alt #2
Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
of each other.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
Is that type of ground common?
> wrote:
=C2-=C2-=C2- -- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
> of each other.
This is what I implemented on my RV-10. I did a very straight up Z-14
with 40 and 20 amp alternators. For the first 500 hours or so I've
flown with the 2 buses interconnected. Regulator voltage levels were
staggered but not on purpose. My usual operational procedure was to
start on 1 battery with my (3) power hungry, unswitched MFDs running on
the other battery. Bob helped me understand that this was exactly the
opposite of the way I should be running things.
After swapping out the light weight starter that came with the Van's
engine package (too high a momentary current draw turning over the
IO540), I began doing all starts with both batteries and buses
interconnected. Then I disconnect them for flight. I've run that way
for the last 600 hours.
Running on 2 separate batteries, alternators and buses makes most any
failure both readily apparent and easily recoverable in flight. At one
point I had a LRC3 fail but the Z-14 made it reasonable for me continue
my multi-leg trip, VFR-only, before returning to my home shop for repair.
The Z-14 is a very robust design and easy to implement in the RV-10.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
> On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >
> > Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
> > of each other.
> >
> >
>
> This is what I implemented on my RV-10. I did a very straight up Z-14
> with 40 and 20 amp alternators. For the first 500 hours or so I've
> flown with the 2 buses interconnected. Regulator voltage levels were
> staggered but not on purpose. My usual operational procedure was to
> start on 1 battery with my (3) power hungry, unswitched MFDs running on
> the other battery. Bob helped me understand that this was exactly the
> opposite of the way I should be running things.
>
> After swapping out the light weight starter that came with the Van's
> engine package (too high a momentary current draw turning over the
> IO540), I began doing all starts with both batteries and buses
> interconnected. Then I disconnect them for flight. I've run that way
> for the last 600 hours.
>
> Running on 2 separate batteries, alternators and buses makes most any
> failure both readily apparent and easily recoverable in flight. At one
> point I had a LRC3 fail but the Z-14 made it reasonable for me continue
> my multi-leg trip, VFR-only, before returning to my home shop for repair.
>
> The Z-14 is a very robust design and easy to implement in the RV-10.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
While I like the Z-14 architecture (it is very much similar to heavy iron logic)
-it requires 2 batteries. My design goal is 1 batt + 2 alternators.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486802#486802
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Taking a chance and posting my in-work Z-12 power architecture.
I'm trying to decide what behavior I want from my aux alt. Whether I want it to
remain automatic or be manually switched. Bob had previously suggested using
an additional LR3 regulator for an independently switched aux alt that was connected
directly to the e-bus. I'm wondering if I move the aux alt to the e-bus
can I continue to use the standby regulator provided in the B&C "Complete RV-10
bundle"? What affect will putting it behind the isolating diode from the main
bus have, if any?
Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486805#486805
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_pr_1_177.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
> On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >
> > Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
> > of each other.
> >
> >
>
> ... Regulator voltage levels were
> staggered but not on purpose. ..
Thanks for sharing this info, good to know that they don't like to be setup at
same set point if operating on a common bus.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486806#486806
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
"....When utilizing LR-3 regulators for both alternators set at the same
volts output will they share the loads equally? 50:50?....."
Paralleling/matching the regulators might work "one" time during the
set-up. But, environmental changes will make each reg. system respond
slightly differently. The point is, they will never stay in balance as you
would expect as a 50/50 balance. Then, there is the chance that the one,
low power, system will be handling all or most of the electrical load.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:17 AM Bill Watson wrote:
> On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
> > of each other.
>
> This is what I implemented on my RV-10. I did a very straight up Z-14
> with 40 and 20 amp alternators. For the first 500 hours or so I've
> flown with the 2 buses interconnected. Regulator voltage levels were
> staggered but not on purpose. My usual operational procedure was to
> start on 1 battery with my (3) power hungry, unswitched MFDs running on
> the other battery. Bob helped me understand that this was exactly the
> opposite of the way I should be running things.
>
> After swapping out the light weight starter that came with the Van's
> engine package (too high a momentary current draw turning over the
> IO540), I began doing all starts with both batteries and buses
> interconnected. Then I disconnect them for flight. I've run that way
> for the last 600 hours.
>
> Running on 2 separate batteries, alternators and buses makes most any
> failure both readily apparent and easily recoverable in flight. At one
> point I had a LRC3 fail but the Z-14 made it reasonable for me continue
> my multi-leg trip, VFR-only, before returning to my home shop for repair.
>
> The Z-14 is a very robust design and easy to implement in the RV-10.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
At 01:45 PM 1/7/2019, you wrote:
>
>Taking a chance and posting my in-work Z-12 power architecture.
>
>I'm trying to decide what behavior I want from my aux alt. Whether I
>want it to remain automatic or be manually switched. Bob had
>previously suggested using an additional LR3 regulator for an
>independently switched aux alt that was connected directly to the
>e-bus. I'm wondering if I move the aux alt to the e-bus can I
>continue to use the standby regulator provided in the B&C "Complete
>RV-10 bundle"? What affect will putting it behind the isolating
>diode from the main bus have, if any?
Why move it to the e-bus? Z-12 allows either alternator
to power the aircraft not unlike the FAA approved
installations in TC aircraft. Given that the standby
alternator is much more robust than the machines available
when the e-bus was combined with the SD-8 for a 'minimalist'
solution, there seems to be little value in putting an
egg-beater to architectures that have proven to meet
design goals for a couple decades now.
What failure is best mitigated by moving the altenrator
to the e-bus than by leaving it on the main bus?
You can use either regulator . . . it's just that the
SB1 running alone does not offer lv warning while
the LR3 does. If you already have an SB1, then
it wall suffice for the purpose of controlling
the standby alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 01:45 PM 1/7/2019, you wrote:
>
> Why move it to the e-bus?
Primarily because the BC410-H standby alternator won't provide the 43.88 amps I
need for IFR cruise for everything on the main bus. It seems reasonable to put
the power generator on the e-bus for my electrically dependent engine as it's
an easy way to isolate those critical components.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486811#486811
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
That sounds like a fairly high continuous load. If I am in conditions to
need pitot heat, all my avionics, nav lights, strobes and pitot heat
totals about 23-24 amps. Adding landing light, which is not considered a
continuous load only gets me up to 34 amps. That is with certified IFR
GPS/nav/com, second nav com, ADS-B in and out equipment, two 10"
EFIS/MFD screens, 2 axis autopilot, LED nav/strobe lights, 2
incandescent landing lights. My load total includes a couple amps for
charging the EFIS backup batteries. Old incandescent nav lights and tube
type strobes instead of LEDs wouldn't get me to 40 amps.
IF you are into a standby alternator, the second nav/com can be turned
off. The second EFIS screen could be turned off. Etc. A standby should
not have to carry more than your essential load, not a full night-time
IFR deice type of load.
On 1/7/2019 7:21 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> At 01:45 PM 1/7/2019, you wrote:
>>
>> Why move it to the e-bus?
>
>
> Primarily because the BC410-H standby alternator won't provide the 43.88 amps
I need for IFR cruise for everything on the main bus. It seems reasonable to
put the power generator on the e-bus for my electrically dependent engine as it's
an easy way to isolate those critical components.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486811#486811
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I'm not Dave, but one possible reason for the difference could be an
electronic injection engine. The fuel pump alone will be around 6A.
Another amp or two for ignition, and the injectors can peak at several
amps each. Those are likely minimum numbers.
Charlie
On 1/7/2019 8:35 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> That sounds like a fairly high continuous load. If I am in conditions
> to need pitot heat, all my avionics, nav lights, strobes and pitot
> heat totals about 23-24 amps. Adding landing light, which is not
> considered a continuous load only gets me up to 34 amps. That is with
> certified IFR GPS/nav/com, second nav com, ADS-B in and out equipment,
> two 10" EFIS/MFD screens, 2 axis autopilot, LED nav/strobe lights, 2
> incandescent landing lights. My load total includes a couple amps for
> charging the EFIS backup batteries. Old incandescent nav lights and
> tube type strobes instead of LEDs wouldn't get me to 40 amps.
> IF you are into a standby alternator, the second nav/com can be turned
> off. The second EFIS screen could be turned off. Etc. A standby should
> not have to carry more than your essential load, not a full night-time
> IFR deice type of load.
>
> On 1/7/2019 7:21 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>>> At 01:45 PM 1/7/2019, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Why move it to the e-bus?
>>
>>
>> Primarily because the BC410-H standby alternator won't provide the
>> 43.88 amps I need for IFR cruise for everything on the main bus. It
>> seems reasonable to put the power generator on the e-bus for my
>> electrically dependent engine as it's an easy way to isolate those
>> critical components.
>>
>>
>>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
I agree it is a high continuous load, nevertheless that's what's required. Albeit
with a little headroom on some things (lights, for example).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486814#486814
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/load_272.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | gps cables for stratus ESG |
| From: | "kjlpdx" <kevinlane55(at)gmail.com> |
I spoke with appareo tech support and received this reply. I haven't yet looked
into finding BNC connectors to make up a new cable.
Kevin,
I asked our design engineers for some input and here is what I got in response
from them:
looking at pasternack, RG400 has a cable loss of about 14.7dB per 100ft at 1GHz.
so if I pretend the loss is about 15dB per 100ft at 1575MHz. that is about
1.5dB. Is that what we spec for a minimum loss?
if so if you are to used RG178 which pasternack states it has a cable loss of about
44.41dB per 100 ft at 1GHz. So 3ft 4 in of cable will be more than 1.48dB
of loss.
I would stay away from connectors, they are extra points of failure and reflections.
Kevin,
I would bump the length of RG178 up just a little. Then manuals says 2 db loss
as a minimum and they figured it for 1.5 db loss which is probably still OK.
Greg
--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: Kevin Lane [kevinlane55(at)gmail.com]
Sent: 1/6/2019 11:48 PM
Subject: Stratus Products that I own
From: Kevin Lane
Subject: Stratus Products that I own
Name: Kevin Lane
Email: Phone:
Message Body:
I installed my ESG with 3' of RG400 gps antenna cable. I know you said 10' minimum,
but I don't want all that cable behind the panel. is there another solution?
