AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bl
November 28, 2002 - December 17, 2002
In a message dated 11/28/02 9:30:04 AM Central Standard Time,
dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com writes:
>
> I really can't understand the FAA's unwillingness to certify portable units
> for IFR operations..it seems like a great setback in safety.
>
> I think I'm preaching to the choir here!
>
Good Morning David,
I agree completely.
If the standards had been the same when the low frequency range was proposed,
we would still be following our course by flying from bonfire to bonfire.
The FAA keeps telling us that they are merely "raising the bar" so as to
protect us and the rest of the public from our dangerous flying machines.
They really shot themselves in the foot when they told the General Accounting
Office that they would be able to get a reliability factor of ten to the
seventh power when they had WAAS in place. They can't even approach that
reliability at this time. Even though the reliability that they can achieve
is far superior to anything we have ever had before, they have "raised the
bar" so high that it may be years before we can fully utilize the newer more
modern and obviously safer technologies.
I guess that as long as we just sit by and let them protect us from
ourselves, nothing is likely to change. Eventually they will "raise the bar"
high enough that none of us can get over it at all.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
vs. VOR?
I don't think it's so much the receiver you need to worry about, but
more the satellites and possible interferrence.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/3D/JTrack3D.html
(Wait for the Java app to load).
What I find interesting is the high orbit of the GPS satellites
compaired to the Russian Cosmos navigation satellites. Higher
suceptibility to inferferrence from for example Solar flares.
I wish there were cheap receivers that would utilize both systems.
Of course the FAA's position on "certified" vs uncertified and handhelds
is ridiculous. Guess it's job security for those in the FAA who handles
certification. But don't get me started on regulation and goverment
trying to "protect" us. I just hope they don't realize that the ultimate
in safety is everyone being dead (nothing bad can happen to anyone then)...
Happy Thanksgiving :)
Finn
David A. Leonard wrote:
>
>After just completing an IFR/VFR ride through NYC class B airspace in my
>Viking, I fopund myself wondering about various "Trusting Technology"
>scenarios.
>
>It seems like the FAA has a deep distrust of handheld and portable GPS's, to
>the point of recently trying to ban the use of portable moving map GPS's in
>aircraft (thank AOPA for shutting this one down!)
>
>I was using my old Garmin 195 for fast picking up of intersections, and the
>Garmin 295 map for in depth information, and visual confirmation that I was
>heading towards the fix I was directed to. Once I was established on the
>correct course to the next intersection, I would tune the VOR, if the airway
>was along a radial. Magically, the VOR needle seems to stay locked in the
>middle with this procedure.
>
>In the 7 or 8 years that I have flown with GPS, once I moved the antennas to
>good locations, I have never lost a GPS signal, (I did lose it in the
>Lincoln Tunnel in my car later that day)or had any problems whatsoever with
>thier performance. The same can't be said for my old kx170b/VOR setup.. the
>indicator seems to need frequent dialing in with the little screw down
>inside of the knob.. it was 20 degrees off of the #2 VOR, which seems to be
>consistenly accurate.
>
>So the question: In the esteemed opinions of this group, how dependable do
>you think these hand helds are in comparison to the certified and TSO's
>equipment out there? It seems to me these solid state, burned in chip
>operating system units approach a level of reliability beyond that of any
>mechanical piece of equipment I have ever encountered..I feel like my engine
>is much more failure prone than either of my GPS's (not that it has ever
>missed a beat..but you get the idea).
>
>>From time to time I hear people go on about not "becoming dependant on
>technology".
>
>I feel quite "dependant" on the engine continuing to spin the prop, and I
>don't feel that by using GPS's that my dependance is much greater. I feel
>that the Situational Awareness and safety enhancements of being able to see
>where you are in relation to the land, on the map, and being able to find
>range and bearing to any fix, far outweigh the extra mental energy it takes
>to use a VOR to interpolate a line of position, with no range information,
>spinning a dial and trying to think about relative positions, while in a
>cloud, in busy airspace.
>
>It seems to me that any of the GPS's on the market are vastly superior to
>the older land based radio nav systems, simply because you can always tell
>exactly where you are..
>
>I really can't understand the FAA's unwillingness to certify portable units
>for IFR operations..it seems like a great setback in safety.
>
>I think I'm preaching to the choir here!
>
>Happy Thanksgiving
>
>David Leonard
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------
1st month Free!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: My other life . . . |
>
>
> >All we need now are pictures of the chute opening in flight.
> >
> >Bill Lamb
>
> >>I've got a video . . . anyone know how to get it .mpg'ed?<<
>
>I have a TV card with a composite input...can copy into the computer and
>edit it out as mpg, avi, real video or windows media.
>
>Used it to make some windows media movies of the robot I sold on Ebay.
>
>http://www.agelesswings.com/images/HERO1/dance300.wmv
>
>This was a little over 1 MB and a pretty short flick...The chute opening one
>could be a pretty large file, depending on how long the tape, how much you
>want to see of it, and what format and how much compression.
>
>If you don't know anyone near you with a TV card, I'd be glad to do it if
>your video is compatible with mine (VHS or VHS-c) and you can figure out a
>way to get it here.
I think it's super-8 . . . I'll have to see who has
the tape. The tape is pretty long but could be edited
down for just the deployment/jettison sequences.
They're perhaps 20 seconds long at most.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS vs. VOR? |
The best article I have read about aviation GPS is by the Air Safety
Foundation. You can see the article at:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa01.pdf
In the article, they cite two reasons for hand-held GPS not being acceptable
for IFR use. First is the antenna location, and second is the reliability
of the power supply. Of course both issues can be dealt with if we are
installing the hand-held in our airplane, but the article doesn't address
that.
Terry
RV-8A finish
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Torsional Telemetry |
Hello George,
<>
When you have the time, please do tell us what you're doing; goals,
equipment, methods, whatever you can share.
Thanks,
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring a Narco AT-50A transponder |
>I have a few questions about the pin out info you kindly provided for my
>Narco AT50A transponder.
>
>2. I presume "Remote Ident" is for a remotely place 12v light if needed
This is for a remote Ident push-button, for example a button on the stick,
so you can cause the transponder to ident without having to push the front
panel button on the transponder itself. Ident is triggered by grounding
this line. If you don't use the remote switch, leave it unconnected.
>3. What are the following:
> Switched digitizer power out
> Digitizer common
> Ext Suppr positive
> External Suppr negative
Switched digitizer power = power feed for the encoder that's switched by the
transponder on/off switch so that you can use the frontpanel switch on the
transponder to control the encoder as well.
Digitizer common = ground for the encoder unit.
External suppression positive/negative = inputs triggered by either positive
or negative signals respectively that temporarily suppress transponder
replies. This is often used with DME boxes since DME and transponders can
interfere with each other. If you don't have a DME or two transponders then
leave these lines unconnected.
>By the way, the "install kit" arrived from narco - the plug is made by
>Molex
>as one builder suggested. Apart from the plug and a few screws, nuts and
>washers, they included two of the wrong BNC connector and none of the right
>one. My first impression of Narco is not a good one.
I hope you have good luck with the unit, but I'll never use a Narco
transponder again. I've had two separate Narco transponders, one brand new
from the factory, die slow and painful deaths over a period of 2-3 years.
They required a continuous stream of repairs and they inevitably failed
while on long cross country trips generating lots of ATC complaints. I
finally threw them overboard and have replaced the Narcos with Garmin units.
The Garmin boxes have never had a problem.
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring a Narco AT-50A transponder |
Russell
Thanks for the info.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
vs. VOR?
>
>The best article I have read about aviation GPS is by the Air Safety
>Foundation. You can see the article at:
>http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa01.pdf
>In the article, they cite two reasons for hand-held GPS not being acceptable
>for IFR use. First is the antenna location, and second is the reliability
>of the power supply. Of course both issues can be dealt with if we are
>installing the hand-held in our airplane, but the article doesn't address
>that.
>
>Terry
>RV-8A finish
>Seattle
>
There is one big issue no one has talked about yet. Handheld GPSs
don't have Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM). If one
satellite is putting out bad data, this will cause the GPS to
calculate the wrong position. This is probably not a big deal if you
are VFR, but it could be very bad news if you are IFR. The IFR
approved GPS units have RAIM.
Here is a simple explanation of how RAIM works. Let's say you are
receiving 5 satellites (yes, you should be getting more than that,
but a small number makes the explanation simpler). The GPS needs 4
satellites to calculate a position (why 3 isn't enough is another
story). The RAIM algorithm takes the data from satellites 1, 2, 3
and 4 and calculates the position. Then it uses 1, 2, 3 and 5 and
calculates another position. Then 1, 2, 4 and 5. Then 1, 3, 4 and
5, etc. If all the satellites are putting our good info, all these
positions should be the same, within a small tolerance. If one
satellite is putting out bad data all these position calculations
will be quite different. The GPS won't normally know which satellite
is bad, so it will just tell you that it has a problem navigating.
Now, I agree that problems with bad satellite signals don't happen
very often. But they do happen. One of my co-workers was flying in
our Beech C-90A a few months ago, doing an IFR approach with the
KLN90B IFR approved GPS. The GPS complained that it had a RAIM
problem. They were in VFR conditions, at a quiet airport, so they
continued on the approach to see what the GPS would do. It was
obviously lost, and it was guiding them on a track that was about a
mile (if I recall correctly) offset from the correct ground track.
Not a big deal for enroute ops, but not acceptable for an approach,
especially in the hills.
Now, imagine a bunch of aircraft using handheld GPSs in busy
airspace. Now picture the situation if one satellite starts putting
out bad data, and all these aircraft are suddenly using bad
navigation info. But of course each GPS unit would probably come up
with different nav errors, depending on which satellites it was using
to navigate with.
Now, I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't add RAIM to
handheld GPSs. Sure, you would still have the same "issues" with
antenna location and power supply reliability, but those don't worry
me at all. If the antenna is poorly located, or the batteries die,
the unit stops navigating. Well, any piece of equipment and fail at
any time, and we need to be ready to deal with it. But, we can't
accept a piece of equipment that could suddenly start providing
hazardously misleading information. Outright failure is OK. Bad
position info is not.
Just my two cents worth.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
vs. VOR?
>
>In a message dated 11/28/02 9:30:04 AM Central Standard Time,
>dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com writes:
>
>>
>> I really can't understand the FAA's unwillingness to certify portable units
>> for IFR operations..it seems like a great setback in safety.
>>
>> I think I'm preaching to the choir here!
>>
>
>Good Morning David,
>
>I agree completely.
>
>If the standards had been the same when the low frequency range was proposed,
>we would still be following our course by flying from bonfire to bonfire.
>
>The FAA keeps telling us that they are merely "raising the bar" so as to
>protect us and the rest of the public from our dangerous flying machines.
>
>They really shot themselves in the foot when they told the General Accounting
>Office that they would be able to get a reliability factor of ten to the
>seventh power when they had WAAS in place. They can't even approach that
>reliability at this time. Even though the reliability that they can achieve
>is far superior to anything we have ever had before, they have "raised the
>bar" so high that it may be years before we can fully utilize the newer more
>modern and obviously safer technologies.
