AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oz
May 04, 2019 - July 07, 2019
> at the radio and the antenna itself.
>
> The first thing I do in these cases is
> check antenna SWR (and compare with
> other antenna). I think it likely that
> you'll find the 'bad' antenna has a
> much higher SWR. Damaged coax is the
> LEAST likely cause. Disconnection of
> either the center conductor or shield
> at the connectors is most likely.
>
> A very reasonable test tool for pursuing
> this investigation is seen here:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y64t9nse
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> (caution, there are both VHF/UHF and
> HF versions . . . get the VHF/UHF
> device)
>
> You'll probably also need a two-pak
> of these adapters:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y66wn6ua
>
> and a short BncM to BncM jumper cable
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y3b7lvfp
>
> Have even installed a ferrite sleeve on the cht/egt
> wire bundle. No change. Transmission and reception
> on the radio is loud and clear.
>
> Ferrite sleeves are marginally effective
> in meeting original design goals for
> EMC . . . we used to see these included in
> computer interconnect cables . . .
>
> [image: Emacs!]
> . . . but in the aviation world, they're
> considered an un-acceptable 'band-aid'
> to a problem that should be taken care
> of INSIDE the electro-whizzies. I don't
> even have such things in my inventory.
>
>
> I have a GRT EIS mounted [at the back of the copilot
> side of the airplane] on the floor. The wires run through the
> [fiberglass conduit] to the engine.
>
>
> The closest the antenna gets to the EIS is about 18 inches.
>
> I presume your talking about the ANTENNA COAX
> here . . . which should never be a factor
> in preventing/fixing an EMC problem.
>
> In the TC aircraft world, coax cables are
> routinely routed in bundles with the most
> vulnerable and antagonistic of wires
> on the aircraft. The coax itself can
> become problematic when it's improperly
> terminated as discussed above.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AOG question and Shipping address for the AGM battery? |
At 10:58 AM 5/4/2019, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,=C2
>
>I've got a dead charging system away from home
>but, before I ask about that, did you receive the battery I sent?
I did and thank you so much . . . it's
being evaluated as we speak before
letting the Battery Minder do it's
pixie-dust thing . . .
>On to my charging system... It's a typical
>external regulator configuration as shown on
>your basic drawings.=C2 I recently repaired a
>broken b-lead at the alternator and, with that
>repair, I had to replace the regulator. The ANL
>looked good visually but I did not test it.=C2 It tested good after
repair.=C2 =C2
>
>It worked for a 5.5 hr flight flight to Boulder
>City Nevada. Though there was some cycling
>visible on the load meter.=C2 The ANL blew on
>next start.=C2 Cheap voltmeter measures zero ohms
>from alt b+ output measured at the ship side of
>the b+ lead (disconnected fro the rest of the
>ship did wiring) I haven't pulled the alternator
>yet..=C2 while I haven't confirmed there is not a
>short on the b+ lead I think it unlikely.=C2 Do
>alternator diodes fail shorted?=C2 If that
>happens, is my new regulator toast?=C2 I was
>hoping to fix it today but, sigh, I'm not sure I'll find everything I
need...
Yup, that's how they fail. The only way
an ANL should pop is if you've got TWO
or more diodes shorted. The broken b-lead
deprived the regulator of information vital
to keeping alternator output under control.
The regulator would have full-fielded the
alternator causing output to rise to many,
many volts . . . in this case, more than
the diodes could take . . . hence reverse
voltage cascade and meltdown.
Your new regulator is probably just fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT EIS Issues When Transmitting |
At 11:03 AM 5/4/2019, you wrote:
>Bob,=C2
>
>As always I am grateful for your help.=C2
>
>I forwarded your response to my friend on the
>Velocity Owners Builders Association forum and
>encouraged him to join the aeroelectric
>list.=C2 A bunch of the VOBA guys are already
>here and I hope more will join up.=C2
>
>I will report back on what he discovered the problem was.
Please do . . . My missives are always
based on best information I have at the
time . . . but that doesn't rule out
something-new-under-the-sun.
Would be pleased to know the outcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | alternator field current |
There have been a few discussions here about alternators tripping their
5A field breaker, but consensus has been that properly operating field
windings don't draw more than 5A. Just stumbled upon an interesting data
point that's 'new to me'.
Apparently, there may be some older models that do. Someone on another
forum asked about how to hook up a Transpo V1200 adjustable regulator.
Turns out, there's an old thread here on AEC about it.
http://www.matronics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46713&sid=9b0b3a2dcfc6958ef0d291d283abd4b9
Here's a data sheet:
http://estore.waiglobal.com/productdatasheets/PD0570_0.pdf
Since it's adjustable, I thought it might be an inexpensive option for
primary and backup alternator duty. According the data sheet, field
current is '10A typical; 20A max'.
I went trolling ebay looking for a deal on it, and stumbled upon this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PREMIUM-ADJUSTABLE-EXTERNAL-VOLTAGE-REGULATOR-CHRYSLER-DODGE-PLYMOUTH-1970-87/143191553879?hash=item2156e1b757:g:jpAAAOSwfRZcnWcx
a completely different model that is 'for 7A rotors'.
So apparently, there are some alternators out there in the wild that
could indeed draw more than 5A field current.
No immediate reason for posting this; just found it interesting. (Of
course, I might be the last guy to discover it....)
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EGT, CHT wires and alternator B-lead |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Hello all-
I am in the final throes of wiring my RV-7A and one of the last tasks is to route
the CHT and EGT leads from the engine to the firewall. My questions is- how
much clearance, if any, do I need to provide between these temperature wires
and the alternator B-lead?
I made a really neat, out of the way, bundle with CHT and EGT wires and the B-lead
cable (4 AWG welding cable) and then began to wonder what "noise" i might
get in my engine monitor. Way easier and less frustrating to correct now if needed
than later but I can't find any guidance in the Connection book or in the
Matronics archives.
Thank you to everyone on this list. I really appreciate all the education I've
gotten from this group over the years.
-Jim
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489127#489127
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fi Dot" <web(at)79ft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EGT, CHT wires and alternator B-lead |
... I know this ain't helping _much_ but when I installed a CGR30P on my
Cheetah, I did not notice the note to _not_ run probes along the
ignition wires, and did so. You can look at the pictures here:
http://79ft.net/entries/misccheetah-cgr-30/. No problems. I asked EI and
they said "boo, but keep it - it worked for years for you after all".
On my current plane with Gem G2; I think the wires were ran along the
B-lead. I'll double check later today. Regardless, I haven't heard of
issues from the gentleman who installed it and flown with it for years.
I will confirm where the wires run later tonight and reply along with a
pic or three.
Fedor 'Fidot' Fomichev.
Chickenhouse Charger
http://79ft.net
------ Original Message ------
From: "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com>
Sent: 5/7/2019 11:13:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EGT, CHT wires and alternator B-lead
>
>Hello all-
>
>I am in the final throes of wiring my RV-7A and one of the last tasks is t
o route the CHT and EGT leads from the engine to the firewall. My question
s is- how much clearance, if any, do I need to provide between these temper
ature wires and the alternator B-lead?
>
>I made a really neat, out of the way, bundle with CHT and EGT wires and th
e B-lead cable (4 AWG welding cable) and then began to wonder what "noise"
i might get in my engine monitor. Way easier and less frustrating to correc
t now if needed than later but I can't find any guidance in the Connection
book or in the Matronics archives.
>
>Thank you to everyone on this list. I really appreciate all the education
I've gotten from this group over the years.
>
>-Jim
>
>--------
>Jim McChesney
>Tucson, AZ
>RV-7A Finishing Kit
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489127#489127
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EGT, CHT wires and alternator B-lead |
At 11:13 PM 5/7/2019, you wrote:
>
>Hello all-
>
>I am in the final throes of wiring my RV-7A and one of the last
>tasks is to route the CHT and EGT leads from the engine to the
>firewall. My questions is- how much clearance, if any, do I need to
>provide between these temperature wires and the alternator B-lead?
None. This presumes that there are no
installation instructions for your instrumentation
recommending such separation. If instructions DO
call for separation, I would see if you can get
you money back on it and purchase a system
designed to work in aircraft (or any other
vehicle for that matter!).
>I made a really neat, out of the way, bundle with CHT and EGT wires
>and the B-lead cable (4 AWG welding cable) and then began to wonder
>what "noise" i might get in my engine monitor. Way easier and less
>frustrating to correct now if needed than later but I can't find any
>guidance in the Connection book or in the Matronics archives.
>
>Thank you to everyone on this list. I really appreciate all the
>education I've gotten from this group over the years.
I'm pleased that you've benefited from
your participation here . . . spread the
word . . . share your own knowledge and
help promote the List. Nothing suppresses
the value of knowledge more than a failure
to skillfully exploit it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EGT, CHT wires and alternator B-lead |
At 02:06 PM 5/8/2019, you wrote:
>... I know this ain't helping _much_ but when I
>installed a CGR30P on my Cheetah, I did not
>notice the note to _not_ run probes along the
>ignition wires, and did so. You can look at the
>pictures here:
>http://79ft.net/entries/misccheetah-cgr-30/. No
>problems. I asked EI and they said "boo, but
>keep it - it worked for years for you after all".=C2
>
>On my current plane with Gem G2; I think the
>wires were ran along the B-lead. I'll double
>check later today. Regardless, I haven't heard
>of issues from the gentleman who installed it
>and flown with it for years. I will confirm
>where the wires run later tonight and reply along with a pic or three.=C2
Actually a big help. The dreaded stresses
conducted along such wires are really easy
to accommodate in the design of engine
instrumentation . . . because if they
couple from one wire to another, the
coupling is weak. Further the electro-
magnetic spectrum of such noises are
far outside the signals of interest
coming in from engine sensors. Standing
them off with a bit of simple filtering
is a trivial task.
Your experience shared supports this
notion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator field current |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Interesting . . . I've seen some 'heavy duty' regulators in other venues as well.
But I'm at a loss to recall any that even begin to draw that much field current.
A prudent designer of generators and alternators will strive to minimize
the necessary field current.
While field current goes to creating a controllable magnetic flux for the purposes
of mechanical-to-electrical energy conversion, the strength of the field is
proportional to turns of field coil wire multiplied by current in those wires.
It's theoretically possible to generate any desired field flux intensity at any
practical current level. The largest alternators I've worked with needed no
more than 3 or so amps in either 14 or 28v systems. Field current is 100% wasted
energy. 3A at 28V dumps 84 watts of heat directly into the core of the machine.
No doubt someone found value in crafting 'heavy duty' devices CAPABLE of driving
a low resistance alternator field . . . but I think one would be hard pressed
to find such a machine.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489164#489164
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | New Battery Minder evaulation |
List member Steve Stearns has donated an
excellent candidate for evaluating performance
of a new BatteryMinder Plus that claims to
include 'de-sulfation' technology. The nameplate
rating is 20 a.h. and claims to be a 'deep
cycle' device.
I benchmarked Steve's battery and collected
the following data plot:
Emacs!
I'll put it on the BatteryMinder's maintenance mode and see what
the critter looks
like in about 60 days. Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Lightspeed Plasma III Wiring |
Does anyone out there happen to have a Plasma III for six cylinder laying
about where you can help me trace the wires from the hall effect 9 PC board
to the 15 pin input connector?
As I mentioned before, the 15 pin input connector on my Plasma III had to be
cut off to remove the engine (firewall hole was too small and I did not want
to unbolt the prop to hang the timing sensors loose) so now I have to field
install the 15 pin connector.
The installation manual is well written however it does not state the colors
of the 9 wires that run from the crank sensor PC board to the 15 pin
connector.
If I knew what colors the wires were that powers channel A / B / C then I
could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
Inside the single large cable are three shielded sub-cables and each
sub-cable has a black wire, a bare non-insulated wire, and then the third
wire is the only difference and that would be either a white or green or red
wire.
Can you please tell me what color wires are connected to the following pins:
Channel A:
PIN 3 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it connects to PIN 4 of
the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor and it
shares PIN 4 with channel C) If I knew what color wire was Channel A then I
could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
Channel B:
PIN 7 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it connects to PIN 5 of
the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor) If I
knew what color wire was Channel B then I could deduce the respective black
and bare wires.
Channel C:
PIN 4 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it also connects to PIN 4
of the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor and
it shares pin 4 with channel A) If I knew what color wire was Channel C then
I could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
If nobody has one of these systems opened up or accessible with the prop off
then I will sadly need to remove the propeller...Grrrrr.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!
.
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Schertz <wschertz343(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/10/19 |
Getting Emacs graphics?
I subscribe to the once a day compilation of messages, and when Bob puts
out a graphic, it just shows as Emacs!, I tried going on the archives to
see if it has the graphic, but still just Emacs. How do I get to see the
attachment?
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:38 AM AeroElectric-List Digest Server <
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 19-05-10&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 19-05-10&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 05/10/19: 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 09:45 AM - Re: alternator field current (nuckollsr)
> 2. 03:58 PM - New Battery Minder evaulation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
> 3. 07:06 PM - Lightspeed Plasma III Wiring ()
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: alternator field current
> From: "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> Interesting . . . I've seen some 'heavy duty' regulators in other venues
> as well.
> But I'm at a loss to recall any that even begin to draw that much field
> current.
> A prudent designer of generators and alternators will strive to minimize
> the necessary field current.
>
> While field current goes to creating a controllable magnetic flux for the
> purposes
> of mechanical-to-electrical energy conversion, the strength of the field is
> proportional to turns of field coil wire multiplied by current in those
> wires.
>
> It's theoretically possible to generate any desired field flux intensity
> at any
> practical current level. The largest alternators I've worked with needed
> no
> more than 3 or so amps in either 14 or 28v systems. Field current is 100%
> wasted
> energy. 3A at 28V dumps 84 watts of heat directly into the core of the
> machine.
>
> No doubt someone found value in crafting 'heavy duty' devices CAPABLE of
> driving
> a low resistance alternator field . . . but I think one would be hard
> pressed
> to find such a machine.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489164#489164
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Battery Minder evaulation
>
> List member Steve Stearns has donated an
> excellent candidate for evaluating performance
> of a new BatteryMinder Plus that claims to
> include 'de-sulfation' technology. The nameplate
> rating is 20 a.h. and claims to be a 'deep
> cycle' device.
>
> I benchmarked Steve's battery and collected
> the following data plot:
>
>
> Emacs!
>
> I'll put it on the BatteryMinder's maintenance mode and see what
> the critter looks
> like in about 60 days. Watch this space.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed Plasma III Wiring
>
> Does anyone out there happen to have a Plasma III for six cylinder laying
> about where you can help me trace the wires from the hall effect 9 PC board
> to the 15 pin input connector?
>
>
> As I mentioned before, the 15 pin input connector on my Plasma III had to
> be
> cut off to remove the engine (firewall hole was too small and I did not
> want
> to unbolt the prop to hang the timing sensors loose) so now I have to field
> install the 15 pin connector.
>
>
> The installation manual is well written however it does not state the
> colors
> of the 9 wires that run from the crank sensor PC board to the 15 pin
> connector.
>
>
> If I knew what colors the wires were that powers channel A / B / C then I
> could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
>
>
> Inside the single large cable are three shielded sub-cables and each
> sub-cable has a black wire, a bare non-insulated wire, and then the third
> wire is the only difference and that would be either a white or green or
> red
> wire.
>
>
> Can you please tell me what color wires are connected to the following
> pins:
>
>
> Channel A:
>
>
> PIN 3 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it connects to PIN 4 of
> the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor and it
> shares PIN 4 with channel C) If I knew what color wire was Channel A then
> I
> could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
>
>
> Channel B:
>
>
> PIN 7 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it connects to PIN 5 of
> the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor) If I
> knew what color wire was Channel B then I could deduce the respective black
> and bare wires.
>
>
> Channel C:
>
> PIN 4 of the HALL EFFECT sensor is a ??? wire and it also connects to PIN 4
> of the INPUT CONNECTOR (this is a 5 VDC power to the HALL EFFECT sensor and
> it shares pin 4 with channel A) If I knew what color wire was Channel C
> then
> I could deduce the respective black and bare wires.
>
>
> If nobody has one of these systems opened up or accessible with the prop
> off
> then I will sadly need to remove the propeller...Grrrrr.
>
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!
>
>
> ..
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed Plasma III Wiring |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Certainly Klaus at Light Speed could answer this question.
Klaus(at)lightspeedengineering.com
(805) 933-3299
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489172#489172
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/10/19 |
William said, "Getting Emacs graphics?
I subscribe to the once a day compilation of messages, and when Bob puts
out a graphic, it just shows as Emacs!, I tried going on the archives to
see if it has the graphic, but still just Emacs. How do I get to see the
attachment?"
Hi Bill - You don't. At least I (who also get the digest) never have. I
have to guess if it's an image I really want to see and, when it is, I
direct email the poster for an emailed copy.
If you find a better solution, let me know. I get too many emails to want
to follow the forum with the regular emails. The digest works great
*except* for the problem with attached/embedded info.
Steve Stearns
O235 Longeze N45FC ~1500 Hrs.
Boulder/Longmont CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Hi Bill - You don't.=C2 At least I (who also get
>the digest) never have.=C2 I have to guess if
>it's an image I really want to see and, when it
>is, I direct email the poster for an emailed copy.
>
>If you find a better solution, let me know.=C2 I
>get too many emails to want to follow the forum
>with the regular emails.=C2 The digest works
>great *except* for the problem with attached/embedded info.
>
>Steve Stearns
>O235 Longeze N45FC ~1500 Hrs.
>Boulder/Longmont CO
By the time various systems and
services receive/filter/pass-on
our most earnestly authored missives,
there are risks of compatibility
issues . . . especially when one
perhaps exploits faithful tools
not universally accepted in the
wider world of byte thrashers.
I've been using the Eudora email
client almost since its inception.
I've tried others and keep coming
back for reasons too numerous to
mention here. I still adore Win7,
and airplanes with steam gages . . .
what can I say?
I prefer to embed the graphics
where my work product is what-what-
you-see-is-what-you get. But I could
additionally attach the images. This would,
I believe, stuff the total package
through the most un-cooperative
email pipes. I'll give it a try.
You can always register with the
Matronics Forums browser service at
http://www.matronics.com/forums/
This gives you reliable on-demand
access to AeroElectric List 'stuff'
from any computer external to your
email client. Further, all other forums on
Matronics are equally accessible.
I use this service to stay in touch
when I'm away from my stable
of keyboards. I can read and respond
to AE-List traffic from any computer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Hi Bill - You don't.=C2 At least I (who also get
>the digest) never have.=C2 I have to guess if
>it's an image I really want to see and, when it
>is, I direct email the poster for an emailed copy.
>
>If you find a better solution, let me know.=C2 I
>get too many emails to want to follow the forum
>with the regular emails.=C2 The digest works
>great *except* for the problem with attached/embedded info.
>
>Steve Stearns
>O235 Longeze N45FC ~1500 Hrs.
>Boulder/Longmont CO
Steve, I sent a copy of that posting
directly to you as well . . . did you
not receive it intact?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Hi Bill - You don't.=C2 At least I (who also get
>the digest) never have.=C2 I have to guess if
>it's an image I really want to see and, when it
>is, I direct email the poster for an emailed copy.
>
>If you find a better solution, let me know.=C2 I
>get too many emails to want to follow the forum
>with the regular emails.=C2 The digest works
>great *except* for the problem with attached/embedded info.
>
>Steve Stearns
>O235 Longeze N45FC ~1500 Hrs.
>Boulder/Longmont CO
Here is the graphic embedded . . .
Emacs!
I have also included it as an attachment . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation |
| From: | Charles Davis <charlesdavis(at)iuncapped.co.za> |
Hi, Bob
Could you explain your graph a bit for me .. I am confused by the
caption "9Volt, 15Sec, 120A" - and the top line "5.0A Discharge" - are
you discharging at 120A for 15 seconds, or to 9Volts ? and why does the
graph/test end at 10,5v ? OR - is the test at a calibrated 5.0A 'till
10,5v ?
Charles
> List member Steve Stearns has donated an
> excellent candidate for evaluating performance
> of a new BatteryMinder Plus that claims to
> include 'de-sulfation' technology. The nameplate
> rating is 20 a.h. and claims to be a 'deep
> cycle' device.
>
> I benchmarked Steve's battery and collected
> the following data plot:
>
>
> Emacs!
> I'll put it on the BatteryMinder's maintenance mode and see what the
> critter looks
> like in about 60 days. Watch this space.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation |
At 11:55 AM 5/12/2019, you wrote:
>Hi, Bob
>
>Could you explain your graph a bit for me .. I am confused by the
>caption "9Volt, 15Sec, 120A" - and the top line "5.0A Discharge" -
>are you discharging at 120A for 15 seconds, or to 9Volts ? and why
>does the graph/test end at 10,5v ? OR - is the test at a calibrated
>5.0A 'till 10,5v ?
That's the data-gathering shorthand . . .
First discharge was 5A constant current
which produced the green plot and
shows energy content in the battery
as it arrived here.
The other two plots were taken after
a legacy constant current/constant voltage
recharge with top-off interval.
A after a third recharge, I did a load
test where the battery was loaded to
9 volts for 15 seconds after which the
current being delivered was 120 amps.
It only took a few minutes back on the
charger to top it off again.
At that point, I put it on the BatteryMinder+
in the 'maintenance' mode. I'm getting
some data gathered on this particular
product's electrical 'pixie dust' purported
to 'de-sulfate' the battery.
I'll publish pictures of first observations
in a day or so . . . as soon as I get about 4
computers polished up and out of here . . .
Speaking of things to do . . . see attached
photo. I probably won't be working on the
pickup just visible past the left edge of
the building. Had some frog-strangler rains
up north a few days ago. Medicine River just
west of town came out of the banks and flooded
a mechanic's shop where a friend of mine had
taken his pickup truck for some routine maintenance.
Hard to see in photo but water is up to window
sills on Kenton's truck. There are numerous
pieces of heavy equipment parked around this shop
in similar predicaments. I only attached photo
instead of embedding. Any digest subscribers
have problems seeing this image?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I can see the picture just fine on the Matronics website.
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16772762
Usually a flooded vehicle is considered to be totaled because the wires and connections
become corroded.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489182#489182
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I get individual emails; I got the image on my phone as an attachment=2E (S
ometimes I see different behavior depending on whether I'm viewing on phone
or computer=2E)
=81=A3Sent from BlueMail =8B
On May 12, 2019, 5
:17 PM, at 5:17 PM, "Robert L=2E Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>At 11:55 AM 5/12/2019, you wrote:
>
>>Hi, Bob
>>
>>Could y
ou explain your graph a bit for me =2E=2E I am confused by the
>>caption "
9Volt, 15Sec, 120A" - and the top line "5=2E0A Discharge" -
>>are you dis
charging at 120A for 15 seconds, or to 9Volts ? and why
>>does the graph/t
est end at 10,5v ? OR - is the test at a calibrated
>>5=2E0A 'till 10,5v ?
>
> That's the data-gathering shorthand =2E =2E =2E
>
> First discharg
e was 5A constant current
> which produced the green plot and
> shows e
nergy content in the battery
> as it arrived here=2E
>
> The other two
plots were taken after
> a legacy constant current/constant voltage
> r
echarge with top-off interval=2E
>
> A after a third recharge, I did a lo
ad
> test where the battery was loaded to
> 9 volts for 15 seconds afte
r which the
> current being delivered was 120 amps=2E
>
> It only took
a few minutes back on the
> charger to top it off again=2E
>
> At that
point, I put it on the BatteryMinder+
> in the 'maintenance' mode=2E I'm
getting
> some data gathered on this particular
> product's electrical
'pixie dust' purported
> to 'de-sulfate' the battery=2E
>
> I'll publi
sh pictures of first observations
> in a day or so =2E =2E =2E as soon as
I get about 4
> computers polished up and out of here =2E =2E =2E
>
>
Speaking of things to do =2E =2E =2E see attached
> photo=2E I probably w
on't be working on the
> pickup just visible past the left edge of
> th
e building=2E Had some frog-strangler rains
> up north a few days ago=2E
Medicine River just
> west of town came out of the banks and flooded
>
a mechanic's shop where a friend of mine had
> taken his pickup truck for
some routine maintenance=2E
>
> Hard to see in photo but water is up to
window
> sills on Kenton's truck=2E There are numerous
> pieces of heav
y equipment parked around this shop
> in similar predicaments=2E I only
attached photo
> instead of embedding=2E Any digest subscribers
> have
problems seeing this image?
>
>
> Bob =2E =2E =2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation, now photos |
>
> Hi Bob-
>
No attachment included with the email, and I have never seen any images in
the digest ever, just the infamous EMACS!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Battery Minder evaulation, now |
photos
I can see the picture.=C2- The flooding looks pretty bad.=C2- I've been
watching those storms move through the Midwest and including Texas, becaus
e I have a grand-niece who's soon coming to see me from Missouri.
Bob, may I make a suggestion?=C2- Since some of us can see these attachme
nts and others can't, why don't you use a cloud service?=C2- For example,
the link below will take you to a picture I recently took of my youngest p
ussycat.=C2- It's uploaded to my OneDrive cloud, which comes with Office3
65. You can read but not write.=C2- Microsoft maintains this cloud, so th
e chances of losing data are minimal.=C2- I can right click on any file a
nd select "Share a OneDrive link," which results in the link below generate
d to my clipboard.=C2- This way, there are no attachments - just text.
I'm not trying to push Office365 on anyone.=C2- There are plenty of other
cloud services out there that most likely offer such file sharing links. O
ffice365 just happens to come with 6 subscriptions, each having 1 TB of clo
ud space.
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgycXPLARnTmh7xVjp_LjlAIc_lfNQ
Henador Titzoff
.com> wrote:
Hi Bob-
No attachment included with the email, and I have never seen any images in
the digest ever, just the infamous EMACS!=C2-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
Speaking of floods, I escaped family duties for two short flights yesterday.
Here is KSET (my home field). It's going to be awhile until we get back
into our hangars:
https://gallery.wonderart.us/Other/Smartt-Airport-Flood-May-2019/i-DxF5Jd6
Here is a longer video, north from Saint Charles County, MO into Illinois
and back. It includes views of the Mississippi and Illinois rivers.
https://youtu.be/eeV2om6-HlY
-- Art Z.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:27 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:55 AM 5/12/2019, you wrote:
>
> Speaking of things to do . . . see attached
> photo. I probably won't be working on the
> pickup just visible past the left edge of
> the building. Had some frog-strangler rains
> up north a few days ago. Medicine River just
> west of town came out of the banks and flooded
> a mechanic's shop where a friend of mine had
> taken his pickup truck for some routine maintenance.
>
> Hard to see in photo but water is up to window
> sills on Kenton's truck. There are numerous
> pieces of heavy equipment parked around this shop
> in similar predicaments. I only attached photo
> instead of embedding. Any digest subscribers
> have problems seeing this image?