I am getting 42db on several satellites. frankly I wonder if this is really
a problem with my VFR only airplane. would the prior RG58 cable work better?
would additional mechanical connectors reduce the signal a bit? I also spray
painted the antenna black with no change in sensitivity. I fly an RV. [experimental
class]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486816#486816
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 1/7/2019 3:01 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
>> On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>> Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
>>> of each other.
>>>
>>>
>> ... Regulator voltage levels were
>> staggered but not on purpose. ..
>
> Thanks for sharing this info, good to know that they don't like to be setup at
same set point if operating on a common bus.
>
I didn't mean to imply that at all. At one point I did get them
adjusted to the same voltage and ran that way for sometime while I was
still running interconnected 100% of the time - no problem what so
ever. It still happens that I'll run interconnected because I forget to
disconnect them after takeoff. The only liability in running
interconnected with both regulators set at roughly the same level is
that I may not immediately be aware of say a failing regulator or
alternator. Otherwise there seems to be zero impact.
Two related issues:
1) I mounted my regulators on the back of the firewall which can be a
very difficult place to access on the '10. I was unable to easily
adjust the voltage level on the regulator so I just let it stay
'staggered' until I came up with a customized screwdriver that permitted
adjustment.
2) You have to pay attention to where you tap the bus voltage for
measurement and display. Turned out that taking the voltage picked up
by my GRT EIS for one bus and taking the voltage picked up by my GRT
EFIS for the other bus did not produce comparable values. It took me
awhile to figure that one out.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
You may have already caught this, but the feed to the aux alternator field needs
to come from the endurance bus, or the alternator wont work while the main bus
is turned off.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486823#486823
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Tundra10 wrote:
> You may have already caught this, but the feed to the aux alternator field needs
to come from the endurance bus, or the alternator wont work while the main
bus is turned off.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Correct, but thanks for pointing that out.
Hopefully I've adequately articulated my need for a separate endurance bus with
its own power generating capabilities, given my electrically dependent engine.
If the standby alt is on the e-bus, then when the main alt goes offline the standby
will still be regulated by the battery voltage but would be unable to charge
it unless the e-bus alt feed was closed. Is it advantageous to leave the e-bus
alt feed closed for normal ops then? If that were the case would I want to
switch that relay to another contactor?
Also if I'm understanding correctly the recommendation is to run two LR3 units
instead of the LR3 on the main and SB1 on aux? Presumably I'd set the standby
LR3 voltage lower than the main and if the main goes offline the standby would
automatically come up and start powering the e-bus?
Just want to run through the functionality and make sure I'm understanding it correctly,
thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486826#486826
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | EarthX 900 cutting off during start sequence |
Folks,
The last few times i have gone out to fly, my EarthX 900 battery has cut completely
out during the starting sequence. Wait two minutes and it comes back for
another try. With a pre-heated engine and spun the prop by hand a couple of
times before the start sequence to make sure there is no hydraulic lock.
Fully charged and tests passed with the EarthX charger.
My first thoughts are not the battery's fault and I have sent EarthX a note with
questions. Next, I am thinking about loosening and re-tightening all of my
starter related electrical connections.
Less than 400 hours on the engine and starter - about 100 hours on the battery.
Thoughts please!
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Looking at B&C's offerings it seems they have a standby alt that will make 41.3
amps at my IO-540s cruise RPM, I don't recall seeing these on their site in the
recent past?
Anyway since it seems one of these would power my entire system I don't need a
separate endurance bus, that would be the preferred route.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486829#486829
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "Tundra10" <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
It is the choice of approach many of us struggle with (at least I do).
On one hand, there is the concept of a failed alternator triggering use of an endurance
bus, so you don't have to choose what equipment can be supported for
a pre-determined period of time on a battery with a known good state, or indefinitely
on a second alternator with smaller capacity.
On the other hand was the procedure we all learned initially training on a Cessna.
In the case of fire, turn off the master and land in a field. With an electrically
dependent engine we need a way to shut off everything except electronic
ignition, electronic fuel injection and fuel pumps with a single switch.
If you plan to routinely fly IFR, then most of everything ends up on the endurance
bus, leaving a landing light and a couple of other things on the main bus.
In case of fire, turning off the main contactor to run on the endurance bus
may not isolate the fault.
The minimum equipment to fly day VFR to the next point of intended landing is easy.
With an IFR equipped plane, the minimum equipment to do that will vary a
lot depending on the flight conditions at the time. To me, a low voltage warning
light is very important, since in that situation, you can selectively turn
off devices not needed at the time until the light goes out, indicating the
secondary alternator is capable of indefinitely carrying the selected load. Not
as easy as just flicking off the main contactor and going on the endurance
bus, but still simple enough that major troubleshooting is not required.
As far as automatic fail over to the second alternator goes, there is no rush.
The battery will not significantly discharge during the couple of minutes it
might take to notice the low voltage warning indicator and you manually activating
the endurance bus and the second alternator.
The evolution of my electrical architecture has gone from an elaborate setup, to
Z13 with way too much stuff on the endurance bus, to most of it back on the
main bus.
Once you choose your approach, the rest will fall into place more easily.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486830#486830
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Tundra10 wrote:
> It is the choice of approach many of us struggle with (at least I do).
>
> On one hand, there is the concept of a failed alternator triggering use of an
endurance bus, so you don't have to choose what equipment can be supported for
a pre-determined period of time on a battery with a known good state, or indefinitely
on a second alternator with smaller capacity.
>
> On the other hand was the procedure we all learned initially training on a Cessna.
In the case of fire, turn off the master and land in a field. With an
electrically dependent engine we need a way to shut off everything except electronic
ignition, electronic fuel injection and fuel pumps with a single switch.
>
> If you plan to routinely fly IFR, then most of everything ends up on the endurance
bus, leaving a landing light and a couple of other things on the main bus.
In case of fire, turning off the main contactor to run on the endurance bus
may not isolate the fault.
>
> The minimum equipment to fly day VFR to the next point of intended landing is
easy. With an IFR equipped plane, the minimum equipment to do that will vary
a lot depending on the flight conditions at the time. To me, a low voltage warning
light is very important, since in that situation, you can selectively turn
off devices not needed at the time until the light goes out, indicating the
secondary alternator is capable of indefinitely carrying the selected load.
Not as easy as just flicking off the main contactor and going on the endurance
bus, but still simple enough that major troubleshooting is not required.
>
> As far as automatic fail over to the second alternator goes, there is no rush.
The battery will not significantly discharge during the couple of minutes it
might take to notice the low voltage warning indicator and you manually activating
the endurance bus and the second alternator.
>
> The evolution of my electrical architecture has gone from an elaborate setup,
to Z13 with way too much stuff on the endurance bus, to most of it back on the
main bus.
>
> Once you choose your approach, the rest will fall into place more easily.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Yeah this basically sums up my process so far. I'm setting up for IFR and did find
I needed most things like you said.
A single bus, battery, and dual alternators seem like the simplest route that will
provide enough redundancy for my comfort.
The only thing I see now is the single battery contactor. I recall discussions
either here or on VAF about B&C alternators continuing to run should they lose
the battery connection, so it sounds like my panel wouldn't just go dark if that
were to happen (ignoring EFIS battery backups).
Would be prudent to provide a redundant battery path, perhaps two contactors in
parallel? I know you've all said contactor failures are rare, and that they also
corrode quite significantly with age.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486832#486832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> The only thing I see now is the single battery contactor. I recall discussions
either here or on VAF about B&C alternators continuing to run should they lose
the battery connection, so it sounds like my panel wouldn't just go dark if
that were to happen (ignoring EFIS battery backups).
This is true in case the alternator is feeding the very same bus from where it
is being operated.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486833#486833
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EarthX 900 cutting off during start sequence |
Ralph,
At what temperature are you attempting your first start.
It is my understanding that the LI-ion batteries, when very cold don't have
much oomph, however hitting the starter for a second or two warms them up,
internally,=C2- and they function normally. Perhaps this is what is happ
ening to you.
Rich
In a message dated 1/8/2019 11:03:09 AM Central Standard Time, recapen@eart
hlink.net writes:
k.net>
Folks,
The last few times i have gone out to fly, my EarthX 900 battery has cut co
mpletely out during the starting sequence.=C2- Wait two minutes and it co
mes back for another try.=C2- With a pre-heated engine and spun the prop
by hand a couple of times before the start sequence to make sure there is n
o hydraulic lock.
Fully charged and tests passed with the EarthX charger.
My first thoughts are not the battery's fault and I have sent EarthX a note
with questions.=C2- Next, I am thinking about loosening and re-tightenin
g all of my starter related electrical connections.
Less than 400 hours on the engine and starter - about 100 hours on the batt
ery.
Thoughts please!
Ralph Capen
- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Tundra10 wrote:
> It is the choice of approach many of us struggle with (at least I do).
>
> On one hand, there is the concept of a failed alternator triggering use of an
endurance bus, so you don't have to choose what equipment can be supported for
a pre-determined period of time on a battery with a known good state, or indefinitely
on a second alternator with smaller capacity.
>
> On the other hand was the procedure we all learned initially training on a Cessna.
In the case of fire, turn off the master and land in a field. With an
electrically dependent engine we need a way to shut off everything except electronic
ignition, electronic fuel injection and fuel pumps with a single switch.
>
> If you plan to routinely fly IFR, then most of everything ends up on the endurance
bus, leaving a landing light and a couple of other things on the main bus.
In case of fire, turning off the main contactor to run on the endurance bus
may not isolate the fault.
>
> The minimum equipment to fly day VFR to the next point of intended landing is
easy. With an IFR equipped plane, the minimum equipment to do that will vary
a lot depending on the flight conditions at the time. To me, a low voltage warning
light is very important, since in that situation, you can selectively turn
off devices not needed at the time until the light goes out, indicating the
secondary alternator is capable of indefinitely carrying the selected load.
Not as easy as just flicking off the main contactor and going on the endurance
bus, but still simple enough that major troubleshooting is not required.
>
> As far as automatic fail over to the second alternator goes, there is no rush.
The battery will not significantly discharge during the couple of minutes it
might take to notice the low voltage warning indicator and you manually activating
the endurance bus and the second alternator.