>
>I guess that as long as we just sit by and let them protect us from
>ourselves, nothing is likely to change. Eventually they will "raise the bar"
>high enough that none of us can get over it at all.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
I work in the aircraft certification world in Transport Canada, and I
have to agree that there is a distinct tendency to require absolute
perfection from new technology systems. Every once in awhile someone
has to point out that this means that the new systems will be so
expensive that many aircraft will stick with the older stuff, that
has failure modes that are much worse than the new stuff.
It can be difficult to know where to draw the line with newer systems
that have relatively infrequent failure modes. If the radio range
was giving you bad info one time in ten, you quickly learned to treat
it with a healthy amount of suspicion, and always assume it could be
lying to you. But if your handheld GPS is only putting out bad info
one time in a thousand, most folks will treat it as if it is always
correct, and not cross check against anything else at all. Which
situation is safer?
I'm all for using handheld GPS in IFR conditions in an emergency
(perhaps you've had a total electrical failure, or you need to find
any small airstrip to land at right now). But I don't think we
should be accepting this risk on every IFR flight.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS vs. VOR? |
In a message dated 11/28/02 8:40:33 PM Central Standard Time,
khorto1537(at)rogers.com writes:
> I'm all for using handheld GPS in IFR conditions in an emergency
> (perhaps you've had a total electrical failure, or you need to find
> any small airstrip to land at right now). But I don't think we
> should be accepting this risk on every IFR flight.
>
Good Evening Kevin,
I agree with that completely, I just think some of the rest is carried much
too far.
The approval process for an IFR installation costs as much as the unit itself
when used equipment is considered. On top of that, the updating requirements
make the cost of use extremely high. I would like to see self loading
approved. The automatic sequencing is nice for those who can afford it, but
loading a KNS-80 or KNS-84 was not a big deal. If we could do it safely for
those boxes, we should be able to do it safely for the GPS units. With
modern technology and check sum verification procedures, I bet our smart
young designers could come up with down right economical ways to get the job
done. The "Bar" has already been raised so high that the majority of the IFR
boxes installed do not have a current data card in them.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ!] "What is my Contribution used for?" |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What is my Contribution used for?", and this is a valid
question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support
enables. It provides for the expensive, business-class, high-speed
Internet connection used on the List, insuring maximum performance and
minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular
system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance
possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine and List
Browser. It pays for 14+ years worth of online archive data available for
instant random access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing,
developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List
Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, and Photoshare.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and
your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from
moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer
viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements
about these days? I will venture to say - next to none...
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many desirable aspects
of this most valuable List service. Please support it today with your List
Contribution. Its the best investment you can make in your Sport - BAR NONE!
Email List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Were any of these "total, absolute, instant failures" on RG batteries?
Supposedly RG batteries (like the popular Odyssey that lots of folks are
using) by design should never experience catastrophic failures like
this....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D scratching my fiberglass rash...
---
From: Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris
Larry Pardue wrote:
> FWIW I have had "total, absolute, instant failure" of automotive
batteries
> twice. Both times they were fairly new batteries. There was not
enough
> juice to even hear anthing on the car radio. I don't know if it was
some
> sort of internal short or internal open, but it was a battery problem
alone.
Let me add my "me too" to that. I don't see what the big deal about
adding a
small backup battery that is dedicated to run the EI for say and hour or
two for
you to land. I am thinking maybe even an alkaline or lithium battery
that don't
need as much attention as a rechargeable and work better in cold weather.
It
seems like it could be a pretty simple system to me. But what do I know
I
haven't even started building yet.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw(at)programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
--
From: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry"
<elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Further to comments from John and Larry re reliability of batteries and
toggle switches, being a retired electrical engineer having worked on
spacecraft for 30 odd years, we never had problems with toggle switches
(none on spacecraft) but we had a few go out on ground support equipment
(GSE). Being curious on failures and their modes, I've found that the few
that were DPA'd (destructive physical analysis) had the rocker-contact
that's activated by the toggle spring, had fractured. And these were well
known brands too.
My own experience on 2 automotive batteries has discovered fractured
bridging straps that connect the battery plates. Never had an internally
shorted battery (it would have probably blown-up), but on a 3rd one, the
entire plate assembly came internally loose from the positive post! This
was
a tractor battery. They get their good share of vibration and that's why
vendors only warrant them for 6 months!------- Beware!!
We in Canada had our thanksgiving day Oct.14. Happy thanksgiving to
all
our American friends today.
Cheers!!---------Henry Hore, Bainsville, Ontario.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there is
enough energy left in the battery).
With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary battery,
when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never looses
power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building. Once the
engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the batteries
(both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting off either
or
both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown, once running,
is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under voltage
detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring during
the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a LOT
of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss voltage down
to 9 Volts
or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff Rose system,
but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes misfire,
under
this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's always isolated
from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the proper power
to the electronic ignition modules.
I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single electonic ignition
and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last 10 years
(Slick).
I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the master,
leaving
the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's why we
design
in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will cause a
flight mishap).
I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition. The engine
never
sputtered....
This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
working on the new RV-6A
From: "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: "John"
This is just for the archives
There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom of
dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in RV's
. Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer in
flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
necessary.
I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation where
the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
systems.
With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from the
electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one of
the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
my GPS-NavAid system.
I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such a
remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
shaft or cam shaft failure.
This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or so
the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
battery.
FWIW
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundanc |
y Power
John,
There is a certification requirement that is worth at least considering.
I have wrestled with this issue all the way to the N.E. Engine Directorate
and back down again a couple of times. Multiple position papers submitted,
etc.
The CFR (FARS) requirement is that the entire aircraft electrical system
must be capable of being disabled "... with the single movement of one
hand."
Of course, if you do that in an aircraft with electronic engine controls - -
and you smell smoke and you hit the master switch OFF - - you get the
highly unwanted side effect of shutting down the engine at a critical time.
Not a good outcome.
What we have done with our PRISM ignition system is to provide that when the
AC master switch is thrown, that it will shut down everything - - except one
circuit to the electronic engine controls. The power to the electronic
engine controls can also be disabled, but it is done by an independent means
not associated with the airframe electrical systems.
This arrangement will pass certification requirements, for what it is worth.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Stucklen [mailto:wstucklen1(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there is
enough energy left in the battery).
With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary
battery,
when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never
looses
power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building.
Once the
engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the
batteries
(both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting off
either or
both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown, once
running,
is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under
voltage
detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring
during
the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a LOT
of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss voltage
down to 9 Volts
or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff
Rose system,
but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes
misfire, under
this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's always
isolated
from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the
proper power
to the electronic ignition modules.
I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single
electonic ignition
and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last 10
years (Slick).
I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the
master, leaving
the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's why
we design
in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will cause
a flight mishap).
I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition. The
engine never
sputtered....
This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
working on the new RV-6A
From: "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: "John"
This is just for the archives
There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom of
dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in RV's
. Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer in
flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
necessary.
I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation where
the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
systems.
With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from the
electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one of
the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
my GPS-NavAid system.
I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such a
remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
shaft or cam shaft failure.
This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or so
the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
battery.
FWIW
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Kevin,
I appreciate your thoughts regarding GPS vs VOR and enjoyed
reading the Air Safety Foundation pages of the relative worth of handheld
GPS's.
However one remark gave me pause. To wit:
"Now, I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't add RAIM to
handheld GPSs. Sure, you would still have the same "issues" with
antenna location and power supply reliability, but those don't worry
me at all. If the antenna is poorly located, or the batteries die,
the unit stops navigating. Well, any piece of equipment and fail at
any time, and we need to be ready to deal with it. But, we can't
accept a piece of equipment that could suddenly start providing
hazardously misleading information. Outright failure is OK. Bad
position info is not."
The principle you cite is of course ideal, but I flew the big
red-and-white DC-9s for five years with a single VOR indicator and it had an
"OFF" flag. Obviously we wouldn't use the info if the flag was visible, but
it was several years before someone pointed out that the flag only showed
when power was lost to the gauge. No one I knew had heard of it till then -
so we could have had bad info and no flag.............
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
George Braly wrote:
>
> John,
>
> There is a certification requirement that is worth at least considering.
>
> I have wrestled with this issue all the way to the N.E. Engine Directorate
> and back down again a couple of times. Multiple position papers submitted,
> etc.
>
> The CFR (FARS) requirement is that the entire aircraft electrical system
> must be capable of being disabled "... with the single movement of one
> hand."
Damn !! Am I to understand that on a 777 you have to have to be able to shut
down EVERYTHING electrical with a single switch?? Amazin' !!
I'm awestruck .... Jim S.
>
>
> Of course, if you do that in an aircraft with electronic engine controls - -
> and you smell smoke and you hit the master switch OFF - - you get the
> highly unwanted side effect of shutting down the engine at a critical time.
> Not a good outcome.
>
> What we have done with our PRISM ignition system is to provide that when the
> AC master switch is thrown, that it will shut down everything - - except one
> circuit to the electronic engine controls. The power to the electronic
> engine controls can also be disabled, but it is done by an independent means
> not associated with the airframe electrical systems.
>
> This arrangement will pass certification requirements, for what it is worth.
>
> Regards, George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Stucklen [mailto:wstucklen1(at)cox.net]
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
> Power
>
>
>
> John,
>
> The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
> takes
> down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
> ignition
> would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there is
> enough energy left in the battery).
> With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary
> battery,
> when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never
> looses
> power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building.
> Once the
> engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the
> batteries
> (both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting off
> either or
> both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown, once
> running,
> is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under
> voltage
> detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
> guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
> Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring
> during
> the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a LOT
> of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss voltage
> down to 9 Volts
> or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff
> Rose system,
> but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes
> misfire, under
> this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's always
> isolated
> from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the
> proper power
> to the electronic ignition modules.
> I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single
> electonic ignition
> and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last 10
> years (Slick).
> I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the
> master, leaving
> the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's why
> we design
> in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will cause
> a flight mishap).
> I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition. The
> engine never
> sputtered....
> This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
> working on the new RV-6A
>
> From: "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John"
>
> This is just for the archives
>
> There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom of
> dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in RV's
> . Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
> about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer in
> flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
> necessary.
>
> I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
> units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
> the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
> burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation where
> the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
> systems.
>
> With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
> out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from the
> electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one of
> the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
> my GPS-NavAid system.
>
> I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such a
> remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
> shaft or cam shaft failure.
>
> This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or so
> the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> battery.
>
> FWIW
>
> John at Salida, CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> Kevin,
> I appreciate your thoughts regarding GPS vs VOR and enjoyed
> reading the Air Safety Foundation pages of the relative worth of handheld
> GPS's.