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Subject: Re: New Battery Minder evaulation, now photos |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
For those whose email shows EMACS instead of pictures, all they have to do is go
to the Matronics website.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489192#489192
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James McBurney <jamesmcburney002(at)gmail.com> |
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | 2 alternators and 3 questions |
I am in the process of defining the electrical architecture for our Zenith
STOL CH750. The plane has a Jabiru 3300 engine, and is intended for day &
night VFR. It has the built-in Jabiru permanent-magnet alternator (17A)
plus a B&C SD-20 (29A at our cruise rpm of 3,000). My starting point for
the design is Z-13/8.
With two alternators I am designing the system so that if the main (SD-20)
alt fails then the secondary (Jabiru) will be able to sustain the e-bus
loads by itself. The biggest load by far is the pitot heater which draws
around 9A (an estimate, as discussed in a previous conversation) and since
we are night VFR we want the pitot heat available when running on e-bus.
This brings things close to the capacity of the Jabiru PM alternator - its
output at our cruise rpm of 3,000 is 17A, and the manufacturer states that
we must not exceed 17A or the PM stator may overheat. My preliminary loads
analysis shows that the endurance bus load is around 13A average (76% of
rated alternator capacity) with potentially 19A max if all the transient
loads (radio, transponder, EFIS, trim motor) were to occur simultaneously.
So this is my first question - is it reasonable to design for average loads
well within the alternator's capacity but transient loads that exceed it?
For my second question I'm back to having both alternators available. When
the pitot heat is on, the total system current (not just e-bus) is slightly
above the rated capacity of the SD-20, so we would want to have the pilot
turn on the secondary alternator as well. With both alternators feeding
into the main bus I need to understand how they will share the loads
between them so as to keep the Jabiru below its 17A limit, preferably well
below. Ous system has a single ammeter (Dynon EMS-D120) so I plan on
displaying the Jabiru alternator current any time it is in use (using a
3PDT for the secondary alternator switch that would also swap out the + and
- feeds from each of the two shunts). This way the pilot has the ability to
monitor and control the current not to exceed whatever threshold we declare
for the Jabiru alternator. However, I'd like to make it a bit less manual
than that. The Jabiru regulator is fixed output (factory spec is 14.3V) but
the B&C LR3C regulator is adjustable. Is it possible to set the B&C's
output a little higher so that it provides most of the current, and the
Jabiru alternator will only contribute if and when the SD-20's output
droops? Or does this just put all the loads on the SD-20 and exceed its
capacity, as if the secondary alternator weren't there?
And my third question is to do with OV protection on this dual-alternator
system. The Z-13/8 shows a 2-alternator system similar to what I am
planning. It has two OVMs, one attached to each alternator's circuit. If
both alternators are online and OV condition occurs then presumably both
OVMs will trip and both alternators will be disconnected even though only
one was causing the OV, and the other gets shut off unnecessarily. Am I
right in assuming that both OVMs will trip, or could it be that the one
with the lower trip point would act and, if it happened to be the one
attached to the problem alternator, in so doing cut off the rising voltage
soon enough that the other OVM doesn't trip? I am trying to understand if I
have a deterministic system or if it will be unpredictable in this regard.
Pat Little
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
Pat,
To the best of my knowledge, only one alternator can feed the bus at a
time.
Why not set the SD-20 voltage regulator at 14 volts and the Jabiru voltage
regulator at 13.5 volts? If you do that, the SD-20 will become the primary
and can provide 30 amps, sufficient for all loads. If the SD-20 isn't
turning fast enough, the bus voltage will drop below 13.5 volts and the
Jabiru alternator will come into play, able to provide up to 17 amps.
BTW, you might not even need an ebus, which could simplify your wiring even
further.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:06 PM Pat Little wrote:
> I am in the process of defining the electrical architecture for our Zenith
> STOL CH750. The plane has a Jabiru 3300 engine, and is intended for day &
> night VFR. It has the built-in Jabiru permanent-magnet alternator (17A)
> plus a B&C SD-20 (29A at our cruise rpm of 3,000). My starting point for
> the design is Z-13/8.
>
> With two alternators I am designing the system so that if the main (SD-20)
> alt fails then the secondary (Jabiru) will be able to sustain the e-bus
> loads by itself. The biggest load by far is the pitot heater which draws
> around 9A (an estimate, as discussed in a previous conversation) and since
> we are night VFR we want the pitot heat available when running on e-bus.
> This brings things close to the capacity of the Jabiru PM alternator - its
> output at our cruise rpm of 3,000 is 17A, and the manufacturer states that
> we must not exceed 17A or the PM stator may overheat. My preliminary loads
> analysis shows that the endurance bus load is around 13A average (76% of
> rated alternator capacity) with potentially 19A max if all the transient
> loads (radio, transponder, EFIS, trim motor) were to occur simultaneously.
> So this is my first question - is it reasonable to design for average loads
> well within the alternator's capacity but transient loads that exceed it?
>
> For my second question I'm back to having both alternators available. When
> the pitot heat is on, the total system current (not just e-bus) is slightly
> above the rated capacity of the SD-20, so we would want to have the pilot
> turn on the secondary alternator as well. With both alternators feeding
> into the main bus I need to understand how they will share the loads
> between them so as to keep the Jabiru below its 17A limit, preferably well
> below. Ous system has a single ammeter (Dynon EMS-D120) so I plan on
> displaying the Jabiru alternator current any time it is in use (using a
> 3PDT for the secondary alternator switch that would also swap out the + and
> - feeds from each of the two shunts). This way the pilot has the ability to
> monitor and control the current not to exceed whatever threshold we declare
> for the Jabiru alternator. However, I'd like to make it a bit less manual
> than that. The Jabiru regulator is fixed output (factory spec is 14.3V) but
> the B&C LR3C regulator is adjustable. Is it possible to set the B&C's
> output a little higher so that it provides most of the current, and the
> Jabiru alternator will only contribute if and when the SD-20's output
> droops? Or does this just put all the loads on the SD-20 and exceed its
> capacity, as if the secondary alternator weren't there?
>
> And my third question is to do with OV protection on this dual-alternator
> system. The Z-13/8 shows a 2-alternator system similar to what I am
> planning. It has two OVMs, one attached to each alternator's circuit. If
> both alternators are online and OV condition occurs then presumably both
> OVMs will trip and both alternators will be disconnected even though only
> one was causing the OV, and the other gets shut off unnecessarily. Am I
> right in assuming that both OVMs will trip, or could it be that the one
> with the lower trip point would act and, if it happened to be the one
> attached to the problem alternator, in so doing cut off the rising voltage
> soon enough that the other OVM doesn't trip? I am trying to understand if I
> have a deterministic system or if it will be unpredictable in this regard.
>
> Pat Little
>
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> is it reasonable to design for average loads well within the alternator's capacity
but transient loads that exceed it?
Yes, momentary loads will not overheat the alternator.
If the voltage drops, which it probably will when fully loaded,
then the battery will help out.
A load will always take current from the source with the highest voltage.
If the main alternator is overloaded and its voltage drops, then when the
voltage drops to the set point of the secondary alternator, both alternators
will supply current. Bob will correct me if wrong.
30 amps seems like a lot for a small plane with modern avionics and lights.
I suspect that the main alternator will easily supply the full aircraft load.
> Am I right in assuming that both OVMs will trip
Yes, you are correct. The solution is to only operate the main alternator.
If it fails, shut it off and then turn on the secondary alternator. The battery
will
supply current during the transition.
I agree with Art that an E-Bus is not a necessity. Keep it simple.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489284#489284
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
At 01:49 PM 5/17/2019, you wrote:
>I am in the process of defining the electrical architecture for our
>Zenith STOL CH750. The plane has a Jabiru 3300 engine, and is
>intended for day & night VFR. It has the built-in Jabiru
>permanent-magnet alternator (17A) plus a B&C SD-20 (29A at our
>cruise rpm of 3,000). My starting point for the design is Z-13/8.
>
>With two alternators I am designing the system so that if the main
>(SD-20) alt fails then the secondary (Jabiru) will be able to
>sustain the e-bus loads by itself. The biggest load by far is the
>pitot heater which draws around 9A (an estimate, as discussed in a
>previous conversation) and since we are night VFR we want the pitot
>heat available when running on e-bus.
Then don't have an e-bus. The ENDURANCE bus was
crafted to make best utilization of a BATTERY's
stored energy in an alternator-out situation.
> This brings things close to the capacity of the Jabiru PM
> alternator - its output at our cruise rpm of 3,000 is 17A, and the
> manufacturer states that we must not exceed 17A or the PM stator may overheat.
How to you proposed to observe this limitation?
>My preliminary loads analysis shows that the endurance bus load is
>around 13A average (76% of rated alternator capacity) with
>potentially 19A max if all the transient loads (radio, transponder,
>EFIS, trim motor) were to occur simultaneously.
How often does that happen?
>So this is my first question - is it reasonable to design for average
>loads well within the alternator's capacity but transient loads that
>exceed it?
It's reasonable to presume that when alternator
failure occurs, you've got a battery with a KNOWN
quantity of contained energy. EXPECTING it
to shoulder low duty cycle transients is
part of a rational energy budget.
>For my second question I'm back to having both alternators
>available. When the pitot heat is on, the total system current (not
>just e-bus) is slightly above the rated capacity of the SD-20, so we
>would want to have the pilot turn on the secondary alternator as
>well. With both alternators feeding into the main bus I need to
>understand how they will share the loads between them so as to keep
>the Jabiru below its 17A limit, preferably well below.
Which goes to my original question. Suppose your
proposed system was only powered by the engine
PM alternator . . . how would you manage the
system to comply with manufacturers limits on
altenrator loading?
> Ous system has a single ammeter (Dynon EMS-D120) so I plan on
> displaying the Jabiru alternator current any time it is in use
> (using a 3PDT for the secondary alternator switch that would also
> swap out the + and - feeds from each of the two shunts). This way
> the pilot has the ability to monitor and control the current not to
> exceed whatever threshold we declare for the Jabiru alternator.
> However, I'd like to make it a bit less manual than that. The
> Jabiru regulator is fixed output (factory spec is 14.3V) but the
> B&C LR3C regulator is adjustable. Is it possible to set the B&C's
> output a little higher so that it provides most of the current, and
> the Jabiru alternator will only contribute if and when the SD-20's
> output droops? Or does this just put all the loads on the SD-20 and
> exceed its capacity, as if the secondary alternator weren't there?
You're flogging a baseless worry. The
SD20 is manufactured from a 40A core
which has been de-rated in certain installations
based on drive-pad RPM. As a practical matter,
you cannot 'hurt' it by exceeding its 'rating'
for your particular engine's drive pad rpm.
>And my third question is to do with OV protection on this
>dual-alternator system. The Z-13/8 shows a 2-alternator system
>similar to what I am planning. It has two OVMs, one attached to each
>alternator's circuit. If both alternators are online and OV
>condition occurs then presumably both OVMs will trip and both
>alternators will be disconnected even though only one was causing
>the OV, and the other gets shut off unnecessarily. Am I right in
>assuming that both OVMs will trip, or could it be that the one with
>the lower trip point would act and, if it happened to be the one
>attached to the problem alternator, in so doing cut off the rising
>voltage soon enough that the other OVM doesn't trip? I am trying to
>understand if I have a deterministic system or if it will be
>unpredictable in this regard.
An OV condition is exceedingly rare and should
it occur, the SD-20 regulator ov protection
is SELECTIVE. It is prohibited from tripping
if it senses that the ov condition is coming
from another source. It is exceedingly unlikely
that you'll experience an ov event with the
17A alternator . . . more likely that you'll
experience an over-current event due to failure
or inadvertent shut down of the SD-20 . . . which
goes to question above.
Recommend you do a Z-12 style installation. Leave
the 17A alternator OFF unless needed during anticipated
icing conditions . . . another condition that should
be vanishingly rare -OR- failure of the SD-20.
You're not going to experience dual alternator failure
on ANY mission . . . energy rationing with
an E-bus adds no value.
Should you find yourself in
an icing condition in that airplane, belive me . . .
knowing the IAS numbers are the very least
of your worries.
Pitot heat may be 'required' by various and
sundry regulatory agencies . . . but it's
one tiny step above worthless in
situations where icing is likely to mess with
airspeed accuracy.
Install the pitot heater if you must,
but the idea of NEEDING to turn it on
adds a burden to single-pilot IFR that
has caused many a pilot to 'buy the farm'.
Your best response on detection of first ice is
a 180 . . .
If your predictive weather sources are so poor
that you cannot confidently cancel the mission
when there is risk of ice, then you need to
upgrade . . . may I suggest something certified
for flight into known icing?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
>
> Recommend you consider a Z-12 style installation. Leave
> the 17A alternator OFF unless needed during anticipated
> icing conditions . . . another condition that should
> be vanishingly rare -OR- failure of the SD-20.
> You're not going to experience dual alternator failure
> on ANY mission . . . energy rationing with
> an E-bus adds no value.
Have you conducted an electrical load analysis
by flight condition? There are forms that
assist in organizing the data available
at https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn
Included are some exemplar spread sheets
uploaded by various List members over
the years. I did notice that one of
the .xls spread sheets shows exterior
lighting as a running load coincident
with pitot heat.
My instructors taught that exterior
lights be turned off while in clouds. The
combination of variable reflection off passing
clouds combined with flashing of the
strobe is distracting and can induce
vertigo . . . I've experienced it
first hand.
Your RUNNING loads do not include
landing lights (unless you have a wig-wag
system or other recognition assist),
trims, landing gear or flap motors,
transmitter draws, etc. Just the steady
state running loads are used to evaluate
alternator adequacy and in some cases,
battery supported E-bus operations.
It may be that a well sorted
load analysis will mitigate concerns
for alternator adequacy. It also
helps you define what switches should
be ON and which ones OFF in the various
flight conditions. I suspect that your
suite of alternators will be shown
to be entirely adequate to all anticipated
missions . . . especially if your
exterior lights are all LED.
20 years ago the most energy hungry
system on the airplane was position
lights . . . 2A per bulb x 3 bulbs x
duration of flight. Xenon flash
strobes are way up there too. No longer the
case.
In your case, it seems likely that
a Z12 architecture with the PM alternator
as "standby" is possible . . . crunching
the numbers will confirm/deny that
assumption.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Michel <murphysubaru(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Baud rate manipulator |
Im looking at replacing my old Garmin 510 with my Mini Ipad & Foreflight fed by
a UAvionics ECHO and UAT. Itll clean all the junk off my glare shield too!
The Garmin was feeding position data to my ACK-04 ELT, 9600 baud MNEA 0183 and
it was happy.
The ECHO has a baud rate of 115200!
Anyone have any ides how to dummy this light-speed rate down to usable 9600 or
4800?
Paul in SUNNY No. Florida
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Baud rate manipulator |
| From: | "grnord" <grnordgarden(at)cox.net> |
Download the "uAvionics Echo Installer" app from the IOS App Store; there's also
an Android version from the Google Play Store. (Don't download the uAvionics
Ping Installer" app by mistake!) It will link your device to the Echo's Wi-Fi
system and lead you through the setup process, including setting data rates
for transmissions to all your avionics and portables. You should also download
the .pdf file for the Echo manual from the uAvionics site.
Rick Nordgarden
Dragonfly Mk IIH
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489309#489309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
| Subject: | Baud rate manipulator |
I'm no expert, and certainly not an IA, but...
If you do find a way to slow the baud rate down to where it is
technically compatible, is the ECHO device "approved" to provide the
position data to the ACK-04 ELT? Is your IA willing to sign off on this
configuration -- meaning he believes this would be acceptable to the
FAA? I've been told by at least one IA that he would NOT sign off on
using the Appareo ESG ADS-B GPS source to feed GPS position to the
ACK-04.
Jim Parker
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Baud rate manipulator
From: Paul Michel <murphysubaru(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, May 20, 2019 2:23 pm
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Im looking at replacing my old Garmin 510 with my Mini Ipad &
Foreflight fed by a UAvionics ECHO and UAT. Itll clean all the junk
off my glare shield too!
The Garmin was feeding position data to my ACK-04 ELT, 9600 baud MNEA
0183 and it was happy.
The ECHO has a baud rate of 115200!
Anyone have any ides how to dummy this light-speed rate down to usable
9600 or 4800?
Paul in SUNNY No. Florida
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Baud rate manipulator |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The ELT GPS source has no technical specs associated with it. You can
use any GPS that outputs the appropriate format. IIRC the ACK manual
suggests a Garmin 35 puck. Any GPS that meets the install manual is
okay. The manual is FAA SARSAT approved. Who cares whether it gets SAR
within 10 meters or 30 meters?
On 5/20/2019 4:58 PM, jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com wrote:
>
> I'm no expert, and certainly not an IA, but...
>
> If you do find a way to slow the baud rate down to where it is
> technically compatible, is the ECHO device "approved" to provide the
> position data to the ACK-04 ELT? Is your IA willing to sign off on this
> configuration -- meaning he believes this would be acceptable to the
> FAA? I've been told by at least one IA that he would NOT sign off on
> using the Appareo ESG ADS-B GPS source to feed GPS position to the
> ACK-04.
>
> Jim Parker
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Baud rate manipulator
> From: Paul Michel <murphysubaru(at)yahoo.com>
> Date: Mon, May 20, 2019 2:23 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> Im looking at replacing my old Garmin 510 with my Mini Ipad &
> Foreflight fed by a UAvionics ECHO and UAT. Itll clean all the junk
> off my glare shield too!
> The Garmin was feeding position data to my ACK-04 ELT, 9600 baud MNEA
> 0183 and it was happy.
> The ECHO has a baud rate of 115200!
> Anyone have any ides how to dummy this light-speed rate down to usable
> 9600 or 4800?
> Paul in SUNNY No. Florida
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Baud rate manipulator |
The ECHO UAT is easily programmable through the ECHO UAT app for your
phone. Unfortunately the ECHO UAT does not have an internal GPS so you're
asking the wrong question. I take it you have an ECHO UAT with the GRT
Safe-Fly 2020 GPS? If you have a GRT display in your panel wired properly
to the Safe-Fly, the GRT can reprogram the Safe-Fly and you will be able to
wire your ELT to one of the serial outs and set the format and baud rate to
match. If you do not have a GRT display wired and configured properly, you
will be unable to reprogram the Safe-Fly as it comes set from the factory.
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 5:04 PM wrote:
>
> I'm no expert, and certainly not an IA, but...
>
> If you do find a way to slow the baud rate down to where it is
> technically compatible, is the ECHO device "approved" to provide the
> position data to the ACK-04 ELT? Is your IA willing to sign off on this
> configuration -- meaning he believes this would be acceptable to the
> FAA? I've been told by at least one IA that he would NOT sign off on
> using the Appareo ESG ADS-B GPS source to feed GPS position to the
> ACK-04.
>
> Jim Parker
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Baud rate manipulator
> From: Paul Michel <murphysubaru(at)yahoo.com>
> Date: Mon, May 20, 2019 2:23 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> I=99m looking at replacing my old Garmin 510 with my Mini Ipad &
> Foreflight fed by a UAvionics ECHO and UAT. It=99ll clean all the j
unk
> off my glare shield too!
> The Garmin was feeding position data to my ACK-04 ELT, 9600 baud MNEA
> 0183 and it was happy.
> The ECHO has a baud rate of 115200!
> Anyone have any ides how to dummy this light-speed rate down to usable
> 9600 or 4800?
> Paul in SUNNY No. Florida
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
Bob (and Art and Joe),
Many thanks for your feedback. I realize from your replies that I didn't
explain why I am proposing an e-bus which is normally for reducing battery
loads, but since my Stby alternator has a strict current limit I think the
e-bus has a role to play in my system. Here is how I think my design would
work, which I hope will make it clear why I am adding the electrical
complexity of the e-bus to achieve a reduction in pilot workload:
1) cruise flight, main alternator ON and stby alt OFF - ammeter shows
current from main alternator (our EMS only has a single ammeter gauge)
2) main alternator fails - LV warning alerts the pilot, he sees current is
zero and deduces main alternator has failed (or maybe the breaker has
popped which makes it easier to see what has happened)
3) battery carries the loads for a short while
4) pilot turns the e-bus alternate feed ON, and the master OFF - this
reduces the electrical loads below the 17A limit of the stby alternator
5) pilot turns Stby Alt ON. The EMS now shows current from Stby Alt (the
Stby Alt switch is a 3PDT that swaps the ammeter shunt signals as well as
controlling the relay) and pilot can verify loads <17A
6) continue flight to destination
In this sequence the benefit of the e-bus is that it gives the pilot a few
simple actions to perform in order to ensure the Stby alternator is happy,
and the process doesn't require a lot of heads-down work.
NOTE - the above scenario assumes worst-case electrical loads. If the pitot
heat is not being used then it would be simpler to just turn on Stby alt
and not use the e-bus alt feed.
So, how to choose a system architecture to achieve this?
Given that I am proposing to use the Stby alt with the master OFF (e-bus
alternate feed ON) I need the output of the Stby alt to feed into the
system upstream of the battery contactor, and that is what Z-13 shows,
whereas Z-12 has it going in downstream where it won't work for my proposed
design. That is why I want to base my design on Z-13. However, Z-12 shows
the B&C regulator, which is what I have for my main alternator, so i would
be incorporating some elements from Z-12 into my drawing.
I have a loads analysis (I based it on one of the examples from your site
Bob) and I'm attaching it. It is still somewhat incomplete but I'd welcome
you thoughts.
Cheers,
Pat
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 8:05 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Recommend you consider a Z-12 style installation. Leave
> the 17A alternator OFF unless needed during anticipated
> icing conditions . . . another condition that should
> be vanishingly rare -OR- failure of the SD-20.
> You're not going to experience dual alternator failure
> on ANY mission . . . energy rationing with
> an E-bus adds no value.
>
>
> Have you conducted an electrical load analysis
> by flight condition? There are forms that
> assist in organizing the data available
> at https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn
>
> Included are some exemplar spread sheets
> uploaded by various List members over
> the years. I did notice that one of
> the .xls spread sheets shows exterior
> lighting as a running load coincident
> with pitot heat.
>
> My instructors taught that exterior
> lights be turned off while in clouds. The
> combination of variable reflection off passing
> clouds combined with flashing of the
> strobe is distracting and can induce
> vertigo . . . I've experienced it
> first hand.
>
> Your RUNNING loads do not include
> landing lights (unless you have a wig-wag
> system or other recognition assist),
> trims, landing gear or flap motors,
> transmitter draws, etc. Just the steady
> state running loads are used to evaluate
> alternator adequacy and in some cases,
> battery supported E-bus operations.
>
> It may be that a well sorted
> load analysis will mitigate concerns
> for alternator adequacy. It also
> helps you define what switches should
> be ON and which ones OFF in the various
> flight conditions. I suspect that your
> suite of alternators will be shown
> to be entirely adequate to all anticipated
> missions . . . especially if your
> exterior lights are all LED.
>
> 20 years ago the most energy hungry
> system on the airplane was position
> lights . . . 2A per bulb x 3 bulbs x
> duration of flight. Xenon flash
> strobes are way up there too. No longer the
> case.
>
> In your case, it seems likely that
> a Z12 architecture with the PM alternator
> as "standby" is possible . . . crunching
> the numbers will confirm/deny that
> assumption.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
Why not just switch off the pitot heat then?
It seems like a huge amount of extra engineering, and the cockpit actions ar
e no simpler because according to your comment you still have to decide abou
t whether your are using worst case electrical loads or not.
On May 22, 2019, at 02:12, Pat Little wrote:
NOTE - the above scenario assumes worst-case electrical loads. If the pitot h
eat is not being used then it would be simpler to just turn on Stby alt and n
ot use the e-bus alt feed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
That would be reasonable. I've turned mine on exactly once in 13 years
in snow at night and it wasn't needed even then as I pay far more
attention to how the controls feel as well as power and attitude. I've
done circuits with the airspeed covered up to prove this to myself.
It's comforting to have it available when ice is forming but it still
can't be completely trusted and it's more important to exit the icing.
It would definitely not be used after one of my alternators quit.
Ken
On 22/05/2019 6:46 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
> Why not just switch off the pitot heat then?
> It seems like a huge amount of extra engineering, and the cockpit
> actions are no simpler because according to your comment you still
> have to decide about whether your are using worst case electrical
> loads or not.
>
>
> On May 22, 2019, at 02:12, Pat Little > wrote:
>
> NOTE - the above scenario assumes worst-case electrical loads. If the
> pitot heat is not being used then it would be simpler to just turn on
> Stby alt and not use the e-bus alt feed.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
Pat,
I encourage you to reexamine your load analysis. Here are three points from
your Main Bus section:
- Flaps motor - 4 amps. The flaps motor rarely operates. This current
can be supplied by the battery if the alternator does not have sufficien
t
capacity.
- Stater contactor - 4 amps. Once the engine is running, the starter
contactor disengages and draws no current.
- Strobe Lights - 4.5 amps. Like you, I have AeroLEDs Pulsar NSP lights
on my wing tips and the pair draws 2.40 amps continuous, not 4.50.
It looks like I just saved you 10.1 amps. =F0=9F=99=82
As a point of comparison is the load analysis for my airplane. It is in the
right column of this drawing.
overview.pdf
As for your cockpit procedures, they seem like they will certainly work but
it is way more effort than I would want to oblige myself to. I fly with
both alternator on 100% of the time. If the primary fails, the backup
automatically steps in. No pilot action required. If the load is too high
for the standby alternator, I will see a low voltage alert and can shed
some load. The only two things that I anticipate needing to turn off would
be pitot heat (which is almost certainly off anyway) and autopilot servos.
Just my opinion, of course: Since we are designing our own airplanes, we
have the ability to reduce pilot workload as much as possible. Doing so is
a Really Good Idea.
-- Art Z.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:30 AM Pat Little wrote:
> Bob (and Art and Joe),
> Many thanks for your feedback. I realize from your replies that I didn't
> explain why I am proposing an e-bus which is normally for reducing batter
y
> loads, but since my Stby alternator has a strict current limit I think th
e
> e-bus has a role to play in my system. Here is how I think my design woul
d
> work, which I hope will make it clear why I am adding the electrical
> complexity of the e-bus to achieve a reduction in pilot workload:
>
> 1) cruise flight, main alternator ON and stby alt OFF - ammeter shows
> current from main alternator (our EMS only has a single ammeter gauge)
> 2) main alternator fails - LV warning alerts the pilot, he sees current i
s
> zero and deduces main alternator has failed (or maybe the breaker has
> popped which makes it easier to see what has happened)
> 3) battery carries the loads for a short while
> 4) pilot turns the e-bus alternate feed ON, and the master OFF - this
> reduces the electrical loads below the 17A limit of the stby alternator
> 5) pilot turns Stby Alt ON. The EMS now shows current from Stby Alt (the
> Stby Alt switch is a 3PDT that swaps the ammeter shunt signals as well as
> controlling the relay) and pilot can verify loads <17A
> 6) continue flight to destination
>
> In this sequence the benefit of the e-bus is that it gives the pilot a fe
w
> simple actions to perform in order to ensure the Stby alternator is happy
,
> and the process doesn't require a lot of heads-down work.
>
> NOTE - the above scenario assumes worst-case electrical loads. If the
> pitot heat is not being used then it would be simpler to just turn on Stb
y
> alt and not use the e-bus alt feed.
>
> So, how to choose a system architecture to achieve this?