>
> The evolution of my electrical architecture has gone from an elaborate setup,
to Z13 with way too much stuff on the endurance bus, to most of it back on the
main bus.
>
> Once you choose your approach, the rest will fall into place more easily.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Very good point, I am just there, going through the same dilemma.. However at this
stage of my knowledge (might change in near future ;) I like the idea of the
e-bus as long as you are not going with Z-14.
- It helps with shedding loads immediately without loosing precious time especially
with a dual alternator failure or mismanagement (very unlikely but.. -it's
not always technical failure, human error is a known factor and maybe one day
these planes will be flown by people who did not design them, so have less systems
knowledge with a combination of bad day.)
- You can always continue with shedding/switching of remaining equipment on the
e-bus if needed.
- With my current design in case of electrical smoke I plan to isolate the equipment
as follows:
1 Verify E-Bus ON (plan to keep it always ON)
2 Master OFF
3 AVIONICS 1 OFF (fed from EBUS)
(this leaves me only with one PFD & backup EFIS + Garmin GAD29, GEA24, AHARS
NOTE: AVIONICS 2 is fed from MAIN PWR DISTRIBUTION BUS
IF smoke continues:
4 EBUS -OFF (only backup EFIS with own battery available)
In case of ALT 1 (main) failure, again quickly shed loads with MASTER OFF. Provided
the E-BUS is ON.
It really might be useful in demanding situations when your head is busy flying
IFR, talking to ATC, handling a non standard situation in bad wx at night :))))))))))
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486840#486840
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
> On 1/7/2019 3:01 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
> > > On 1/6/2019 8:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
> > >> of each other.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ... Regulator voltage levels were
> > > staggered but not on purpose. ..
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this info, good to know that they don't like to be setup
at same set point if operating on a common bus.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that at all. At one point I did get them
> >
>
> adjusted to the same voltage and ran that way for sometime while I was
> still running interconnected 100% of the time - no problem what so
> ever. It still happens that I'll run interconnected because I forget to
> disconnect them after takeoff. The only liability in running
> interconnected with both regulators set at roughly the same level is
> that I may not immediately be aware of say a failing regulator or
> alternator. Otherwise there seems to be zero impact.
>
> Two related issues:
>
> 1) I mounted my regulators on the back of the firewall which can be a
> very difficult place to access on the '10. I was unable to easily
> adjust the voltage level on the regulator so I just let it stay
> 'staggered' until I came up with a customized screwdriver that permitted
> adjustment.
>
> 2) You have to pay attention to where you tap the bus voltage for
> measurement and display. Turned out that taking the voltage picked up
> by my GRT EIS for one bus and taking the voltage picked up by my GRT
> EFIS for the other bus did not produce comparable values. It took me
> awhile to figure that one out.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Thanks for sharing your experience!
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486841#486841
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Yeah I'm still torn. Having a single bus leaves no ability to isolate components,
but like was mentioned continued IFR flight requires almost everything on the
e-bus anyway. A single bus also means my EFIS backup batteries are now only
used for brownout protection (I'm unsure if they can be manually told to use
their batteries instead of ship power).
Have to think on this a bit more.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486844#486844
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Personally if anything major goes wrong electrically and I am in IMC, I will look
for a good enroute alternate airport with best wx in the area and land. Airmanship
of course, if it's close to minimums below me and my original destination
has way better wx, then continue.
On the ground, I will have plenty of time to check the systems, perform repairs
if possible, wait for better wx and make further decisions. If the degraded system
allows for a safe VFR flight, one can continue home or to destination.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486846#486846
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EarthX 900 cutting off during start sequence |
EarthX did respond about colder temperatures but did not make a recommendation
as to warming the battery with this type of draw.
I run the fuel pump as part of the starting sequence - maybe I'll try more load
and then shut off the loads to crank.
Thanks for the responses.
-----Original Message-----
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Sent: Jan 8, 2019 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EarthX 900 cutting off during start sequence
Ralph,
At what temperature are you attempting your first start.
It is my understanding that the LI-ion batteries, when very cold don't have much
oomph, however hitting the starter for a second or two warms them up, internally,
and they function normally. Perhaps this is what is happening to you.
Rich
In a message dated 1/8/2019 11:03:09 AM Central Standard Time, recapen(at)earthlink.net
writes:
Folks,
The last few times i have gone out to fly, my EarthX 900 battery has cut completely
out during the starting sequence. Wait two minutes and it comes back for
another try. With a pre-heated engine and spun the prop by hand a couple of
times before the start sequence to make sure there is no hydraulic lock.
Fully charged and tests passed with the EarthX charger.
My first thoughts are not the battery's fault and I have sent EarthX a note with
questions. Next, I am thinking about loosening and re-tightening all of my
starter related electrical connections.
Less than 400 hours on the engine and starter - about 100 hours on the battery.
Thoughts please!
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/8/2019 5:20 PM, supik wrote:
>
> Personally if anything major goes wrong electrically and I am in IMC, I will
look for a good enroute alternate airport with best wx in the area and land. Airmanship
of course, if it's close to minimums below me and my original destination
has way better wx, then continue.
>
> On the ground, I will have plenty of time to check the systems, perform repairs
if possible, wait for better wx and make further decisions. If the degraded
system allows for a safe VFR flight, one can continue home or to destination.
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
As a FWIW, I tried to come as close as reasonably possible to
'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the master),
and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
Everything else is on the other (airframe) bus.
Dual identical alternators, one feeding each bus.
(Cross-tie switch to allow either bus to be powered by the other, in
case of control (switch or contactor) failure.)
Response to sustained smoke would be 'airframe master off, hunt for
ground', with the EFIS kept alive by its internal battery.
No claim that this is the best solution. Just that it at least
marginally mimics conventional operation and hopefully, will allow long
conditioned responses in a high stress situation.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 5:20 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Personally if anything major goes wrong electrically and I am in IMC, I will
look for a good enroute alternate airport with best wx in the area and land.
Airmanship of course, if it's close to minimums below me and my original destination
has way better wx, then continue.
> >
> > On the ground, I will have plenty of time to check the systems, perform repairs
if possible, wait for better wx and make further decisions. If the degraded
system allows for a safe VFR flight, one can continue home or to destination.
> >
> > --------
> > Igor
> >
> > RV10 in progress
> >
> > As a FWIW, I tried to come as close as reasonably possible to
> >
>
> 'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the master),
> and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
> 'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
> My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
> on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
> Everything else is on the other (airframe) bus.
> Dual identical alternators, one feeding each bus.
> (Cross-tie switch to allow either bus to be powered by the other, in
> case of control (switch or contactor) failure.)
>
> Response to sustained smoke would be 'airframe master off, hunt for
> ground', with the EFIS kept alive by its internal battery.
>
> No claim that this is the best solution. Just that it at least
> marginally mimics conventional operation and hopefully, will allow long
> conditioned responses in a high stress situation.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Good approach!
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486853#486853
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
> 'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the master),
> and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
> 'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
> My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
> on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
> Everything else is on the other (airframe) bus.
> Dual identical alternators, one feeding each bus.
> (Cross-tie switch to allow either bus to be powered by the other, in
> case of control (switch or contactor) failure.)
>
> Response to sustained smoke would be 'airframe master off, hunt for
> ground', with the EFIS kept alive by its internal battery.
>
> No claim that this is the best solution. Just that it at least
> marginally mimics conventional operation and hopefully, will allow long
> conditioned responses in a high stress situation.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I agree with the idea of emulating "conventional" operation.
My originally posted architecture might be nearly there, if I move non-engine stuff
to the main bus.
Smoke in cockpit, e-bus alt feed on, master off. Engine will run for 2+ hours in
that condition, and I can alternate between primary and backup EFISs for a nominal
2.5 hours of flight instrument time. Pitot heat reduces engine run time
to a little over an hour.
I don't have a lot of experience in hard IMC as I'm not instrument rated, but it
seems to me the scenario where I have a dual alternator failure and the pitot
is icing up I'd be in an emergency and on my way to a landing. Still noodling
if 1 hour is good enough for me here.
Only thing is I would be isolated from the outside world then, so maybe leave the
430 on the e-bus as well so I have a means to communicate but can still switch
it off.
Boy I'd sure love to just move a smaller aux alt to the e-bus...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486856#486856
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matthew Freeman <alaskamatt(at)hotmail.com> |
Matt
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 2:42 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server
wrote:
>
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 19-01-09&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 19-01-09&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed 01/09/19: 2
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 03:16 AM - Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question (supik)
> 2. 10:54 AM - Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question (BMC_Dave)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question
> From: "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com>
>
>
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 5:20 PM, supik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally if anything major goes wrong electrically and I am in IMC, I will
> look for a good enroute alternate airport with best wx in the area and land.
> Airmanship of course, if it's close to minimums below me and my original destination
> has way better wx, then continue.
>>>
>>> On the ground, I will have plenty of time to check the systems, perform repairs
> if possible, wait for better wx and make further decisions. If the degraded
> system allows for a safe VFR flight, one can continue home or to destination.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> RV10 in progress
>>>
>>> As a FWIW, I tried to come as close as reasonably possible to
>>>
>>
>> 'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the master),
>> and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
>> 'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
>> My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
>> on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
>> Everything else is on the other (airframe) bus.
>> Dual identical alternators, one feeding each bus.
>> (Cross-tie switch to allow either bus to be powered by the other, in
>> case of control (switch or contactor) failure.)
>>
>> Response to sustained smoke would be 'airframe master off, hunt for
>> ground', with the EFIS kept alive by its internal battery.
>>
>> No claim that this is the best solution. Just that it at least
>> marginally mimics conventional operation and hopefully, will allow long
>> conditioned responses in a high stress situation.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> Good approach!
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486853#486853
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question
> From: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>
>
>
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the master),
>> and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
>> 'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
>> My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
>> on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
>> Everything else is on the other (airframe) bus.
>> Dual identical alternators, one feeding each bus.
>> (Cross-tie switch to allow either bus to be powered by the other, in
>> case of control (switch or contactor) failure.)
>>
>> Response to sustained smoke would be 'airframe master off, hunt for
>> ground', with the EFIS kept alive by its internal battery.
>>
>> No claim that this is the best solution. Just that it at least
>> marginally mimics conventional operation and hopefully, will allow long
>> conditioned responses in a high stress situation.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> I agree with the idea of emulating "conventional" operation.