> However one remark gave me pause. To wit:
> "Now, I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't add RAIM to
> handheld GPSs. Sure, you would still have the same "issues" with
> antenna location and power supply reliability, but those don't worry
> me at all. If the antenna is poorly located, or the batteries die,
> the unit stops navigating. Well, any piece of equipment and fail at
> any time, and we need to be ready to deal with it. But, we can't
> accept a piece of equipment that could suddenly start providing
> hazardously misleading information. Outright failure is OK. Bad
> position info is not."
> The principle you cite is of course ideal, but I flew the big
> red-and-white DC-9s for five years with a single VOR indicator and it had an
> "OFF" flag. Obviously we wouldn't use the info if the flag was visible, but
> it was several years before someone pointed out that the flag only showed
> when power was lost to the gauge. No one I knew had heard of it till then -
> so we could have had bad info and no flag.............
> Cheers, Ferg
>
>
Personal experience back when even LORAN was barely affordable (just over a
decade ago):
On my 1st long cross country flight after getting my license (using VOR
navigation), I flew the 1st leg uneventfully & made my mid-trip fuel stop. After
topping off I dialed up the next VOR & got an indication 180 degrees opposite of
what I knew was correct. I used the inverse heading & switched to the next VOR
&
got the same symptom. When I landed at my destination, I contacted the
manufacturer about the problem. The tech knew exactly what was wrong & told me
to tweak a trim pot on the back of the display head & go fly it to see if it was
fixed. (Experimental plane)
The fact that he showed no surprise at the symptom I described & knew exactly
what to do to correct it says that it's a common problem.
So, bad info from 'traditional' navaids does happen.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundanc |
y Power
Don't know about Part 25 aircraft - - but it IS a requirement on Part 23
aircraft.
It is one reason you see "gang bars" on the two alternator and bat
switches on twins.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Sower [mailto:canarder(at)starband.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems
Redundancy Power
George Braly wrote:
>
> John,
>
> There is a certification requirement that is worth at least considering.
>
> I have wrestled with this issue all the way to the N.E. Engine Directorate
> and back down again a couple of times. Multiple position papers
submitted,
> etc.
>
> The CFR (FARS) requirement is that the entire aircraft electrical system
> must be capable of being disabled "... with the single movement of one
> hand."
Damn !! Am I to understand that on a 777 you have to have to be able to
shut
down EVERYTHING electrical with a single switch?? Amazin' !!
I'm awestruck .... Jim S.
>
>
> Of course, if you do that in an aircraft with electronic engine controls -
-
> and you smell smoke and you hit the master switch OFF - - you get the
> highly unwanted side effect of shutting down the engine at a critical
time.
> Not a good outcome.
>
> What we have done with our PRISM ignition system is to provide that when
the
> AC master switch is thrown, that it will shut down everything - - except
one
> circuit to the electronic engine controls. The power to the electronic
> engine controls can also be disabled, but it is done by an independent
means
> not associated with the airframe electrical systems.
>
> This arrangement will pass certification requirements, for what it is
worth.
>
> Regards, George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Stucklen [mailto:wstucklen1(at)cox.net]
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
> Power
>
>
>
> John,
>
> The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
> takes
> down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
> ignition
> would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there
is
> enough energy left in the battery).
> With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary
> battery,
> when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never
> looses
> power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building.
> Once the
> engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the
> batteries
> (both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting off
> either or
> both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown, once
> running,
> is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under
> voltage
> detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
> guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
> Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring
> during
> the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a
LOT
> of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss voltage
> down to 9 Volts
> or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff
> Rose system,
> but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes
> misfire, under
> this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's
always
> isolated
> from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the
> proper power
> to the electronic ignition modules.
> I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single
> electonic ignition
> and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last 10
> years (Slick).
> I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the
> master, leaving
> the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's
why
> we design
> in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will
cause
> a flight mishap).
> I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition.
The
> engine never
> sputtered....
> This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
> working on the new RV-6A
>
> From: "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John"
>
> This is just for the archives
>
> There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom
of
> dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in
RV's
> . Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
> about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer
in
> flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
> necessary.
>
> I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
> units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
> the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
> burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation
where
> the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
> systems.
>
> With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
> out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from
the
> electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one
of
> the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
> my GPS-NavAid system.
>
> I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such
a
> remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
> shaft or cam shaft failure.
>
> This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or
so
> the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> battery.
>
> FWIW
>
> John at Salida, CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
This is the last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser. Based on previous
year's percentages of Lister's making a Contribution, this year we are
nearly 40% behind the normal... And I thought all those great gifts would
eke the percentage up past the average a little. Oh well. Maybe people
just don't really mind the flashing banner ads for Viagra, and popups for
X10 minicams...
There's still plenty of time to get your name of the List of
Contributors. I'll probably publish the LOC on Monday night after I
process the checks from the Post Office.
I do want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so
far this year. Your support is greatly appreciated and is what makes the
Lists possible.
How to support your Lists this month: http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
>
>
>Fergus Kyle wrote:
>>
>> Kevin,
>> I appreciate your thoughts regarding GPS vs VOR and enjoyed
>> reading the Air Safety Foundation pages of the relative worth of handheld
>> GPS's.
>> However one remark gave me pause. To wit:
>> "Now, I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't add RAIM to
>> handheld GPSs. Sure, you would still have the same "issues" with
>> antenna location and power supply reliability, but those don't worry
>> me at all. If the antenna is poorly located, or the batteries die,
>> the unit stops navigating. Well, any piece of equipment and fail at
>> any time, and we need to be ready to deal with it. But, we can't
>> accept a piece of equipment that could suddenly start providing
>> hazardously misleading information. Outright failure is OK. Bad
>> position info is not."
>> The principle you cite is of course ideal, but I flew the big
>> red-and-white DC-9s for five years with a single VOR indicator and it had an
>> "OFF" flag. Obviously we wouldn't use the info if the flag was visible, but
>> it was several years before someone pointed out that the flag only showed
>> when power was lost to the gauge. No one I knew had heard of it till then -
>> so we could have had bad info and no flag.............
>> Cheers, Ferg
>>
>>
>
>Personal experience back when even LORAN was barely affordable (just over a
>decade ago):
>
>On my 1st long cross country flight after getting my license (using VOR
>navigation), I flew the 1st leg uneventfully & made my mid-trip fuel
>stop. After
>topping off I dialed up the next VOR & got an indication 180 degrees
>opposite of
>what I knew was correct. I used the inverse heading & switched to
>the next VOR &
>got the same symptom. When I landed at my destination, I contacted the
>manufacturer about the problem. The tech knew exactly what was wrong & told me
>to tweak a trim pot on the back of the display head & go fly it to
>see if it was
>fixed. (Experimental plane)
>
>The fact that he showed no surprise at the symptom I described & knew exactly
>what to do to correct it says that it's a common problem.
>
>So, bad info from 'traditional' navaids does happen.
>
>Charlie
>
OK, so perhaps I need to soften my original statement a bit, to
acknowledge that even with VOR there are some failure modes that will
cause individual indications to be incorrect. However one aircraft
getting bad navigation info is still much, much better than what
would happen if a large number of aircraft were using handheld GPS
for IFR, and one satelitte started putting out bad info. If one
aircraft is a bit lost it is certainly an issue for him, but he may
be able to get some assistance from ATC, at least if there is radar
coverage. Can you picture the pandemonium if there were a large
number of IFR users following bad info from handheld GPSs? ATC would
be in a panic trying to sort the whole thing out.
I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
Kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
In a message dated 11/29/02 9:58:33 PM Central Standard Time,
canarder(at)starband.net writes:
> Damn !! Am I to understand that on a 777 you have to have to be able to
> shut
> down EVERYTHING electrical with a single switch?? Amazin' !!
> I'm awestruck .... Jim S.
>
Good Morning Jim.
Not necessarily just one switch.
I have never flown the 777 and I don't remember how it was handled on the
747. I THINK it is one switch operating a BIG relay!
However, on the Convair 340, there is a "Gang Bar" arrangement that moves
several switches "... with the single movement of one hand."
It actually has two rows of switches with a bar above each row. The bars are
connected by shafts so that moving one bar moves the other. Thus, one sweep
of the hand knocks off all electrical power except that provided by the
magnetos. It has been some time since I was qualified to fly a Convair 340.
The last time I flew one was in 1958, but I believe the emergency standby AC
engine driven alternator that was provided to drive the Artificial Horizon
and the Directional Gyro remained operative after actuating the gang bar.
Not sure about that though. Maybe someone with more recent experience will
let us know.
In any case, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
This discussion brings up another pertinent point.
Many of our FARs force designs to comply with requirements that are not
appropriate to current day problems and devices.
It takes a ton of effort to get something approved that uses a different
design philosophy than was appropriate for the devices available fifty years
ago.
We are very fortunate that the experimental world of flight is available so
that we can make better use of modern technology in airplanes we build
ourselves.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
In a message dated 11/30/02 5:28:20 AM Central Standard Time,
khorto1537(at)rogers.com writes:
> I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
> you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
>
> Kevin
>
Good Morning Kevin,
I agree that it is probably not a good time to have handhelds approved as
sole source navigation devices, but I see nothing wrong with the handheld
being used to provide auxiliary information such as the use most operators
are making of it today.
As long as the aircraft is equipped with approved navigational devices
pertinent to the route to be flown, why not use the handheld to fly direct
routes or to proceed to intersections and such? The FAA folks can approve
you to fly using nothing more than deductive reasoning to follow a course.
As a matter of current policy, such navigation is not often approved, but it
could be done.
The use of a handheld in today's environment is similar. The controller can
accept that navigation device if he/she wants to do so. You don't have a
hard and fast "right" to be able to use it, but it can be used as previously
described. In actual practice, a controller will rarely issue a clearance
for direct flight that will not occur within a radar coverage area.
I think it is a non issue.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
Thanks to the gods, those of us in OBAM don't have to put up with that
regulation and can have an essential bus that is hot all the time and diode
isolated from the optional stuff...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
>
> In a message dated 11/29/02 9:58:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> canarder(at)starband.net writes:
>
> > Damn !! Am I to understand that on a 777 you have to have to be able to
> > shut
> > down EVERYTHING electrical with a single switch?? Amazin' !!
> > I'm awestruck .... Jim S.
> >
>
> Good Morning Jim.
>
> Not necessarily just one switch.
>
> I have never flown the 777 and I don't remember how it was handled on the
> 747. I THINK it is one switch operating a BIG relay!
>
> However, on the Convair 340, there is a "Gang Bar" arrangement that moves
> several switches "... with the single movement of one hand."
>
> It actually has two rows of switches with a bar above each row. The bars
are
> connected by shafts so that moving one bar moves the other. Thus, one
sweep
> of the hand knocks off all electrical power except that provided by the
> magnetos. It has been some time since I was qualified to fly a Convair
340.
> The last time I flew one was in 1958, but I believe the emergency standby
AC
> engine driven alternator that was provided to drive the Artificial Horizon
> and the Directional Gyro remained operative after actuating the gang bar.
> Not sure about that though. Maybe someone with more recent experience
will
> let us know.