>
> Given that I am proposing to use the Stby alt with the master OFF (e-bus
> alternate feed ON) I need the output of the Stby alt to feed into the
> system upstream of the battery contactor, and that is what Z-13 shows,
> whereas Z-12 has it going in downstream where it won't work for my propos
ed
> design. That is why I want to base my design on Z-13. However, Z-12 shows
> the B&C regulator, which is what I have for my main alternator, so i woul
d
> be incorporating some elements from Z-12 into my drawing.
>
> I have a loads analysis (I based it on one of the examples from your site
> Bob) and I'm attaching it. It is still somewhat incomplete but I'd welcom
e
> you thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
> Pat
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 8:05 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Recommend you consider a Z-12 style installation. Leave
>> the 17A alternator OFF unless needed during anticipated
>> icing conditions . . . another condition that should
>> be vanishingly rare -OR- failure of the SD-20.
>> You're not going to experience dual alternator failure
>> on ANY mission . . . energy rationing with
>> an E-bus adds no value.
>>
>>
>> Have you conducted an electrical load analysis
>> by flight condition? There are forms that
>> assist in organizing the data available
>> at https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn
>>
>> Included are some exemplar spread sheets
>> uploaded by various List members over
>> the years. I did notice that one of
>> the .xls spread sheets shows exterior
>> lighting as a running load coincident
>> with pitot heat.
>>
>> My instructors taught that exterior
>> lights be turned off while in clouds. The
>> combination of variable reflection off passing
>> clouds combined with flashing of the
>> strobe is distracting and can induce
>> vertigo . . . I've experienced it
>> first hand.
>>
>> Your RUNNING loads do not include
>> landing lights (unless you have a wig-wag
>> system or other recognition assist),
>> trims, landing gear or flap motors,
>> transmitter draws, etc. Just the steady
>> state running loads are used to evaluate
>> alternator adequacy and in some cases,
>> battery supported E-bus operations.
>>
>> It may be that a well sorted
>> load analysis will mitigate concerns
>> for alternator adequacy. It also
>> helps you define what switches should
>> be ON and which ones OFF in the various
>> flight conditions. I suspect that your
>> suite of alternators will be shown
>> to be entirely adequate to all anticipated
>> missions . . . especially if your
>> exterior lights are all LED.
>>
>> 20 years ago the most energy hungry
>> system on the airplane was position
>> lights . . . 2A per bulb x 3 bulbs x
>> duration of flight. Xenon flash
>> strobes are way up there too. No longer the
>> case.
>>
>> In your case, it seems likely that
>> a Z12 architecture with the PM alternator
>> as "standby" is possible . . . crunching
>> the numbers will confirm/deny that
>> assumption.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
An E-Bus is vulnerable to pilot error. What if the pilot inadvertently shuts off
the master switch before turning on the E-Bus switch? Now he has to wait for
the avionics to reboot. Instead of an E-Bus, how about locating not-so-important
switches on the right side and important switches on the left side. Switches
could also be color coded. When it is necessary to conserve electrical
power, shut off switches on the right side. This can be accomplished with one
motion of the hand if the switches are mounted close together. If the pilot
later wants to turn on one of the unimportant loads, no problem, just flick on
that one load. There is no need to remember which loads are on which bus and
no need to juggle master and E-Bus switches. Keep it simple.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489340#489340
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The radio only uses 0.3A, not 2.5 amps. Do NOT count intermittent loads.
If the main alternator fails, shut off the landing lights during cruise and save
1.5 amps.
The trim motor and relay deck are intermittent loads. Subtract another 1.8 amps.
Eliminate the E-Bus diode and save 1/2 amp of wasted power (heat).
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489341#489341
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
At 01:12 AM 5/22/2019, you wrote:
>Bob (and Art and Joe),
>Many thanks for your feedback. I realize from your replies that I
>didn't explain why I am proposing an e-bus which is normally for
>reducing battery loads, but since my Stby alternator has a strict
>current limit I think the e-bus has a role to play in my system.
>Here is how I think my design would work, which I hope will make it
>clear why I am adding the electrical complexity of the e-bus to
>achieve a reduction in pilot workload:
Show show. I'm packing up to
run to Wichita . . . be back
tomorrow p.m.
I'll let you guys thrash the
data/options . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
I appreciate your suggestions, Art.
In my loads analysis the left column, which is colored, corresponds to
your *Maximum
*column, and I use this for wire sizing (hence the color codes, just as a
quick visual for me to know which PIDG I'll be using). The other columns to
the right show which circuits will be in use during various phases of
flight (so I only show starter contactor when starting, and flap motor is
present in some phases of flight but reduced somewhat to account for air
loads on the flaps - it only shows the max 4A during descent when
presumably the motor is working against the air loads). My final,
right-most, column of numbers is an attempt to show average currents, which
I think corresponds to your *Typical *column.
Maybe all the numbers in my phase-of-flight columns should be average, and
ignore transient peaks?
I would love to be able to run both alternators all the time but I don't
think I can (at least not without giving the pilot extra work to do)
because my secondary alternator has a thermal restriction and needs to be
kept below 17A. Depending on details of how the the two alternators behave
at high currents, i.e., how their voltages droop as current increases, the
secondary may exceed 17A when pitot heat is on and would need to be
cosseted even though the bus voltage, with both alternators contributing,
is still plenty above LV warn level. So, the pilot would have to monitor
the secondary's current which is extra work. And I agree that is a Bad
Idea.
Pat
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 6:08 AM Art Zemon wrote:
> Pat,
>
> I encourage you to reexamine your load analysis. Here are three points
> from your Main Bus section:
>
> - Flaps motor - 4 amps. The flaps motor rarely operates. This current
> can be supplied by the battery if the alternator does not have suffici
ent
> capacity.
> - Stater contactor - 4 amps. Once the engine is running, the starter
> contactor disengages and draws no current.
> - Strobe Lights - 4.5 amps. Like you, I have AeroLEDs Pulsar NSP
> lights on my wing tips and the pair draws 2.40 amps continuous, not 4.
50.
>
> It looks like I just saved you 10.1 amps. =F0=9F=99=82
> As a point of comparison is the load analysis for my airplane. It is in
> the right column of this drawing.
>
> overview.pdf
>
>
> As for your cockpit procedures, they seem like they will certainly work
> but it is way more effort than I would want to oblige myself to. I fly wi
th
> both alternator on 100% of the time. If the primary fails, the backup
> automatically steps in. No pilot action required. If the load is too high
> for the standby alternator, I will see a low voltage alert and can shed
> some load. The only two things that I anticipate needing to turn off woul
d
> be pitot heat (which is almost certainly off anyway) and autopilot servos
.
>
> Just my opinion, of course: Since we are designing our own airplanes, we
> have the ability to reduce pilot workload as much as possible. Doing so i
s
> a Really Good Idea.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:30 AM Pat Little wrote:
>
>> Bob (and Art and Joe),
>> Many thanks for your feedback. I realize from your replies that I didn't
>> explain why I am proposing an e-bus which is normally for reducing batte
ry
>> loads, but since my Stby alternator has a strict current limit I think t
he
>> e-bus has a role to play in my system. Here is how I think my design wou
ld
>> work, which I hope will make it clear why I am adding the electrical
>> complexity of the e-bus to achieve a reduction in pilot workload:
>>
>> 1) cruise flight, main alternator ON and stby alt OFF - ammeter shows
>> current from main alternator (our EMS only has a single ammeter gauge)
>> 2) main alternator fails - LV warning alerts the pilot, he sees current
>> is zero and deduces main alternator has failed (or maybe the breaker has
>> popped which makes it easier to see what has happened)
>> 3) battery carries the loads for a short while
>> 4) pilot turns the e-bus alternate feed ON, and the master OFF - this
>> reduces the electrical loads below the 17A limit of the stby alternator
>> 5) pilot turns Stby Alt ON. The EMS now shows current from Stby Alt (the
>> Stby Alt switch is a 3PDT that swaps the ammeter shunt signals as well a
s
>> controlling the relay) and pilot can verify loads <17A
>> 6) continue flight to destination
>>
>> In this sequence the benefit of the e-bus is that it gives the pilot a
>> few simple actions to perform in order to ensure the Stby alternator is
>> happy, and the process doesn't require a lot of heads-down work.
>>
>> NOTE - the above scenario assumes worst-case electrical loads. If the
>> pitot heat is not being used then it would be simpler to just turn on St
by
>> alt and not use the e-bus alt feed.
>>
>> So, how to choose a system architecture to achieve this?
>>
>> Given that I am proposing to use the Stby alt with the master OFF (e-bus
>> alternate feed ON) I need the output of the Stby alt to feed into the
>> system upstream of the battery contactor, and that is what Z-13 shows,
>> whereas Z-12 has it going in downstream where it won't work for my propo
sed
>> design. That is why I want to base my design on Z-13. However, Z-12 show
s
>> the B&C regulator, which is what I have for my main alternator, so i wou
ld
>> be incorporating some elements from Z-12 into my drawing.
>>
>> I have a loads analysis (I based it on one of the examples from your sit
e
>> Bob) and I'm attaching it. It is still somewhat incomplete but I'd welco
me
>> you thoughts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
>
>Maybe all the numbers in my phase-of-flight columns should be
>average, and ignore transient peaks?
Yes . . .
>I would love to be able to run both alternators all the time but I
>don't think I can (at least not without giving the pilot extra work
>to do) because my secondary alternator has a thermal restriction and
>needs to be kept below 17A. Depending on details of how the the two
>alternators behave at high currents, i.e., how their voltages droop
>as current increases, the secondary may exceed 17A when pitot heat
>is on and would need to be cosseted even though the bus voltage,
>with both alternators contributing, is still plenty above LV warn
>level. So, the pilot would have to monitor the secondary's current
>which is extra work. And I agree that is a Bad Idea.
Your gut is right . . . AMMETERS are
bad flight management instrumentation.
Your various "plans" based on flight
conditions are predictable. That's
what the load analysis is all about.
We've built millions of airplanes
with no ammeters in them. It's only
since the glass cockpit guys started
adding them to the list of features
that pilots are beginning to think
that (1) gee, if I can go measure a current,
why not? (2) but which current and for
what operational purpose? (3) now
that I can track that feature in flight,
what are my pilot duties (work load)
to observe and react to what I see?
The answer to all three questions is
zilch, zip, nada . . .
If you've need to observe a manufacture's
limit on an alternator load, then factor
that into which switches are ON and OFF
for the pre planned flight conditions
(those columns in the load analysis).
Ammeters are diagnostic instruments
used to deduce malfunctions and
plan repairs . . . on the ground.
If you need to fiddle with the switches
in flight while watching an ammeter,
you've failed to exploit the value
of the load analysis.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
NOOB question: I have a Garmin Aera 660 that I'd like to use their bare wire cradle
to connect to aircraft power and utilize the 232 and audio outputs. Is
the best way to do that is connect all nine wires in a D-sub connector to provide
connections to the other devices? If so, would it be best to use a male of
female connector? For now the planned distribution would be audio for warnings
to Garmin GTR 200 and gps position information to the ELT. At some point
the second 232 output would be for navigational display. This is in addition to
the power and ground for the 660 itself. Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489352#489352
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If the GPS has a male connector and the aircraft wiring has the female connector,
then there is less chance of accidentally shorting out the power wires.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489353#489353
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> If the GPS has a male connector and the aircraft wiring has the female connector,
then there is less chance of accidentally shorting out the power wires.
Thanks. Would connector shells be necessary as well?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489364#489364
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
D-Sub Backshells support the wires and act as a strain relief to help prevent wires
from breaking where they are crimped or soldered. I would use the backshells
unless the wires are supported some other way.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489370#489370
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
Bare Wire Question, Part II. I asked Garmin about the AWG for the wires in the
harness. Their reply 20AWG for power and ground, and 26AWG or 28AWG for the
others. The pins I see online at Aircraft Spruce of Steinair only show 20-24AWG
as the working range. Are pins for the smaller wires available, and will they
work in a standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or 22 for the connections
to the rest of the airplane.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489386#489386
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
At 04:02 PM 5/28/2019, you wrote:
>
>Bare Wire Question, Part II. I asked Garmin about the AWG for the
>wires in the harness. Their reply 20AWG for power and ground, and
>26AWG or 28AWG for the others. The pins I see online at Aircraft
>Spruce of Steinair only show 20-24AWG as the working range. Are
>pins for the smaller wires available, and will they work in a
>standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or 22 for the
>connections to the rest of the airplane.
22AWG is quite adequate for all the Garmin
wiring. That '20AWG power and ground" meme
has been around for decades . . . I have no
idea as to the rational behind it in small
appliances that draw small currents. I suppose
someone thought that it was a good thing to
minimize the resistance/reactance between
their electro-whizzy and the ship's power
supply . . . but to levy this as a requirement
suggests that their DO160 qualification testing
was sketchy . . . it makes no sense to me
whatsoever.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/28/19 |
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question
> From: "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Bare Wire Question, Part II. I asked Garmin about the AWG for the wires
> in the
> harness. Their reply 20AWG for power and ground, and 26AWG or 28AWG for
> the
> others. The pins I see online at Aircraft Spruce of Steinair only show
> 20-24AWG
> as the working range. Are pins for the smaller wires available, and will
> they
> work in a standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or 22 for the
> connections
> to the rest of the airplane.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489386#489386
John,
As Bob has pointed out before here, you can use those pins for the smaller
wires, or you can just wire everything with 22 gauge wire. The weight
penalty will be minuscule.
If you're determined to use those tiny wires, you can just fold them over
double and insert them into the pins before you crimp or solder them.
Ron
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
=81=A3Sent from BlueMail =8B
On May 29, 2019, 1:22 PM, at 1:22
PM, "Robert L=2E Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>At 04:02 PM 5/28/2019, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted b
y: "farmrjohn"
>
>>
>>Bare Wire Question, Part I
I=2E I asked Garmin about the AWG for the
>>wires in the harness=2E Thei
r reply 20AWG for power and ground, and
>>26AWG or 28AWG for the others=2E
The pins I see online at Aircraft
>>Spruce of Steinair only show 20-24AW
G as the working range=2E Are
>>pins for the smaller wires available, and
will they work in a
>>standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or
22 for the
>>connections to the rest of the airplane=2E
>
>22AWG is quite
adequate for all the Garmin
>wiring=2E That '20AWG power and ground" meme
>has been around for decades =2E =2E =2E I have no
>idea as to the rational
behind it in small
>appliances that draw small currents=2E I suppose
>some
one thought that it was a good thing to
>minimize the resistance/reactance
between
>their electro-whizzy and the ship's power
>supply =2E =2E =2E but
to levy this as a requirement
>suggests that their DO160 qualification test
ing
>was sketchy =2E =2E =2E it makes no sense to me
>whatsoever=2E
>
>
>
Bob =2E =2E =2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> Digikey has D-Sub contacts made for 28 AWG wire. Mouser also has them but their
search engine makes them hard to find unless you search for the manufacturer's
part number. Be careful not to buy the high density contacts which will
not fit in a regular density connector. An option is to buy all one size, 20-24,
and, when using smaller wire, fill the void with a short piece of solid hookup
wire. Or fold the small wire back on itself to make it twice as big.
> https://www.digikey.com/products/en/connectors-interconnects/d-sub-d-shaped-connectors-contacts/332?FV=ffe0014c%2C13800b2%2C16040027%2C1f140000&quantity=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=1&k=D-Sub&pageSize=25&pkeyword=D-Sub
Thanks for the link. I did manage to find some 22-28awg pins and sockets with
the Digikey search, and that prompted my question about the socket size. It looks
like the Digikey part A34501-ND will fit the male d-sub for the bare wire
harness as previously suggested.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489392#489392
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from BlueMail (http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=14874)
> On May 29, 2019, at 1:22 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> > At 04:02 PM 5/28/2019, you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Bare Wire Question, Part II. I asked Garmin about the AWG for the wires
in the harness. Their reply 20AWG for power and ground, and 26AWG or 28AWG for
the others. The pins I see online at Aircraft Spruce of Steinair only show
20-24AWG as the working range. Are pins for the smaller wires available, and
will they work in a standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or 22 for
the connections to the rest of the airplane.
> >
> >
> >
> > Power and Ground are shown as 20 AWG.
> > 22AWG is quite adequate for all the Garmin
> > wiring. That '20AWG power and ground" meme
> > has been around for decades . . . I have no
> > idea as to the rational behind it in small
> > appliances that draw small currents. I suppose
> > someone thought that it was a good thing to
> > minimize the resistance/reactance between
> > their electro-whizzy and the ship's power
> > supply . . . but to levy this as a requirement
> > suggests that their DO160 qualification testing
> > was sketchy . . . it makes no sense to me
> > whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . . John,On the pin question, I'd just strip a 22 gauge wire and
stick it in next to the 24 or 28 gauge wire in a standard pin, prior to crimping.
> >
>
The actual bare wires with the 660 cradle are different sizes with the ends pre-stripped.
This is the response I received from Garmin when I asked what size
the wires were:
"Thank you for contacting Garmin International. The AERA 660 wiring harness AWG
are as follows:
Pins 1, 5 are 26AWG wire
All other pins are 28AWG
Power and Ground are shown as 20 AWG."
Their bare wire cradle has no pins specified, just the different functions and
wire color, ie. RS-232 RX 1 Yellow, RS-232 TX 1 Blue. The red power wire does
have a 3 amp inline fuse and holder spiced in just prior to the free end.
Bare Wire Question, Part IV. Would a crimper such as https://www.steinair.com/product/4-way-indent-crimper/ work with the 26-28awg pins or would using the "standard" 20-24awg pin with a second filler wire be a better option?
Thanks, and sorry about not being able to combine and edit quotes in my messages..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489394#489394
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
Do you think we could get a petition to these manufacturers that think the
y're doing someone a favor by shipping products with these "whiskers preten
ding to be wires" sticking out?=C2- (I'm talking to YOU, Ray Allen).=C2
- Is there any builder that doesn't first have to figure out how to strip
those tiny wires without breaking the wires and then find the crimpers to
attach a pin to shove into a DB-9 connector?=C2- Just stick a stupid fema
le DB connector on the appliance case, because that is what every single pe
rson is going to have to do for a maintenance disconnect anyway.=C2- Ther
e would be so many fewer curse words in my lexicon if this was just standar
d practice.
@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from BlueMail On May 29, 2019, at 1:22 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
At 04:02 PM 5/28/2019, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List messageposted by: "farmrjohn"
Bare Wire Question, Part II.=C2- I asked Garmin about the AWG for thewire
s in the harness.=C2- Their reply 20AWG for power and ground, and26AWG or
28AWG for the others.=C2- The pins I see online at AircraftSpruce of Ste
inair only show 20-24AWG as the working range.=C2- Arepins for the smalle
r wires available, and will they work in a standardd-sub connector?=C2- I
would use either 20 or 22 for the connections tothe rest of the airplane.
22AWG is quite adequate for all the Garmin
wiring. That '20AWG power and ground" meme
has been around for decades . . . I have no
idea as to the rational behind it in small
appliances that draw small currents. I suppose
someone thought that it was a good thing to
minimize the resistance/reactance between
their electro-whizzy and the ship's power
supply . . . but to levy this as a requirement
suggests that their DO160 qualification testing
was sketchy . . . it makes no sense to me
whatsoever.
=C2- Bob . . .
John,
On the pin question, I'd just strip a 22 gauge wire and stick it in next to
the 24 or 28 gauge wire in a standard pin, prior to crimping.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
>
> > > >
> > > > Bare Wire Question, Part II. I asked Garmin about the AWG
> for the wires in the harness. Their reply 20AWG for power and
> ground, and 26AWG or 28AWG for the others. The pins I see online
> at Aircraft Spruce of Steinair only show 20-24AWG as the working
> range. Are pins for the smaller wires available, and will they
> work in a standard d-sub connector? I would use either 20 or 22
> for the connections to the rest of the airplane.
> > >
If it were my airplane:
https://tinyurl.com/y5slt47b
The harness mod drawing above speaks
to a cleaner installation and no special
pins or tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
At 10:35 AM 5/30/2019, you wrote:
>Do you think we could get a petition to these manufacturers that
>think they're doing someone a favor by shipping products with these
>"whiskers pretending to be wires" sticking out? (I'm talking to
>YOU, Ray Allen). Is there any builder that doesn't first have to
>figure out how to strip those tiny wires without breaking the wires
>and then find the crimpers to attach a pin to shove into a DB-9
>connector? Just stick a stupid female DB connector on the appliance
>case, because that is what every single person is going to have to
>do for a maintenance disconnect anyway. There would be so many
>fewer curse words in my lexicon if this was just standard practice.
Tried that . . . several times . . .
about 20 years. The RayAllen folks
in the booth at OSH just shrugged it
off, "Haven't had any complaints . . .
been do'n it this way for years."
Actually, they're very much AWARE
of the problems as illustrated on their
FAQs page:
Emacs!
These paragraphs are illustrative of
their intransigence and why I crafted this
ShopNote.
https://tinyurl.com/cmq7epd
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> > > >
>
> If it were my airplane:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y5slt47b (https://tinyurl.com/y5slt47b)
>
> The harness mod drawing above speaks
> to a cleaner installation and no special
> pins or tools.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks, I hadn't considered cutting the 660 harness. For connections I'm planning
on Red to power (from aux plug that the current plug in harness goes-no fancy
GPS EFI installed), Black to ground, Blue RS-232 TX to ACK E-04 elt, Green
Audio Common to GTR200 pin 31 audio in lo, and Brown Audio Left to GTR200 pin
32 audio in hi. The audio connections are per Garmin. I don't plan on connecting
the data portion of the 660 to the GTR200. The 660 Pilot's Guide Appendix
D does address the bare wire connections, but not the pins and connectors used.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489405#489405
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 alternators and 3 questions |
Bob, Joe, and Art: I have absorbed your comments and revised my loads
analysis (attached).
1. I now only show continuous/typical loads for the various flight
phases (one exception, perhaps, is the starter contactor, and it only
appears in one column)
2. I include pitot heat in the phases where it might get used, but also
added a line below the TOTALS line to show totals without pitot heat.
3. Now the loads in all phases of flight, with pitot heat on, are well
below 80% of the main alternator's rated load. With pitot heat off they
fall below 80% of rated load for the standby alternator.
4. No e-bus.
5. If the main alternator fails and pitot heat is needed (very low
likelihood of occurrence) then the pilot can turn off the landing lights
and/or the strobes and be under the stby alternator's rated load.
6. I am going to group the switches so the large non-essential loads are
at the right-hand end of the row to make load shedding easy and intuitive.
In the analysis spreadsheet I have placed these at the bottom of the main
bus.
More comments welcome :-)
I really appreciate the feedback - this listserve is great!
Thanks,
Pat
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe all the numbers in my phase-of-flight columns should be average, and
> ignore transient peaks?
>
>
> Yes . . .
>
>
> I would love to be able to run both alternators all the time but I don't
> think I can (at least not without giving the pilot extra work to do)
> because my secondary alternator has a thermal restriction and needs to be
> kept below 17A. Depending on details of how the the two alternators behave
> at high currents, i.e., how their voltages droop as current increases, the
> secondary may exceed 17A when pitot heat is on and would need to be
> cosseted even though the bus voltage, with both alternators contributing,
> is still plenty above LV warn level. So, the pilot would have to monitor
> the secondary's current which is extra work. And I agree that is a Bad Idea.
>
>
> Your gut is right . . . AMMETERS are
> bad flight management instrumentation.
>
> Your various "plans" based on flight
> conditions are predictable. That's
> what the load analysis is all about.
> We've built millions of airplanes
> with no ammeters in them. It's only
> since the glass cockpit guys started
> adding them to the list of features
> that pilots are beginning to think
> that (1) gee, if I can go measure a current,
> why not? (2) but which current and for
> what operational purpose? (3) now
> that I can track that feature in flight,
> what are my pilot duties (work load)
> to observe and react to what I see?
>
> The answer to all three questions is
> zilch, zip, nada . . .
>
> If you've need to observe a manufacture's
> limit on an alternator load, then factor
> that into which switches are ON and OFF
> for the pre planned flight conditions
> (those columns in the load analysis).
>
> Ammeters are diagnostic instruments
> used to deduce malfunctions and
> plan repairs . . . on the ground.
> If you need to fiddle with the switches
> in flight while watching an ammeter,
> you've failed to exploit the value
> of the load analysis.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Hello,
I'm installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend an
aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of the
adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com antenna,
why would this be?
Thanks
Mike
Mike Pienaar
m ike(at)vision499.com
Home: +1 250-999-8121
Mike cell: +1 250-885-0554
1-1100 Tulip Ave, Victoria, BC, V8Z 0A2
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I will just address your question of antenna separation. ELTs have
oscillator circuits to generate the multiple frequencies they transmit.
Those circuits can be activated by strong VHF signals, such as TV, FM
radio, etc. When that occurs the ELT re-radiates signals that are
received by your com radio. I had an aircraft where the ELT antenna was
18" behind the Loran antenna (a modified com antenna), and in front of
the Loran antenna 18 " was the com antenna. Whenever I flew within 10
miles of the local TV/FM antenna farm, I would get squelch break so bad
I couldn't hear the local tower or approach control frequencies, on both
com radios. Disconnected ELT antenna and problem went away. Reconnect
and it was back. I would suggest adhering to the antenna separation, and
if you have a second com, put the antenna for it on the belly.
On 5/30/2019 6:39 PM, mike(at)vision499.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Im installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend an
> aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>
> My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of the
> adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
>
> They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com
> antenna, why would this be?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Pienaar
>
> _mike(at)vision499.com ___
>
> *Home: +1 250-999-8121*
>
> Mike cell: +1 250-885-0554
>
> 1-1100 Tulip Ave, Victoria, BC, V8Z 0A2
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I don't have any easy answers for aluminum foil, but copper foil is
easily soldered. Another option for only a slight weight penalty is to
cut thin aluminum strips, with the 'root' end cut big enough to accept
the antenna mounting bolts. Flashing material from your local building
supply is an easy, inexpensive source.
Charlie
On 5/30/2019 9:03 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I will just address your question of antenna separation. ELTs have
> oscillator circuits to generate the multiple frequencies they
> transmit. Those circuits can be activated by strong VHF signals, such
> as TV, FM radio, etc. When that occurs the ELT re-radiates signals
> that are received by your com radio. I had an aircraft where the ELT
> antenna was 18" behind the Loran antenna (a modified com antenna), and
> in front of the Loran antenna 18 " was the com antenna. Whenever I
> flew within 10 miles of the local TV/FM antenna farm, I would get
> squelch break so bad I couldn't hear the local tower or approach
> control frequencies, on both com radios. Disconnected ELT antenna and
> problem went away. Reconnect and it was back. I would suggest adhering
> to the antenna separation, and if you have a second com, put the
> antenna for it on the belly.
>
> On 5/30/2019 6:39 PM, mike(at)vision499.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Im installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend
>> an aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>>
>> My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of
>> the adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the
>> foil?