>
> My originally posted architecture might be nearly there, if I move non-engine
stuff
> to the main bus.
>
> Smoke in cockpit, e-bus alt feed on, master off. Engine will run for 2+ hours
in
> that condition, and I can alternate between primary and backup EFISs for a nominal
> 2.5 hours of flight instrument time. Pitot heat reduces engine run time
> to a little over an hour.
>
> I don't have a lot of experience in hard IMC as I'm not instrument rated, but
it
> seems to me the scenario where I have a dual alternator failure and the pitot
> is icing up I'd be in an emergency and on my way to a landing. Still noodling
> if 1 hour is good enough for me here.
>
> Only thing is I would be isolated from the outside world then, so maybe leave
the
> 430 on the e-bus as well so I have a means to communicate but can still switch
> it off.
>
> Boy I'd sure love to just move a smaller aux alt to the e-bus...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486856#486856
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 Aux Alt Question |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Charlie,
not sure about the details, but would it not be prudent to have half of
your engine power on each bus (if the engine has supported dual
ignition/injection etc.), when you try to detect what is wrong you would
still have half of your electrical dependent engine power on when
shutting down one bus?
As if something on your engine bus goes wrong you have only the choice
to shut it down .
Just a thought.
Cheers Werner
On 09.01.2019 03:17, Charlie England wrote:
>
>>
> As a FWIW, I tried to come as close as reasonably possible to
> 'conventional' operation: airframe power is on one switch (the
> master), and the engine on another. Sustained smoke in the cockpit in
> 'conventional' is master off NOW, & find the ground.
> My (not-yet-flying) electrically dependent alt engine has all it needs
> on its very own bus, controlled by its own switch.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of the pin su
pplied in the connector bag?
Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didn't go well. I now
have extra connectors with no pins.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What Capacitor Size? |
| From: | "James Meade" <jnmeade(at)southslope.net> |
I am installing an auxiliary 40A external alternator (with internal
voltage regulator) on a Rotax 912ULS engine. How do I determine the right
specs on the capacitor?
The Rotax wiring diagram calls for a capacitor but there is no schematic
or other source of information on the capacitor specs that I can find.
(This question is not about the existing 22,000 uf capacitor on the Rotax
internal permanent magnet 18A generator.)
How do I determine the desired characteristics of a capacitor in this kind
of application?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
You could use a piece of clipped off a paperclip if you could get it to st
ick.=C2- The problem is reliability.
Those pins are designed to "click" inside the connector, or be seal with a
silicone o-ring.=C2- Until moisture seeps in, just leaving the center wir
e sticking out will work just as well as the crimped pin.=C2- Getting the
connector to go together without bending the center wire and destroying th
e connection . . let's say I've done it, but don't really want to do it aga
in.
I'm pretty sure you can get just the pins fairly cheap.
h(at)dcscorp.com> wrote:
When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of the pin su
pplied in the connector bag?
=C2-
Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didn=99t go wel
l. I now have extra connectors with no pins.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Capacitor Size? |
You might want to ask the folks at rotax-owner.com forum. I think I read
there that the capacitor for the external alternator is a mistake and no
capacitor is required.
Sent from my Android. Sorry Steve.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 10:21 James Meade jnmeade(at)southslope.net>
>
> I am installing an auxiliary 40A external alternator (with internal
> voltage regulator) on a Rotax 912ULS engine. How do I determine the
> right
> specs on the capacitor?
>
> The Rotax wiring diagram calls for a capacitor but there is no schematic
> or other source of information on the capacitor specs that I can find.
>
> (This question is not about the existing 22,000 uf capacitor on the Rotax
> internal permanent magnet 18A generator.)
>
> How do I determine the desired characteristics of a capacitor in this
> kind
> of application?
>
> Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What Capacitor Size? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Any size capacitor will not do much good.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486870#486870
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
At 08:30 AM 1/10/2019, you wrote:
>When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of the
>pin supplied in the connector bag?
>
>Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didn't go
>well. I now have extra connectors with no pins.
the connectors are cheap.
https://tinyurl.com/yd4z7gta
throw the first one away and start over.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Capacitor Size? |
At 08:57 AM 1/10/2019, you wrote:
>
>
>I am installing an auxiliary 40A external alternator (with internal
>voltage regulator) on a Rotax 912ULS engine. How do I determine the right
>specs on the capacitor?
>
>The Rotax wiring diagram calls for a capacitor but there is no schematic
>or other source of information on the capacitor specs that I can find.
>
>(This question is not about the existing 22,000 uf capacitor on the Rotax
>internal permanent magnet 18A generator.)
>
>How do I determine the desired characteristics of a capacitor in this kind
>of application?
I have discovered with bench testing that
the legacy capacitor installed on the
majority of alternators serves no
useful purpose. You can leave it
out if you wish.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 1/10/2019 9:30 AM, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
> When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of the
> pin supplied in the connector bag?
>
> Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didnt go well.
> I now have extra connectors with no pins.
>
I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems to
have worked well.
With that said, I'm ordering some extra pins for my remaining orphan
plugs per Bob's post.
Question: What is one supposed to crimp those pins with? The D-sub crimper?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
There is, of course, a specialty crimper. The ratchet crimper I have has
small holes for crimping the pin and then a larger hole to crimp the
ferrule. Something like https://tinyurl.com/y7tv4jzl
--Rick
On 1/10/2019 12:42 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 9:30 AM, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>>
>> When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of the
>> pin supplied in the connector bag?
>>
>> Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didnt go well.
>> I now have extra connectors with no pins.
>>
> I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems to
> have worked well.
>
> With that said, I'm ordering some extra pins for my remaining orphan
> plugs per Bob's post.
>
> Question: What is one supposed to crimp those pins with? The D-sub
> crimper?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
At 11:42 AM 1/10/2019, you wrote:
>On 1/10/2019 9:30 AM, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>>When building a coax cable can I use a male D-sub pin instead of
>>the pin supplied in the connector bag?
>>
>>Tried to crimp those pins with a D-sub crimper and it didn't go
>>well. I now have extra connectors with no pins.
>
>I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems
>to have worked well.
>
>With that said, I'm ordering some extra pins for my remaining orphan
>plugs per Bob's post.
>
>Question: What is one supposed to crimp those pins with? The D-sub crimper?
The tool you crimped the hex-sleeve should
have a die for pins
Emacs!
See https://tinyurl.com/y7to3wnb
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
>
>I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems
>to have worked well.
NOT A GOOD IDEA. The pin retaining mechanism
for these two technologies could not be more
different. Further, the d-sub pin o.d. is
0.040" while the BNC pin o.d. is 0.052"
NOT a good match.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
| From: | Craig Schulze <craig(at)skybolt.net> |
Hi Bob,
Could you remove me from the email notification portion of the list?
Thank you,
Craig Schulze
From: <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of "Robert
L. Nuckolls, III"
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Building Coax
>
> I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems to have
> worked well.
NOT A GOOD IDEA. The pin retaining mechanism
for these two technologies could not be more
different. Further, the d-sub pin o.d. is
0.040" while the BNC pin o.d. is 0.052"
NOT a good match.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 01:19 PM 1/10/2019, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>Could you remove me from the email notification portion of the list?
>
>Thank you,
>Craig Schulze
You do it yourself at the same page
you used to sign up . . .
GOTO: https://tinyurl.com/rp8st
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Efraim Otero <efraim.otero(at)gmail.com> |
Wow, After reading and re reading Bob's book...This explains it... I=C2=B4l
have
to re wire and re weigh my biplane...Did look kinda "dirty"... one more
question... where can I get the bag? any tinyurl?? :)
El dom., 6 ene. 2019 a las 20:55, Ernest Christley ()
escribi=C3=B3:
> Is that type of ground common?
>
> wrote:
>
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building Coax |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 1/10/2019 2:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> I had a similar situation. I substituted a D-sub pin and it seems to
>> have worked well.
>
> NOT A GOOD IDEA. The pin retaining mechanism
> for these two technologies could not be more
> different. Further, the d-sub pin o.d. is
> 0.040" while the BNC pin o.d. is 0.052"
>
> NOT a good match.
I'll get that fixed! Thanks as always.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OFF-WHITE x Nike Air Max 90 Desert Ore is Available |
Now
| From: | "blair2019" <stevenrowe98(at)gmail.com> |
Nike Sport Sneakers (https://www.cadysneakers.com) has released the black and white Air Force 1 that has just been released in his personal Instagram Story, and notes that the cooperation between OFF-WHITE and Nike seems to be coming to an end. Overnight, in the fermentation of the news and the speculation of the fans, the prices of many shoes in the past have taken off in the resale market. Such a real reaction is not only reminiscent of "every pair of shoes that have been released since then, may be the joint end of the work." Recently, the OFF-WHITE x Nike Air Max 90 Desert Ore color scheme, which has been released many times, is finally coming to the market with great attention. The first pair of New Year's shoes in the Air Max 90 wheat color scheme is paired with this year's popular color "Coral Orange" and light blue. The iconic Swoosh Logo and the heel deconstruction, the upper and the tongue are made of nylon, and the rest are made of suede. In general, it is still a pair of shoes with the combination of OFF-WHITE x Nike. The upper foot effect will be very good and worth looking forward to. It is worth mentioning that this time, like the OFF-WHITE x Air Force 1, the children's shoes will be sold in the same period. The overall design is basically the same as the adult model, and the feeling of roundness is very cute. If you have a baby, you can prepare a pair in advance. If you don't have it, you can buy it as a small key chain. It is very delicate!
At the end of last year, Air Jordan 11 "Concord" returned to the game after seven years. It was absolutely shocking to the whole sneaker circle. In order to express a tribute to these shoes, all the stars also got on the Air Jordan 11 various PE color matching, Drake more I personally got a pair of ultimate goods! Since Drake and Jordan Brand have returned to last year, they have started to play a variety of PE color matching, which definitely makes a lot of sneaker players envious. Unlike the Air Jordan 11 Low Green Snake and Powder versions, the Air Jordan 11 Snakeskin (https://www.nikysport.com/product-category/air-jordan-11-sneakers/) uses OG high-top shoes. The iconic black patent leather is rendered in crepe leather, and the visual performance is more luxurious and elegant. From the specifications of light blue outsole and large patent leather, it is definitely the product born last year.