>
> In any case, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
>
> This discussion brings up another pertinent point.
>
> Many of our FARs force designs to comply with requirements that are not
> appropriate to current day problems and devices.
>
> It takes a ton of effort to get something approved that uses a different
> design philosophy than was appropriate for the devices available fifty
years
> ago.
>
> We are very fortunate that the experimental world of flight is available
so
> that we can make better use of modern technology in airplanes we build
> ourselves.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Fat Albert has multiples of everything necessary for IFR flight... Even so,
the Garmin 196 on the yoke does yeoman service in keeping me oriented to the
FAF when ATC starts vectoring me all over the place... Reduces the
workload by a factor to two or three... It is the most valuable instrument
in the airplane, and it is not even IFR certified...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
>
> In a message dated 11/30/02 5:28:20 AM Central Standard Time,
> khorto1537(at)rogers.com writes:
>
> > I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
> > you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I agree that it is probably not a good time to have handhelds approved as
> sole source navigation devices, but I see nothing wrong with the handheld
> being used to provide auxiliary information such as the use most operators
> are making of it today.
>
> As long as the aircraft is equipped with approved navigational devices
> pertinent to the route to be flown, why not use the handheld to fly direct
> routes or to proceed to intersections and such? The FAA folks can approve
> you to fly using nothing more than deductive reasoning to follow a course.
> As a matter of current policy, such navigation is not often approved, but
it
> could be done.
>
> The use of a handheld in today's environment is similar. The controller
can
> accept that navigation device if he/she wants to do so. You don't have a
> hard and fast "right" to be able to use it, but it can be used as
previously
> described. In actual practice, a controller will rarely issue a clearance
> for direct flight that will not occur within a radar coverage area.
>
> I think it is a non issue.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
For a recent "IFR" flight (severe clear conditions), I informed the person
at the FSS that I was "/I" and had a VFR GPS on-board. I requested/filed
"direct". When I called for clearance I got "cleared as filed". Later I was
vectored around a "hot" MOA and when I asked of I could return to my
(direct) route, I was asked if I could navigate "direct" from current
position. [Me]"Affirmative!" ... [ATC]"Cleared direct xxx".
As many have acknowledged, Kevin's comments about total dependence upon the
handheld should be heeded. I do have dual NAV's, ADF, etc. but I too must
say what makes it all much more straightforward for me is the Garmin 196 (or
earlier models) that not only show me the way but show me what is "nearby"
all the time. I cross check from time to time with the VORs (lest I forget
how to use the things ;-) ), but I also noticed that the GPS estimated
error was 8ft and it claimed to be using WAAS.
By the way, on the return flight when my "home" airport told me to proceed
to the (nearby), I used the GARMIN to do "direct to" and THEN dialed in the
VOR and watched the needle remain centered.
So, I think the controllers know that in MOST cases we are probably much
safer with the handheld GPS and as long as we don't over do it, they
cautiously allow us to use them. It is thereby critical in my view that any
plane in fact though DOES have the REQUIRED equipment, lest something goes
amiss and the FAA comes down hard on all us for handheld use. [Yeah, yeah, I
know .. how will they know unless something goes wrong ... that IS how they
will know]
Sorry about the rambling, this was supposed to be a quick note.
James
... slowly brushing off the dust collected on the IFR rating.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 7:01 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified
> GPS
>
>
> In a message dated 11/30/02 5:28:20 AM Central Standard Time,
> khorto1537(at)rogers.com writes:
>
> > I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
> > you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I agree that it is probably not a good time to have handhelds approved as
> sole source navigation devices, but I see nothing wrong with the handheld
> being used to provide auxiliary information such as the use most
> operators
> are making of it today.
>
> As long as the aircraft is equipped with approved navigational devices
> pertinent to the route to be flown, why not use the handheld to
> fly direct
> routes or to proceed to intersections and such? The FAA folks
> can approve
> you to fly using nothing more than deductive reasoning to follow
> a course.
> As a matter of current policy, such navigation is not often
> approved, but it
> could be done.
>
> The use of a handheld in today's environment is similar. The
> controller can
> accept that navigation device if he/she wants to do so. You don't have a
> hard and fast "right" to be able to use it, but it can be used as
> previously
> described. In actual practice, a controller will rarely issue a
> clearance
> for direct flight that will not occur within a radar coverage area.
>
> I think it is a non issue.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Is this true though? I have dual Lightspeeds that will come directly off
the + battery terminal, and according to Klaus Savier they will continue
to operate without interruption down to 4 VDC. Even in the case of a
pretty big short to ground somewhere, will the battery terminal voltage
on a good RG battery be reduced below 4 VDC? I'm sure if you left it
long enough....but my plan is to treat electrical problems (smell of
smoke, sudden dimming of lights, etc.) just like any other
airplane....shut off the Master switch without delay. (Remember the
ignition modules have independent toggles and are NOT shut down with the
Master). I won't say it's impossible but methinks it's highly unlikely
that a single point failure (except for the battery terminal breaking
off) will instantly cause ignition system failure...
Does the Jeff Rose system designate a low-voltage operating limit? Does
he show that the electrical connections for his systems should be
connected directly to the battery terminals? Klaus has fought some
problems with builders who tied the Lightspeeds electrically to a point
some distance from the battery terminal, which has resulted in starting
problems since the voltage drop is greater the further you get from the
battery. This could also affect you adversely if you experienced a short
somewhere in the system during flight...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there
is
enough energy left in the battery).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Always tell the Truth, Was: handheld GPS Reliability |
In a message dated 11/30/02 10:11:13 AM Central Standard Time,
jclark(at)conterra.com writes:
> So, I think the controllers know that in MOST cases we are probably much
> safer with the handheld GPS and as long as we don't over do it, they
> cautiously allow us to use them. It is thereby critical in my view that any
> plane in fact though DOES have the REQUIRED equipment, lest something goes
> amiss and the FAA comes down hard on all us for handheld use. [Yeah, yeah,
> I
> know .. how will they know unless something goes wrong ... that IS how they
> will know]
>
Good Morning James,
I sent the following to someone else off list, but I think if might be an
appropriate "me too" comment to your experience.
Good Morning My Friend,
We are operating on the controllers authority, not ours.
I usually file a flight plan that could be comfortably flown by a VOR
equipped aircraft. I use airways with a few direct segments to cut some
corners, but pretty much what I would file if I didn't have a GPS.
Then, once I am airborne, I ask for the routing I really want.
I haven't had a controller ask how I am going to navigate for years, but if
they do, I tell the truth.=A0 I no longer bother putting the handheld comment
in the remark's section.=A0 My controller contacts tell me that it is not
unusual for that comment to be left off the message long before it gets to
the working controller's strip.
One thing that I am careful about is the phrasing when I accept a direct
clearance.=A0 If the controller asks what my heading will be when going direct,
I say something like the following: "The initial heading to hold the direct
track to Podunk Junction will be two hundred and twenty-five degrees."=A0 I=20do
that to avoid any confusion as to whether I will be holding a heading or
maintaining a track.=A0 Obviously, if you have been assigned a heading, you
shouldn't change it without further clearance.=A0 If the controller says
something like "Hold that heading until able direct," I take up the initial
heading that I gave him/her and adjust it to maintain track as required.
It is perfectly legal, but you won't find the procedure listed in anyone's
manual.
There is no need to use stealth or ask for a vector.=A0 What you want is a
clearance to fly direct to some point or the other.
Just tell the truth, if asked, and be sure you understand what the clearance
really tells you to do.=A0 Remember, the controllers are just human beings
trying to do their job correctly and legally the same as we pilots are trying
to be correct and legal.=A0 We all make mistakes, but if we communicate, we
should be able to work out any and all questions that arise.
Not only that, if the controller doesn't want to do it that way, they won't!
That is completely within their rights.=A0 It is their authority being used=20to
allow the direct clearance.=A0 It is not your right to be able to get one. If
they say fly on the airway, don't argue!
Hope that helps.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Always tell the Truth, Was: handheld GPS Reliability |
In a message dated 11/30/02 10:58:22 AM Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
> twenty-five degrees."=A0 I=20do
Good Morning All.
I need help.
In the message I just sent, there were a number of instances when the charac
ters (=AO) and/or (l=20) were added to spots where I thought I had a space
between sentences.
Can any of you computer whiz's tell an illiterate like me what I done wrong?
Happy Skies,
Puzzled Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Here's another bit of information about the reliability of GPS. Note that
this is specifically for panel mounted Garmins, but my guess would be that
since it's software, it will make it to the hand-helds sooner or later.
This is from the most recent AOPA e-mail newsletter.
Terry
GARMIN IMPROVES GPS RELIABILITY
Do you ever get that pesky RAIM alarm on your GPS and have to switch to
another form of navigation because something has gone wrong with the signal?
Garmin has announced a software upgrade to its 400/500 series of avionics
that enables you to continue using the GPS for navigation. Called Fault
Detection and Exclusion (FDE), it is an algorithm that monitors the accuracy
and reliability of GPS signals, detects erroneous GPS data, and excludes
that data from the active navigation solution. "FDE offers an increased
level of safety to pilots flying over the Atlantic or Pacific or in remote
areas where navigation aids are scarce," said Gary Kelley, Garmin's director
of marketing. "When incorporated in our proven line of panel-mount avionics
with color mapping, FDE becomes an invaluable tool for navigating safely to
one's desired destination." FDE is now standard in 400/500 series avionics
but will be available as an upgrade to current owners.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
The capability known as FDE (as described below) has been available in the
high end GPS/FMS boxes such as the Universal UNS-1 series for sometime now.
Interesting that it is migrating down into the low end equipment.
While FDE does go to some length to address the problem of what to do about
a bad satellite, it does not solve the reliability problem in terms of
signal coverage and in fact makes it a bit worse. Essentially, if you need 4
satellites in view to get a 3-d fix, then you need 5 to achieve RAIM (tells
you a bad sat is present) and 6 to get FDE (which figures out which is the
bad satellite and dumps it from the position solution).
Just from the physics of satellite orbits and so on, there will be periods
of time when there are not enough satellites in view to provide FDE or even
RAIM. The problem is how to predict when and where signal outages will
occur. Some outages are fully predictable based on satellite geometry and
the big $$ boxes usually have a RAIM/FDE prediction capability (you enter a
position and a time and it decides what satellites are supposed to be in
view). You are supposed to check your destination airfield at ETA and if no
RAIM is going to be available you adjust your plans accordingly (delay or go
elsewhere).
The "what if" situation that the regulators play with is a large aircraft
pull of passengers (such as someone's wives and kiddies) is in a critical
phase of flight and a satellite goes bad unexpectedly. How is the failure to
be identified, announced to the crew, and how are they to react? Will the
solution be six or seven "nines" reliable? (eg., 99.9999 or 99.99999%
reliable). LAAS and WAAS are supposed to deal with these issues but despite
large amounts of $$ spent are not there quite yet and so even certified
boxes have some limitations on them.