>>
>> They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com
>> antenna, why would this be?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike Pienaar
>>
>> _mike(at)vision499.com ___
>>
>> *Home: +1 250-999-8121*
>>
>> Mike cell: +1 250-885-0554
>>
>> 1-1100 Tulip Ave, Victoria, BC, V8Z 0A2
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
To see my installation go to www.kissbuild.onfinal18.com
Select MY PROGRESS
Under Instrument Panel - Select Antenna Installation.
Bob Reed
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 30, 2019, at 8:39 PM, wro
te:
>
> Hello,
>
> I=99m installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recomme
nd an aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>
> My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of the ad
hesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
>
> They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com antenna,
why would this be?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Mike Pienaar
> mike(at)vision499.com
> Home: +1 250-999-8121
> Mike cell: +1 250-885-0554
> 1-1100 Tulip Ave, Victoria, BC, V8Z 0A2
>
>
>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 08:39 PM 5/30/2019, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend
>an aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>
>My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of
>the adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
>
>They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com
>antenna, why would this be?
Might be easier to ditch the whip antenna
and go with the RST design semi-dipoles
discussed here on the List about 7 years
ago:
https://tinyurl.com/yyz6anjs
This antenna is a dual frequency DIPOLE
that does not require a ground plane.
It mounts no the side of your fuselage
inside surface.
What is the material used in your
airplane's construction?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/2/2019 12:17 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:39 PM 5/30/2019, you wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Im installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend
>> an aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>>
>> My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of
>> the adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
>>
>> They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com
>> antenna, why would this be?
>
> Might be easier to ditch the whip antenna
> and go with the RST design semi-dipoles
> discussed here on the List about 7 years
> ago:
>
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yyz6anjs
>
> This antenna is a dual frequency DIPOLE
> that does not require a ground plane.
> It mounts no the side of your fuselage
> inside surface.
>
> What is the material used in your
> airplane's construction?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Don't know if this is reality, but I've seen some discussion in the past
about ELTs' supplied-antennas being part of the certification 'package'.
I know we're experimentals, but some things we don't get a pass on, like
IFR GPS vs non-TSO nav/ILS radios.
ELTs in general don't give me a lot of warm & fuzzies, but I would like
to be confident that my insurance company doesn't have an 'out' if
they're asked to pay on an accident that I've survived.
Just a thought...
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
Bob,
If you change the antenna, does the ELT still meet TSO-C126b, is it still
=9Capproved=9D, and does it still meet 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.207?
On Jun 2, 2019, at 13:17, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric
.com> wrote:
At 08:39 PM 5/30/2019, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I=99m installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recomme
nd an aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
>
> My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of the ad
hesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
>
> They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com antenna,
why would this be?
Might be easier to ditch the whip antenna
and go with the RST design semi-dipoles
discussed here on the List about 7 years
ago:
https://tinyurl.com/yyz6anjs
This antenna is a dual frequency DIPOLE
that does not require a ground plane.
It mounts no the side of your fuselage
inside surface.
What is the material used in your
airplane's construction?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 12:58 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>If you change the antenna, does the ELT still
>meet TSO-C126b, is it still =9Capproved=9D, and
>does it still meet 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.207?
probably not according to the guy that
walks around with a rule book under his
arm . . . but it does meet the spirit
and intent. Jim sold a lot of kits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Thank you very much for the help.
The aircraft is a KIS made from honeycomb and fiberglass
On the dipole antenna what length should the folded balun be and do I make
the toroid balun with 3 toroids as in the instruction?
Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from the com
antenna
Thanks again
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 2, 2019 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 08:39 PM 5/30/2019, you wrote:
Hello,
I'm installing an ACK ELT in a composite aircraft and they recommend an
aluminum foil ground plane for the antenna.
My question is how do you ensure conductivity between the layers of the
adhesive aluminum foil and how do you attach the antenna to the foil?
They also want the antenna to be more than 3 ft away from the com antenna,
why would this be?
Might be easier to ditch the whip antenna
and go with the RST design semi-dipoles
discussed here on the List about 7 years
ago:
https://tinyurl.com/yyz6anjs
This antenna is a dual frequency DIPOLE
that does not require a ground plane.
It mounts no the side of your fuselage
inside surface.
What is the material used in your
airplane's construction?
Bob . . .
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | THE FASCINATING WORLD OF SOLDER ALLOYS AND METALLURGY |
I just ran across this very interesting article
THE FASCINATING WORLD OF SOLDER ALLOYS AND METALLURGY
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: THE FASCINATING WORLD OF SOLDER ALLOYS AND METALLURGY |
At 09:01 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
>I just ran across this very interesting article
>
>THE
>FASCINATING WORLD OF SOLDER ALLOYS AND METALLURGY
Good find! Thanks . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
I can answer this with some real world experience.=C2- I mounted my COM
antennae just behind the canopy on my 601XL, and then I put the ELT about h
alfway between the COM and the rudder.=C2- There was about 18 inches or s
o separation between each.
In there air, I could not reliably communicate with KRDU once I got out of
their airspace.
Once I moved the ELT to the bottom of the fuselage (and away from the COM a
ntennae), performance has been like every other plane I've ever flown in.
Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from the com a
ntenna
=C2-
=C2-
| | Virus-free. www.avast.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Roger Curtis <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
If you ring a tuning fork of a certain pitch on one side of the room, a
tuning fork of the same pitch will vibrate across the room. Both are as
turned off as can be. I had a case where transmissions on 121.7 were
bleeding onto 121.5. Moving the ELT antenna farther away fixed it. The
story we told ourselves was that it must have been a resonance through the
inactive ELT's circuit.
On June 3, 2019 12:04:40 Roger Curtis wrote:
>
>
> Isn't the ELT turned off (not transmitting) all the time during flight? If
> this is the case please explain why it would affect the Com
> performance.RogerSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net>
> Date: 06/03/2019 10:20 (GMT-05:00)
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
>
>
> I can answer this with some real world experience. I mounted my COM
> antennae just behind the canopy on my 601XL, and then I put the ELT about
> halfway between the COM and the rudder. There was about 18 inches or
so
> separation between each.In there air, I could not reliably communicate
with
> KRDU once I got out of their airspace.Once I moved the ELT to the bottom
of
> the fuselage (and away from the COM antennae), performance has been like
> every other plane I've ever flown in.
>
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>
> Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated
from the com
> antenna
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 06:46 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
>Thank you very much for the help.
>
>The aircraft is a KIS made from honeycomb and fiberglass
>
>On the dipole antenna what length should the folded balun be and do
>I make the toroid balun with 3 toroids as in the instruction?
This antenna can't use a coax balun . . . it's a dual frequency
configuration that precludes using a resonant piece of coax
cable to improve feedline performance. Unfortunately
the highest frequency of operation (402Mhz) precludes
the use of broad-band magnetics.
Jim was fond of the string-of-beads approach to
reducing effects of mismatch on the feedline
but I researched that in the EMC lab at Beech
about 30 years ago . . . minimally effective.
The most effective decoupling technique using
ferrite beads or toroids was utilized in this
product a few years ago . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y4qpkqoc
Talked with this fellow by email and phone.
Made some questionable claims including
the assertion that the thing was 'patented'.
Never could find that patent . . . nonetheless,
here's what was inside the 'miracle box':
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/AirWhip/AirWhip_Inside.jpg
This de-coupling technique wound several
turns on a common core. Inductance goes
up as the square of turns. In the photo
we count 7 turns or 49 times the inductance
of a same core with one turn. Jim's string-
of-beads gives 1x potential inductance/per/core
or perhaps 8-12x depending on how many cores
are strung onto the coax.
Played with this in the EMC lap at RAC/Beech
and determined that the string of beads wasn't
worth the trouble. So . . . how about the
airwhip technique for multiple turns on a
single core? Not a bad choice. I've seen
it done with antennas over a broad spectum
of frequencies . . . within limits.
Seems that ferrite inductive qualities
versus attenuation qualities swap duties
at about 200 Mhz or so . . . that's why
they are effective for EMC management
at vhf/uhf frequencies, not so much
as transformers at 402 Mhz . . . but still worth
investigating with the right test equipment.
I've got a uhf vector analyzer sitting
on the shelf above my desk (sigh) . . . someday
maybe . . .
Given that this antenna is intended to
operated on two, unchanging discrete
frequencies, one COULD consider fabricating
a passive components matching network to
transfer feedline energy to the two antennas
effectively . . . but I'd bet that the
performance differences between uncle Jim's
shade-tree engineering approach an one by
Dorne-Margolin would be observable only
in the lab and of little advantage in
practice.
In the mean time, fabricating uncle Jim's
paralleled dipoles arrangement is easy.
Attaching directly to this antenna with
coax is also easy.
Emacs!
It seems that your airplane (epoxy/glass)
is a likely candidate for an all internal
ELT antenna which would, I suspect, be
less vulnerable to damage by unintended
arrivals with the earth. Best yet, no
ground plane . . .
>
>Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from
>the com antenna
Kelly offered the strongest rationale for
separation . . . ELT's are particularly
susceptible to cross-modulation products
because unlike receivers, there are
'high power', non-linear components continuously
connected to the antenna. I suspect that modern
ELTs with FET output stages might be
better in this regard but the risks are
not zero.
Having said that, there is zero risk for
damaging anything. I'd recommend you install
for convenience and see if you have problems.
The problems will be nothing worst than
an occasional nuisance with a high
probability that you'll not suffer
the effects at all.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 11:16 AM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>If you ring a tuning fork of a certain pitch on one side of the
>room, a tuning fork of the same pitch will vibrate across the room.
>Both are as turned off as can be. I had a case where transmissions
>on 121.7 were bleeding onto 121.5. Moving the ELT antenna farther
>away fixed it. The story we told ourselves was that it must have
>been a resonance through the inactive ELT's circuit.
Close . . . big bears in the woods
are the solid state devices with matching
networks that feed their energies to the
antenna. In transceivers, a relay
disconnects that path except while
transmitting. In ELTs the pathway
is enduring.
One could just connect a diode across
the BNC connector at the base of the ELT
antenna and create a really whippy cross-mod
generator.
Take the final stage transistor out
of the ELT and the problem would go away . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and amplify a sig
nal then apply it to the antennae are not working.=C2- It is "off" in the
sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an incoming signal are not
working.=C2- But, measuring from the antennae to ground, and you will no
tice that the resistance is not infinite.=C2- In fact, it will read a dea
d short if I'm not mistaken.=C2- The antennae is still "sensing" electrom
agnetic fluctuations and supplying them for reading.=C2- There's just not
hing there to read them.=C2- The only way for the antennae to "sense" the
fluctuations is for the fluctuations to do the work of producing a current
in the antennae.=C2- When the ELT is off, that "work" just gets dumped a
s heat.
By placing the antennas very close,=C2- my COM was providing a VERY large
signal to the ELT.=C2- The ELT could hear me clear as day.=C2- The ELT
then proceded to convert that clear signal into heat.=C2- That heat came
from my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the energy that was meant
to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my ability to
communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which direction I was flyin
g.=C2- If I flew directly to or away from the airport, the signal was eve
n weaker.
er.net> wrote:
Isn't the ELT turned off (not transmitting) all the time during flight?
=C2- If this is the case please explain why it would affect the Com perfo
rmance.
Roger
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 09:20 AM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>I can answer this with some real world experience. I mounted my COM
>antennae just behind the canopy on my 601XL, and then I put the ELT
>about halfway between the COM and the rudder. There was about 18
>inches or so separation between each.
>
>In there air, I could not reliably communicate with KRDU once I got
>out of their airspace.
>
>Once I moved the ELT to the bottom of the fuselage (and away from
>the COM antennae), performance has been like every other plane I've
>ever flown in.
Interesting! That would have been
a fascinating installation to study
in the lab.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 01:02 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and amplify
>a signal then apply it to the antennae are not working. It is "off"
>in the sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an incoming
>signal are not working. But, measuring from the antennae to ground,
>and you will notice that the resistance is not infinite. In fact,
>it will read a dead short if I'm not mistaken. The antennae is
>still "sensing" electromagnetic fluctuations and supplying them for
>reading. There's just nothing there to read them. The only way for
>the antennae to "sense" the fluctuations is for the fluctuations to
>do the work of producing a current in the antennae. When the ELT is
>off, that "work" just gets dumped as heat.
>
>By placing the antennas very close, my COM was providing a VERY
>large signal to the ELT. The ELT could hear me clear as day. The
>ELT then proceded to convert that clear signal into heat. That heat
>came from my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the energy
>that was meant to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
>
>It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my
>ability to communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which
>direction I was flying. If I flew directly to or away from the
>airport, the signal was even weaker.
Not sure I can grok the heat thing. While the
comm signal is 'strong', comm power measured
at the base of the ELT antenna cannot be more
than a tiny fraction of total comm output power.
But the 'lensing' effects of parasitic radiators
is another matter . . . distortion of the
comm radiation pattern would be my first guess.
Would be fun to 'sniff' it in the lab . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/3/2019 2:12 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 01:02 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>> The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and amplify
>> a signal then apply it to the antennae are not working. It is "off"
>> in the sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an incoming
>> signal are not working. But, measuring from the antennae to ground,
>> and you will notice that the resistance is not infinite. In fact, it
>> will read a dead short if I'm not mistaken. The antennae is still
>> "sensing" electromagnetic fluctuations and supplying them for
>> reading. There's just nothing there to read them. The only way for
>> the antennae to "sense" the fluctuations is for the fluctuations to
>> do the work of producing a current in the antennae. When the ELT is
>> off, that "work" just gets dumped as heat.
>>
>> By placing the antennas very close, my COM was providing a VERY
>> large signal to the ELT. The ELT could hear me clear as day. The ELT
>> then proceded to convert that clear signal into heat. That heat came
>> from my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the energy that was
>> meant to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
>>
>> It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my
>> ability to communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which
>> direction I was flying. If I flew directly to or away from the
>> airport, the signal was even weaker.
>
> Not sure I can grok the heat thing. While the
> comm signal is 'strong', comm power measured
> at the base of the ELT antenna cannot be more
> than a tiny fraction of total comm output power.
> But the 'lensing' effects of parasitic radiators
> is another matter . . . distortion of the
> comm radiation pattern would be my first guess.
>
> Would be fun to 'sniff' it in the lab . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
OK, show of hands: How many of you had to google 'grok'? (Brag mode on;
I didn't... If you had to google it, don't stop there; read the book.
It's *great*.)
I wonder if a better way of talking about the interference would be in
SWR terms. Was the ELT antenna causing parasitic degradation/reflection
of the comm transmission?
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Keenan <joe(at)flyingdiver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
>
> On 6/3/2019 2:12 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 01:02 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>>> The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and amplify
a signal then apply it to the antennae are not working. It is "off" in
the sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an incoming signal
are not working. But, measuring from the antennae to ground, and you
will notice that the resistance is not infinite. In fact, it will read
a dead short if I'm not mistaken. The antennae is still "sensing"
electromagnetic fluctuations and supplying them for reading. There's
just nothing there to read them. The only way for the antennae to
"sense" the fluctuations is for the fluctuations to do the work of
producing a current in the antennae. When the ELT is off, that "work"
just gets dumped as heat.
>>>
>>> By placing the antennas very close, my COM was providing a VERY
large signal to the ELT. The ELT could hear me clear as day. The ELT
then proceded to convert that clear signal into heat. That heat came
from my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the energy that was
meant to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
>>>
>>> It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my
ability to communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which
direction I was flying. If I flew directly to or away from the airport,
the signal was even weaker.
>>
>> Not sure I can grok the heat thing. While the
>> comm signal is 'strong', comm power measured
>> at the base of the ELT antenna cannot be more
>> than a tiny fraction of total comm output power.
>> But the 'lensing' effects of parasitic radiators
>> is another matter . . . distortion of the
>> comm radiation pattern would be my first guess.
>>
>> Would be fun to 'sniff' it in the lab . . .
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
> OK, show of hands: How many of you had to google 'grok'? (Brag mode
on; I didn't... If you had to google it, don't stop there; read the
book. It's *great*.)
Nope, been in my vocabulary since my teens. Was my very first password
on a multi-user computer in college.
joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
While I don't doubt that this configuration contributed to the problem,
a much more common situation is when the aircraft is near a high powered
facility broadcasting on VHF. For instance, it is common for TV and FM
broadcast towers to be located near each other, especially if there is
convenient high ground. They can put out thousands of watts. They will
cause the ELT output stage to oscillate and re-radiate to nearby com
antennas. I experienced this in Phoenix, where 90% of broadcast antennas
are on "South Mountain", which is 7-8 miles south of Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airport. When flying the VFR transition over the top of PHX, I would get
terrible squelch break on both com radios, making communications with
the Tracon difficult on both frequencies they used (120.7 and 123.7). I
verified this by flying under the class B on the south side of the
mountain, with and without the ELT antenna connected. Without ELT
connected, no problem. I then removed one of my 2 com antennas from the
topside of the fuselage to the belly. Problem was 95% eliminated.
On 6/3/2019 12:12 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 01:02 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>> The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and amplify a
>> signal then apply it to the antennae are not working. It is "off" in
>> the sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an incoming signal
>> are not working. But, measuring from the antennae to ground, and you
>> will notice that the resistance is not infinite. In fact, it will
>> read a dead short if I'm not mistaken. The antennae is still
>> "sensing" electromagnetic fluctuations and supplying them for
>> reading. There's just nothing there to read them. The only way for
>> the antennae to "sense" the fluctuations is for the fluctuations to do
>> the work of producing a current in the antennae. When the ELT is off,
>> that "work" just gets dumped as heat.
>>
>> By placing the antennas very close, my COM was providing a VERY large
>> signal to the ELT. The ELT could hear me clear as day. The ELT then
>> proceded to convert that clear signal into heat. That heat came from
>> my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the energy that was meant
>> to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
>>
>> It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my
>> ability to communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which
>> direction I was flying. If I flew directly to or away from the
>> airport, the signal was even weaker.
>
> Not sure I can grok the heat thing. While the
> comm signal is 'strong', comm power measured
> at the base of the ELT antenna cannot be more
> than a tiny fraction of total comm output power.
> But the 'lensing' effects of parasitic radiators
> is another matter . . . distortion of the
> comm radiation pattern would be my first guess.
>
> Would be fun to 'sniff' it in the lab . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/3/2019 3:25 PM, Joe Keenan wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Charlie England > > wrote:
>>
>> On 6/3/2019 2:12 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>> At 01:02 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>>>> The ELT is "off", meaning that the circuits that produce and
>>>> amplify a signal then apply it to the antennae are not working. It
>>>> is "off" in the sense that the circuits that detect and amplify an
>>>> incoming signal are not working. But, measuring from the antennae
>>>> to ground, and you will notice that the resistance is not
>>>> infinite. In fact, it will read a dead short if I'm not mistaken.
>>>> The antennae is still "sensing" electromagnetic fluctuations and
>>>> supplying them for reading. There's just nothing there to read
>>>> them. The only way for the antennae to "sense" the fluctuations is
>>>> for the fluctuations to do the work of producing a current in the
>>>> antennae. When the ELT is off, that "work" just gets dumped as heat.
>>>>
>>>> By placing the antennas very close, my COM was providing a VERY
>>>> large signal to the ELT. The ELT could hear me clear as day. The
>>>> ELT then proceded to convert that clear signal into heat. That
>>>> heat came from my COM radio, which cut out a major part of the
>>>> energy that was meant to propagate to ATC and other pilots.
>>>>
>>>> It's worth noting that with the ELT antennae next to my COM, my
>>>> ability to communicate with ATC was very much dependent on which
>>>> direction I was flying. If I flew directly to or away from the
>>>> airport, the signal was even weaker.
>>>
>>> Not sure I can grok the heat thing. While the
>>> comm signal is 'strong', comm power measured
>>> at the base of the ELT antenna cannot be more
>>> than a tiny fraction of total comm output power.
>>> But the 'lensing' effects of parasitic radiators
>>> is another matter . . . distortion of the
>>> comm radiation pattern would be my first guess.
>>>
>>> Would be fun to 'sniff' it in the lab . . .
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>> OK, show of hands: How many of you had to google 'grok'? (Brag mode
>> on; I didn't... If you had to google it, don't stop there; read the
>> book. It's *great*.)
>
> Nope, been in my vocabulary since my teens. Was my very first
> password on a multi-user computer in college.
>
> joe
>
>
Great book, right?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Keenan <joe(at)flyingdiver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
>>
> Great book, right?
He was my go-to author growing up. And Ive named characters in many computer games
after his characters. My two original World of Warcraft characters are Mycroft
and Wyoming.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 03:25 PM 6/3/2019, you wrote:
>
>While I don't doubt that this configuration contributed to the
>problem, a much more common situation is when the aircraft is near a
>high powered facility broadcasting on VHF. For instance, it is
>common for TV and FM broadcast towers to be located near each other,
>especially if there is convenient high ground. They can put out
>thousands of watts. They will cause the ELT output stage to
>oscillate and re-radiate to nearby com antennas. I experienced this
>in Phoenix, where 90% of broadcast antennas are on "South Mountain",
>which is 7-8 miles south of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. When flying
>the VFR transition over the top of PHX, I would get terrible squelch
>break on both com radios, making communications with the Tracon
>difficult on both frequencies they used (120.7 and 123.7). I
>verified this by flying under the class B on the south side of the
>mountain, with and without the ELT antenna connected. Without ELT
>connected, no problem. I then removed one of my 2 com antennas from
>the topside of the fuselage to the belly. Problem was 95% eliminated.
I'm certain that this is a classic demonstration
of inter-modulation of multiple strong
signals that mix and remix in a cacophony of
of new signals all of which carry vestiges of
the original modulation. Got some real hard
lessons in this phenomenon back in my two-way
radio days when EVERYBODY wanted to put their
company's repeater on top of the tallest buildings
in the city.
Some building owners would hold roof-leases
in their hip-pocket and dole them out to all
comers irrespective of proposed operating
frequencies and equipment. I was anointed with several calls
from a new client who complained that a
brand new $kilo$ repeater we had just installed
became unusable at certain times of the day.
Of course, it was our fault . . . in fact it
was the uncoordinated exploitation of premium
rooftop real estate. That rooftop radio farm
could have as many as ten, 50-100 watt uhf
and vhf transmitters talking simultaneously
into antennas with 6 to 9 db of gain.
In one case, an intermod problem had nothing
to do with the local electronics . . . was
traced to corroded joints in a very old
Decibel Products antenna that wasn't even
in service! It was sitting up there with nobody
knowing that the associated radio had been off
the roof for years . . . hence the antenna's
mechanical condition deteriorated to the point
of becoming a nuisance neighbor.
Those problems were materially eliminated
by leasing such juicy spots to a single,
talented re-leasing company that coordinated
all suitable tenants by conducting a potential
intermod products study . . . by hand . . .
no whippy desktop computers back then.
Of course, flying past an antenna farm of
television and FM broadcast stations
can wreak havoc in a lowly vhf comm radio,
a condition you can fly out of in a matter
of seconds.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
>Great book, right?
Arguably his best
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 06:46 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
>Thank you very much for the help.
>
>The aircraft is a KIS made from honeycomb and fiberglass
>
>On the dipole antenna what length should the folded balun be and do
>I make the toroid balun with 3 toroids as in the instruction?
>
>Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from
>the com antenna
>
>Thanks again
The antenna is two dipoles . . . one centered on
121.5 MHz, the other on 402 MHz.
Bob . . .z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Bob
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, I'm not sure that I
understand it all, took a Ham radio course a while back so will go back to
my notes.
If I understand you correctly I must make Jim's dipole antenna as per
instruction and attach the core of the coax to one "leg" and the braid to
the other "leg" without a balun or toroid.
I found the remains of the copper tape that I got (I think) from Jim in
1998, will sen a photo before I install.
Thanks
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 3, 2019 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 06:46 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
Thank you very much for the help.
The aircraft is a KIS made from honeycomb and fiberglass
On the dipole antenna what length should the folded balun be and do I make
the toroid balun with 3 toroids as in the instruction?
This antenna can't use a coax balun . . . it's a dual frequency
configuration that precludes using a resonant piece of coax
cable to improve feedline performance. Unfortunately
the highest frequency of operation (402Mhz) precludes
the use of broad-band magnetics.
Jim was fond of the string-of-beads approach to
reducing effects of mismatch on the feedline
but I researched that in the EMC lab at Beech
about 30 years ago . . . minimally effective.
The most effective decoupling technique using
ferrite beads or toroids was utilized in this
product a few years ago . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y4qpkqoc
Talked with this fellow by email and phone.
Made some questionable claims including
the assertion that the thing was 'patented'.
Never could find that patent . . . nonetheless,
here's what was inside the 'miracle box':
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/AirWhip/AirWhip_Inside.jpg
This de-coupling technique wound several
turns on a common core. Inductance goes
up as the square of turns. In the photo
we count 7 turns or 49 times the inductance
of a same core with one turn. Jim's string-
of-beads gives 1x potential inductance/per/core
or perhaps 8-12x depending on how many cores
are strung onto the coax.
Played with this in the EMC lap at RAC/Beech
and determined that the string of beads wasn't
worth the trouble. So . . . how about the
airwhip technique for multiple turns on a
single core? Not a bad choice. I've seen
it done with antennas over a broad spectum
of frequencies . . . within limits.
Seems that ferrite inductive qualities
versus attenuation qualities swap duties
at about 200 Mhz or so . . . that's why
they are effective for EMC management
at vhf/uhf frequencies, not so much
as transformers at 402 Mhz . . . but still worth
investigating with the right test equipment.
I've got a uhf vector analyzer sitting
on the shelf above my desk (sigh) . . . someday
maybe . . .
Given that this antenna is intended to
operated on two, unchanging discrete
frequencies, one COULD consider fabricating
a passive components matching network to
transfer feedline energy to the two antennas
effectively . . . but I'd bet that the
performance differences between uncle Jim's
shade-tree engineering approach an one by
Dorne-Margolin would be observable only
in the lab and of little advantage in
practice.
In the mean time, fabricating uncle Jim's
paralleled dipoles arrangement is easy.
Attaching directly to this antenna with
coax is also easy.
It seems that your airplane (epoxy/glass)
is a likely candidate for an all internal
ELT antenna which would, I suspect, be
less vulnerable to damage by unintended
arrivals with the earth. Best yet, no
ground plane . . .
Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from the com
antenna
Kelly offered the strongest rationale for
separation . . . ELT's are particularly
susceptible to cross-modulation products
because unlike receivers, there are
'high power', non-linear components continuously
connected to the antenna. I suspect that modern
ELTs with FET output stages might be
better in this regard but the risks are
not zero.
Having said that, there is zero risk for
damaging anything. I'd recommend you install
for convenience and see if you have problems.
The problems will be nothing worst than
an occasional nuisance with a high
probability that you'll not suffer
the effects at all.
Bob . . .
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
The antenna is two dipoles . . . one centered on
121.5 MHz, the other on 402 MHz.
You have lost me here, I do not understand two dipoles concept. Please
explain in more detail if you don't mind
Thanks
Mike
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
I am working on an antenna for a homebuilt and I read from the AEROLECTRIC
column in KITPLANES about using ferrite toroid's for a balun arrangement.