First exposed on Monday, the Air Jordan Retro 1 High OG Crimson Tint (https://www.sportjordans.com/index.php/product-category/air-jordan-1/) in front of this pair of ice cream is not a small concern, and today released a new physical picture! Pink theme Air Jordan 1 is quite rare in our impressions. The last time it appeared or was released on the yacht of the Basel Art Show in 2017, the dirty powder AJ1, due to the scarce quantity, has now exceeded the 20,000 yuan mark. This pair of shoes with black lychee skin with a refreshing nude powder, simple white background, and finally the same color of the pink outsole. Although it is OG's nine-hole shoe type, but the traditional retro temperament, the bright color of the creation, showing a bright and vibrant atmosphere, I believe that the eye-catching index will not be low!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486894#486894
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
This is a non-aviation question so please forgive my blatant request for info.
I have a solenoid rated as follows: 12VDC 29mA 4.0W (printed on the coil). I
don't have any more information about it.
I need to open it for a VERY short time (around 30ms), then let its spring close
it. If I just apply 12VDC for 30ms, it barely has time to open and I get inconsistent
results. So:
1) Being an inductor, it's opposing the change in current in the 1st place.
2) It barely overcomes that, and then the current goes away.
I'm thinking I can apply much more than 12V with a proportional increase in current,
since it's only for 30ms, but don't know how to figure out how much for
how long. I would very much appreciate someone giving me a non-differential equation
answer if there is one.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed
him for a lifetime.
Thanks so much.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486898#486898
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:19 AM 1/12/2019, you wrote:
>
>
>This is a non-aviation question so please forgive my blatant request for info.
>I have a solenoid rated as follows: 12VDC 29mA 4.0W (printed on
>the coil). I don't have any more information about it.
29mA? That's only 0.35 watts. Could it be 290mA?
What's the physical sized of this device. 4W dissipated
into a small mass gets pretty hot in a hurry.
>I need to open it for a VERY short time (around 30ms), then let its
>spring close it. If I just apply 12VDC for 30ms, it barely has time
>to open and I get inconsistent results. So:
>1) Being an inductor, it's opposing the change in current in the 1st place.
>2) It barely overcomes that, and then the current goes away.
Yup. How critical is the timing for being 'active'?
What are the tolerances on that 0.030 seconds?
You could build an adjustable pulse generator that
would be tailored to produce the pulse length needed
to achieve the 0.030 second activation requirement.
>I'm thinking I can apply much more than 12V with a proportional
>increase in current, since it's only for 30ms, but don't know how to
>figure out how much for how long. I would very much appreciate
>someone giving me a non-differential equation answer if there is one.
What voltages are available in your system.
Inductive time constant is t=L/R. One way
to get smaller T is increased R. We used
to speed up response time on stepper motors
with big resistors in winding leads . . . wastes
a lot of POWER but for our needs, response time
was critical, warming up the room not so much.
>Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish
>and you feed him for a lifetime.
There are also some constant current generator
circuits that might be more attractive . . .
but they still toss off a majority of the
power.
The adjustable pulse width generator might be
the first thing to try.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
The adjustable pulse width generator might be
the first thing to try.
See https://tinyurl.com/y92d76o4
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
When you say open and close, I assume that you are talking about a valve or
something, not the electrical circuit.
You wrote "but don't know how to figure out how much for how long". It seems
that you are able to vary the time. So instead of increasing the voltage, why
not just increase the time?
Are the current or watts correct? Looks like something is off by a factor of
10.
I calculate 69 volts.
E x E = 33.3 x 12 x 12
E = 69 volts
Hopefully someone will correct me if wrong.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486901#486901
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I should have posted 69 volts maximum for 30 milliseconds. The actual voltage
to get the desired results can be determined by trial and error.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486903#486903
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Bob,
> 29mA? That's only 0.35 watts. Could it be 290mA?
> What's the physical sized of this device. 4W dissipated
> into a small mass gets pretty hot in a hurry.
I noticed that as well. But that IS what's printed on the coil. FYI, it's about
1"x1"x0.75"
> How critical is the timing for being 'active'?
> What are the tolerances on that 0.030 seconds?
The timing is the only thing that IS critical. It's a project of my own design,
so I can vary just about anything.
> What voltages are available in your system.
> Inductive time constant is t=L/R. One way
> to get smaller T is increased R.
As I said, I can vary just about anything. But wouldn't adding a resistor in series
just further reduce current and exacerbate the problem?
> The adjustable pulse width generator might be
> the first thing to try.
Again, I can vary the drive to the solenoid any way I want, and can set the pulse
width to whatever I want. But what voltage/current would I use for the pulse?
TI makes a chip (DRV110) that does just what I want, but I suspect it's designed
for longer engage/hold times. My short t is what's screwing it up.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486904#486904
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
user9253,
I didn't understand your calculation.
I calculate 69 volts.
E x E = 33.3 x 12 x 12
E = 69 volts
Where does 33.3 come from?
If I use the 4W number:
V = P/I = 4/0.029 = 137V
But for how long? Obviously 137V through a 12V coil would let the magic smoke
out in very short order.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486905#486905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 1/12/2019 12:01 PM, tomcostanza wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>> 29mA? That's only 0.35 watts. Could it be 290mA?
>> What's the physical sized of this device. 4W dissipated
>> into a small mass gets pretty hot in a hurry.
>
> I noticed that as well. But that IS what's printed on the coil. FYI, it's about
1"x1"x0.75"
>
>
>> How critical is the timing for being 'active'?
>> What are the tolerances on that 0.030 seconds?
>
> The timing is the only thing that IS critical. It's a project of my own design,
so I can vary just about anything.
>
>
>> What voltages are available in your system.
>> Inductive time constant is t=L/R. One way
>> to get smaller T is increased R.
>
> As I said, I can vary just about anything. But wouldn't adding a resistor in
series just further reduce current and exacerbate the problem?
>
>
>> The adjustable pulse width generator might be
>> the first thing to try.
>
> Again, I can vary the drive to the solenoid any way I want, and can set the pulse
width to whatever I want. But what voltage/current would I use for the pulse?
>
> TI makes a chip (DRV110) that does just what I want, but I suspect it's designed
for longer engage/hold times. My short t is what's screwing it up.
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
Details would help a lot. Solenoid controlled valve, or relay? If relay,
what voltage, current, and AC or DC?
If it's a relay, replacing it with something solid state would simplify
your problem by quite a bit.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Some more data points:
I have several of these devices from 3 "manufacturers"
Vendor Written on device
Measured
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 12V 2.5W
22 ohms 440mA
2 12V 5W
35 ohms
320mA
3 12V 29mA 4.0W
35 ohms 320mA
So it seems Bob's question about "is it really 29ma" was exactly right. The coil
is sealed, so I can't even guess about the wire size.
I guess I don't have enough info to solve this mathematically, so I'll have to
do it empirically.
Thanks to all for their input.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486907#486907
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>I guess I don't have enough info to solve this mathematically, so
>I'll have to do it empirically.
Too many unknown variables. From the time it's energized
to the instant that full travel is realized has a lot of
variables only slightly related to the t=L/r rise.
Putting an adjustable pulse generator in the loop
will let you 'dial in' a pulse width that achieves
the desired effect.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that 1 full second is the maximum amount of
time to apply high voltage without damaging the coil. One second divided by 30
milliseconds equals 33.3
Watts = E squared / R
Power at high voltage for 33 milliseconds = power at 12 volts for 1 second
E squared / (33.3 x R) = 12 volts squared / R
The Rs cancel.
Thus E squared / 33 = 12 squared
E x E = 33.3 x 12 x 12
E = 69
Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but 69 volts will cause less smoke than 137 V.
:-)
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486912#486912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
Do you think trying to activate a coil for so short a period with a timed pu
lse is reliably repeatable over variations in temperature etc?
What if the supply voltage has variations?
Or the spring in the relay changes elasticity as it ages?
Hate to be a pooper but maybe an approach with solid state switching would b
e more reliable?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2019, at 16:53, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect
ric.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess I don't have enough info to solve this mathematically, so I'll ha
ve to do it empirically.
>
> Too many unknown variables. =46rom the time it's energized
> to the instant that full travel is realized has a lot of
> variables only slightly related to the t=L/r rise.
> Putting an adjustable pulse generator in the loop
> will let you 'dial in' a pulse width that achieves
> the desired effect.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 07:05 PM 1/12/2019, you wrote:
>Do you think trying to activate a coil for so short a period with a
>timed pulse is reliably repeatable over variations in temperature etc?
Your automobile's fuel injector
valves do it . . .
>What if the supply voltage has variations?
>
>Or the spring in the relay changes elasticity as it ages?
>
>Hate to be a pooper but maybe an approach with solid state switching
>would be more reliable?
Those are some of the variables I
cited. Fuel injected engines have
the advantage of being able to monitor
mixture in real time and adjust
pulse width and timing to maintain
design goals irrespective of a
constellation of intervening
variables.
Your concerns for maintaining
consistent solenoid behavior
'open loop' are valid.
But we don't know tolerance to which
the behavior is expected. It may be
that once the t=L/R factor is
accounted for, the rest of them
are operationally insignificant.
It may be that the 'desired behavior'
can be measured and used to close the
loop on a variable pulse width generator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
(I have posted this on VAF as well)
This is my preliminary diagram for my RV-10
Single battery, dual alternator setup. (60amp B&C + 30amp B&C)
Backup & Master switches ON during normal ops.
Both alternators will be ON during normal ops.
ALT-1 (60amp) regulator preset at 14.4V
ALT-2 (30amp) regulator preset at 13.8V
Both regulators are L3C-14
LV lights from regulators NOT utilized. Respective BUS voltages monitored by G3X
Touch.
-MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT) MAIN BUS
LV
-ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ESS BUS
LV
I hope this is possible to setup with the G3X Touch, expert opinion is welcomed.
Shall the ESS-BUS relay fail, ESS-BUS alternate feed is provided by a diode.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486919#486919
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/om_ela_basic_elec_diagram_v005_minor_txt_changes_144.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Igor,
What are you going to connect to your essential bus? Do you need it at all?