Anyway, truly "reliable" handheld GPSs in this sense are still someway off.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A (at the airport now, with a handheld GPS mounted on the panel...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
>
> Here's another bit of information about the reliability of GPS. Note that
> this is specifically for panel mounted Garmins, but my guess would be that
> since it's software, it will make it to the hand-helds sooner or later.
> This is from the most recent AOPA e-mail newsletter.
>
> Terry
>
>
> GARMIN IMPROVES GPS RELIABILITY
> Do you ever get that pesky RAIM alarm on your GPS and have to switch to
> another form of navigation because something has gone wrong with the
signal?
> Garmin has announced a software upgrade to its 400/500 series of avionics
> that enables you to continue using the GPS for navigation. Called Fault
> Detection and Exclusion (FDE), it is an algorithm that monitors the
accuracy
> and reliability of GPS signals, detects erroneous GPS data, and excludes
> that data from the active navigation solution. "FDE offers an increased
> level of safety to pilots flying over the Atlantic or Pacific or in remote
> areas where navigation aids are scarce," said Gary Kelley, Garmin's
director
> of marketing. "When incorporated in our proven line of panel-mount
avionics
> with color mapping, FDE becomes an invaluable tool for navigating safely
to
> one's desired destination." FDE is now standard in 400/500 series avionics
> but will be available as an upgrade to current owners.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy |
Power
Fred,
I am flying an RV-8A with dual Lightspeed ignitions. I designed my
electrical system around the dual EIs and an all electric panel. I ended up
with two Odyssey 625 batteries (17AH, 13 pounds each) and a single
alternator. The design allows for continued IFR flight with the total loss
of one battery and the alternator until the fuel runs out. One battery can
start the engine, with both it spins quite well.
I was very concerned with single point failure possibilities. The
batteries are physically separate and the wire runs are keep apart as much
as possible. The panel is divided up left and right (#1 Comm on the left
batt, #2 Comm on the right, etc.) and connected via separate left/right
Aeroelectric fuse busses and small (100ma) relays (20 amp contacts) to the
batteries that allow for cross connecting. The EIs are feed via a stand
alone 5 amp pull breaker, one connected to each battery. The only things
connected outside the master solenoids are engine start, the alternator, and
the heavy loads such as pitot heat and landing lights. Here the first
action on alternator failure is to open both master solenoids - then fly as
before. For landing, a master can be shut to restore landing lights and
such as needed.
Klaus does say his ignitions can run at a much reduced voltage. The issue
is if you have a casualty severe enough to drop buss voltage that low, the
odds are you are on your way to zero volts in a hurry.
A twin recently experienced a total loss of power (two alternators, etc.)
because of a common terminal connection on a battery. This is bad enough,
with dual EIs it is a loss of ship accident. This can only be prevented by
system design.
Carl Froehlich
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
czechsix(at)juno.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems
Redundancy Power
Is this true though? I have dual Lightspeeds that will come directly off
the + battery terminal, and according to Klaus Savier they will continue
to operate without interruption down to 4 VDC. Even in the case of a
pretty big short to ground somewhere, will the battery terminal voltage
on a good RG battery be reduced below 4 VDC? I'm sure if you left it
long enough....but my plan is to treat electrical problems (smell of
smoke, sudden dimming of lights, etc.) just like any other
airplane....shut off the Master switch without delay. (Remember the
ignition modules have independent toggles and are NOT shut down with the
Master). I won't say it's impossible but methinks it's highly unlikely
that a single point failure (except for the battery terminal breaking
off) will instantly cause ignition system failure...
Does the Jeff Rose system designate a low-voltage operating limit? Does
he show that the electrical connections for his systems should be
connected directly to the battery terminals? Klaus has fought some
problems with builders who tied the Lightspeeds electrically to a point
some distance from the battery terminal, which has resulted in starting
problems since the voltage drop is greater the further you get from the
battery. This could also affect you adversely if you experienced a short
somewhere in the system during flight...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming there
is
enough energy left in the battery).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Always tell the Truth, |
Was: handheld GPS Reliability
Check to see that you are replying using text only. If it was sent HTML
then Matt's software stripped it, but may have missed some characters.
That's the only explanation I can offer.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Always tell the Truth, Was: handheld GPS
Reliability
>
> In a message dated 11/30/02 10:58:22 AM Central Standard Time,
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
>
> > twenty-five degrees."=A0 I=20do
>
>
> Good Morning All.
>
> I need help.
>
> In the message I just sent, there were a number of instances when the
charac
> ters (=AO) and/or (l=20) were added to spots where I thought I had a space
> between sentences.
>
> Can any of you computer whiz's tell an illiterate like me what I done
wrong?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Puzzled Old Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Perry" <eperry(at)san.rr.com> |
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
OK, I have the overvoltage module now....
1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I can wire
this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the alternator switch
and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator. Is this correct?
2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit breaker?
Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another reason why I would
want to have the over voltage turned back on?
Thank You,
Ed Perry
eperry(at)san.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
"James E. Clark" wrote:
>
> For a recent "IFR" flight (severe clear conditions), I informed the person
> at the FSS that I was "/I" and had a VFR GPS on-board. I requested/filed
> "direct". When I called for clearance I got "cleared as filed". Later I was
> vectored around a "hot" MOA and when I asked of I could return to my
> (direct) route, I was asked if I could navigate "direct" from current
> position. [Me]"Affirmative!" ... [ATC]"Cleared direct xxx".
I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with "great circle
direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route line to
VORs
along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4 waypoints)
and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No problems.
Just a theory .... Jim S.
Also slowly retrieving my IFR rating ....
>
>
> As many have acknowledged, Kevin's comments about total dependence upon the
> handheld should be heeded. I do have dual NAV's, ADF, etc. but I too must
> say what makes it all much more straightforward for me is the Garmin 196 (or
> earlier models) that not only show me the way but show me what is "nearby"
> all the time. I cross check from time to time with the VORs (lest I forget
> how to use the things ;-) ), but I also noticed that the GPS estimated
> error was 8ft and it claimed to be using WAAS.
>
> By the way, on the return flight when my "home" airport told me to proceed
> to the (nearby), I used the GARMIN to do "direct to" and THEN dialed in the
> VOR and watched the needle remain centered.
>
> So, I think the controllers know that in MOST cases we are probably much
> safer with the handheld GPS and as long as we don't over do it, they
> cautiously allow us to use them. It is thereby critical in my view that any
> plane in fact though DOES have the REQUIRED equipment, lest something goes
> amiss and the FAA comes down hard on all us for handheld use. [Yeah, yeah, I
> know .. how will they know unless something goes wrong ... that IS how they
> will know]
>
> Sorry about the rambling, this was supposed to be a quick note.
>
> James
> ... slowly brushing off the dust collected on the IFR rating.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to the
alternator field on an over voltage condition as determined by the OV
module (crowbar). When the OV module "sees" voltage rise on the
alternator field supply wire above a preset level and for a specific
time interval as determined by the OV module, the controlling transistor
gates the SCR on(both components are in the OV module), providing a dead
short between the alternator field supply line and ground, or the same
thing as would happen if this wire were to short to a rib- the breaker
pops, removing voltage from the alternator and eliminating the source of
the OV condition, and also dumping the inductive spike from the
alternator windings harmlessly to ground- I may not have explained it
quite right, but the concept is pure brilliance and you have the
honorable Mr. Knuckolls to thank! I don't have the book open before me,
but the wiring you suggest sounds correct. I believe the feed for the
OV module can be connected direct to the downstream side of the circuit
breaker.
From the PossumWorks in TN,
Mark Phillips - On second reading of old copy of Aeroelectric
Connection- gee, maybe I should get a new one! (working on electron
control layout, RV-6A)
Ed Perry wrote:
>
> OK, I have the overvoltage module now....
>
> 1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I can wire
this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the alternator switch
and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator. Is this correct?
> 2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit breaker?
Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another reason why I
would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
>
> Thank You,
> Ed Perry
> eperry(at)san.rr.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
> My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> the alternator field on an over voltage condition
Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
power internally to the alternator itself.
Bob, are you back yet? help us out here.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | All New List Digest Format!! |
Dear Listers,
I've just finished up some awesome code that will completely change your
thinking about how email Digests should work and look! Yeah, I'm kind of
proud of it, that is true... :-)
What you'll be getting in the new List Digest message is the
following: The main message will contain the new text-based index I
introduced a few weeks back. But here's where things get
different... Instead of simply including all of the day's posts in line
within the message, there will now be included two enclosures - one with a
HTML encoded version of the Digests, and another with the usual text-only
version of the Digests.
I think you're really going to like the new HTML enclosure of the
Digests. All of the Indexes at the top are now hyperlinked to the actual
posts and there are hyperlinks at the top of each post that will:
o Take you back to the Index
o Take you to the next post
o Take you to the previous post
o Allow you to respond to the LIST regarding the message
o Allow you to respond directly to the POSTER regarding the message
You'll have to check it out to appreciate the full goodness of the new
format! :-)
The text-only version is basically exactly the same data that has been
normally sent in line within the message.
You'll also note that the filenames of the enclosures are such that they
can be conveniently placed in a personal "archive" directory for future
reference.
Hope you enjoy the new Digest format!!!
Oh, and don't forget about the Fund Raiser! :-)
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
but not with GPS navigation.
Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
Ken
>I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
"great circle
direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
line to VORs
along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
waypoints)
and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
problems.
Just a theory .... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
John- after some more perusing it appears that your scenario is what Bob shows
for either an internally regulated or permanent magnet alternator that opens the
B-lead - what I originally described is for externally regulated machine, which
is the format I have been planning on- amazing how versatile this little sucker
is!
Mark
John Slade wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
> Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
> shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
> kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
> alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
> voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
> power internally to the alternator itself.
>
> Bob, are you back yet? help us out here.
> John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
> either an internally regulated or permanent magnet alternator
OK. That makes sense. I'm using an automotive alternator with my 13B.
> amazing how versatile this little sucker is!
And all for $14
John Slade
Cozy IV #757
http://kgarden.com/cozy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master Switch |
Hi Bob,
A friend of mine which is an electrical automotive mechanical said me that
it was better to install your master switch S-701-1 upside down. Is that
true? Il installed it in this manner for the one I used for my internally
regulated alternator. I'm ready to install the master switch for batteries,
should I install them on the same way or not?
I've some understanding problem with your drawing of that device on your
diagram. You put the two 6/32 studs on the left side of the diagram. How
should we figure it on the real.
Thanks for help.
Daniel
601HDS/W.Soob
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:00:50 EST
>
>
>In a message dated 11/30/02 5:28:20 AM Central Standard Time,
>khorto1537(at)rogers.com writes:
>
> > I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
> > you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
>Good Morning Kevin,
>
>I agree that it is probably not a good time to have handhelds approved as
>sole source navigation devices, but I see nothing wrong with the handheld
>being used to provide auxiliary information such as the use most operators
>are making of it today.