However, I seem to remember that the material used in the toroids must be of
a certain mixture to get the desired effect for RF signals. Can anyone
tell me which toroids to use and which ones not to use. Apparently some
work for RF and some work better for audio frequencies.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of
mike(at)vision499.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:11 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
Bob
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, I'm not sure that I
understand it all, took a Ham radio course a while back so will go back to
my notes.
If I understand you correctly I must make Jim's dipole antenna as per
instruction and attach the core of the coax to one "leg" and the braid to
the other "leg" without a balun or toroid.
I found the remains of the copper tape that I got (I think) from Jim in
1998, will sen a photo before I install.
Thanks
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 3, 2019 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 06:46 PM 6/2/2019, you wrote:
Thank you very much for the help.
The aircraft is a KIS made from honeycomb and fiberglass
On the dipole antenna what length should the folded balun be and do I make
the toroid balun with 3 toroids as in the instruction?
This antenna can't use a coax balun . . . it's a dual frequency
configuration that precludes using a resonant piece of coax
cable to improve feedline performance. Unfortunately
the highest frequency of operation (402Mhz) precludes
the use of broad-band magnetics.
Jim was fond of the string-of-beads approach to
reducing effects of mismatch on the feedline
but I researched that in the EMC lab at Beech
about 30 years ago . . . minimally effective.
The most effective decoupling technique using
ferrite beads or toroids was utilized in this
product a few years ago . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y4qpkqoc
Talked with this fellow by email and phone.
Made some questionable claims including
the assertion that the thing was 'patented'.
Never could find that patent . . . nonetheless,
here's what was inside the 'miracle box':
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/AirWhip/AirWhip_Inside.jpg
This de-coupling technique wound several
turns on a common core. Inductance goes
up as the square of turns. In the photo
we count 7 turns or 49 times the inductance
of a same core with one turn. Jim's string-
of-beads gives 1x potential inductance/per/core
or perhaps 8-12x depending on how many cores
are strung onto the coax.
Played with this in the EMC lap at RAC/Beech
and determined that the string of beads wasn't
worth the trouble. So . . . how about the
airwhip technique for multiple turns on a
single core? Not a bad choice. I've seen
it done with antennas over a broad spectum
of frequencies . . . within limits.
Seems that ferrite inductive qualities
versus attenuation qualities swap duties
at about 200 Mhz or so . . . that's why
they are effective for EMC management
at vhf/uhf frequencies, not so much
as transformers at 402 Mhz . . . but still worth
investigating with the right test equipment.
I've got a uhf vector analyzer sitting
on the shelf above my desk (sigh) . . . someday
maybe . . .
Given that this antenna is intended to
operated on two, unchanging discrete
frequencies, one COULD consider fabricating
a passive components matching network to
transfer feedline energy to the two antennas
effectively . . . but I'd bet that the
performance differences between uncle Jim's
shade-tree engineering approach an one by
Dorne-Margolin would be observable only
in the lab and of little advantage in
practice.
In the mean time, fabricating uncle Jim's
paralleled dipoles arrangement is easy.
Attaching directly to this antenna with
coax is also easy.
It seems that your airplane (epoxy/glass)
is a likely candidate for an all internal
ELT antenna which would, I suspect, be
less vulnerable to damage by unintended
arrivals with the earth. Best yet, no
ground plane . . .
Just out of interest why should the ELT antenna be separated from the com
antenna
Kelly offered the strongest rationale for
separation . . . ELT's are particularly
susceptible to cross-modulation products
because unlike receivers, there are
'high power', non-linear components continuously
connected to the antenna. I suspect that modern
ELTs with FET output stages might be
better in this regard but the risks are
not zero.
Having said that, there is zero risk for
damaging anything. I'd recommend you install
for convenience and see if you have problems.
The problems will be nothing worst than
an occasional nuisance with a high
probability that you'll not suffer
the effects at all.
Bob . . .
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Think I just figured it out, it is the one with 2 V shapes. One leg 7.3
inches and one 22.5 as per
www.matronics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t-222&highlight=&sid=23bc0da12eeb24
ba261ca5ac45ec04b3
Thanks again for the help
Mike
The antenna is two dipoles . . . one centered on
121.5 MHz, the other on 402 MHz.
You have lost me here, I do not understand two dipoles concept. Please
explain in more detail if you don't mind
Thanks
Mike
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
---
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: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 12:57 AM 6/4/2019, you wrote:
>I am working on an antenna for a homebuilt and I read from the
>AEROLECTRIC column in KITPLANES about using ferrite toroid's for a
>balun arrangement. However, I seem to remember that the material
>used in the toroids must be of a certain mixture to get the desired
>effect for RF signals. Can anyone tell me which toroids to use and
>which ones not to use. Apparently some work for RF and some work
>better for audio frequencies.
I included Jim Weir's string-of-beads concept in the 'Connection
many moons ago . . . the idea was intuitively logical but physically flawed.
That fact was not discovered until a years later when I was
working some EMC issues at RAC/Beech and gained access to the
EMC lab.
I did some testing of Jim's string-of-beads design and
found that the differences to be barely perceptible
for beads-on versus beads-off. As mentioned in an
earlier post, a single toroid with multiple passes
through the core is many times more effective . . .
however . . .
It is true that the material from which the toroid is molded
should be optimized for the frequency of interest . . . in
the case of the glideslope antenna illustrated in the
'Connection, the toroids should demonstrate good performance
at 300+ Mhz. Looking through the various manufacturer's
catalogs for toroids, we find very few recommended for
service above 100Mhz with most at 30Mhz and below.
The antenna chapter needs some work and the string-of-
beads idea is going to be removed.
What kind of antenna are you contemplating a
need for a balun?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 07:56 AM 6/4/2019, you wrote:
>
>
>Think I just figured it out, it is the one
>with 2 V shapes. One leg 7.3 inches and one 22.5 as per . . .
You got it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
I did some testing of Jim's string-of-beads design and
found that the differences to be barely perceptible
for beads-on versus beads-off. As mentioned in an
earlier post, a single toroid with multiple passes
through the core is many times more effective . . .
however . . .
Did some digging in the archives and I think
these (or very similar) cores were used in Jim's
kit:
https://tinyurl.com/y2laaf78
This is Type 52 material which offers pretty
good performance up to 300Mhz . . . but
it still takes a LOT of cores for an effective
implementation of string-of-beads.
A multi-pass common mode choke could be
implemented with a small diameter
feedline (like RG174) through the
center of this one
https://tinyurl.com/y58fqdlh
This might be suited for de-coupling
the feedline on the dual-dipole ELT
antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/28/19 |
| From: | Scott A Klemptner <bmwr606(at)yahoo.com> |
aSBzdWJzY3JpYmUgdG8gMyBsaXN0IGRpZ2VzdHMuaSBoYXZlIG5vdCByZWNlaXZlZCBhbnkgZGln
ZXN0cyBzaW5jZSA1LzI4LzE5LmkgY2hlY2tlZCBvbmxpbmUgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHN1YnNjcmlwdGlv
biB0b29sIGFuZCBhbSBzdGlsbCBzdWJzY3JpYmVkIHRvIHRoZSAzIGxpc3RzLmFueW9uZSBrbm93
IGlmIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcHJvYmxlbSBvciB3aGF0IG15IG5leHQgc3RlcCBtaWdodCBiZT90aGFu
a3NzY290dApudWxs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/28/19 |
At 03:30 PM 6/4/2019, you wrote:
>i subscribe to 3 list digests.
>i have not received any digests since 5/28/19.
>i checked online using the subscription tool and am still subscribed
>to the 3 lists.
>anyone know if there is a problem or what my next step might be?
>thanks
>scott
Try un-subscribing and then re-subscribe.
have you checked your 'junk' filter to make
sure matronics didn't get blacklisted?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 12:10 AM 6/4/2019, you wrote:
>Bob
>
>Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, I'm not sure that
>I understand it all, took a Ham radio course a while back so will go
>back to my notes.
>
>If I understand you correctly I must make Jim's dipole antenna as
>per instruction and attach the core of the coax to one "leg" and the
>braid to the other "leg" without a balun or toroid.
>
>I found the remains of the copper tape that I got (I think) from Jim
>in 1998, will sen a photo before I install.
I believe that will do the job and you
don't need to put any holes in the airplane.
The 'inside' antenna does not negate concerns
for potential intermod situations discussed in
this thread. Those problems are not common.
They are transient and circumstance based.
The risks are low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
> I wrote: This antenna can't use a coax balun . . . it's a dual frequency
> configuration that precludes using a resonant piece of coax
> cable to improve feedline performance. Unfortunately
> the highest frequency of operation (402Mhz) precludes
> the use of broad-band magnetics.
Not necessarily true. I've ordered some
-52 cores and will do some measurements
on the bench. I may have a multi-pass
toroidal balun to offer to your task.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/28/19 |
At 10:37 AM 6/5/2019, you wrote:
>At 03:30 PM 6/4/2019, you wrote:
>>i subscribe to 3 list digests.
>>i have not received any digests since 5/28/19.
>>i checked online using the subscription tool and am still
>>subscribed to the 3 lists.
>>anyone know if there is a problem or what my next step might be?
>>thanks
>>scott
The message I sent to your email address
bounced . . . something wrong at your end . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane) |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
Indeed, although my first introduction to the word--as a young Star Trek
fan--was reading "I Grok Spock" I think in TV Guide. I had no idea what
it really meant until I read the book a few years later.
--Rick
On 6/3/2019 7:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> Great book, right?
>
> Arguably his best
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Thank you very much, I look forward to seeing your test results
Keep well
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 5, 2019 8:45 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
I wrote: This antenna can't use a coax balun . . . it's a dual frequency
configuration that precludes using a resonant piece of coax
cable to improve feedline performance. Unfortunately
the highest frequency of operation (402Mhz) precludes
the use of broad-band magnetics.
Not necessarily true. I've ordered some
-52 cores and will do some measurements
on the bench. I may have a multi-pass
toroidal balun to offer to your task.
Bob . . .
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
Some confusion on wiring the RS-232 signal to the ELT has cropped up. There is
no power out provision from the 660 cradle to provide power to the ELT which
ACK requires (protected by 1 amp fuse/cb). The ACK Installation Advisory has
the following:
"NOTE: 22 or 24 gage M27500 shielded 3 conductor cable or M22759 individual wires
should be used for the cable assembly if using individual wires the RS 232
data line from the GPS should be shielded and grounded at both ends."
but the current installation manual, dated 6 months later, states:
"A three conductor shielded cable 24 AWG or heaver,
(Aircraft Spruce P/N 11-04478 or equivalent) should be used to connect the ELT
RS 232 data and power to the aircraft systems3.) Connect one conductor to pin
3 (Fig. 12.1) and connect to aircraft ground at the cockpit. connect the outer
shield to ground, at the cockpit end only."
If using individual wires, should the shield be grounded at both ends or just at
the aircraft ground as if using the three conductor cable? Also, if using the
three conductor cable, what would be the best way to separate the 232 data
wire from the power and ground wires? They will not be connecting at the same
place since the power source is not coming via the 660 cradle harness.
Sorry for the NOOB questions.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489559#489559
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net> |
Running power through a multi-conductor cable (M27500) simplifies a retrofit installation
in that only the control cable and the power/data wire need to be run
the length of the aircraft. Since thats a big part of their market, thats probably
why its drawn that way. I simply splice the power wire in at the same
point the data line is spliced in. How you do this is up to you (solder joint,
butt splice, small connector, etc.).
A single conductor shielded wire for the data and a separate unshielded wire for
power would work fine if that works better for the way you need/want to run
the wires. In an all-metal aircraft I see no benefit to returning the ground back
to the start point like what is in their drawing. A local ground near the
data connector would be sufficient.
My general rule of thumb for data lines is to ground the shield at both ends. That
seems to be standard practice in just about every install manual of recent
vintage.
Have fun soldering that mini DIN connector - its very easy to overheat the pins
and melt the plastic housing. Use a heat sink on the pin (locate it next to the
housing), get on, solder, get off quickly.
Chuck
On Jun 9, 2019, at 3:29 PM, farmrjohn wrote:
Some confusion on wiring the RS-232 signal to the ELT has cropped up. There is
no power out provision from the 660 cradle to provide power to the ELT which
ACK requires (protected by 1 amp fuse/cb). The ACK Installation Advisory has
the following:
"NOTE: 22 or 24 gage M27500 shielded 3 conductor cable or M22759 individual wires
should be used for the cable assembly if using individual wires the RS 232
data line from the GPS should be shielded and grounded at both ends."
but the current installation manual, dated 6 months later, states:
"A three conductor shielded cable 24 AWG or heaver,
(Aircraft Spruce P/N 11-04478 or equivalent) should be used to connect the ELT
RS 232 data and power to the aircraft systems3.) Connect one conductor to pin
3 (Fig. 12.1) and connect to aircraft ground at the cockpit. connect the outer
shield to ground, at the cockpit end only."
If using individual wires, should the shield be grounded at both ends or just at
the aircraft ground as if using the three conductor cable? Also, if using the
three conductor cable, what would be the best way to separate the 232 data
wire from the power and ground wires? They will not be connecting at the same
place since the power source is not coming via the 660 cradle harness.
Sorry for the NOOB questions.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489559#489559
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
>
>but the current installation manual, dated 6 months later, states:
>"A three conductor shielded cable 24 AWG or heaver,
Hmmm . . . . Given the short runs and low
power levels it seems unlikely that
anyone experienced degraded performance
as a consequence of voltage drops. However
24 AWG is about the smallest practical
size for hand-assembled wiring and even
that was not well received on our production
lines at RAC/Beech. I've personally never
designed an airframe harnesses with smaller
than 22AWG wire . . . works good, lasts
a long time, easy to work with.
>(Aircraft Spruce P/N 11-04478 or equivalent) should be used to connect
>the ELT RS 232 data and power to the aircraft systems=853.) Connect one
>conductor to pin 3 (Fig. 12.1) and connect to aircraft ground at the
>cockpit. connect the outer shield to ground, at the cockpit end only."
In what document does figure 12.1
appear? I'd like to look at it if
it's downloadable . . .
This is best practice . . . unless the
shield is a CONDUCTOR of data or power
by design. I.e. I used to build a lot
of RS232 runs from 22AWG shielded, twisted
pair where the shield was used as signal
ground for the TX/RX pair.
But if the shield is simply a prophylactic
against electro-static coupling of noise,
then a ground at one end will suffice and
avoid other potential difficulties with
ground loop currents on the shield (a
potential problem on large, all metal
aircraft . . . something I've never seen
but it was talked about in EMC class).
In any case, the best approach is to follow
the manufacture's installation instructions
unless you've been made aware of some error
on the part of the folks who wrote the
manual.
>If using individual wires, should the shield be
>grounded at both ends or just at the aircraft
>ground as if using the three conductor cable?
A you planning on building your own
shielded run of wires?
> Also, if using the three conductor cable, what would be the best
>way to separate the 232 data wire from the power and ground wires?
Don't understand. One cable would carry
RS-232 . . . an independent cable would
carry power . . . no physical 'separation'
necesasry.
> They will not be connecting at the same place since the power
>source is not coming via the 660 cradle harness.
Not a problem
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aera 660 Bare Wire Cradle Question |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> > but the current installation manual, dated 6 months later, states:
> > "A three conductor shielded cable 24 AWG or heaver,
>
> Hmmm . . . . Given the short runs and low
> power levels it seems unlikely that
> anyone experienced degraded performance
> as a consequence of voltage drops. However
> 24 AWG is about the smallest practical
> size for hand-assembled wiring and even
> that was not well received on our production
> lines at RAC/Beech. I've personally never
> designed an airframe harnesses with smaller
> than 22AWG wire . . . works good, lasts
> a long time, easy to work with.
>
>
> > (Aircraft Spruce P/N 11-04478 or equivalent) should be used to connect
> > the ELT RS 232 data and power to the aircraft systems3.) Connect one
> > conductor to pin 3 (Fig. 12.1) and connect to aircraft ground at the
> > cockpit. connect the outer shield to ground, at the cockpit end only."
>
> In what document does figure 12.1
> appear? I'd like to look at it if
> it's downloadable . . .
>
> This is best practice . . . unless the
> shield is a CONDUCTOR of data or power
> by design. I.e. I used to build a lot
> of RS232 runs from 22AWG shielded, twisted
> pair where the shield was used as signal
> ground for the TX/RX pair.
>
> But if the shield is simply a prophylactic
> against electro-static coupling of noise,
> then a ground at one end will suffice and
> avoid other potential difficulties with
> ground loop currents on the shield (a
> potential problem on large, all metal
> aircraft . . . something I've never seen
> but it was talked about in EMC class).
>
> In any case, the best approach is to follow
> the manufacture's installation instructions
> unless you've been made aware of some error
> on the part of the folks who wrote the
> manual.
>
>
> > If using individual wires, should the shield be grounded at both ends or just
at the aircraft ground as if using the three conductor cable?
>
> A you planning on building your own
> shielded run of wires?
>
>
> > Also, if using the three conductor cable, what would be the best
> > way to separate the 232 data wire from the power and ground wires?
>
> Don't understand. One cable would carry
> RS-232 . . . an independent cable would
> carry power . . . no physical 'separation'
> necesasry.
>
>
> > They will not be connecting at the same place since the power
> > source is not coming via the 660 cradle harness.
>
> Not a problem
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Fig. 12.1 is from the ACK model E-04 installation operations manual and is downloadabl:. https://www.ackavionics.com/e-04-technical-information/
I would consider building my own run of wires using a shielded wire for the 232,
and unshielded for power and ground. My question about separating the wires
from the three conductor cable deals with getting the necessary length for the
power and ground leads since they won't connect in the same location as the
d-sub where the 232 wire does. A solder sleeve for the ground wire and shield
will work to get the added length necessary to get to the ground point and I
suppose splicing and additional length to the power wire would work. Or, I could
try stripping off the outer insulation of the cable then cut back the 232 wire
to length before connecting to the d-sub.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489610#489610
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Minimum separation between power cables and coaxial |
cable
| From: | "Argonaut36" <fmlibrino(at)msn.com> |
Could I bundle the coaxial cable for my radio (or transponder) antenna with a power
wire that carries 5 Amps or there is a minimum separation requirement?
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489639#489639
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum separation between power cables and coaxial |
cable
At 11:03 PM 6/12/2019, you wrote:
>
>Could I bundle the coaxial cable for my radio (or transponder)
>antenna with a power wire that carries 5 Amps or there is a minimum
>separation requirement?
>Thanks
There is no reason for separating
such wires in the airplane. There
are NO system interconnect wires that
will swap significant noises amongst
themselves.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Minimum separation between power cables and coaxial |
cable
| From: | "Argonaut36" <fmlibrino(at)msn.com> |
Noted. Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489647#489647
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio or Television Tower Buzz |
| From: | "nidhishedge" <nidhishedge1994(at)gmail.com> |
Excellent thread! Thank you!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489669#489669
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | DIY ELT antenna T106-52 Core Test Data |
The T106-52 cores I ordered arrived a couple days ago.
Rigged up a quick-n-dirty test jig to measure
the common mode attenuation performance over our
frequencies of interest in ELT antennas.
The plot shows two tests, one with 6 and a second
with 7 passes of wire through the center . . .
about the same number of turns of RG174 coax
that would fit thru the opening.
Emacs!
Emacs!
The 7T plot shows pretty much what one would expect
for shape. As frequency goes up, attenuation
increases to a maximum of about 30 dB then
declines as core losses begin to pollute the
quality of the inductor. At 406 MHz, we still
see about 20 dB of isolation . . . a significant
contribution to the goal of mating a coax transmission
line to a balanced antenna feed point. At 121.5 MHz
the performance would be better yet at about 26 dB.
I'll dig out the network analyzer and see if
I can get companion software installed on one
of the current stable of laptops. I've got some
copper clad ECB material I can cut up for making
antenna elements per Jim Wier's suggestion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kasturi12" <rahanekasturi123(at)gmail.com> |
How to handle updates and the user is typing too fast?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489680#489680
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY ELT antenna T106-52 Core Test Data |
Hi Bob,
I'm very interested in your T106-52 core balun results. For my ELT in my
Longeze, I'm using a homebrew fan-dipole (std. length for 406 and shortened
121.5) mounted on the pilot seat back. I didn't bother with a Balun (and
my network analyzer is dead, RIP, so I didn't mess with creating one) but
my VSWRs are good. None the less, I'll add the balun if you get good test
results as it will make the antenna less sensitive to cable routing...
Steve.
[image: image.png]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | The down-side of "glass panels" |
Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving
Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on
behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the
problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably
missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that
technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command.
One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy
management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will
literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come
apart with disastrous consequences.
In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western
countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were
the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not
only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most
demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just
fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to
take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were
nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new
generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay
Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by
British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the
cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed
in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the
plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System)
was out of service.
Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only
accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but
didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia
and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed
on a daily basis.
To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago
and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of
unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good
reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government
basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up
being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not
to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's
inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which,
unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some
very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's
decision-making inputs.
The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially
unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and
Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the
system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane...
However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled
or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis
via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training
and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but
the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy"
airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially
continued to fly without a problem.
Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global
pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just
data input managers.
Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
A friend has suggested that I might
get qualified in his really nice C172
to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
outfitted with all the latest flat screens
including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
Had a chance to fly in that airplane
as a member of the local airport advisory
committee. We visited some 'small' airports
around Wichita to ask questions of their
operators.
Sitting in the right seat while transiting
Wichita controlled airspace, I was
unsettled with the array of information
being presented while my friend mis-heard
a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
heard this 'new tail number' called out
a few times in previous minutes.
I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
the least concerned about competently
flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
have to learn how to sift out what's
important from the panel-load of
distractions.
Let us take care my friends lest
we become less pilot and more video
game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
a video game you can hit the reset
button . . . RV's not so much.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
Bob,
First, the NY Times did a good accident chain analysis of Boeing's and the
FAA's actions leading up to the 737 Max crashes. See Boeing Built Deadly
Assumptions Into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change
.
Too many people, each focused on their little piece of the puzzle, in too
much of a hurry to talk to each other.
I agree with everything you say but want to emphasize something that you
only alluded to. The pilot is the PIC with "in command" being the operative
part of the phrase. The glass panel is a tool and, like any tool, has to be
properly used.
I opted for 100% glass in my airplane for reliability (plus a couple of
backup instruments). Part of my own training, and something that I paid a
lot of attention to during phase 1 flight test, was which parts of which
screens made sense to pay attention to during each phase of flight.
Including:
- During takeoff and landing and while in the pattern, I use a screen
with only the basic instruments. No maps or other distracting stuff.
Altitude tape. Airspeed tape. HSI. Synthetic vision horizon. (And engine
instruments, of course.) I found that anything else was distracting and I
sure don't need distractions when I'm busy.
- When flying near or under the STL Class B airspace, I like the screen
that is 25% profile info, showing my vertical position vis a vis the
airspace above and ahead of me. It also shows my predicted position 15
miles ahead so I can be sure that I don't bust someone's airspace.
- During cruise, I like the screen that is 50% map and 50% instruments.
The map on my iPad is easier to read and has more info but I like the easy
comfort of confirming that I am on my planned route as I scan my
instruments.
I was a little bit surprised how much additional crap is available on the
screen. For example, why in the heck do I need to know my GPS lat/long???
Now that I have some hours on my airplane, I am beginning to think of my
own screen designs. I will toss out all of the stuff that I don't need.
I hope that student pilots these days are getting that kind of training on
the glass panels in front of them. What parts of the display are important?
When? How can you best focus on the important parts? How do you control the
panel, instead of become victimized by it?
I had to rent planes to knock the rust off my skills before flying my
BD-4C. It was unsettling how differently the stuff in the different Cessna
172s has become. Back in the good ol' day, all of the radios worked the
same: two knobs to set the frequency and a knob for volume. All of the
transponders worked the same: 4 knobs and an ident button. No longer. Each
comm radio has its own user interface. Some transponders use buttons, some
knobs, some have traffic displays, some serve cheese and crackers.
Flying the airplane has become the easy part. Mastering the auxiliary
systems has become harder.
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I spend more time looking out the window now with a glass panel than I used to
with steam gauges. The electronics monitor most parameters so that I do not have
to. If anything is out of range, there is an audio and visual warning. When
I do look at the glass, it is to check for ADS-B traffic and to check my altitude.
On final approach, there is no need to monitor airspeed. The length
of the AOA tone pulses tell me how energy is being managed and the proximity
of stall angle of attack. After flying with glass, I have do desire to go back
to antique gauges.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489695#489695
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the
certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is
not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to
disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain
that I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian
Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by
the aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former).
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
>
> For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's
> newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is
> largely not being reported.
>
> It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in
> a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the
> point. In essence, President Trump was saying that *technology is a poor
> substitute for a qualified pilot in command*.
>
> One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is *energy
> management* of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally
> drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with
> disastrous consequences.
>
> In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the
> first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war
> two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all
> of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The
> second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of
> being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of
> pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
>
> With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere
> near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation
> planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong
> airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new
> Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with
> disastrous results. *Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the
> pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane* when the ground-based
> approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
>
> Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents,
> but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a
> crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to
> see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
>
> To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and
> implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified
> aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the
> Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof"
> the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model.
> Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often
> override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution
> which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some
> very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's
> decision-making inputs.
>
> The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is
> highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet.
> When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without
> informing the pilots, they went insane...
>
> However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or
> disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via
> uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and
> piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the
> Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines
> self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly
> without a problem.
>
> Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global
> pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data
> input managers.
>
> Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
>
> A friend has suggested that I might
> get qualified in his really nice C172
> to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
> on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
> outfitted with all the latest flat screens
> including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
>
> Had a chance to fly in that airplane
> as a member of the local airport advisory
> committee. We visited some 'small' airports
> around Wichita to ask questions of their
> operators.
>
> Sitting in the right seat while transiting
> Wichita controlled airspace, I was
> unsettled with the array of information
> being presented while my friend mis-heard
> a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
> that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
> heard this 'new tail number' called out
> a few times in previous minutes.
>
> I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
> the least concerned about competently
> flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
> have to learn how to sift out what's
> important from the panel-load of
> distractions.
>
> Let us take care my friends lest
> we become less pilot and more video
> game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
> a video game you can hit the reset
> button . . . RV's not so much.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that there is a s
ignificant difference between just saying the problem is glass panels or gla
ss cockpit, versus the problem is pilot skills that are eroding.
It is entirely possible to fly an airplane where the glass panel is solely a
reference to engine gauges in flight instruments, and that no auto pilot or
any other automation is used. When used in that way, there really is no sig
nificant difference that would causes the instrument panel to be a major dif
ference. The issue with the eroding flying skills is completely separate, an
d has more to do with the fact that people are relying on their auto pilot t
oo much perhaps, and also that they don=99t go out and spend enough ti
me practicing regular maneuvers. Look at it this way, if you were talking to
a highly skilled aerobatic pilot who had a glass cockpit,Are you going to s
ay that the glass cockpit is causing him to erode his stick and rudder skill
s? That would be ridiculous. I also further agree with the other reply that s
aid that they have more time to look out the window now thanks to the integr
ated warnings. That makes perfect sense to me, because if there is any kind o
f serious issue, I will hear it in my head said before I will even catch it w
ith my eyes.
Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link automation under t
he category of glass cockpit just confuses the issue and they are not necess
arily related.
Tim
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
>
> MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the certificati
on of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is not the Chin
ese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to disable MCAS de
pending on the skin color of the pilots.
>
> I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain t
hat I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian A
irlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by the
aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former).
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
>>
>> For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's n
ewest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is l
argely not being reported.
>>
>> It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in
a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point
. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitut
e for a qualified pilot in command.
>>
>> One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy manage
ment of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from t
he sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous conse
quences.
>>
>> In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, th
e first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war t
wo pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all o
f their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second w
ave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pil
ot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were sk
illed in the art of aviation.
>>
>> With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere n
ear the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation plan
es coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airli
ne that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airl
ines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results
. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know h
ow to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Land
ing System) was out of service.
>>
>> Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents,
but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a cr
ash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see i
n the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
>>
>> To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and i
mplemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews.
Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash
, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as C
hina would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing ha
d opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's i
nputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately wa
s not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithm
s which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs.
>>
>> The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified i
s highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet
. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without info
rming the pilots, they went insane...
>>
>> However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or d
isabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink.
The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skill
s of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carrie
rs DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all t
he major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
>>
>> Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pil
ot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data inpu
t managers.
>>
>> Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
>>
>> A friend has suggested that I might
>> get qualified in his really nice C172
>> to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
>> on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
>> outfitted with all the latest flat screens
>> including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
>>
>> Had a chance to fly in that airplane
>> as a member of the local airport advisory
>> committee. We visited some 'small' airports
>> around Wichita to ask questions of their
>> operators.
>>
>> Sitting in the right seat while transiting
>> Wichita controlled airspace, I was
>> unsettled with the array of information
>> being presented while my friend mis-heard
>> a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
>> that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
>> heard this 'new tail number' called out
>> a few times in previous minutes.
>>
>> I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
>> the least concerned about competently
>> flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
>> have to learn how to sift out what's
>> important from the panel-load of
>> distractions.
>>
>> Let us take care my friends lest
>> we become less pilot and more video
>> game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
>> a video game you can hit the reset
>> button . . . RV's not so much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
In other words, it's what I would have expected:
A Management Problem.
Airline pilots probably have the most extensive and repetitive training
regimen of any 'common' occupation. They know, and do, as they're
trained. If they can't hand-fly the plane, it's because Management made
a bean-counting decision to not train them to fly the plane.
I've been on both sides, in both private and Government jobs (though not
aviation), and invariably, it's either management failing in its
expectations and equipping the employee to do their job, or failure to
take action when the employee can't or won't do their job.
Charlie
On 6/17/2019 6:41 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that there
> is a significant difference between just saying the problem is glass
> panels or glass cockpit, versus the problem is pilot skills that are
> eroding.
> It is entirely possible to fly an airplane where the glass panel is
> solely a reference to engine gauges in flight instruments, and that no
> auto pilot or any other automation is used. When used in that way,
> there really is no significant difference that would causes the
> instrument panel to be a major difference. The issue with the eroding
> flying skills is completely separate, and has more to do with the fact
> that people are relying on their auto pilot too much perhaps, and also
> that they dont go out and spend enough time practicing regular
> maneuvers. Look at it this way, if you were talking to a highly
> skilled aerobatic pilot who had a glass cockpit,Are you going to say
> that the glass cockpit is causing him to erode his stick and rudder
> skills? That would be ridiculous. I also further agree with the other
> reply that said that they have more time to look out the window now
> thanks to the integrated warnings. That makes perfect sense to me,
> because if there is any kind of serious issue, I will hear it in my
> head said before I will even catch it with my eyes.
>
> Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link automation
> under the category of glass cockpit just confuses the issue and they
> are not necessarily related.
>
> Tim
>
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Sebastien > wrote:
>
>> Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
>>
>> MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the
>> certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the
>> 737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not
>> possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
>>
>> I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all
>> certain that I could have done better with the situation presented to
>> the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning,
>> followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were dealing
>> with the former).
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
>>
>> For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving
>> Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on
>> behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
>>
>> It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the
>> problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you
>> probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying
>> that *technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in
>> command*.
>>
>> One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is
>> *energy management* of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it
>> will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe
>> can come apart with disastrous consequences.
>>
>> In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western
>> countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service
>> were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal
>> and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some
>> of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the
>> airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot
>> and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots
>> were skilled in the art of aviation.
>>
>> With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were
>> nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of
>> new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike
>> Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively
>> piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian
>> pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results.
>> *Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did
>> not know how to hand fly the plane* when the ground-based
>> approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
>>
>> Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only
>> accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but
>> didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from
>> Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being
>> committed on a daily basis.
>>
>> To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades
>> ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of
>> unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good
>> reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government
>> basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end
>> up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had
>> opted not to add automated control systems (which often override
>> pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution
>> which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was
>> driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the
>> pilot's decision-making inputs.
>>
>> The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially
>> unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments
>> and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps,
>> found the system was added without informing the pilots, they
>> went insane...
>>
>> However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be
>> enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real
>> time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the
>> superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT
>> to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is
>> why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the
>> major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
>>
>> Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the
>> global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots,
>> but more just data input managers.
>>
>> Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
>>
>> A friend has suggested that I might
>> get qualified in his really nice C172
>> to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
>> on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
>> outfitted with all the latest flat screens
>> including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
>>
>> Had a chance to fly in that airplane
>> as a member of the local airport advisory
>> committee. We visited some 'small' airports
>> around Wichita to ask questions of their
>> operators.
>>
>> Sitting in the right seat while transiting
>> Wichita controlled airspace, I was
>> unsettled with the array of information
>> being presented while my friend mis-heard
>> a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
>> that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
>> heard this 'new tail number' called out
>> a few times in previous minutes.
>>
>> I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
>> the least concerned about competently
>> flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
>> have to learn how to sift out what's
>> important from the panel-load of
>> distractions.
>>
>> Let us take care my friends lest
>> we become less pilot and more video
>> game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
>> a video game you can hit the reset
>> button . . . RV's not so much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andy Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | CFI techniques for glass panel pilots |
I am an ex-military IP and civilian CFI for just over 40 years. (Ancient.) These
days I mainly do flight reviews and WINGS
instruction in experimentals with experienced pilots. It is true that part of
the experimental community is especially enamored of
glass panels and I have seen many panels with *no* back-up instruments.
One technique I find especially good is to have the pilot remove/disable the moving
map display(s) and turn off his tablet, then go
to a local airport he has been to many times. The pilot has to look at the map
ahead of time and pick out some visible landmarks,
and find them in flight. Just like 40 years ago! Autopilot is allowed (Makes for
much better traffic scanning), but only in the
heading mode. No course tracking.
Using this technique is especially interesting at night, where the advantage of
lit-up towns and highways outside of cities is
counterbalanced by the difficulty in finding things (like runways) in the dense
sea of lights in modern cities. The sighting
differences associated with altitude can be extreme, both favorably and un-.
Pilots are apprehensive to start, but quickly regain basic flying/navigating skills,
and invariably "find" all kinds of things
enroute that they've been flying over for years and never seen! Every single pilot
I've done this with has thought it a valuable
training experience.
FWIW,
Andy Elliott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
At 05:16 PM 6/17/2019, you wrote:
>Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
>
>MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the
>certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the
>737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not
>possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I too am skeptical of that assertion
by the author. Without a doubt, the
new engine mods, while economically
prudent, had a profound effect on
handling qualities . . . effects
that admittedly called for a new
type rating. Maintaining the old 'type'
required software to wash-out deleterious
effects with automatic operation of
motors connected to flight controls.
I've been trying to imagine how my superiors
would have responded to some change
to our fleet of products that would
required such profound assistance from
the autopilot to maintain feel, stability
and ride comfort of the original type.
I don't think we could have sold such a thing.
>I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all
>certain that I could have done better with the situation presented
>to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall
>warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were
>dealing with the former).
Errors of display aside, the airplane
was demonstrably plagued with an electro-
mechanically induced pitching moment. I'm told
that old Boeings had a mechanism in
the control column that would mechanically
lock the trim system should the pilot(s)
find it necessary to put high pitch
forces into the yoke. Airplanes I
worked on had wheel master disconnect
buttons that would remove power
from every motor driving a control surface.
This was a clear breakdown in the chain of
data from flight test engineering to the
pilots. Delays in punching the motors
OFF contributed to increased airspeed
that made manual recovery impossible.
A trim actuator in a Learjet only has to
push about 300 pounds in cruising flight
but we had to qualify those actuators to
MOVE 10,000 pounds in an upset condition
(probably wishful thinking. Speeds that
produce that kind of load was super-
sonic . . . so any bets for 'hand flying' the
airplane were moot). It illustrates the
over arching urgency for very fast pilot
response to unexpected, pitching events
especially at high power. Killing flight
surface motors and pulling back throttles
needed to happen first and quickly
. . . or the thing was going to become
an uncontrollable sled ride.
Admittedly nothing to do with 'glass
panels' as information delivery systems.
However, it has everything to do with a
necessity for pilots to 'become one with
the airplane'.
The narratives we're hearing suggest
a disconnect between design changes
driven by a desire not to create a new
aircraft type and the crews expected
to manage all the failure modes not
adequately addressed in the design.
Tip of the hat to AeroElectric-Lister
Robert Sultzbach for a heads-up on
another example of pilots wrestling
with a recalcitrant piece of hardware
with inadequate training or management
tools:
https://tinyurl.com/ybap8z7x
Fascinating presentation . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Wynn <mlwynn(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Factory Certified but is this safe? |
Hi all,
I am rebuilding and restoring a 1977 factory certified S1-S Pitts.=C2- Th
e electrical system is pretty basic but there is one aspect that I am tryin
g to understand.=C2- The battery is located behind the pilot's seat.=C2
- There is a contactor directly adjacent that energizes the starter.=C2
- There is a large wire, #8 or so, that goes from the battery that goes d
own the frame to the console between the pilot's legs where the circuit bre
akers and switches reside.=C2- That wire goes into an ammeter and from th
ere to the main bus, on which the various circuit breakers reside.=C2- Th
ere is no fuse, contactor or other circuit interruption device between the
battery and the console.=C2- If that main feed wire were to erode through
or otherwise short, there would be nothing to stop the welding action unti
l the battery died.
I wired my RV8 per the excellent instructions in the Aeroelectric Connectio
n.=C2- I feel quite safe about it.=C2- There is a very short run betwee
n the batter and the main contactor but all other wires are protected.=C2
- Not so with the factory Pitts wiring.=C2- Should I be adding a fuse o
r contactor or something near the battery to protect this circuit?
Regards,
Michael WynnRV8Pitts S1-SLivermore, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A pilot should have the ability to shut off electrical power near each source.
A 40 amp automotive relay will work for this situation. I would NOT install
a fuse or circuit breaker at the battery.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489728#489728
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The down-side of "glass panels" |
At 06:41 PM 6/17/2019, you wrote:
>I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that
>there is a significant difference between just saying the problem
>is glass panels or glass cockpit, versus the problem is pilot
>skills that are eroding.
>Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link
>automation under the category of glass cockpit just confuses
>the issue and they are not necessarily related.
Absolutely. I wasn't clear in my missive.
To be sure, there are no functional differences
between information supplied on glass versus
needles . . . indeed, the quality of
useful information on the panel has made
quantum leaps in accuracy and utility with
the micro-controller/LCD era.
The point I was positing was based on
observations of others, including my
own, that it's risky to let any form
of automation supplant your personal
skills. The 'glass panel' reference
was intended to be representative
of automation in general . . . obviously
a gps coupled autopilot could be
crafted with no display whatsoever . . .
in fact I have a design for such a
creature.
Your point is well taken. I'll try
to be more definitive in the future.
Fly comfortably!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
At 08:16 PM 6/18/2019, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>
>I am rebuilding and restoring a 1977 factory certified S1-S
>Pitts. The electrical system is pretty basic but there is one
>aspect that I am trying to understand. The battery is located
>behind the pilot's seat. There is a contactor directly adjacent
>that energizes the starter. There is a large wire, #8 or so, that
>goes from the battery that goes down the frame to the console
>between the pilot's legs where the circuit breakers and switches
>reside. That wire goes into an ammeter and from there to the main
>bus, on which the various circuit breakers reside. There is no
>fuse, contactor or other circuit interruption device between the
>battery and the console. If that main feed wire were to erode
>through or otherwise short, there would be nothing to stop the
>welding action until the battery died.
>
>I wired my RV8 per the excellent instructions in the Aeroelectric
>Connection. I feel quite safe about it. There is a very short run
>between the batter and the main contactor but all other wires are
>protected. Not so with the factory Pitts wiring. Should I be
>adding a fuse or contactor or something near the battery to protect
>this circuit?
Do you have a schematic of the system?
How big is the alternator/generator?
I am surprised that a type certificated
airplane would be configured as you've
described because it does not comply
with Part 23 rules for crew management
of power sources.
You could add a battery contactor for
just that feeder . . .but if you're
going to add ANY contactor, why
not wire per 99.9% of other TC
aircraft?
Add a legacy battery contactor
upstream of the starter contactor
then move the 8AWG feeder to
the junction between those
contactors. Of course, you'll
need to add a battery master
to the panel.
What's your situation with respect
to 'mods'? Do you need to execute
a Form 337 Field Approval?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CFI techniques for glass panel pilots |
Andy,
Good on ya!!=C2- That is exactly the training our current crop of glass-t
rained pilots need.I salute you.
On the 737 Max issue, I am a retired 737 pilot (never flew the Max - but th
en most 73 pilots have not flown it) and there is recent concern that femal
e pilots will not have the upper body strength to turn the manual trim cran
k - on any version.=C2- I often wondered about that very issue since I fo
und turning it to be a challenge.=C2- I'm not sure what the solution will
be except to restrict the jets to a maximum of one female in the cockpit s
o there a male to spin the trim.There is a LOT of bogus "info" being circul
ated so read anything so related with skepticism.
Stan Sutterfield
From: "Andy Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: CFI techniques for glass panel pilots
I am an ex-military IP and civilian CFI for just over 40 years. (Ancient.)
These
days I mainly do flight reviews and WINGS
instruction in experimentals with experienced pilots.=C2- It is true that
part of
the experimental community is especially enamored of
glass panels and I have seen many panels with *no* back-up instruments.
One technique I find especially good is to have the pilot remove/disable th
e moving
map display(s) and turn off his tablet, then go
to a local airport he has been to many times.=C2- The pilot has to look a
t the map
ahead of time and pick out some visible landmarks,
and find them in flight. Just like 40 years ago!=C2- Autopilot is allowed
(Makes for
much better traffic scanning), but only in the
heading mode.=C2- No course tracking.
Using this technique is especially interesting at night, where the advantag
e of
lit-up towns and highways outside of cities is
counterbalanced by the difficulty in finding things (like runways) in the d
ense
sea of lights in modern cities.=C2- The sighting
differences associated with altitude can be extreme, both favorably and un-
.
Pilots are apprehensive to start, but quickly regain basic flying/navigatin
g skills,
and invariably "find" all kinds of things
enroute that they've been flying over for years and never seen!=C2- Every
single pilot
I've done this with has thought it a valuable
training experience.=C2-
FWIW,
Andy Elliott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 10:25 AM 6/6/2019, you wrote:
>Thank you very much, I look forward to seeing your test results
>
>Keep well
>
>Mike
>
Mike, if you mounted a Jim Weir ELT
antenna on the side of your fuselage,
how long would the coax need to be to
run from the antenna apex junction
to your ELT?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Thanks for your help Bob
Shortest run possible is 1 foot and I can put antenna 5 to 6 ft away on
other side of fuselage and run antenna for +/- 8 ft max from current ELT
mount. I can reposition the ELT elsewhere in the fuselage but I imagine one
does not want then too far apart
Hope this helps
I will be away for 5 days so will not be able to respond
Thanks
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 20, 2019 6:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 10:25 AM 6/6/2019, you wrote:
Thank you very much, I look forward to seeing your test results
Keep well
Mike
Mike, if you mounted a Jim Weir ELT
antenna on the side of your fuselage,
how long would the coax need to be to
run from the antenna apex junction
to your ELT?
Bob . . .
---
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: | Antenna Ground Plane |
At 12:09 AM 6/21/2019, you wrote:
>Thanks for your help Bob
>
>Shortest run possible is 1 foot and I can put antenna 5 to 6 ft away
>on other side of fuselage and run antenna for +/- 8 ft max from
>current ELT mount. I can reposition the ELT elsewhere in the
>fuselage but I imagine one does not want then too far apart
>
>Hope this helps
>
>I will be away for 5 days so will not be able to respond
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike
No problem. The reason I'm asking is
that I'll need to assemble an exemplar
antenna to test . . . but don't have
an airplane of my own.
So, assuming the tests are encouraging,
I'd be pleased to donate the test
article to your project. The factory-fab
coax cables I have for the test would
leave about a 2' flying lead with a
BNC connector on it.
If that would be long enough, then
I think we have a plan for the
testing residuals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Wynn <mlwynn(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
In looking at the original published plans, the starter contactor next to t
he battery and no master is what is published.=C2- I am working with my A
&P to sort out the legalities of the situation but my decision is to rewire
using the Z11 basic form.=C2- I changed out the alternator for the TSO'd
version of the B&C 40 amp alternator and LRC-3 regulator.=C2- In my view
, safety trumps legality.=C2- I cannot explain how the type certificate w
as approved this way but the original design was from the 1940's and I'm no
t sure when the type certificate was given.=C2- It certainly wouldn't pas
s at present.
I have a call in to Aviat to see if there is a service bulletin or somethin
g that allows me to legally make the changes.=C2- Beyond that, safety fir
st is the byline.=C2- If I need the 337, then we will get that done.=C2
- I cannot believe I am the first Pitts owner to encounter this situation
.=C2- Thanks for the feedback.
Regards,
Michael WynnRV8Pitts S1-SLivermore, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 20, 2019 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Factory Certified but is this safe?
At 08:16 PM 6/18/2019, you wrote:
Hi all,
I am rebuilding and restoring a 1977 factory certified S1-S Pitts.=C2-The
electrical system is pretty basic but there is one aspect that I amtrying
to understand.=C2- The battery is located behind the pilot'sseat.=C2- T
here is a contactor directly adjacent that energizes thestarter.=C2- Ther
e is a large wire, #8 or so, that goes from thebattery that goes down the f
rame to the console between the pilot's legswhere the circuit breakers and
switches reside.=C2- That wire goes intoan ammeter and from there to the
main bus, on which the various circuitbreakers reside.=C2- There is no fu
se, contactor or other circuitinterruption device between the battery and t
he console.=C2- If thatmain feed wire were to erode through or otherwise
short, there would benothing to stop the welding action until the battery d
ied.
I wired my RV8 per the excellent instructions in the AeroelectricConnection
.=C2- I feel quite safe about it.=C2- There is a very shortrun between
the batter and the main contactor but all other wires areprotected.=C2- N
ot so with the factory Pitts wiring.=C2- Should I beadding a fuse or cont
actor or something near the battery to protect thiscircuit?
=C2- Do you have a schematic of the system?
=C2- How big is the alternator/generator?
=C2- I am surprised that a type certificated
=C2- airplane would be configured as you've
=C2- described because it does not comply
=C2- with Part 23 rules for crew management
=C2- of power sources.
=C2- You could add a battery contactor for
=C2- just that feeder . . .but if you're
=C2- going to add ANY contactor, why
=C2- not wire per 99.9% of other TC
=C2- aircraft?
=C2- Add a legacy battery contactor
=C2- upstream of the starter contactor
=C2- then move the 8AWG feeder to
=C2- the junction between those
=C2- contactors. Of course, you'll
=C2- need to add a battery master
=C2- to the panel.
=C2- What's your situation with respect
=C2- to 'mods'? Do you need to execute
=C2- a Form 337 Field Approval?
=C2-=C2-
=C2- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
At 09:15 AM 6/23/2019, you wrote:
>In looking at the original published plans, the starter contactor
>next to the battery and no master is what is published. I am
>working with my A&P to sort out the legalities of the situation but
>my decision is to rewire using the Z11 basic form. I changed out
>the alternator for the TSO'd version of the B&C 40 amp alternator
>and LRC-3 regulator. In my view, safety trumps legality. I cannot
>explain how the type certificate was approved this way but the
>original design was from the 1940's and I'm not sure when the type
>certificate was given. It certainly wouldn't pass at present.
Yeah . . . that would have been a CAR3
rules. I'll have to see if I still have
a copy of the light-plane rules in
my archives. I would be interesting
to see what was required back then.
>I have a call in to Aviat to see if there is a service bulletin or
>something that allows me to legally make the changes. Beyond that,
>safety first is the byline. If I need the 337, then we will get
>that done. I cannot believe I am the first Pitts owner to encounter
>this situation. Thanks for the feedback.
Is there a type-club that might
have exemplar 337 submissions
that were successful upgrades?
Barring that, consider a
337 that cites an 'upgrade
to the original system with:
(1) architecture patterned after 1968 C172
(2) fully compliant with FAR23 paragraphs
23.1351 thru 23.1367
(3) installed per practices described
in AC43-13 and all applicable
manufacturer's recommendations.
Then attach a drawing of the system (should
be pretty simple). Break it up in page
per system format like that found in the
back of the various Cessna service manuals
available from my website.
I know a DAR type that could help
you craft the document.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-12 questions |
| From: | "ssonixx" <gavinkim(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> There will be a variant of Z-12 published that takes
> some cues from Z-13/8 where the second alternator is
> drives the battery bus as opposed to the main bus.
>
I was curious if this variant was ever published? Id like to compare this to Z-14
as I am working with an electrically dependent engine as well.
Thank you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489809#489809
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Analogue instruments |
| From: | "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu> |
Hi Guys (Bob)
Analogue instruments (Vans) have a 'ground' circuit, can the instrument lighting
circuit ground be connected to the instrument ground or should lighting have
their own ground return.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489824#489824
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
Greetings all,
Can a single layer bid carbon layup (of appropriate size) suffice as a groun
d plane?
Thanks in advance
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 12:09 AM 6/21/2019, you wrote:
>> Thanks for your help Bob
>>
>> Shortest run possible is 1 foot and I can put antenna 5 to 6 ft away on o
ther side of fuselage and run antenna for +/- 8 ft max from current ELT moun
t. I can reposition the ELT elsewhere in the fuselage but I imagine one does
not want then too far apart
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> I will be away for 5 days so will not be able to respond
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mike
>
> No problem. The reason I'm asking is
> that I'll need to assemble an exemplar
> antenna to test . . . but don't have
> an airplane of my own.
>
> So, assuming the tests are encouraging,
> I'd be pleased to donate the test
> article to your project. The factory-fab
> coax cables I have for the test would
> leave about a 2' flying lead with a
> BNC connector on it.
>
> If that would be long enough, then
> I think we have a plan for the
> testing residuals.
>
>
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Analogue instruments |
At 05:23 AM 6/25/2019, you wrote:
>
>Hi Guys (Bob)
>
>Analogue instruments (Vans) have a 'ground' circuit, can the
>instrument lighting circuit ground be connected to the instrument
>ground or should lighting have their own ground return.
They can be grounded at any convenient
location.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Ground Plane |
Bob
Thank you very much
I really appreciate your efforts and would gladly contribute to cover the
costs
2 feet would be more than enough
Thanks again
Mike
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: June 21, 2019 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 12:09 AM 6/21/2019, you wrote:
Thanks for your help Bob
Shortest run possible is 1 foot and I can put antenna 5 to 6 ft away on
other side of fuselage and run antenna for +/- 8 ft max from current ELT
mount. I can reposition the ELT elsewhere in the fuselage but I imagine one
does not want then too far apart
Hope this helps
I will be away for 5 days so will not be able to respond
Thanks
Mike
No problem. The reason I'm asking is
that I'll need to assemble an exemplar
antenna to test . . . but don't have
an airplane of my own.
So, assuming the tests are encouraging,
I'd be pleased to donate the test
article to your project. The factory-fab
coax cables I have for the test would
leave about a 2' flying lead with a
BNC connector on it.
If that would be long enough, then
I think we have a plan for the
testing residuals.
Bob . . .
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Wynn <mlwynn(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
Very good.=C2- Thank you for the input.=C2- I will keep everyone posted
on this.
Regards,
Michael Wynn,=C2-RV8Pitts S1-SLivermore, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2019 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Factory Certified but is this safe?
At 09:15 AM 6/23/2019, you wrote:
In looking at the originalpublished plans, the starter contactor next to th
e battery and no masteris what is published.=C2- I am working with my A&P
to sort out thelegalities of the situation but my decision is to rewire us
ing the Z11basic form.=C2- I changed out the alternator for the TSO'd ver
sion ofthe B&C 40 amp alternator and LRC-3 regulator.=C2- In my view,safe
ty trumps legality.=C2- I cannot explain how the type certificatewas appr
oved this way but the original design was from the 1940's and I'mnot sure w
hen the type certificate was given.=C2- It certainly wouldn'tpass at pres
ent.
=C2- Yeah . . . that would have been a CAR3
=C2- rules. I'll have to see if I still have
=C2- a copy of the light-plane rules in
=C2- my archives. I would be interesting
=C2- to see what was required back then.
I have a call in to Aviat to seeif there is a service bulletin or something
that allows me to legallymake the changes.=C2- Beyond that, safety first
is the byline.=C2- IfI need the 337, then we will get that done.=C2- I
cannot believe I amthe first Pitts owner to encounter this situation.=C2
- Thanks for thefeedback.
=C2- Is there a type-club that might
=C2- have exemplar 337 submissions
=C2- that were successful upgrades?
=C2- Barring that, consider a
=C2- 337 that cites an 'upgrade
=C2- to the original system with:
=C2- (1) architecture patterned after 1968 C172
=C2- (2) fully compliant with FAR23 paragraphs
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- 23.1351 thru 23.1367
=C2- (3) installed per practices described
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- in AC43-13 and all applicable
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- manufacturer's recommendations.
=C2- Then attach a drawing of the system (should
=C2- be pretty simple). Break it up in page
=C2- per system format like that found in the
=C2- back of the various Cessna service manuals
=C2- available from my website.
=C2- I know a DAR type that could help
=C2- you craft the document.
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Warning light (colours) |
| From: | "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu> |
Hi Guys
What are the accepted colours for warning lights: Starter engaged, Alternator out
and Low Oil pressure: OK Red for those, what about Parking Break set, Fuel
pump 'on', Low fuel etc
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489840#489840
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
At 09:10 AM 6/25/2019, you wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>Can a single layer bid carbon layup (of appropriate size) suffice as
>a ground plane?
>
>Thanks in advance
Sorry, no. Sheet resistance is too high and making
an electrical connection is problematic. Ground
systems in TC composite a/c are . . . well . . .
I'll be kind: astounding.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning light (colours) |
At 11:57 AM 6/25/2019, you wrote:
>
>Hi Guys
>
>What are the accepted colours for warning lights: Starter engaged,
>Alternator out and Low Oil pressure: OK Red for those, what about
>Parking Break set, Fuel pump 'on', Low fuel etc
In the heavy iron world, Warnings (imperatives) are red, cautions
are amber, notifications are about any other color . . . green, blue,
magenta, etc.