I started with a wiring scheme like you have and eliminated the ebus when I
realized that, in case of a primary alternator failure, I could simply turn
off the pitot heat and landing lights. That reduces the current draw below
30A.
-- Art Z.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 5:45 AM supik wrote:
>
> (I have posted this on VAF as well)
>
> This is my preliminary diagram for my RV-10
>
> Single battery, dual alternator setup. (60amp B&C + 30amp B&C)
> Backup & Master switches ON during normal ops.
>
> Both alternators will be ON during normal ops.
> ALT-1 (60amp) regulator preset at 14.4V
> ALT-2 (30amp) regulator preset at 13.8V
>
> Both regulators are L3C-14
> LV lights from regulators NOT utilized. Respective BUS voltages monitored
> by G3X Touch.
> -MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT)
> MAIN BUS LV
> -ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ESS
> BUS LV
> I hope this is possible to setup with the G3X Touch, expert opinion is
> welcomed.
>
> Shall the ESS-BUS relay fail, ESS-BUS alternate feed is provided by a
> diode.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Hard to judge without knowing anything about the electrical load besides
you plan one electronic ignition. What do you expect normal cruise VFR
load to be, normal IFR/IMC load, what you would shed if primary
alternator failed. Is your normal mission pleasure VFR without "need" to
keep a business schedule? Or you plan on business use that requires
keeping a tighter schedule, flying as much IFR as needed, within
airframe/equipment limits? Are you going with mechanical fuel injection
or electronic fuel injection with required high pressure electric pump?
What type of lighting with what current draw?
I would defer deciding on brand and model of EFIS until you are ready to
build the panel...new options come along every month. You likely will be
modifying your electrical diagram up to that point as well. The items
needed for install in the wing and fuselage are well defined. You will
need a master solenoid at the battery in the rear compartment, nav and
strobe lights and some form of landing light. All those can be wired
generically until you are really ready to do the instrument
panel/firewall wiring.
On 1/13/2019 4:29 AM, supik wrote:
>
> (I have posted this on VAF as well)
>
> This is my preliminary diagram for my RV-10
>
> Single battery, dual alternator setup. (60amp B&C + 30amp B&C)
> Backup & Master switches ON during normal ops.
>
> Both alternators will be ON during normal ops.
> ALT-1 (60amp) regulator preset at 14.4V
> ALT-2 (30amp) regulator preset at 13.8V
>
> Both regulators are L3C-14
> LV lights from regulators NOT utilized. Respective BUS voltages monitored by
G3X Touch.
> -MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT) MAIN
BUS LV
> -ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ESS BUS
LV
> I hope this is possible to setup with the G3X Touch, expert opinion is welcomed.
>
> Shall the ESS-BUS relay fail, ESS-BUS alternate feed is provided by a diode.
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486919#486919
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/om_ela_basic_elec_diagram_v005_minor_txt_changes_144.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
At 05:29 AM 1/13/2019, you wrote:
>
>(I have posted this on VAF as well)
>
>This is my preliminary diagram for my RV-10
>
>Single battery, dual alternator setup. (60amp B&C + 30amp B&C)
>Backup & Master switches ON during normal ops.
>
>Both alternators will be ON during normal ops.
E-bus alternate feed on or off? Why
run both alternators?
Driving the e-bus with an alternator
makes the alternate feed path into
an bus feeder with a potential
current burden equal to the alternator
output. The feeder needs to be beefed
up to 10AWG, the S704 relay replaced
with something more robust and you
need to reconsider sizes and placment
of feeder fuses.
Let's back up and review the value
for wiring other than what's shown
in Z-12?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
At 06:06 AM 1/13/2019, you wrote:
>Igor,
>
>What are you going to connect to your essential bus? Do you need it
>at all? I started with a wiring scheme like you have and eliminated
>the ebus when I realized that, in case of a primary alternator
>failure, I could simply turn off the pitot heat and landing lights.
>That reduces the current draw below 30A.
Exactly what happens in a TC aircraft
with the sb alternator option (z-12).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
art(at)zemon.name wrote:
> Igor,
>
>
> What are you going to connect to your essential bus? Do you need it at all? I
started with a wiring scheme like you have and eliminated the ebus when I realized
that, in case of a primary alternator failure, I could simply turn off the
pitot heat and landing lights. That reduces the current draw below 30A.
>
>
> -- Art Z.
>
>
Art, for IFR in Europe we have to carry dual Nav/Coms and DME. With schedding Pitot
heat and Land lights I would be still at 31amps with typical load only. The
ESS BUS shall give me a quick shedding option to run only the most necessary
equipment for completing the IFR flight safely and stay below 30amps.
+Redundancy if the main battery contactor fails.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486937#486937
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Hmm, do you plan on old partial tube type navcoms like the KX170, or are
you figuring power based on current draw for transmit, which is
intermittent? Even KX-155 generation navcoms are under 3 amps in receive
mode. 30 amps is a huge draw. Master relays failure rate is almost
infinitesimal, if you define failure as not activating, or dropping out.
Most common fault is developing high resistance, which is still
functional for flight if you get the engine started.
On 1/13/2019 12:57 PM, supik wrote:
>
>
> art(at)zemon.name wrote:
>> Igor,
>>
>>
>> What are you going to connect to your essential bus? Do you need it at all?
I started with a wiring scheme like you have and eliminated the ebus when I realized
that, in case of a primary alternator failure, I could simply turn off
the pitot heat and landing lights. That reduces the current draw below 30A.
>>
>>
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>>
>
>
> Art, for IFR in Europe we have to carry dual Nav/Coms and DME. With schedding
Pitot heat and Land lights I would be still at 31amps with typical load only.
The ESS BUS shall give me a quick shedding option to run only the most necessary
equipment for completing the IFR flight safely and stay below 30amps.
>
> +Redundancy if the main battery contactor fails.
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486937#486937
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> E-bus alternate feed on or off? Why
> run both alternators?
>
> Driving the e-bus with an alternator
> makes the alternate feed path into
> an bus feeder with a potential
> current burden equal to the alternator
> output. The feeder needs to be beefed
> up to 10AWG, the S704 relay replaced
> with something more robust and you
> need to reconsider sizes and placment
> of feeder fuses.
>
> Let's back up and review the value
> for wiring other than what's shown
> in Z-12?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
My load analysis tells me the main alternator (ALT-1) would be above 80% at standard
IFR ops with pitot heat ON. This is a little bit misleading as our rules
require to calculate with the equipment's max draw and 1radio in TX mode -stupid
but this is the local regulation. To comply with the regulation I have the
standby alt (ALT-2) always ON. In case the draw will max out ALT-1, ALT-2 is
supposed to take over.
E BUS is fed from both the diode & the relay (which is always on during normal
ops).
You are right, I was too fast without crosschecking the wire sizes & relay's max
amp. The battery will be a 24ah Concorde.
What would be the correct fuse placement & size for the EBUS relay/contactor feed?
Bob, thank you very much for sharing your diagrams & knowledge!
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486940#486940
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Kellym wrote:
> Hmm, do you plan on old partial tube type navcoms like the KX170, or are
> you figuring power based on current draw for transmit, which is
> intermittent? Even KX-155 generation navcoms are under 3 amps in receive
> mode. 30 amps is a huge draw. Master relays failure rate is almost
> infinitesimal, if you define failure as not activating, or dropping out.
> Most common fault is developing high resistance, which is still
> functional for flight if you get the engine started.
>
> On 1/13/2019 12:57 PM, supik wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > art(at)zemon.name wrote:
> > > Igor,
> > >
> > >
> > > What are you going to connect to your essential bus? Do you need it at all?
I started with a wiring scheme like you have and eliminated the ebus when I
realized that, in case of a primary alternator failure, I could simply turn off
the pitot heat and landing lights. That reduces the current draw below 30A.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Art Z.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Art, for IFR in Europe we have to carry dual Nav/Coms and DME. With schedding
Pitot heat and Land lights I would be still at 31amps with typical load only.
The ESS BUS shall give me a quick shedding option to run only the most necessary
equipment for completing the IFR flight safely and stay below 30amps.
> >
> > +Redundancy if the main battery contactor fails.
> >
> > --------
> > Igor
> >
> > RV10 in progress
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486937#486937
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
In real life, both radios in RX mode with ALL equipment ON I expect to be at 44Amps
total with a typical load and 19.9Amps on the E BUS. Intermittent load not
calculated.
As mentioned before, the local load analysis has to calculate with max draw and
1 radio in TX mode.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486941#486941
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Relay update, v.007
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486942#486942
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/om_ela_basic_elec_diagram_v007_relay_change_150.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
v.008 (E BUS updated wire size & protection) peak max draw incl. intermittent
draw is 33,7 Amps on the EBUS)
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486944#486944
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/om_ela_basic_elec_diagram_v008_e_bus_circuit_protection_125.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Igor,
Did you do your load analysis at maximum current draw or at typical current
draw? For instance, my VAL COM 2000 radio is 0.50 amps typical but 3.00
amps maximum (when transmitting). In the same vein, my pair of autopilot
servos draw 1.80 amps typical and 3.42 maximum. For my BD-4C, my typical
draw without pitot heat is 18.57 amps and max is 29.28 amps.
The Dynon heated pitot tube is 10.00 amps with the heat on. Add 2.00 amps
for USB devices and another 1.00 amp for something plugged into a 12V
convenience outlet and my typical load is still 31.57 amps, which is darned
close to what the B&C backup alternator can deliver at cruise RPM.
I don't know what all equipment you have in your RV-10 but you might be
overestimating your power requirements and nudging yourself toward an
overly complex electrical system.
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
art(at)zemon.name wrote:
> Igor,
>
>
> Did you do your load analysis at maximum current draw or at typical current draw?
For instance, my VAL COM 2000 radio is 0.50 amps typical but 3.00 amps maximum
(when transmitting). In the same vein, my pair of autopilot servos draw
1.80 amps typical and 3.42 maximum. For my BD-4C, my typical draw without pitot
heat is 18.57 amps and max is 29.28 amps.