>
>As long as the aircraft is equipped with approved navigational devices
>pertinent to the route to be flown, why not use the handheld to fly direct
>routes or to proceed to intersections and such? The FAA folks can approve
>you to fly using nothing more than deductive reasoning to follow a course.
>As a matter of current policy, such navigation is not often approved, but
>it
>could be done.
>
>The use of a handheld in today's environment is similar. The controller
>can
>accept that navigation device if he/she wants to do so. You don't have a
>hard and fast "right" to be able to use it, but it can be used as
>previously
>described. In actual practice, a controller will rarely issue a clearance
>for direct flight that will not occur within a radar coverage area.
>
>I think it is a non issue.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
>
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
klehman wrote:
>
> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
>
> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
> but not with GPS navigation.
How is that?
>
>
> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
avoided).
Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
>
> >I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
> "great circle
> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
> line to VORs
> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
> waypoints)
> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
> problems.
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
> No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
> angles) a lot of airways.
Jim.
I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
at the same point. Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>Step outside and look up.
>You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
>
>
>klehman wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
>> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
>> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
>
>I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
>
>>
>> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
>> but not with GPS navigation.
>
>How is that?
>
>>
>>
>> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
>> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
>
>East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
>my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
>coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
>I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
>constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
>see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
>Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
>airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
>avoided).
>Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
There was a fatal mid-air collision several years ago up here in
Canada. Two aircraft, both navigating using GPS, one going from
airport A to airport B, and the other going from airport B to airport
A. They were both tracking the GPS direct-to very accurately, and
they had a head-on mid-air. Putting the question of why they were
both at the same altitude aside, the high accuracy of the GPS
certainly was a contributing factor in this accident.
See: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1995/a95h0008/a95h0008.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
wrote:
>klehman wrote:
>> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
>> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
>> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
>
>I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
Umm, perhaps the 3 or 4 VORs mentioned in your previous post. I've
copied it back again, so you can read it. It's at the end below.
>> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
>> but not with GPS navigation.
>
>How is that?
Because conventional VOR navigation isn't precise nor accurate enough to
get you within the locus of hocus pocus. So random variation in
navigation accuracy gives you a large margin of "open sky".
>> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
>> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
>
>East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
>my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
>coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
>I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
>constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
>see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
>Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
>airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
>avoided).
>Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
I see Ken's point, and agree with it. Especially with the demise of SA,
the courses of two planes navigating between precisely located points
via even handhelds, very likely WILL have their courses within VERY much
greater proximity than previously, especially near the VOR. The
avoidance scenarios were predicated on the navigation between waypoints
being sloppy. An existence proof of this might be found in the rules
about flying oddsNevens altitudes for separation above 3000AGL.
Trouble is low passes into a congested area, like near where I fly.
There is one that is popularly used for east-west transit into the SF
Bay Area, and I've on several occasions flown close enough to other
aircraft to RECOGNIZE the person in the other airplane as belonging to
the same flight club! Not recognizing the airplane (rentals) mind you,
but the person's FACE! This is due to the fact that the pass isn't all
that wide (hmm, maybe why it's called a 'pass'?), and since you're not
operating within the altitude separation rules, the needle's eye is
already surprisingly small. NOW suppose people got in the habit of
shooting that pass off some two waypoints whose straight-line happened
to transit that pass? Or suppose a worse scenario, where ...
We have another coastal mountain range overcrossing that's heavily used
(not much of a pass, but...) with a VOR *just* on the other side of that
range that is often used as a waypoint for the crossing. Here again, you
have altitude separation compression because of the narrowed range of
AGL, AND a common meeting point for two aircraft (namely the VOR).
Another place where precise/accurate navigation now possible could
reduce your assumed separation significantly.
Here's the quote I believe Ken was referring to:
>> >I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
>> "great circle
>> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
>> line to VORs
>> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
>> waypoints)
>> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
>> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
>> problems.
>> Just a theory .... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
I used to subscribe to the "big sky" theory but two recent incidents
changed my mind. About half way between Houston and Waco, well away from
any airways and at 8500', i.e. middle of nowhere, I got distracted by a
long distance reflection that looked like traffic. When I convinced
myself it wasn't a threat, I turned my head and a Bonanza crossed less
than 100 yds in front of me at exactly my altitude. The other was a
EAA chapter flyout on a low-vis (4-5 mi) day. We had a perfect setup for
overtake collisions. Everyone with the same origin, destination and ETA
following an exact track thanks to GPS with limited altitude separation
due to the length of the trip. I flew a couple miles off track to
compensate. The skies may not be crowded but it only takes one to ruin
your day. I'm seriously considering getting one of those "poor man's"
TCAS boxes.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> don't see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the
> skies are NOT crowded. Step outside and look up. You will
> see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane (unless you
> live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
> avoided). Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
What flight planning software are you using? Thanks. Larry in Indiana
> "James E. Clark" wrote:
>
> >
> > For a recent "IFR" flight (severe clear conditions), I informed the
person
> > at the FSS that I was "/I" and had a VFR GPS on-board. I requested/filed
> > "direct". When I called for clearance I got "cleared as filed". Later I
was
> > vectored around a "hot" MOA and when I asked of I could return to my
> > (direct) route, I was asked if I could navigate "direct" from current
> > position. [Me]"Affirmative!" ... [ATC]"Cleared direct xxx".
>
> I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
"great circle
> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
line to VORs
> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
waypoints)
> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up
my
> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
problems.
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
> Also slowly retrieving my IFR rating ....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
>
> What flight planning software are you using? Thanks. Larry in Indiana
FliteSoft. Early release. I'm going to look at others, but I imagine they're
pretty
much the same.
Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
John Slade wrote:
>
> > No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
> > angles) a lot of airways.
> Jim.
> I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
> points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
> pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
> at the same point.
I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS. With VOR I only felt confident I knew
where I was when I was right where I wanted to be. GPS has so much nicer a
display and features, I know right where I am no matter where that is, so I
except little "excursions" from the planned track.
As for VORs being a "central point" where folks converge" baffled me because
there are so damn many of them (eastern seaboard) that I can't figure out for the
life of me which ones are "central" :-) I agree that on the left coast there are
some pretty tight "channels" that make for dense traffic
> Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
> always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
> VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>
> >Step outside and look up.
> >You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
> If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
When I lived in the NE Atlanta suburbs, I was under the NE initial approach
corridor for Hartsfield and also under the corridor for PDK. Hardly ever had
more than two planes in sight at any given moment.
Anyway, I see your point. However, if precision navigation at and between way
points aggravates somewhat head-on and overtake type situations, contention with
crossing traffic will be the same whether you're flying direct or Victor
airways. You just collide a little bit off the beaten path :-)
They taught us when I was a cadet "... a constant, disciplined lookout doctrine
is critical. What with the closure rates of fighters reducing time to react so
much, a half-assed lookout doctrine does little more than give you the
opportunity to die all tensed up ..."
Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
>
> John Slade
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) |
>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>A friend of mine which is an electrical automotive mechanical said me that
>it was better to install your master switch S-701-1 upside down. Is that
>true? Il installed it in this manner for the one I used for my internally
>regulated alternator. I'm ready to install the master switch for batteries,
>should I install them on the same way or not?
Rotating contactors to compensate for g-loading in flight
is one of those bogus ideas that have been floating around
for a long time. Install them in what ever way makes the
best sense for getting them hooked up.
>I've some understanding problem with your drawing of that device on your
>diagram. You put the two 6/32 studs on the left side of the diagram. How
>should we figure it on the real.
Positioning on a schematic seldom has any significance with
the physical placement in a 3-D world with real estate,
available volume and convenience of interconnection to
contend with. Schematics just tell you where the wires
go, not how they go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
wrote:
>I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
>better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
>error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
>is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
>dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS.
IINM, current fix accuracy after SA was shut off, is around +-3meters?
IF that's the case, it sure would be a GOOD thing not to fly right on
GPS, that's why the suggestions of an intentional offset. Again, the
problem is that the new navigational hardware will make it all too easy
to fly "right dead-nuts-on GPS" automagically, and if done inadvertantly
and unthinkingly by a large percentage of occasional pilots, sooner or
later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
hocus pocus.
>Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
I'd bet not in this case; when GPS can get you down to the 'rat turd'
precision/accuracy, then trying to avoid converging within the same 'rat
turd' sized airspace is no longer majoring in the minors, because now
the minors *matter*. With VOR navigation, the accuracy is WAY lower than
the size of one plane's airspace, so the likelyhood of converging EVEN
IF you were trying to, using VOR navigation is also way lower. But IF
the accuracy/resolution of GPS is now on the order of the dimensions of
your favorite airframe (and even higher), it would seem the likelyhood
has suddenly become much greater.
IIRC, this was also the crux of the worry about publishing, disclosing,
or broadcasting (as in TCAS, ADS-B, et al) current airliner location
(and perhaps even more dangerous, future location in timeNspace), is
that it makes it quite possible to build an 'intercept' or even a
'loiter' terrorist weapon that could rendesvous with the airliner, and
again within that same 3meter locus, detonate in timeNspace without any
actual homing/seeker apparatus needed. Sounds far fetched maybe, but
think about it; it's relatively low-tech given what we have in our hands
at this very moment, at least as far as the positioning part is
concerned.
This isn't my bailiwick, but GPS sure seems to have some interesting
side-effects when combined with (1) a system that relied in part on
randomness & imprecision for separation, OR (2) when combined with a
whirld where organized fanaticism's whole fascination with technology is
in turning it into destructive instruments to be used against the
cultures with the high-tech.
Uugh.
Gar
________________________________________________________________________________
Netscape/7.0
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Jim,
I think you're still missing the point. All VORs are "central points",
relative to the airways that connect them... in a similar way, airports
are central points, relative to the approach paths that connect them.
No, you don't see as high a density of aircraft on the approach paths,
or on the airways. But, if you sat right smack on the airport or at the
VOR station, you will see a lot higher density of aircraft.
How high, I don't know... but I don't think it's insignificant.
-John
Jim Sower wrote:
>
>
> John Slade wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
>>>angles) a lot of airways.
>>
>>Jim.
>>I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
>>points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
>>pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
>>at the same point.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
> better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
> error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
> is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
> dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS. With VOR I only felt confident I knew
> where I was when I was right where I wanted to be. GPS has so much nicer a
> display and features, I know right where I am no matter where that is, so I
> except little "excursions" from the planned track.
> As for VORs being a "central point" where folks converge" baffled me because
> there are so damn many of them (eastern seaboard) that I can't figure out for
the
> life of me which ones are "central" :-) I agree that on the left coast there
are
> some pretty tight "channels" that make for dense traffic
>
>
>>Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
>>always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
>>VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>>
>>
>>>Step outside and look up.
>>>You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
>>
>>If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
>
>
> When I lived in the NE Atlanta suburbs, I was under the NE initial approach
> corridor for Hartsfield and also under the corridor for PDK. Hardly ever had
> more than two planes in sight at any given moment.