If you're going to flash a light for attention getting operation,
2 to 3 flashes per second are legacy design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
| Subject: | Warning light (colours) |
My preference for light is consistent with Army aviation practice:
Red = Dangerous situation: Basically things that would require me
to land immediately or as soon as practical. (Low oil pressure,
Critical fuel level, etc.)
Amber = Warning or potential danger: Basically things that potentially
impact the operation of the aircraft, and may require intervention.
(Alternator failed, Started engaged, Parking brake on, Low fuel)
Green = Advisory: An indication of a normal condition. (Fuel pump
switch on, Lights/beacons on, etc.)
On the plane I'm building, I plan to use rocker switches that have LED
lights built in to indicate when the switch is on. I'll use green LEDs
for the switches that are "normally on" (master, alternator, magnetos,
beacon, strobes, etc.). I'll use "amber" LEDs in the switches that are
normally off, and that would not be routinely left on (boost pump,
starter a momentary-on switch, and anything else like that).
I don't think I would use a "red" LED in a switch, although I might
consider it if I had a "normally off" secondary alternator design. That
"red" light would remind me that I'm in an "other-than-normal"
configuration when that switch is on. But as a general rule, I don't
like seeing red lights on the panel...
One advantage of using an EFIS with built-in engine monitoring is that
all this can be handled internally to the EFIS/EMS, and only an external
"master caution lights" are needed on the panel (preferably way up at
the top, where you can't miss them) to remind you to look at the glass
screen to see what's wrong... These lights usually have a "reset"
button somewhere in the glass box to re-arm the master caution system
for the next failure. I kind of like this whole approach. Many of the
EFIS/EMS systems for EAB use also allow you to set the ranges for green,
yellow, and red operations, and trigger the external "red" or "amber"
caution light appropriately.
Jim Parker
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Warning light (colours)
From: "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Tue, June 25, 2019 11:57 am
Hi Guys
What are the accepted colours for warning lights: Starter engaged,
Alternator out and Low Oil pressure: OK Red for those, what about
Parking Break set, Fuel pump 'on', Low fuel etc
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning light (colours) |
Jim
Excelent answer & suggestions
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 25/06/2019, s 19:32,
escreveu:
>
> My preference for light is consistent with Army aviation practice:
>
> Red = Dangerous situation: Basically things that would require me
> to land immediately or as soon as practical. (Low oil pressure,
> Critical fuel level, etc.)
> Amber = Warning or potential danger: Basically things that potentially
> impact the operation of the aircraft, and may require intervention.
> (Alternator failed, Started engaged, Parking brake on, Low fuel)
> Green = Advisory: An indication of a normal condition. (Fuel pump
> switch on, Lights/beacons on, etc.)
>
> On the plane I'm building, I plan to use rocker switches that have LED
> lights built in to indicate when the switch is on. I'll use green LEDs
> for the switches that are "normally on" (master, alternator, magnetos,
> beacon, strobes, etc.). I'll use "amber" LEDs in the switches that are
> normally off, and that would not be routinely left on (boost pump,
> starter a momentary-on switch, and anything else like that).
>
> I don't think I would use a "red" LED in a switch, although I might
> consider it if I had a "normally off" secondary alternator design. That
> "red" light would remind me that I'm in an "other-than-normal"
> configuration when that switch is on. But as a general rule, I don't
> like seeing red lights on the panel...
>
> One advantage of using an EFIS with built-in engine monitoring is that
> all this can be handled internally to the EFIS/EMS, and only an external
> "master caution lights" are needed on the panel (preferably way up at
> the top, where you can't miss them) to remind you to look at the glass
> screen to see what's wrong... These lights usually have a "reset"
> button somewhere in the glass box to re-arm the master caution system
> for the next failure. I kind of like this whole approach. Many of the
> EFIS/EMS systems for EAB use also allow you to set the ranges for green,
> yellow, and red operations, and trigger the external "red" or "amber"
> caution light appropriately.
>
> Jim Parker
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Warning light (colours)
> From: "John M Tipton" <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
> Date: Tue, June 25, 2019 11:57 am
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> What are the accepted colours for warning lights: Starter engaged,
> Alternator out and Low Oil pressure: OK Red for those, what about
> Parking Break set, Fuel pump 'on', Low fuel etc
>
> John
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | argoldman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
thanks Bob (now back to the drawing board)=C2- Plane(ly)=C2-
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 25, 2019 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Ground Plane
At 09:10 AM 6/25/2019, you wrote:
Greetings all,
Can a single layer bid carbon layup (of appropriate size) suffice as agroun
d plane?
Thanks in advance
=C2- Sorry, no. Sheet resistance is too high and making
=C2- an electrical connection is problematic. Ground
=C2- systems in TC composite a/c are=C2- . . . well . . .
=C2- I'll be kind: astounding.
=C2- Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning light (colours) |
Jim you don't subscribe to the 'dark cockpit' theory?
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, 8:38 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:57 AM 6/25/2019, you wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hi Guys
>
> What are the accepted colours for warning lights: Starter engaged,
> Alternator out and Low Oil pressure: OK Red for those, what about Parking
> Break set, Fuel pump 'on', Low fuel etc
>
>
> In the heavy iron world, Warnings (imperatives) are red, cautions are
> amber, notifications are about any other color . . . green, blue, magenta,
> etc.
> If you're going to flash a light for attention getting operation, 2 to 3
> flashes per second are legacy design goals.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I really
need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the instrumentation
(I have never used glass cockpit before this). So there is a need to sit in
the airplane with shore power connected to keep from running down the
EarthX battery. But I am concerned about using shore power with lithium
battery technology because of their charging sensitivities. What do you
guys think? Would it be okay to connect an adjustable power supply to the
electrical system, with the battery in place? If so, what should I set the
voltage for? The problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle
and takes about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
could just plug in.
Thanks,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
If you aren't planning on pulling the battery before going for a flight and
running the alternator, I wouldn't consider pulling the battery before
running a power supply on the ground. Your alternator will likely put out
13.8 - 14.5 V, set your power supply to somewhere in there and find a
convenient place to plug in.
You may want to pull the field breaker, the alternator can pull a few amps
and get quite hot on the ground if the bus voltage is below the regulator
set voltage. My boss once unplugged a power supply from the wall while
still plugged in to the aircraft with the battery master on, smoked a wire
but the power supply is ok. We now have a 10A breaker in the power supply
wires just in case he does it again or there is a power failure or
something.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 8:38 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I really
> need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the instrumentation
> (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So there is a need to sit in
> the airplane with shore power connected to keep from running down the
> EarthX battery. But I am concerned about using shore power with lithium
> battery technology because of their charging sensitivities. What do you
> guys think? Would it be okay to connect an adjustable power supply to the
> electrical system, with the battery in place? If so, what should I set the
> voltage for? The problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle
> and takes about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
> could just plug in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
| From: | Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org> |
I would set it to whatever you expect out of your alternator. 13.8v
say. The EarthX will protect itself from being overcharged. You just
want the voltage high enough that you're not drawing from the battery.
--Rick
On 6/26/2019 11:32 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I
> really need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the
> instrumentation (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So
> there is a need to sit in the airplane with shore power connected to
> keep from running down the EarthX battery. But I am concerned about
> using shore power with lithium battery technology because of their
> charging sensitivities. What do you guys think? Would it be okay to
> connect an adjustable power supply to the electrical system, with the
> battery in place? If so, what should I set the voltage for? The
> problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle and takes
> about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
> could just plug in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
At 10:32 AM 6/26/2019, you wrote:
>I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I
>really need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the
>instrumentation (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So
>there is a need to sit in the airplane with shore power connected to
>keep from running down the EarthX battery. But I am concerned about
>using shore power with lithium battery technology because of their
>charging sensitivities. What do you guys think? Would it be okay to
>connect an adjustable power supply to the electrical system, with
>the battery in place? If so, what should I set the voltage for? The
>problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle and takes
>about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
>could just plug in.
How about a ground power connector?
alternatively . . .
How hard is it to get to the hot
side of your starter contactor?
You can clip the (+) lead from the
power supply directly to the nut
on the battery-side stud. Set the
power supply for 14v before turning
it on.
Emacs!
Clips like these are good for 30+
amps and would handle your needs
nicely. Obviously, the (-) clip
goes to handy ground.
Leave ship's master switch OFF.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
Thanks Bob. Your gentle reminder that the battery is not connected to the
rest of the system until the master switch is turned on opens up a number
of possible solutions.
Ken
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 10:06 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 6/26/2019, you wrote:
>
> I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I really
> need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the instrumentation
> (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So there is a need to sit in
> the airplane with shore power connected to keep from running down the
> EarthX battery. But I am concerned about using shore power with lithium
> battery technology because of their charging sensitivities. What do you
> guys think? Would it be okay to connect an adjustable power supply to the
> electrical system, with the battery in place? If so, what should I set the
> voltage for? The problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle
> and takes about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
> could just plug in.
>
>
> How about a ground power connector?
>
> alternatively . . .
>
> How hard is it to get to the hot
> side of your starter contactor?
>
> You can clip the (+) lead from the
> power supply directly to the nut
> on the battery-side stud. Set the
> power supply for 14v before turning
> it on.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Clips like these are good for 30+
> amps and would handle your needs
> nicely. Obviously, the (-) clip
> goes to handy ground.
>
> Leave ship's master switch OFF.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Ground Plane |
| From: | "Demixl" <jb100059(at)yahoo.com> |
Thank you for sharing guys it really helps me
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489879#489879
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The joys of a Z-14 during an charging system failure |
| From: | "Demixl" <jb100059(at)yahoo.com> |
Thank you man,it really works
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489880#489880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
Hi Ken;
Check out Battery Tender 022-0209-DL-WH which is a 4 and battery charger/maintainer
that is selectable for conventional or lithium iron batteries. I have a lithium
iron battery in my aircraft while wiring that is continually plugged into
this charger. Battery seems happy. Allows me to do testing as I add each circuit.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:32:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: shore power combined with LiFePO battery
I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I really need
to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the instrumentation (I have
never used glass cockpit before this). So there is a need to sit in the airplane
with shore power connected to keep from running down the EarthX battery. But
I am concerned about using shore power with lithium battery technology because
of their charging sensitivities. What do you guys think? Would it be okay to
connect an adjustable power supply to the electrical system, with the battery
in place? If so, what should I set the voltage for? The problem is that pulling
the battery is a bit of a hassle and takes about a half hour. Same for installation.
It would be better if I could just plug in.
Thanks,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
| From: | Bevan <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Hard to say without knowing how your electrical system is configured.
You could have a charge cord permanently connected to your battery. I
secured mine so that its accessible from the oil filler door. Plug in a
standard Lithium charger (not the balance charger) while you're playing
with the glass. Turn all non essential stuff off and pull breakers. If
you have an "essential bus", the EFIS should be on the Ebus and then you
can turn the master contacter off saving an amp or so.
Bevan
On 6/27/2019 8:34 PM, ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net wrote:
> Hi Ken;
> Check out Battery Tender 022-0209-DL-WH which is a 4 and battery
> charger/maintainer that is selectable for conventional or lithium iron
> batteries. I have a lithium iron battery in my aircraft while wiring
> that is continually plugged into this charger. Battery seems happy.
> Allows me to do testing as I add each circuit.
> Cheers! Stu.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Ken Ryan" <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
> *To: *aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:32:37 AM
> *Subject: *AeroElectric-List: shore power combined with LiFePO battery
>
> I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I
> really need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the
> instrumentation (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So
> there is a need to sit in the airplane with shore power connected to
> keep from running down the EarthX battery. But I am concerned about
> using shore power with lithium battery technology because of their
> charging sensitivities. What do you guys think? Would it be okay to
> connect an adjustable power supply to the electrical system, with the
> battery in place? If so, what should I set the voltage for? The
> problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle and takes
> about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
> could just plug in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
--
Bevan Tomm
Senior Technician
Fraser Valley Alarm Services Inc.
bevan(at)fvas.bc.ca
office 604-854-2994
Fax 604-852-6408
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
At 10:34 PM 6/27/2019, you wrote:
>Hi Ken;
>Check out Battery Tender 022-0209-DL-WH which is a 4 and battery
>charger/maintainer that is selectable for conventional or lithium
>iron batteries. I have a lithium iron battery in my aircraft while
>wiring that is continually plugged into this charger. Battery seems
>happy. Allows me to do testing as I add each circuit.
>Cheers! Stu.
This device is not a 'ground power' source of energy.
Ken needs a current limited, voltage regulated
laboratory or bench supply that emulates his alternator/
battery system.
Here's a couple of examples:
https://tinyurl.com/y2nb5gyv
https://tinyurl.com/y4taw7rc
https://tinyurl.com/yytdzdvg
These are suited for powering up the bus
with the ship's battery and alternator
OFF line.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
Ken,
I was in the same position when I was finishing up my airplane. I did two
things that might work for you, too.
First, I simply hooked up my plane's battery. I removed all of the fuses to
the devices which did not need power. Then I turned on the master. That
battery would run the EFIS for longer than I wanted to sit in the cockpit
in the garage (mine happens to be lead acid but I expect your LiFePO will
do the same). When I was not using the battery to power the airplane, I
hooked up a charger and recharged it.
Second, I found that my MGL iEFIS has a very good emulator. I loaded that
onto my laptop and found that it was way more comfortable to sit in my
armchair in my air conditioned living room and play with the emulator than
it was to sit in the cockpit. It became my primary means of learning my
EFIS. You didn't say which brand of EFIS you have but perhaps you can get
some similar software.
Maybe one or both of those ideas will work for you. They had the advantage
of being simple and not requiring me to buy anything which is not useful
for a long time (well past the time required to build the airplane). The
only thing that I bought was a battery charger and, since I have a lead
acid batter, that came from the local auto parts store. I don't know what
you need for your LeFePO battery but presumably a charger is less expensive
than a regulated power supply.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> I am finishing up my airplane and it is starting to sink in that I really
> need to spend some hours sitting in it getting used to the instrumentation
> (I have never used glass cockpit before this). So there is a need to sit in
> the airplane with shore power connected to keep from running down the
> EarthX battery. But I am concerned about using shore power with lithium
> battery technology because of their charging sensitivities. What do you
> guys think? Would it be okay to connect an adjustable power supply to the
> electrical system, with the battery in place? If so, what should I set the
> voltage for? The problem is that pulling the battery is a bit of a hassle
> and takes about a half hour. Same for installation. It would be better if I
> could just plug in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The joys of a Z-14 during an charging system failure |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
An update on this old post - the LR3C did not fail as I concluded
originally - the failure was due to a 'bad wire' (18ga Tefzel)
The situation below was initially determined to be an intermittent
failing LR3c regulator. The offending regulator was returned to the
factory and a used unit from my shelf installed which seemed to work...
until more intermittent failures were experienced.
After much probing with a volt meter I determined that the wire from the
main alternator running back to the LR3c pin 4 was fractured internally
(!!). Now, I could not find the point at which it was fractured because
the insulation was intact. But continuity testing did seem to indicate
an unseen break in the wire. While this seemed and seems highly
unlikely, I could reach no other conclusion. The wire did go from the
regulator, thru a firewall penetration, around the engine and then was
split into 2 leads to feed both terminals of the plug on the B&C L-40
alternator. Continuity checks from that split to the regulator end of
the wire showed intermittent continuity.
Obviously the engine vibrates and translates all over the place during
operation, perhaps more than allowed for by my wire routing technique.
I have taken advantage of the dual terminals on the L-40 and run 2
separate wires, along 2 separate routes, back to a single terminal on
the regulator and all seems to be well.
As frustrating as this problem was, and given the extended time period
required to finally diagnose and fix, the Z-14 turned out to be very
tolerant of not only the intermittent failure, but of the extended fix
time. I was able to continue to fly without too much concern.
Thanks Bob!
On 4/15/2019 10:39 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>
> Having just passed 1100 hours on my RV-10, I experienced my 2nd LR3C
> voltage regulator failure. Like the first, this turned out to be a
> non-event despite some difficulty in problem determination.
>
> I installed a Z-14 dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery electrical
> system. Specifically a B&C L-40, a B&C SD-20, (2) Odyssey PC680s, and
> (2) LR3c B&C regulators. Dual mags but an electrically hungry panel
> with (3) GRT EFISs and the rest of the usual kitchen sink.
>
> The charging system failure occurred during cruise in the normal
> configuration; i.e. with both buses running independently and not
> linked. I first noticed the voltage slowly drop on bus1. I switched
> the cross-link on and off a few times and observed the voltage climb
> each time suggesting something on bus1 had failed but bus2 was running
> fine.
>
> Soon the low voltage light lit so I simply switched the cross link on
> and completed the 2 hour leg.
>
> Upon landing and suspecting an LR3c failure, I ran through the problem
> determination procedure per B&C. Problem was it all checked out so I
> call them and they said it was probably a failed alternator. I sent
> it in, they checked it out, the 1100 hour L-40 was just fine so they
> sent it back for the cost of postage. I reinstalled it, reset the
> belt tension and took a test flight.
>
> All was well on the test flight so a week later I went on a 3 leg
> journey to DC, Pgh and return. No problems on the first 2 legs but on
> the third leg, bus 1 was out again. It was a non-event relative to
> finishing the 1.5 hour leg.
>
> I re-ran the regulator's PD procedure and step 4 failed (no voltage
> drop for those following along). Since I had a previously repaired
> one on the shelf, I simply swapped it out and was off and flying again.
>
> Findings:
>
> - The LR3c can 'soft-fail' and can be suspect even if PD checks out.
>
> - The 20amp backup alternator is capable of running my full daytime
> cruising load including battery charging. It only comes up short at
> low RPMs during ground ops.
>
> - The 40amp main alternator is enough for my fully loaded RV10 and
> will keep things running and charging even during low RPM ground ops
> (I already knew this).
>
> - The Z-14 provides a great deal of 'dispatch reliability'. I can
> finish out a trip and get home safely in most instances even with a
> failed regulator or alternator. I feel confident enough to take off
> with one side failed if need be, an example being on trips to the
> Bahamas as long as battery life will carry me to an airport even with
> a 2nd charging system failure.
>
> - Don't mount the LR3c on the back of the firewall up under the RV10
> panel where it is so *^*&^I%%$$#GD hard to get at for adjustment or
> replacement.
>
> Bill "experiencing the joys of ongoing OBAM aircraft maintenance" Watson
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shore power combined with LiFePO battery |
Thanks everyone for the replies. I created a non existent problem when I
failed to make the obvious observation that if the master is not close d
the battery is out of the picture, and so all I need to do is to connect my
power supply to a point downstream from the battery contactor, as Bob
pointed out. That's easy. I'm going to look for a Dynon Skyview emulator.
That's the best solution to this particular problem.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 03:24 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:34 PM 6/27/2019, you wrote:
>
> Hi Ken;
> Check out Battery Tender 022-0209-DL-WH which is a 4 and battery
> charger/maintainer that is selectable for conventional or lithium iron
> batteries. I have a lithium iron battery in my aircraft while wiring that
> is continually plugged into this charger. Battery seems happy. Allows me to
> do testing as I add each circuit.
> Cheers! Stu.
>
>
> This device is not a 'ground power' source of energy.
> Ken needs a current limited, voltage regulated
> laboratory or bench supply that emulates his alternator/
> battery system.
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y2nb5gyv
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y4taw7rc
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yytdzdvg
>
> These are suited for powering up the bus
> with the ship's battery and alternator
> OFF line.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | insulating boots for contactors |
What is the best way to insulate a positive contactor terminal with more
than one wire connected? The rubber insulating boots that I have seen are
made to be used with a single wire on the terminal.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulating boots for contactors |
At 01:21 PM 7/1/2019, you wrote:
>What is the best way to insulate a positive contactor terminal with
>more than one wire connected? The rubber insulating boots that I
>have seen are made to be used with a single wire on the terminal.
I suggest you not worry about it. We had
some discussions about this waaayyy back when.
One builder suggested building a cover for the
contactor intended to shield 'dangerously
exposed terminals' from accidental contact/shorts.
Bad idea . . . these critters run warm NORMALLY
and are designed to perform in 'open to
the environment' conditions. Any enclosure
could emulate a tiny oven where the contactor
is deprived of expected air flows.
Emacs!
Consider this picture I took on the A36
production line at Beech. Talk about
spark-hazard-city! Yet, just like the
bus bars behind the breakers, these
are considered to be exceedingly unlikely
sources for sparks-in-the-dark . . . or
otherwise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulating boots for contactors |
I don't know about "best," but self-amalgamating silicone tape makes a goo
d insulator for pretty much any size or shape terminal.=C2- It's availabl
e on eBay for cheap, or under the trade name "Rescue Tape."=C2- If you're
not familiar, it's a tape with no adhesive that sticks only to itself.=C2
- Stretch it as you wrap it, and it sticks instantly and permanently.
Eric
om> wrote:
What is the best way to insulate a positive contactor terminal with more t
han one wire connected? The rubber insulating boots that I have seen are ma
de to be used with a single wire on the terminal.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insulating boots for contactors |
Okay then! I'll forego the rubber boots.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:14 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:21 PM 7/1/2019, you wrote:
>
> What is the best way to insulate a positive contactor terminal with more
> than one wire connected? The rubber insulating boots that I have seen are
> made to be used with a single wire on the terminal.
>
>
> I suggest you not worry about it. We had
> some discussions about this waaayyy back when.
> One builder suggested building a cover for the
> contactor intended to shield 'dangerously
> exposed terminals' from accidental contact/shorts.
>
> Bad idea . . . these critters run warm NORMALLY
> and are designed to perform in 'open to
> the environment' conditions. Any enclosure
> could emulate a tiny oven where the contactor
> is deprived of expected air flows.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Consider this picture I took on the A36
> production line at Beech. Talk about
> spark-hazard-city! Yet, just like the
> bus bars behind the breakers, these
> are considered to be exceedingly unlikely
> sources for sparks-in-the-dark . . . or
> otherwise.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Pin extract problem |
I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in the
#14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting tool.
If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped female
pin?
Thanks for any ideas
Ron Burnett
RV-6A
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
Wouldnt it be better to replace the connector shell? Theyre inexpensive.
On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in the
#14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting tool.
If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped female
pin?
Thanks for any ideas
Ron Burnett
RV-6A
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Alex,
I thought about that but then I would have to extract all the pins. Dont seem
to have much luck with Radio Shack extractors.
Maybe only solution.
Thanks,
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 7:37 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
>
> Wouldnt it be better to replace the connector shell? Theyre inexpensive.
>
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
>
> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in
the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting
tool.
>
> If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped
female pin?
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Ron Burnett
> RV-6A
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
I can probably get that out out for you, Ron. Give me a call
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 7:38 PM Ron Burnett wrote:
> ronburnett(at)charter.net>
>
> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is stil
l
> in the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack
> extracting tool.
>
> If I can=99t Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back int
o the
> crimped female pin?
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Ron Burnett
> RV-6A
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mike(at)vision499.com> |
| Subject: | Pin extract problem |
I imagine that your problem is that you now cannot grip the female pin from the
rear.
Insert the extraction tool and push with a male pin into the female pin and that
should push the female pin out with the tool
Hope this helps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of Ron Burnett
Sent: July 2, 2019 5:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pin extract problem
-->
I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in the
#14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting tool.
If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped female
pin?
Thanks for any ideas
Ron Burnett
RV-6A
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Art,
I can fly the plane this way. I can fly somewhere to meet you after the 4th.
M71 where I am based is inconvenient.
Your skills have far exceeded mine.
Thanks
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:09 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> I can probably get that out out for you, Ron. Give me a call
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 7:38 PM Ron Burnett wrote:
net>
>>
>> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is stil
l in the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extr
acting tool.
>>
>> If I can=99t Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back int
o the crimped female pin?
>>
>> Thanks for any ideas
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>> RV-6A
>>
>> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> 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
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Mike,
Will give it a try when I can. Sounds like it might work. Ashamed I didnt think
of it.
Thanks
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:45 PM, wrote:
>
>
> I imagine that your problem is that you now cannot grip the female pin from the
rear.
> Insert the extraction tool and push with a male pin into the female pin and that
should push the female pin out with the tool
> Hope this helps
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of Ron Burnett
> Sent: July 2, 2019 5:23 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pin extract problem
>
> -->
>
> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in
the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting
tool.
>
> If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped
female pin?
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Ron Burnett
> RV-6A
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
Ron,
I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to sit down at my laptop and
type a real reply to you. :-)
First, use one of the extraction tools made out of metal. If your Radio
Shack tool is all plastic, it is much harder to get the job done and it
might not work at all.
Slide the extraction end of the tool around the pin. That is the more round
end. The insertion end is more open, more like a spoon. See
http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERTION-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf
After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself with tweezers or small
needle nose pliers and push the pin out. If the tool is in place and has
compressed the barbs, the pin will slide out with minimal force. If the pin
doesn't slide out, remove the tool, rotate it 90 degrees or so, and try
again.
Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:38 PM Ron Burnett wrote:
> ronburnett(at)charter.net>
>
> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still
> in the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack
> extracting tool.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
At 07:37 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>
>Wouldn=99t it be better to replace the connector shell? They=99
re inexpensive.
Agreed. Also, consider acquiring one of these
tools:
Specs at:
https://tinyurl.com/y272xsku
You can buy replacement tips from Digikey too
Emacs!
from Digikey at:
https://tinyurl.com/y6f6p9uu
This is the one I carried at Beech for years; works with
a broad range of connectors . . . including D-sub
20 and 22s
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
So the real question I have is what were the circumstances under which the wire
came out of the pin. What kind of pins and what kind of crimped did you use?
When crimped and strain relieffed properly these are pretty strong. My concern
is that if one came out are others to follow because of improper crimping. To
be certain, I would give each Eire a tug.
I only use machined males and females and have replaced off brand with AMP BRAND
MACHINED PINS/sockets. Perhaps that is my paranoia speaking
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 8:45 PM, wrote:
>
>
> I imagine that your problem is that you now cannot grip the female pin from the
rear.
> Insert the extraction tool and push with a male pin into the female pin and that
should push the female pin out with the tool
> Hope this helps
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of Ron Burnett
> Sent: July 2, 2019 5:23 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pin extract problem
>
> -->
>
> I managed to have a wire pull out of its crimped female pin which is still in
the #14 slot in a 25 pin D-sub. Have had no luck with Radio Shack extracting
tool.
>
> If I cant Extract it, is there a way to solder the wire back into the crimped
female pin?
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Ron Burnett
> RV-6A
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andy Mutzig <amutzig(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/30/19 |
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list
-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of AeroElectric-List Digest Server
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1:30 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/30/19
*
========================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
========================
Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of th
e
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 edito
r
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=htm
l&Chapter 19-06-30&Archive=AeroElectric
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt
&Chapter 19-06-30&Archive=AeroElectric
========================
=======================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
========================
=======================
----------------------------------------------------------
AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sun 06/30/19: 0
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
At 09:00 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>Ron,
>
>I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to
>sit down at my laptop and type a real reply to you. :-)
>
>First, use one of the extraction tools made out
>of metal. If your Radio Shack tool is all
>plastic, it is much harder to get the job done and it might not work at
all.