>
>
> The Dynon heated pitot tube is 10.00 amps with the heat on. Add 2.00 amps for
USB devices and another 1.00 amp for something plugged into a 12V convenience
outlet and my typical load is still 31.57 amps, which is darned close to what
the B&C backup alternator can deliver at cruise RPM.
>
>
> I don't know what all equipment you have in your RV-10 but you might be overestimating
your power requirements and nudging yourself toward an overly complex
electrical system.
>
>
> -- Art Z.
>
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ (https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/)"Be kind, for
everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Art,
My TYPICAL TOTAL Draw incl. lights, pitot heat & usb.. is recalculated: 46Amps
(both Coms RX) -intermittent loads excluded.
If I turn off pitot heat and land lights, I'll end up with 32.3 TOTAL TYPICAL Draw.
With further avionics load shedding I can get below 30Amps of course. Would
you suggest that the E BUS architecture makes little sense?
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486947#486947
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
My Load Analysis attached:
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486948#486948
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/loadanalysis_om_ela_v23_lr3c_14_regulators_added_179.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I don't begin to understand some of the math you are doing on your
spreadsheet analysis, but I see several areas that I would consider
differently. Landing lights are not continuous for anything but perhaps
the last mile of landing. Cockpit LEDs are unlikely to be used during
flight more than intermittently. Your LED strobe values seem about
double what mine are.
Using your values I come up with about 24 amps for IFR flight. USB
charger is not needed during any alternator failure scenario..your
portable/backup GPS has an internal battery for that situation.
I would get rid of the rudder trim servo. It is not needed. Once you get
a fixed trim wedge sized for cruise flight, the force needed for climb
or descent is about the same or less than a Cessna 172. You may consider
a yaw damper, which will also deal with the slight rudder forces needed
in non-cruise condition. Putting even a relatively light weight of a
servo in the rudder will change its harmonic balance, which is
undesirable. There is a reason that Vans recommends a plastic or wood
wedge for cruise trim. I also don't use roll trim..just keeping your
fuel tanks switched at least once an hour is sufficient. Your roll servo
will handle any minor imbalances.
Unless you regularly fly in visible moisture, you won't use pitot heat
continuously.
In summary, I think your electrical needs are about 60% what your totals
show. Your battery will handle the intermittent loads.
On 1/13/2019 5:32 PM, supik wrote:
>
> My Load Analysis attached:
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486948#486948
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/loadanalysis_om_ela_v23_lr3c_14_regulators_added_179.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Igor,
You have certainly done your homework on the load analysis. A few things
stand out when I look at the IFR night cruise column, which is 56 amps.
You have the 12 amp pitot heat as a continuous load. I always used pitot
heat when the temp was 10C or colder and there was visible moisture. My
personal limitations call for pitot heat as a last resort. I am not
interested in continued flight into possible icing conditions an my
airplane. If I have the pitot heat on, it is temporary, either because I am
climbing to known clear air above the clouds or because I am landing.
I don't have my GTN650 (I will install that next fall) but I am very
surprised to see a combined load of 1.16 + 2.80 + 4.02 = 8 amps continuous.
That's a boatload of power! You've got two radio receivers and a small
display screen for continuous load. That 8 amp figure has me scratching my
head. My nav and com radios, combined, have a continuous load of just 1 amp.
The audio panel at 2.39 amps is another head scratcher. My PS Engineering
audio panel has a continuous load of 0.35 amps.
I also wonder about the continuous load for your display units. You list
them at 2 amps each. I have MGL displays which are 10.4 inches diagonally
and they only draw 1.20 continuous (each) and 2.25 max.
I don't know the Garmin product line at all so you may well be spot on with
your analysis. If you are, and you are willing to fly in conditions when
you need your pitot heat for a long time, then I applaud your planning.
You can see the load analysis for my plane on this page:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOP2gb9_3RQSU5qbVN1ckJNOUk/view?usp=sharing
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
This has come up before, but it's worthwhile to actually measure current
draw for each device. The mfgrs often are quite conservative (meaning
that they overstate) power demands for their devices. I've measured a
few of my devices, and some draw less than half what their data sheets say.
Charlie
On 1/13/2019 9:12 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Igor,
>
> You have certainly done your homework on the load analysis. A few
> things stand out when I look at the IFR night cruise column, which is
> 56 amps.
>
> You have the 12 amp pitot heat as a continuous load. I always used
> pitot heat when the temp was 10C or colder and there was visible
> moisture. My personal limitations call for pitot heat as a last
> resort. I am not interested in continued flight into possible icing
> conditions an my airplane. If I have the pitot heat on, it is
> temporary, either because I am climbing to known clear air above the
> clouds or because I am landing.
>
> I don't have my GTN650 (I will install that next fall) but I am very
> surprised to see a combined load of 1.16+ 2.80+ 4.02 = 8 amps
> continuous. That's a boatload of power! You've got two radio receivers
> and a small display screen for continuous load. That 8 amp figure has
> me scratching my head. My nav and com radios, combined, have a
> continuous load of just 1 amp.
>
> The audio panel at 2.39 amps is another head scratcher. My PS
> Engineering audio panel has a continuous load of 0.35 amps.
>
> I also wonder about the continuous load for your display units. You
> list them at 2 amps each. I have MGL displays which are 10.4 inches
> diagonally and they only draw 1.20 continuous (each) and 2.25 max.
>
> I don't know the Garmin product line at all so you may well be spot on
> with your analysis. If you are, and you are willing to fly in
> conditions when you need your pitot heat for a long time, then I
> applaud your planning.
>
> You can see the load analysis for my plane on this page:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOP2gb9_3RQSU5qbVN1ckJNOUk/view?usp=sharing
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The GTN 650 in receive mode is 3.5 amps. The screen and GPS receivers
are 3 amps and the com is .5. I agree the audio panel power is negligible.
I also agree with pitot heat rarely being needed continously, unless
someone is a lot bolder than I am. I don't know how the RV-10 wing and
tail perform in icing, and have no intention of finding out.
When I am doing training or maintenance that needs my panel on ground
power, a 10 amp charger struggles a bit to keep up, but 15 amps more
than covers the need.
On 1/13/2019 8:12 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Igor,
>
> You have certainly done your homework on the load analysis. A few things
> stand out when I look at the IFR night cruise column, which is 56 amps.
> I don't have my GTN650 (I will install that next fall) but I am very
> surprised to see a combined load of 1.16+ 2.80+ 4.02 = 8 amps
> continuous. That's a boatload of power!
>
> The audio panel at 2.39 amps is another head scratcher. My PS
> Engineering audio panel has a continuous load of 0.35 amps.
>
> I also wonder about the continuous load for your display units. You list
> them at 2 amps each. I have MGL displays which are 10.4 inches
> diagonally and they only draw 1.20 continuous (each) and 2.25 max.
>
> I don't know the Garmin product line at all so you may well be spot on
> with your analysis. If you are, and you are willing to fly in conditions
> when you need your pitot heat for a long time, then I applaud your planning.
>
> You can see the load analysis for my plane on this page:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOP2gb9_3RQSU5qbVN1ckJNOUk/view?usp=sharing
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Over Voltage Protection |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
I see that schematics for providing over voltage regulation on internally regulated alternators have been scrubbed: http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/DIY_Crowbar_OVP_F.pdf
Looks like the last rev was in 2005. Has there been any changes in thinking in
the last 14 years as to the use of internally regulated alternators? Is there
possibly an example of this safety features use on an IR alternator I can see
so I can at least have the information? Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486953#486953
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Over Voltage Protection |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
After finding Z-24 I wonder if leaving the ebus alt feed closed normally would
help with load dumps for in flight switching off of the alternator?
The easiest solution is to turn off the engine first when shutting down.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486954#486954
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
On 1/13/2019 10:12 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> I don't have my GTN650 (I will install that next fall) but I am very
> surprised to see a combined load of 1.16+ 2.80+ 4.02 = 8 amps
> continuous. That's a boatload of power! You've got two radio receivers
> and a small display screen for continuous load. That 8 amp figure has
> me scratching my head. My nav and com radios, combined, have a
> continuous load of just 1 amp.
That's the maximum draw at 14 volts. 2.8 on the main connector, 4.0 on
the com while transmitting, and 1.16 on the nav. "Typical" current draw
is 1.6, .45 and .60.
--Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Art and Igor,
as someone with about 700 hours of actual time in cloud I feel competent to
comment on pitot heat use. There is a reason the POH for any TC aircraft
meant to be operated in IFR conditions will have pitot heat on before
takeoff. There is a reason many aircraft will give you a warning if they
get airborne with the pitot heat off. The problem with turning on pitot
heat once you need it is that your first indication of that need may be the
loss of all speed indications. While this should not necessarily be fatal
for a current and competent pilot, it has proved fatal many times,
especially on departure. If you are flying IFR or at night, turn the pitot
heat on before takeoff and leave it on until after landing.
I regularly fly IFR in AB and TC aircraft with 1 alternator and 1 battery
so as others have stated, I find the design goal of a second alternator
that can carry all loads indefinitely to be not useful but no matter what
the goal, including continuous use of pitot heat for an IFR aircraft is a
must in my books and any aircraft manufacturer's books I have ever seen.
Regards,
Sebastien
On Jan 13, 2019 7:18 PM, "Art Zemon" wrote:
Igor,
You have certainly done your homework on the load analysis. A few things
stand out when I look at the IFR night cruise column, which is 56 amps.
You have the 12 amp pitot heat as a continuous load. I always used pitot
heat when the temp was 10C or colder and there was visible moisture. My
personal limitations call for pitot heat as a last resort. I am not
interested in continued flight into possible icing conditions an my
airplane. If I have the pitot heat on, it is temporary, either because I am
climbing to known clear air above the clouds or because I am landing.
I don't have my GTN650 (I will install that next fall) but I am very
surprised to see a combined load of 1.16 + 2.80 + 4.02 = 8 amps continuous.
That's a boatload of power! You've got two radio receivers and a small
display screen for continuous load. That 8 amp figure has me scratching my
head. My nav and com radios, combined, have a continuous load of just 1 amp.
The audio panel at 2.39 amps is another head scratcher. My PS Engineering
audio panel has a continuous load of 0.35 amps.
I also wonder about the continuous load for your display units. You list
them at 2 amps each. I have MGL displays which are 10.4 inches diagonally
and they only draw 1.20 continuous (each) and 2.25 max.