>
> Anyway, I see your point. However, if precision navigation at and between way
> points aggravates somewhat head-on and overtake type situations, contention with
> crossing traffic will be the same whether you're flying direct or Victor
> airways. You just collide a little bit off the beaten path :-)
>
> They taught us when I was a cadet "... a constant, disciplined lookout doctrine
> is critical. What with the closure rates of fighters reducing time to react
so
> much, a half-assed lookout doctrine does little more than give you the
> opportunity to die all tensed up ..."
>
> Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
>
>
>>John Slade
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New, NEW List Digest Format... |
Dear Listers,
Okay, so I woke up this morning to an email box full of hate-mail about the
new List Digest format. I thought it was cool, but I guess not... Still,
it seemed like too much code to just throw out, so I've modified things a
little and I'm hoping everyone will be happy with the new, NEW
arrangement. Here's how it works now:
o The HTML and TXT enclosures aren't sent in the Digest any longer.
o URL Links to the HTML and TEXT versions of the day's Digests
will be found at the top of the digest email.
o The new Digest Index will be found at the top of the digest email
following the URL Links.
o The full digest text will then be found in the email as before.
o All of the previous Digests will now be available on line. The
URL for the main digest page is:
http://www.matronics.com/digest
From here, you can drill into the specific List Digest of interest.
o Both the HTML and TXT versions of the Digests can be found here.
o The List Message Trailer will contain a Link directly to the given
o Right now there's only one Digest shown, but each day there will
be another. They will be sorted with the newest at the top.
Left-hand column is the HTML version, right-hand column the TXT
version.
A couple people also complained that some messages in the HTML version were
just one long line that went off to the right forever and they hated
that. Come to think of it, this is also an issue in the Search Engine,
List Browser, and Archive Browser. Some email programs don't included hard
Returns at regular intervals and that's what causes this. I wrote a
program tonight that will automatically chop these long lines into 78
characters or less and wrap the rest of the line. After tonight's Archive
transfer, all of the Searching and Browsing tools shouldn't have the
problem any longer either. Woo hoo!
So, back to the new Digest format. What people are going to see in the
new, NEW Digest is a bit of verbiage at the top of the email describing the
URL links to the HTML and TXT on-line versions, followed by the Links,
followed by the day's Index, followed by the day's messages just as
before. Lines longer than 78 characters will also be automatically wrapped
onto the next line.
Hopefully this will be a more pleasing arrangement for everyone. Sorry to
get everybody so stirred up over the format change!
The List of Contributors is coming out tomorrow night... Still time to
make that Contribution! http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) |
> Positioning on a schematic seldom has any significance with
> the physical placement in a 3-D world with real estate,
> available volume and convenience of interconnection to
> contend with. Schematics just tell you where the wires
> go, not how they go.
>
> Bob . . .
If schematics don't tell you how they go, why not, and what does tell
you (us) how they go.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
I believe in the big sky theory... Like you I have had a plane suddenly
cross in front of me on a hazy day... The miss was so near I could see his
wifes mouth hanging open and her eyes bugging out... Since that time I have
gone to the "there ain't enough places to hang a Comet Flash on this plane
to make me happy...", theory...
Light em up! And a TCAS can't hurt...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
>
> I used to subscribe to the "big sky" theory but two recent incidents
> changed my mind. About half way between Houston and Waco, well away from
> any airways and at 8500', i.e. middle of nowhere, I got distracted by a
> long distance reflection that looked like traffic. When I convinced
> myself it wasn't a threat, I turned my head and a Bonanza crossed less
> than 100 yds in front of me at exactly my altitude. The other was a
> EAA chapter flyout on a low-vis (4-5 mi) day. We had a perfect setup for
> overtake collisions. Everyone with the same origin, destination and ETA
> following an exact track thanks to GPS with limited altitude separation
> due to the length of the trip. I flew a couple miles off track to
> compensate. The skies may not be crowded but it only takes one to ruin
> your day. I'm seriously considering getting one of those "poor man's"
> TCAS boxes.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
> RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
> Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
> > don't see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the
> > skies are NOT crowded. Step outside and look up. You will
> > see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane (unless you
> > live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
> > avoided). Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hello Matt,
You seem like a nice guy, and you're efforts are, I'm sure, well
intentioned.
I'm sending this note not so much as a complaint, more to give you a little
feedback from my perspective.
The main problems with email as a communication medium are volume and
content value. There is increasingly too much of the former and too little
of the latter. Over the past month I've received 57 messages from you, two
of which had content which was of interest to me.
Obviously, most of the email volume was fund raiser stuff. While a $50 or
$100 contribution isnt going to break me either way, I do not agree with the
fund raising concept simply because this list is a commercial enterprise,
every message has links to your aviation related business, and you use the
list as a sales tool.
The information I receive from the Aeroelectric list is important to me, so
I choose to stay subscribed - but my preference would be to see these
communications moved to the new free forum ( http://cozyaircraft.com/forum )
which has sections for each aspect of building, including electrical, and is
a professionally written software system with all the features already in
place.
No offense intended - just a different perspective.
Regards,
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
Interesting discussion. The sky may be big in most places, but when it gets
small I'd rather not be there, and the VOR's are one place that I usually
track about a mile off course (on purpose, now that I use a GPS) to the
right. I was flying eastbound many years ago in the winter over Nebraska at
night at 10,000 ft. How could there possibly be any traffic? I saw a
"star" dead ahead that didn't look quite like a star. I was studying it's
position, which was almost, but not quite fixed in the windscreen when the
star blinked its landing light. I replied and noticed a movement of the
light source to my left, which still seemed like a long ways away, leading
me to believe we would miss by a reasonable margin. About 2 seconds later
the plane passed off my left wingtip by maybe 500 feet at exactly the same
altitude. The controller simultaneously called traffic in a voice that was
at least 2 octave higher that before. Then just recently I was practicing
approaches and received a traffic callout for converging traffic at 3:00. I
quit flying under the hood so both of us could look. The traffic was under
and to the right of us climbing and slowly converging at about a 30-degree
angle. I kept my eye on it and since we were faster and since we were
definitely going to pass ahead and under I held my course. Only problem was
the margin, which turned out to be only a couple of hundred feet - at the
last minute planes get really big really fast. Moral of the story is that
judging distances in the air is not easy and it is best to stay a
more-than-adequate distance away. A couple of years ago I had the
opportunity to fly out of Oshkosh in a borrowed plane with TCAS. Even
without azimuth information the approximate relative distance and altitude
were VERY useful. This poor man is going to have one of those boxes in my
ES.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
>
> wrote:
>
> sooner or
> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
> hocus pocus.
That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
following. A bit of a leap IMO.
>
>
> accuracy/resolution of GPS is now on the order of the dimensions of
> your favorite airframe (and even higher), it would seem the likelyhood
> has suddenly become much greater.
Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
no
radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
>
> IIRC, this was also the crux of the worry about publishing, disclosing,
> or broadcasting (as in TCAS, ADS-B, et al) current airliner location
> (and perhaps even more dangerous, future location in timeNspace), is
> that it makes it quite possible to build an 'intercept' or even a
> 'loiter' terrorist weapon that could rendesvous with the airliner, and
> again within that same 3meter locus, detonate in timeNspace without any
> actual homing/seeker apparatus needed. Sounds far fetched maybe, but
> think about it; it's relatively low-tech given what we have in our hands
> at this very moment, at least as far as the positioning part is
> concerned.
You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)? A couple of guys could cruise around the
roads
outside the fence of any major airport until a wide body launched over them. They
could stop the vehicle, arm, aim and fire the missile in maybe 30 - 40 seconds.
They
bag a crowd-killer with a full bag of fuel in a populated urban area and could
very
well get away clean. I was surprised that it wasn't raining wide bodies during
the
Gulf War, and I fully expect it to start happening pursuant to current operations,
either in Iraq or Afghanistan or other places. We'll discuss nukes later ....
I'm a lot more worried about them than us .... Jim S.
>
>
> This isn't my bailiwick, but GPS sure seems to have some interesting
> side-effects when combined with (1) a system that relied in part on
> randomness & imprecision for separation, OR (2) when combined with a
> whirld where organized fanaticism's whole fascination with technology is
> in turning it into destructive instruments to be used against the
> cultures with the high-tech.
>
> Uugh.
>
> Gar
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
Gang,
Interesting debate. It's gotten a bit far from "reliability", but
interesting none the less.
Midairs and track convergence due to GPS accuracy: I'd suggest it's a
potential problem that has nothing to do with the equipment.
When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's job.
For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
choice in hard IFR.
VFR (or VFR on an IFR flight plan) is another matter. Perhaps too many
pilots spend too much cockpit time playing with their selection of fancy
toys. Some spend 40 or 50 seconds of every cockpit minute with their head
down, twiddling and tweaking, striving to attain "perfect" nav accuracy and
flight management. It's just mental masturbation. They actually gain
little, as arrival time wouldn't be much different using the wet compass on
the glareshield. In the process, they almost totally abandon a primary
responsibility, visual separation.
It seems like the official trend is to apply more technology (Let's all
get TCAS!). Perhaps the answer is better found in less electrons and more
photons (Look out the window!)
While I have the soapbox, let's not forget the many "good" pilots who
arrive at an uncontrolled field, broadcast on the unicom frequency, and
proceed to fly like their radio swept the airspace clean. Not to mention the
guys who forget about visual separation in the presence of a tower
controller. See:
<< http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021120X05496&key=1 >>
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:34:06 -0800
wrote:
>> sooner or
>> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
>> hocus pocus.
>
>That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
>following. A bit of a leap IMO.
Actually, the "sooner or later" only presupposes that two unlucky guys
opt for no flight following. Not many of my buddies us FF to hop over
the hill to HMB, but if they have their GPS onboard, they'll usually
dial in that VOR for the crossing, and "see how close we can nail the
VOR". Argh. BTW, all my comments have been related to VFR pilotage.
>Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
>no
>radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
What is 'shrill' and far fetched in your area sure isn't in mine.
>You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
>defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
>and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
>under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
>departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
>Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
>training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
>off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
>quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)?
Noooo, no, the example certainly wasn't a 'high speed intercept'; all
you have to be doing is maintaining an intercept *course* with the aid
of accurate positioning and knowledge of location. No high-speed
airframe required. If the target is moving along a predictable
straight-line and you have the time to position yourself, I doubt an
intercept of that sort would be difficult at all. But whatever, it was,
as you're wont to say, 'just a theory' :); I wouldn't have believed we'd
see 9/11 and airliners slicing thru skyscrapers, either.
Gar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
> Interesting debate. It's gotten a bit far from "reliability", but
> interesting none the less.
>
> Midairs and track convergence due to GPS accuracy: I'd suggest it's a
> potential problem that has nothing to do with the equipment.
>
> When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's job.
> For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
> choice in hard IFR.
>
> VFR (or VFR on an IFR flight plan) is another matter. Perhaps too many
> pilots spend too much cockpit time playing with their selection of fancy
> toys. Some spend 40 or 50 seconds of every cockpit minute with their head
> down, twiddling and tweaking, striving to attain "perfect" nav accuracy and
> flight management. It's just mental masturbation. They actually gain
> little, as arrival time wouldn't be much different using the wet compass on
> the glareshield. In the process, they almost totally abandon a primary
> responsibility, visual separation.