>
>Slide the extraction end of the tool around the
>pin. That is the more round end. The insertion
>end is more open, more like a spoon. See=C2
><http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERTI
ON-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf>http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-0
23-CONTACT-INSERTION-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf
>
>After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself
>with tweezers or small needle nose pliers and
>push the pin out. If the tool is in place and
>has compressed the barbs, the pin will slide out
>with minimal force. If the pin doesn't slide
>out, remove the tool, rotate it 90 degrees or so, and try again.
>
>Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
When extracting a female pin that
has become detached from its
wire can be pushed out from the
mating side with another female
pin.
The plastic handled tools have two
ends, one tailored for extraction . . .
the other for insertion. They are
identified by the color of the plastic
handle. Here's an updated AEC ShopNotes
that speaks to the details.
https://tinyurl.com/oazfwbc
Unless and until the extraction
tool is properly seated around
the installed pin, the retaining
barbs in the housing remain in
firm control of the pin.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:28 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:00 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to sit down at my laptop and
> type a real reply to you. :-)
>
> First, use one of the extraction tools made out of metal. If your Radio
> Shack tool is all plastic, it is much harder to get the job done and it
> might not work at all.
>
> Slide the extraction end of the tool around the pin. That is the more
> round end. The insertion end is more open, more like a spoon. See=C3=82
> http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERT
ION-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf
>
> After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself with tweezers or small
> needle nose pliers and push the pin out. If the tool is in place and has
> compressed the barbs, the pin will slide out with minimal force. If the p
in
> doesn't slide out, remove the tool, rotate it 90 degrees or so, and try
> again.
>
> Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
>
>
> When extracting a female pin that
> has become detached from its
> wire can be pushed out from the
> mating side with another female
> pin.
>
> The plastic handled tools have two
> ends, one tailored for extraction . . .
> the other for insertion. They are
> identified by the color of the plastic
> handle. Here's an updated AEC ShopNotes
> that speaks to the details.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/oazfwbc
>
> Unless and until the extraction
> tool is properly seated around
> the installed pin, the retaining
> barbs in the housing remain in
> firm control of the pin.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Heads-up; the 'click here' for more info link in the last frame just goes
to your site search page. Also, the price of the tool has gone up a bit...
tyco @ Digikey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
Does anyone have a handle on whether its possible (and easy) to exchange the display
from a KX155 (display works) to a KX165 (display missing some segments)?
Both 28V.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
At 07:06 PM 7/3/2019, you wrote:
>
>So the real question I have is what were the circumstances under
>which the wire came out of the pin. What kind of pins and what kind
>of crimped did you use?
>
>When crimped and strain relieffed properly these are pretty strong.
>My concern is that if one came out are others to follow because of
>improper crimping. To be certain, I would give each Eire a tug.
>
>I only use machined males and females and have replaced off brand
>with AMP BRAND MACHINED PINS/sockets. Perhaps that is my paranoia speaking
good points. to be sure the open-barrel
formed sheet metal pins are more susceptible
to failures of tooling and technique.
Pins marketed under the mil spec numbers
are low risk . . . as are most of the
commercial clones.
https://tinyurl.com/y5ttnnrh
https://tinyurl.com/y6o6n98d
What gage wire are we talking about?
Did the wire pull out or break off?
If pulled out, it's a sure bet that
it was under-crimped . . . hard to
do with a ratchet 4-die tool . . .
unless it was a really too-small
wire.
When putting 24-26 AWG into a D20
pin, I double over the stranding.
As a design rule, I very rarely use
anything smaller than 22AWG for
any purpose . . . disadvantages
far outweigh the advantages.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
I must plead guilty as I set this up to happen. I added a GRT Sport after OS
H 2 years ago and ran an unbundled wire to the new unit. Then after last OS
H I added UAT Echo/Safe-fly. Had always planned to run more wires to the se
cond unit but haven=99t figured it all out yet, so the serial port cro
ssover that fed ADBS and the second screen was the culprit and broken wire a
t the female pin. I pulled the main EFIS and it was hanging by the wires. M
arines call all this a self inflicted wound, but it is still a wound.
I am also guilty of loving to fly more than work on the panel, especially in
the summer heat.
Thanks to this list and Bob for all the helpful advice.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:06 PM 7/3/2019, you wrote:
>>
>> So the real question I have is what were the circumstances under which th
e wire came out of the pin. What kind of pins and what kind of crimped did y
ou use?
>>
>> When crimped and strain relieffed properly these are pretty strong. My co
ncern is that if one came out are others to follow because of improper crimp
ing. To be certain, I would give each Eire a tug.
>>
>> I only use machined males and females and have replaced off brand with AM
P BRAND MACHINED PINS/sockets. Perhaps that is my paranoia speaking
>
> good points. to be sure the open-barrel
> formed sheet metal pins are more susceptible
> to failures of tooling and technique.
>
> Pins marketed under the mil spec numbers
> are low risk . . . as are most of the
> commercial clones.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y5ttnnrh
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y6o6n98d
>
> What gage wire are we talking about?
>
> Did the wire pull out or break off?
> If pulled out, it's a sure bet that
> it was under-crimped . . . hard to
> do with a ratchet 4-die tool . . .
> unless it was a really too-small
> wire.
>
> When putting 24-26 AWG into a D20
> pin, I double over the stranding.
> As a design rule, I very rarely use
> anything smaller than 22AWG for
> any purpose . . . disadvantages
> far outweigh the advantages.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
My problem has been the extractor tool I have will not slip over the female p
in. I have tried until I am ashamed.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec
tric.com> wrote:
>
> At 09:00 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to sit down at my laptop and t
ype a real reply to you. :-)
>>
>> First, use one of the extraction tools made out of metal. If your Radio S
hack tool is all plastic, it is much harder to get the job done and it might
not work at all.
>>
>> Slide the extraction end of the tool around the pin. That is the more rou
nd end. The insertion end is more open, more like a spoon. See=C3=82 http://
www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERTION-REMOVA
L-TOOL.pdf
>>
>> After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself with tweezers or small ne
edle nose pliers and push the pin out. If the tool is in place and has compr
essed the barbs, the pin will slide out with minimal force. If the pin doesn
't slide out, remove the tool, rotate it 90 degrees or so, and try again.
>>
>> Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
>
> When extracting a female pin that
> has become detached from its
> wire can be pushed out from the
> mating side with another female
> pin.
>
> The plastic handled tools have two
> ends, one tailored for extraction . . .
> the other for insertion. They are
> identified by the color of the plastic
> handle. Here's an updated AEC ShopNotes
> that speaks to the details.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/oazfwbc
>
> Unless and until the extraction
> tool is properly seated around
> the installed pin, the retaining
> barbs in the housing remain in
> firm control of the pin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
I bought two metal pin extraction tools at the local auto parts store,
in the aviation department.
On 7/4/2019 1:50 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
> My problem has been the extractor tool I have will not slip over the
> female pin. I have tried until I am ashamed.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
>> At 09:00 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>>> Ron,
>>>
>>> I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to sit down at my laptop
>>> and type a real reply to you. :-)
>>>
>>> First, use one of the extraction tools made out of metal. If your
>>> Radio Shack tool is all plastic, it is much harder to get the job
>>> done and it might not work at all.
>>>
>>> Slide the extraction end of the tool around the pin. That is the
>>> more round end. The insertion end is more open, more like a spoon.
>>> See
>>> http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERTION-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself with tweezers or
>>> small needle nose pliers and push the pin out. If the tool is in
>>> place and has compressed the barbs, the pin will slide out with
>>> minimal force. If the pin doesn't slide out, remove the tool, rotate
>>> it 90 degrees or so, and try again.
>>>
>>> Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
>>
>> When extracting a female pin that
>> has become detached from its
>> wire can be pushed out from the
>> mating side with another female
>> pin.
>>
>> The plastic handled tools have two
>> ends, one tailored for extraction . . .
>> the other for insertion. They are
>> identified by the color of the plastic
>> handle. Here's an updated AEC ShopNotes
>> that speaks to the details.
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/oazfwbc
>>
>> Unless and until the extraction
>> tool is properly seated around
>> the installed pin, the retaining
>> barbs in the housing remain in
>> firm control of the pin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
The red and white pin tool has an insertion end (red) and an extraction end
(white). Sometimes it is difficult to get the white one on a socket. In
that case I have had good luck using the insertion tool to do the
extraction.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 12:07 Lyle Peterson wrote:
> I bought two metal pin extraction tools at the local auto parts store, in
> the aviation department.
> On 7/4/2019 1:50 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
> My problem has been the extractor tool I have will not slip over the
> female pin. I have tried until I am ashamed.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 09:00 PM 7/2/2019, you wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I'm done mowing the lawn now so I'm allowed to sit down at my laptop and
> type a real reply to you. :-)
>
> First, use one of the extraction tools made out of metal. If your Radio
> Shack tool is all plastic, it is much harder to get the job done and it
> might not work at all.
>
> Slide the extraction end of the tool around the pin. That is the more
> round end. The insertion end is more open, more like a spoon. See=C3=82
> http://www.steinair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SAT-023-CONTACT-INSERT
ION-REMOVAL-TOOL.pdf
>
> After the tool clicks home, grab the pin itself with tweezers or small
> needle nose pliers and push the pin out. If the tool is in place and has
> compressed the barbs, the pin will slide out with minimal force. If the p
in
> doesn't slide out, remove the tool, rotate it 90 degrees or so, and try
> again.
>
> Or give me a holler and I'll drive over and do it for you.
>
>
> When extracting a female pin that
> has become detached from its
> wire can be pushed out from the
> mating side with another female
> pin.
>
> The plastic handled tools have two
> ends, one tailored for extraction . . .
> the other for insertion. They are
> identified by the color of the plastic
> handle. Here's an updated AEC ShopNotes
> that speaks to the details.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/oazfwbc
>
> Unless and until the extraction
> tool is properly seated around
> the installed pin, the retaining
> barbs in the housing remain in
> firm control of the pin.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX165 display board |
I have swapped out bad (missing segments) glass display "panels" for the
KX155 and it is quite easy once the front panel is removed. I have not
done same to a KX165, but I suspect it would be the same. And, I would
assume the displays maybe the same. . .
One note... be sure to have the front panel knobs set to some known
position before removing same, so on reassembly you get them indexed
correctly.
The glass display slips into a friction type long socket. Nothing elaborate
.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:56 AM Alec Myers wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a handle on whether it=99s possible (and easy) to
exchange
> the display from a KX155 (display works) to a KX165 (display missing some
> segments)?
> Both 28V.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | KX165 display board |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "=?utf-8?Q?Robert_L._Nuckolls=2C_III?=" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pin extract problem |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Wynn <mlwynn(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | King Molex connectors |
Hi All,
I am restoring and re-wiring a 1977 Pitts.=C2- The radios are a King KY97
a and a King 76c.=C2- Both have wiring going into a rack and some version
of molex pins in a plastic holder at the rear.=C2- When wiring my RV8, I
was using Garmin radios that all use more standard Sub-d pins and sockets.
I want to replace some wires and add a couple of circuits.=C2- I am reall
y unclear about how to remove and replace these pins and where I buy replac
ement pins.=C2-=C2-
I also want to put new RG400 for the wires to the antennae.=C2- There is
a right angle connector, but I am really unsure if I can remove the current
antenna wiring and replace them.=C2- Anyone with experience dealing with
these connectors?
Regards,
Michael WynnPitts S1-SRV 8Livermore, CA
-
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: King Molex connectors |
Michael,
You can purchase the pins here: http://lane-pilot.com/25-pcs-BendixKing-tray-contacts-KX155KMA24KX196KN53etc_p_123.html as well as everything else I mention here ...
The extractor is a Molex PN HT-1884. You can make your own - I've done so using
a cheap stainless 6" rule on the dollar shelf at the hardware store. I ground
down one end so that it looked similar to the tool in the picture and then carefully
sized it to fit into the tiny little slot above/below the pins in the
connector. Take a look at the KX 155 Install manual, Page 2-6 - you'll see a
picture of the removal tool and the pins. The pins have a narrow tang that locks
into place by dropping into a stepped slot when it's inserted into the rear
of the connector. The removal tool simply pushes the tang up so that it disengages
from the slot. To use it, insert it into the slot above or below the
pin (depending on which row you're after) from the front of the connector, give
it a little push to disengage the tang and either push the pin out from the
front with a blunt tool or pull it out the back using the attached wire. Use finesse,
not brute force. It won't come out if the tan
g isn't disengaged.
RF connections: Solder-in style is TED PN 9-30-10 (similar to the original).
It takes a little practice to solder these well.
OR you can go with a Delkin DBA 600 and not have to solder the whip at all. Make
your antenna lead long enough to reach the back of the tray and crimp on a
BNC connector.
One caution: One row of pins is numbered, the other is alphabetical. The alphabetical
row is missing the G, I, O, and Q. Forget that and you'll get the pins
in the wrong place. Been there, done that.
KX 155 install manual is here: http://aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/Bendix-King/KX155_IM.pdf
Chuck
> On July 5, 2019 at 3:07 PM Michael Wynn wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am restoring and re-wiring a 1977 Pitts. The radios are a King KY97a and
a King 76c. Both have wiring going into a rack and some version of molex pins
in a plastic holder at the rear. When wiring my RV8, I was using Garmin radios
that all use more standard Sub-d pins and sockets.
>
> I want to replace some wires and add a couple of circuits. I am really unclear
about how to remove and replace these pins and where I buy replacement
pins.
>
> I also want to put new RG400 for the wires to the antennae. There is a right
angle connector, but I am really unsure if I can remove the current antenna
wiring and replace them. Anyone with experience dealing with these connectors?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> Pitts S1-S
> RV 8
> Livermore, CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: King Molex connectors |
At 08:51 PM 7/5/2019, you wrote:
>Michael,
>
>You can purchase the pins here:
><http://lane-pilot.com/25-pcs-BendixKing-tray-contacts-KX155KMA24KX196KN53etc_p_123.html>http://lane-pilot.com/25-pcs-BendixKing-tray-contacts-KX155KMA24KX196KN53etc_p_123.html
>as well as everything else I mention here ...
This ebay seller has a little more
attractive offer
https://tinyurl.com/y44o6gr8
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Balun article |
At 10:26 AM 7/6/2019, you wrote:
>AV-12 ' RAMI
>
>
>AV-12 ' RAMMI
>
>
>
>
>This is the antenna
>
>Sent
>from Yahoo Mail on Android
Now that's a mystery . . .
One would think that RAMMI knows what they're
doing.
20" elements do not conform to legacy
antenna design rules . . . but we don't
know what matching components might
be included inside their mounting base.
It would be cool to put an antenna
analyzer on the antenna and see what
it looks like.
The pictures I can see of the RAMMI coax
cable with integral balun suggests
that they've fabricated a design like
this on the end.
I've seen this design in documentation for
aviation radios . . . in fact, we find it
in AC43-13 dated 2008 and . . .
Emacs!
in this illustration taken from the installation
manual circa 1949 for a Lear LTRA6 transceiver
Emacs!
Where Item 7 is called out as a 63184-02
Transmission Line Assembly but without
further details as to how it's constructed.
The design is echoed on numerous websites
as an 'aviation antenna balun'.
Two flies in the ointment: First the callout
for "1/4 wave" is not defined. Free air or
in coax. Second, the balun is noted in an
article by a competent observer of things
electronic where he states, "Lab tests
do not confirm that this balun works."
Emacs!
Okay then . . . when I'm ready to put the
signal generator on Jim Weir's dual band
ELT antenna to investigate common mode chokes,
I'll be able (1)to confirm/deny the functionality
of this design (2) reconfirm functionality
of the Pawsey Stub balun described in many
articles and echoed on my website and (3)
see if a ferrite core common mode choke would
be a less fussy way to mate coax to the cat-whisker
vor antenna.
In the mean time, know that back in the dark
ages, Cessna Pawnee plant fiddled with various
baluns for the whiskers . . . they even might
have tried the design above. I do know that a
whole lot of airplanes were built with coax attached
directly to the antenna with NO balun . . .
VOR signals are strong, distance from aircraft
to vor stations at the changeover point along
published airways is never so far that a really
lousy antenna wouldn't work. I think Cessna
had more trouble with process and manufactured
fragility than with radio performance . . . they
quit using them entirely for a time.
That still leaves the question about your RAMMI
antenna with 20" whiskers. If you just hooked
your feedline directly to the RAMMI antenna,
chances are you'll never know the difference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Argonaut36" <fmlibrino(at)msn.com> |
I was wondering if the practice of twisting 2 wires together and crimping the resulting
wire in a ring terminal can be considered acceptable, even for standard
certificate airplanes, for making a Y splitter. If so, assuming that 2 wires
to be twisted together are size 20#, should a red or blue ring terminal be
used?
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490084#490084
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html
See also:
https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/industrial-automation-and-control/global/1773464-1_QRG_PIDG.pdf
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Can wires be combined in PIDG terminals & splices? Yes they can as long total CMA
(Circular Mil Area) and insulation diameter fall within specification.
Also, per NASA-STD-8739.4A Section 19.9:
Crimping wires into contacts or crimp ferrules is a method for splicing wires together
without soldering. When crimping multiple wires into a contact or ferrule,
the total circular-mil-area (CMA) of all the wires must be calculated into
an Equivalent Wire Size (EWS) in order to select the properly sized contact
or ferrule.
19.9.1 The following requirements apply for crimped splices:
a. The tooling verification process and the completed termination shall comply
with all the requirements of this document for a crimp termination except as specified
herein for jiffy junction devices.
b. The contact/wires size and crimp tool setting combination shall be developed
and verified using the same requirements as for any machined contact (see 12.3.5).
c. The crimp ferrule or contact shall be sized equivalently with the calculated
Equivalent Wire Size (EWS) or the next larger EWS if the calculated value does
not exactly match a single wire size.
Dont twist the wires together, they should go into the barrel parallel. I believe
when you double area of a wire, the AWG goes down by three. So 2 x 20 gauge
wires would be 17 gauge.
On Jul 6, 2019, at 11:09 PM, Argonaut36 wrote:
I was wondering if the practice of twisting 2 wires together and crimping the resulting
wire in a ring terminal can be considered acceptable, even for standard
certificate airplanes, for making a Y splitter. If so, assuming that 2 wires
to be twisted together are size 20#, should a red or blue ring terminal be
used?
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490084#490084
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Limiting Current to a Battery |
I have a question that's only somewhat applicable to E/AB aviation,
apologies in advance. But I think it points out a hole in my electrical
understanding.
The characteristics of the lithium iron battery I'm running allow it to
draw lots of current really fast after the engine starts. If it has been a
little while since the last flight, the alternator is at max output for
several minutes. The alternator puts out all it can give, and it's less
than the battery wants to take.
Stepping out of the hangar, my tow vehicle circuitry includes a wire in the
7-pin connector that provides alternator voltage to the trailer, intending
to charge a small battery for a breakaway emergency brake. If I install a
larger battery for other purposes, perhaps one like what is in the
airplane, and connect it to that line coming from the truck, it seems like
it would almost certainly open the fuse on that circuit during that initial
high-draw stage.
These two scenarios had me thinking, what methods would one have to limit a
hungry battery's draw? I'm imagining some type of circuit that takes in
12-14 volts, and puts out almost the same, but only at some specified
number of amps. Almost like a DC-powered battery charging circuit, rather
than just putting the battery on the bus directly.
Surely this has been solved in some off-the-shelf widget, but I haven't
figured out the words to google yet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Limiting Current to a Battery |
Jared, my holes in electrical knowledge are wide and vast, so don't do this
without confirmation. But I think you might be able to regulate the amount
of current by playing with the length of the cable, with a longer cable
offering more resistance. I was instructed to do this once by a
manufacturer of "battery isolator" for a camper battery, to keep my large
alternator from frying the 70 amp isolator
<http://hellroaring.com/products.php>. It seemed like an odd approach at
the time, but I followed instructions and it worked okay. I'm not at all
certain this would work for your particular problem, but I throw out the
idea for discussion. On my next camper I went to a battery combiner
and
big double ought cables to maximize the charging of the camper battery, and
also to allow use of the camper battery as an auxiliary starting battery. I
don't have a lithium battery in the camper, so the highest draw I have ever
seen was 80 amps. --Ken
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:05 AM Jared Yates wrote:
> I have a question that's only somewhat applicable to E/AB aviation,
> apologies in advance. But I think it points out a hole in my electrical
> understanding.
>
> The characteristics of the lithium iron battery I'm running allow it to
> draw lots of current really fast after the engine starts. If it has been a
> little while since the last flight, the alternator is at max output for
> several minutes. The alternator puts out all it can give, and it's less
> than the battery wants to take.
>
> Stepping out of the hangar, my tow vehicle circuitry includes a wire in
> the 7-pin connector that provides alternator voltage to the trailer,
> intending to charge a small battery for a breakaway emergency brake. If I
> install a larger battery for other purposes, perhaps one like what is in
> the airplane, and connect it to that line coming from the truck, it seems
> like it would almost certainly open the fuse on that circuit during that
> initial high-draw stage.
>
> These two scenarios had me thinking, what methods would one have to limit
> a hungry battery's draw? I'm imagining some type of circuit that takes in
> 12-14 volts, and puts out almost the same, but only at some specified
> number of amps. Almost like a DC-powered battery charging circuit, rather
> than just putting the battery on the bus directly.
>
> Surely this has been solved in some off-the-shelf widget, but I haven't
> figured out the words to google yet.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Limiting Current to a Battery |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The easy solution is to put a diode in series with the wire going to the trailer
Lithium battery.
The voltage drop across the diode will reduce charging current.
Read this: https://earthxbatteries.com/dual-bus-lithium-battery-design
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490095#490095
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Overvoltage protection |
A friend is working on a Grumman Tiger in which the alternator field circuit
breaker was found tripped. Upon digging in the manual, he found the overvoltage
protection was simply a Zener diode wired from the output of the field breaker
to ground. The diode was found to be shorted, which would easily trip the
breaker.
I can only find a "house number" on the Zener. The diode was removed, the old
regulator was replaced with a Zeftronics with integral overvoltage protection,
the split rocker switch was replaced with a new one, and all seems well --
except that one electrical instrument is inoperative (possibly due to an
overvoltage event).
My questions are as follows: can a physically small Zener diode (similar in size
to a 1N5401 diode) handle the amount of energy required to trip a 5A breaker,
even one time? Can the Zener always be counted upon to fail shorted and not open?
Thanks,
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Limiting Current to a Battery |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/7/2019 9:01 AM, Jared Yates wrote:
> I have a question that's only somewhat applicable to E/AB aviation,
> apologies in advance. But I think it points out a hole in my
> electrical understanding.
>
> The characteristics of the lithium iron battery I'm running allow it
> to draw lots of current really fast after the engine starts. If it has
> been a little while since the last flight, the alternator is at max
> output for several minutes. The alternator puts out all it can give,
> and it's less than the battery wants to take.
>
> Stepping out of the hangar, my tow vehicle circuitry includes a wire
> in the 7-pin connector that provides alternator voltage to the
> trailer, intending to charge a small battery for a breakaway emergency
> brake. If I install a larger battery for other purposes, perhaps one
> like what is in the airplane, and connect it to that line coming from
> the truck, it seems like it would almost certainly open the fuse on
> that circuit during that initial high-draw stage.
>
> These two scenarios had me thinking, what methods would one have to
> limit a hungry battery's draw? I'm imagining some type of circuit that
> takes in 12-14 volts, and puts out almost the same, but only at some
> specified number of amps. Almost like a DC-powered battery charging
> circuit, rather than just putting the battery on the bus directly.
>
> Surely this has been solved in some off-the-shelf widget, but I
> haven't figured out the words to google yet.
Yeah, it could be solved. Which begs the question of why the big X
didn't incorporate it into their management module.
The simplest (rather inelegant) path would be a boost/buck regulator
with current adjustment intended to operate from a DC source.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=current+regulator&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
Purchase a version that can't overload the wiring to the trailer
connector. Feed the regulator from the alternator feed in the trailer
connector. Set its output voltage to a level that can't harm the
battery. Set its output current to a level that won't endanger the
wiring from the alternator to the trailer connector.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Limiting Current to a Battery |
On Jul 7, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
...But I think it points out a hole in my electrical understanding.
. I'm imagining some type of circuit that takes in 12-14 volts, and puts out almost
the same, but only at some specified number of amps.
Remember a battery is a two terminal device. It functions like you pick the voltage
across the terminals, Ill pick the current, or, equivalently you pick the
current, Ill pick the voltage. You cant pick both the voltage across the terminals
and the current through the battery, independently.
You could put some kind of negative temperature coefficient thermistor in series
with the battery, and shunt that with a fat diode so as not to limit the current
withdrawable from the battery?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overvoltage protection |
At 10:25 AM 7/7/2019, you wrote:
>
>A friend is working on a Grumman Tiger in which the alternator field
>circuit breaker was found tripped. Upon digging in the manual, he
>found the overvoltage protection was simply a Zener diode wired from
>the output of the field breaker to ground. The diode was found to
>be shorted, which would easily trip the breaker.
Yup. A stone simple ov protection scheme
that made it onto a TC aircraft. Wrote about
this for SA back in '93 . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y38og7he
Discovered later that the idea was not
'bad' as originally implemented. The
design called for a GLASS, 1N4745, 1W zener
tied to ground downstream of a 5A
FUSE.
Emacs!
I did some testing on various
zeners and found that only GLASS enclosed
could be depended upon to fail shorted . . .
plastics would occasionally split
and fail to burn the fuse.
Emacs!
This is why the zener could only be
'legally' replaced with the Grumman house
part number to make sure that the part
was GLASS encased.
Some airplanes were modified to replace
cartridge fuses with breakers but left
the zener in place . . . risky because
the I(squared)t operation numbers
for a breaker are larger than the fuse.
>I can only find a "house number" on the Zener. The diode was
>removed, the old regulator was replaced with a Zeftronics with
>integral overvoltage protection, the split rocker switch was
>replaced with a new one, and all seems well -- except that one
>electrical instrument is inoperative (possibly due to an overvoltage event).
Once the regulator is replaced with one
that INCLUDES ov protection, the zener
should be removed.
>My questions are as follows: can a physically small Zener diode
>(similar in size to a 1N5401 diode) handle the amount of energy
>required to trip a 5A breaker, even one time? Can the Zener always
>be counted upon to fail shorted and not open?
Good question but moot after the
regulator is replaced.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu> |
And you still fuse for the the wire size ;(22awg - 3amp) although your using two
22awg wires that could be carrying 5/7amps
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 7 Jul 2019, at 12:37 pm, Alec Myers wrote:
>
>
> See:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html
>
>
>
> See also:
> https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/industrial-automation-and-control/global/1773464-1_QRG_PIDG.pdf
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
> Can wires be combined in PIDG terminals & splices? Yes they can as long total
CMA (Circular Mil Area) and insulation diameter fall within specification.
>
>
>
> Also, per NASA-STD-8739.4A Section 19.9:
May 04, 2019 - July 07, 2019
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oz