I don't know the Garmin product line at all so you may well be spot on with
your analysis. If you are, and you are willing to fly in conditions when
you need your pitot heat for a long time, then I applaud your planning.
You can see the load analysis for my plane on this page:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOP2gb9_3RQSU5qbVN1ckJNOUk/view?usp=sharing
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Sebatien,
I agree with everything that you wrote. My apologies if anything that I
wrote was confusing. I did not mean to imply that I would not turn on the
pitot heat until I was in the conditions requiring it. I would turn it on
well before entering those conditions, just as you suggested when you wrote
about turning it on before takeoff.
For me, flying airplanes which are not certified for flight into known
icing conditions, I am simply not willing to fly in a situation that
requires pitot heat for an extended period of time. I don't like to fly an
approach and landing through such conditions. The chance of ice is small
but... I will only launch into such conditions if I know that I can climb
out the top VERY quickly.
I misjudged the "climb out on top VERY quickly" once and scared myself. I
NEVER want to do that again. You can read about it in a NASA ASRS Callback,
my moment of anonymous fame. (Email me off-list if you want to know more)
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I don't disagree with the sentiment for pitot heat. However, I will note
that many TC aircraft didn't get heated pitot until well after 1960. I
flew without pitot heat in and out of clouds quite a bit. I was
fortunate to be in geographic area with low humidity and virtually all
icing was slow to accumulate rime, which did not seem to block the old
standard 1/8" copper tube pitot. Today, the non-certified heated pitots
are certainly cheap enough that they should be employed as a defensive
measure even if one intends to avoid all flight in cloud.
On 1/14/2019 6:09 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Sebatien,
>
> I agree with everything that you wrote. My apologies if anything that I
> wrote was confusing. I did not mean to imply that I would not turn on
> the pitot heat until I was in the conditions requiring it. I would turn
> it on well before entering those conditions, just as you suggested when
> you wrote about turning it on before takeoff.
>
> For me, flying airplanes which are not certified for flight into known
> icing conditions, I am simply not willing to fly in a situation that
> requires pitot heat for an extended period of time. I don't like to fly
> an approach and landing through such conditions. The chance of ice is
> small but... I will only launch into such conditions if I know that I
> can climb out the top VERY quickly.
>
> I misjudged the "climb out on top VERY quickly" once and scared myself.
> I NEVER want to do that again. You can read about it in a NASA ASRS
> Callback, my moment of anonymous fame. (Email me off-list if you want to
> know more)
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the MAX DRAW
columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I hope, it's
more clear now.
The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR flight
and will be ON.
Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay with a
continuos duty type relay.
Have you found any other hotspots?
Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup the warnings
in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
OK, you may need to have an analysis for your regulators with everything
at max draw, but for wire sizing, alternator sizing, etc. it makes zero
sense. For instance, it is very unlikely, if not impossible to be
transmitting on both com units at the same time. Many of the items the
max draw is only during boot up cycle. You most certainly will not be
flying at night with your dome light on. Your nav and strobe lights will
be at minimum after start up, not at max.
I'd suggest you follow US convention for load analysis to get
appropriate alternator and wire sizing...looking at normal continuous
operating current for each item, not its transient max draw. It will put
your normal load at about 1/2 the numbers you are looking at. The rule
of thumb 80% of capacity number, for instance is based on continuous
operating load, not max potential current.
Are you really going to fly much night time IFR? I did it when I was
younger, but it would be extremely rare now that I don't "need" to get
somewhere enough to do that. Obviously your regs are stricter than the US.
On 1/14/2019 7:05 AM, supik wrote:
>
> I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the MAX
DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I hope, it's
more clear now.
>
> The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
>
> The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR flight
and will be ON.
>
> Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay with
a continuos duty type relay.
>
> Have you found any other hotspots?
>
> Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup the warnings
in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Igor
You didnt send the updated load analysis.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 14/01/2019, s 14:05, supik escreveu:
>
> I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the MAX
DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I hope, it's
more clear now.
>
> The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
>
> The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR flight
and will be ON.
>
> Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay with
a continuos duty type relay.
>
> Have you found any other hotspots?
>
> Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup the warnings
in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
As for the G3X touch voltage warnings, I couldnt find your OP. Which voltages are
you monitoring, and where?
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 14/01/2019, s 14:05, supik escreveu:
>
> I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the MAX
DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I hope, it's
more clear now.
>
> The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
>
> The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR flight
and will be ON.
>
> Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay with
a continuos duty type relay.
>
> Have you found any other hotspots?
>
> Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup the warnings
in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt wrote:
> Igor
>
> You didnt send the updated load analysis.
>
> Carlos
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
>
> No dia 14/01/2019, s 14:05, supik escreveu:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the MAX
DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I hope,
it's more clear now.
> >
> > The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
> >
> > The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR flight
and will be ON.
> >
> > Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay with
a continuos duty type relay.
> >
> > Have you found any other hotspots?
> >
> > Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup the
warnings in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
> >
> > --------
> > Igor
> >
> > RV10 in progress
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Carlos, Load A. attached here and in my original post:
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486965#486965
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/loadanalysis_om_ela_vpb01_987.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt wrote:
> As for the G3X touch voltage warnings, I couldnt find your OP. Which voltages
are you monitoring, and where?
>
> Carlos
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
>
Snip from my original post:
Respective BUS voltages monitored by G3X Touch.
-MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT) MAIN BUS
LV
-ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ESS BUS
LV
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486966#486966
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Igor section 18 of the G3X installation manual has all the information for
configuring your EIS. While the G3X does support display of 2 different
voltage sources, it will combine them on one gauge. This means that your
Master Caution alarm and Master Warning alarm thresholds will have to be
appropriate to both voltages. I recommend you do not set any Master
Warning, and set your Master Caution alarm to ~13.7 V. If either bus falls
below this level, you get a warning and can plan accordingly while your
battery is still fully charged.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:11 AM supik wrote:
>
> I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the
> MAX DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I
> hope, it's more clear now.
>
> The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
>
> The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR
> flight and will be ON.
>
> Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay
> with a continuos duty type relay.
>
> Have you found any other hotspots?
>
> Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup
> the warnings in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
My G3X install manual is out of date. It's possible the 2 voltages can be
split to 2 different gauges. Check section 18 of your install manual and if
possible try it out on an existing installation with 2 voltage inputs. You
may be able to set the warnings up as desired.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:35 AM Sebastien wrote:
> Igor section 18 of the G3X installation manual has all the information for
> configuring your EIS. While the G3X does support display of 2 different
> voltage sources, it will combine them on one gauge. This means that your
> Master Caution alarm and Master Warning alarm thresholds will have to be
> appropriate to both voltages. I recommend you do not set any Master
> Warning, and set your Master Caution alarm to ~13.7 V. If either bus falls
> below this level, you get a warning and can plan accordingly while your
> battery is still fully charged.
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:11 AM supik wrote:
>
>>
>> I have updated the Load Analysis to reduce confusion. I have removed the
>> MAX DRAW columns (required only for the local European Load Analysis). I
>> hope, it's more clear now.
>>
>> The updated analysis will be posted soon in my original post.
>>
>> The euipment outlined in the Load Analysis is required for the night IFR
>> flight and will be ON.
>>
>> Let's focus on the el. diagram. I am going to replace the ESS-BUS relay
>> with a continuos duty type relay.
>>
>> Have you found any other hotspots?
>>
>> Is there any G3X Touch expert who can tell me if it's possible to setup
>> the warnings in the G3X Touch for the Voltage as described in my OP?
>>
>> --------
>> Igor
>>
>> RV10 in progress
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486960#486960
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Also the labels available are Main Bus and Aux Bus or Bus 1 and Bus 2. You
may want to go with the latter for clarity since an ESS bus is definitely
not an AUX bus.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM supik wrote:
>
>
> trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt wrote:
> > As for the G3X touch voltage warnings, I couldn=99t find your OP.
Which
> voltages are you monitoring, and where?
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > Enviado do meu iPhone
> >
>
>
> Snip from my original post:
>
> Respective BUS voltages monitored by G3X Touch.
> -MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT)
> MAIN BUS LV
> -ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ES
S
> BUS LV
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486966#486966
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Also the labels available are Main Bus and Aux Bus or Bus 1 and Bus 2. You may
want to go with the latter for clarity since an ESS bus is definitely not an
AUX bus.
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM supik wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt (http://mail.telepac.pt) wrote:
> > > As for the G3X touch voltage warnings, I couldnt find your OP. Which voltages
are you monitoring, and where?
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > Enviado do meu iPhone
> > >
> >
> >
> > Snip from my original post:
> >
> > Respective BUS voltages monitored by G3X Touch.
> > -MAIN BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.8V triggers (MASTER CAUT) MAIN
BUS LV
> > -ESS BUS threshold monitoring at or below 13.0V triggers (MASTER WARN) ESS
BUS LV
> >
> > --------
> > Igor
> >
> > RV10 in progress
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486966#486966 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486966#486966)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > -
> > 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
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Thanks Carlos, I was afraid, the system will not allow labeling the ESS BUS.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486973#486973
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internally Regulated Over Voltage Protection |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Adding to the questions, are there any negatives to leaving the e-bus alt feed
closed for normal operations? Or would an additional diode between the e-bus alt
feed and diode be prudent to avoid alternators trying to charge the battery
through the alt feed?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486974#486974
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
I have just received a picture from G3X Expert. Apparently it is possible to label
the indicators..
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486975#486975
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/image002_511.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
Please post the picture and your install manual.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 15:38 supik
> I have just received a picture from G3X Expert. Apparently it is possible
> to label the indicators..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486975#486975
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/image002_511.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Please post the picture and your install manual.
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 15:38 supik AeroElectric-List message posted by: "supik"
>
> I have just received a picture from G3X Expert. Apparently it is possible to
label the indicators..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486975#486975 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486975#486975)
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/image002_511.jpg (http://forums.matronics.com//files/image002_511.jpg)
>
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
[/quote]
Carlos, the picture is uploaded in my previous post.. You can download the current
manual directly from the Garmin website.
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486977#486977
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Basic Elec. Diagram -critique pls |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
December 29, 2018 - January 14, 2019
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-os