HEAR HEAR!! THAT'S where the midair threat comes from. That's why I use flight
following whenever I can (which is virtually always).
>
> It seems like the official trend is to apply more technology (Let's all
> get TCAS!). Perhaps the answer is better found in less electrons and more
> photons (Look out the window!)
HEAR HEAR AGAIN !!
>
>
> While I have the soapbox, let's not forget the many "good" pilots who
> arrive at an uncontrolled field, broadcast on the unicom frequency, and
> proceed to fly like their radio swept the airspace clean. Not to mention the
> guys who forget about visual separation in the presence of a tower
> controller. See:
>
> << http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021120X05496&key=1 >>
>
There's a LOT of guys are IFR all the time (... there's no visual reference to
the horizon when you've got your head up your ass ... :o)
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
>
>OK, I have the overvoltage module now....
>
>1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I
>can wire this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the
>alternator switch and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator.
>Is this correct?
Essentially. You can wire the OVM into the system at any convenient
place DOWNSTREAM of the circuit breaker that supplies either field
excitation power (external regulator) or alternator control power
(internally regulated).
>2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit
>breaker? Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another
>reason why I would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
Yes, to allow resetting for nuisance trips. OBAM aircraft
are famous for situations that might trigger the OV module.
Eventually, we track them down and fix them. If it were
my airplane, the 5A breaker for OVM system would be on
the panel as shown in all of the switch panel layouts
we've published.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
>
>My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to the
>alternator field on an over voltage condition as determined by the OV
>module (crowbar). When the OV module "sees" voltage rise on the
>alternator field supply wire above a preset level and for a specific
>time interval as determined by the OV module, the controlling transistor
>gates the SCR on(both components are in the OV module), providing a dead
>short between the alternator field supply line and ground, or the same
>thing as would happen if this wire were to short to a rib- the breaker
>pops, removing voltage from the alternator and eliminating the source of
>the OV condition, and also dumping the inductive spike from the
>alternator windings harmlessly to ground- I may not have explained it
>quite right, but the concept is pure brilliance and you have the
>honorable Mr. Knuckolls to thank! I don't have the book open before me,
>but the wiring you suggest sounds correct. I believe the feed for the
>OV module can be connected direct to the downstream side of the circuit
>breaker.
Your understanding is correct. I stole the idea from
the design of power supplies for large main-frame computers
common to the 80's . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
>
> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
>Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
>shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
>kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
>alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
>voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
>power internally to the alternator itself.
Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
different in the way that the OVM tames a runaway alternator.
For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead
contactor is not necessary.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
wrote:
>> sooner or
>> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
>> hocus pocus.
>
>That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
>following. A bit of a leap IMO.
Actually, the "sooner or later" only presupposes that *two* unlucky guys
opt for no flight following. Not many of my buddies us FF to hop over
the hill to HMB, but if they have their GPS onboard, they'll usually
dial in that VOR for the crossing, and "see how close we can nail the
VOR". Argh. BTW, all my comments have been related to VFR pilotage.
>Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
>no
>radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
What is 'shrill' and far fetched in your area sure isn't in mine.
>You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
>defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
>and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
>under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
>departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
>Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
>training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
>off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
>quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)?
Noooo, no, the example certainly wasn't a 'high speed intercept'; all
you have to be doing is maintaining an intercept *course* with the aid
of accurate positioning and knowledge of location. No high-speed
airframe required. If the target is moving along a predictable
straight-line and you have the time to position yourself, I doubt an
intercept of that sort would be difficult at all. But whatever, it was,
as you're wont to say, 'just a theory' :); I wouldn't have believed we'd
see 9/11 and airliners slicing thru skyscrapers, either.
Gar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | SL40 & Flightcom 403 |
I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
1. Avionics Ground
2. Transmit audio
3. Receive audio
4. Transmit Keyline
The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
diagram.
Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks. The
SL40 also
shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
be wired to these
as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
the 4 wires above
and you're done)?
Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
deciphering
these wiring diagrams.
Steve
RV7A
panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: List management |
In a message dated 12/2/02 5:53:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sladerj(at)bellsouth.net writes:
snip<< I do not agree with the fund raising concept simply because this list
is a commercial enterprise, every message has links to your aviation related
business, and you use the list as a sales tool. >>
This is total BS! Hopefully several of those listers more eloquent than I
will address this nonsense with a lot more words. I personally have little
patience with people who are not willing to cough up a few bucks to support
Matt's efforts to maintain and improve upon a communications medium that has
been so valuable to so many builders.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical (still)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
What I would consider would be one of George Braly@GAMI's alternators.
He is soon to be offering a 35A pad mounted device that weighs 6#'s and
is FULLY self-exciting. It is called the Supplenator It comes with a
little 2" round gauge mount control unit (PDU) that give you some
diagnostic info and allows you to shed loads. It is set up to power 3
busses, the ignition bus (designed primarily for his PRISM system, but
would work for any electronic ignition in the 5A range), then an ESS
bus, and then a normal bus. The PDU sheds the load of the normal bus
first, just holding the ESS and IGN busses on. If this still isn't
enough, it will shed the ESS buss too and just power the IGN buss. This
shouldn't be a problem, because no ones ESS buss should get anywhere
close to the 35A limit. Therefore, you could literally throw your
battery overboard and still fly home with the Supplenator.
I've just about finalized the last details of my electrical system, and
when I do, I will let everyone know. My plan at this point is 3
alternators, one Kelly 70A/14VDC unit up front belt driven with the
supercharger to power the PRI buss. If you recall, Kelly is also making
a 70A/14VDC pad mount, which I was considering for use as my AUX.
However, I'm concerned about this unit a bit, especially when it will be
powering my AUX/ESS buss, so I've decided to go with a 35A/14VDC 6#
Supplenator on the pad to power my AUX/ESS buss. Since the 35 amps
won't be enough to power my A/C system, I plan to add another
Supplenator, without the PDU (self exciting features and load sheding),
running at 28VDC to power just the A/C system. Switching the
Supplenator to 28VDC is as simple as moving a jumper. The regulator is
also built into the unit, which is another cost savings, as well as a
noise consideration (the field trace is about 0.75" long instead of 6').
Anyway, my point was to check out the Supplenator from GAMI. I think
you'll find its features useful for a electrically dependent engine.
http://www.gami.com
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Stucklen
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming
there is
enough energy left in the battery).
With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary
battery,
when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never
looses
power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building.
Once the
engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the
batteries
(both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting
off either or
both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown,
once running,
is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under
voltage
detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring
during
the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a
LOT
of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss
voltage down to 9 Volts
or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff
Rose system,
but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes
misfire, under
this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's
always isolated
from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the
proper power
to the electronic ignition modules.
I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single
electonic ignition
and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last
10 years (Slick).
I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the
master, leaving
the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's
why we design
in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will
cause a flight mishap).
I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition.
The engine never
sputtered....
This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
working on the new RV-6A
From: "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: "John"
This is just for the archives
There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the
need/wisdom of
dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in
RV's
. Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only
draw
about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far
longer in
flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not
be
necessary.
I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short
in
the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation
where
the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the
ignitions
systems.
With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to
drop
out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from
the
electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to
one of
the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going
to
my GPS-NavAid system.
I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is
such a
remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
shaft or cam shaft failure.
This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or
so
the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
battery.
FWIW
John at Salida, CO
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My other life . . . |
I know that you are simply supplying the customer with what he wants... But,
there are way too many failure points in a last chance device that
complicated...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: My other life . . .
>
> I haven't been ignoring you folks, just tied up in the
> final efforts to check out and install a recovery parachute
> controller on our experimental flight test Premier.
>
> The chute is launched with explosive devices triggered
> in sequence by applying a 5A constant current source to
> each initiator bridge-wire in turn. There are redundant
> channels of command and control that blow off the tail cone
> fairing, cut the static pressure trailing cone from
> the top of the vertical fin, drive a locking pin into
> the lanyard post to attache the 'chute to the airplane
> and finally, trigger separate bridge-wires in each of
> two initiators that ignite the charge to launch the chute.
>
> The chute is cut away from the airplane by separate
> initiators that drive a cutter through the lanyard. The
> system contains a total of 16 bridge-wires, each of which
> has it's own firing relay.
>
> I've published a few pictures of this system at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp2
>
> I've finished the bench testing and will box it all
> up for a trip out to the experimental flight hangar to
> install it in the airplane and test it some more.
>
> Should be finished with the installation today so
> I can get back to "fun" things here at home. Will try
> to catch up on AeroElectric-List things this weekend.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
Bob and others:
>> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
>> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
>>Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
>>shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
>>kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
>>alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
>>voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
>>power internally to the alternator itself.
>
> Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
> different in the way that the OVM tames a runaway alternator.
> For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead
> contactor is not necessary.
I don't understand the statement that "For internally regulated machines,
the external B-lead contactor is not necessary." I'm looking at the diagram
that comes with the OVM and it clearly shows an "alternator disconnect
contactor" in the "typical wiring for internal regulator" section. I've just
installed said regulator (S701-1). Is it really not necessary, or what is it
I'm not understanding here?
TIA for explaining
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
>>1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I
>>can wire this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the
>>alternator switch and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator.
>>Is this correct?
>
> Essentially. You can wire the OVM into the system at any convenient
> place DOWNSTREAM of the circuit breaker that supplies either field
> excitation power (external regulator) or alternator control power
> (internally regulated).
>
>>2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit
>>breaker? Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another
>>reason why I would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
>
> Yes, to allow resetting for nuisance trips. OBAM aircraft
> are famous for situations that might trigger the OV module.
> Eventually, we track them down and fix them. If it were
> my airplane, the 5A breaker for OVM system would be on
> the panel as shown in all of the switch panel layouts
> we've published.
Well, this is something else I'm not understanding completely. I'm using an
internally regulated alternator in a Z-11 system with over voltage
protection. The 5A fuse shown should be a switch/breaker mounted on the
panel? Does it still come off the fuseblock main bus? Is it fused at the
bus?
I'm sure these are basic questions, but I'll appreciate any help I can get.
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hartmann <hartmann(at)sound.net> |
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified |
GPS
> When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's
job.
>For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
>choice in hard IFR.
Dan,
You've made some very good points. Here's some more perspective from one
controller's point of view.
My responsibility for separation, as an enroute controller, is strictly
IFR/IFR. Regardless of weather conditions, I do NOT have any
responsibility to provide separation between ANY VFR aircraft that may be
on my frequency for flight following from any other aircraft, and I do NOT
have any responsibility to separate an IFR aircraft from any other non-IFR
aircraft.
When IFR you get traffic advisories, workload permitting (a VERY low
priority), on identified VFR traffic and that fraction of non-identified
traffic that may show up on radar. When VFR getting flight following you
get traffic advisories, workload permitting (on an even lower priority
basis), on identified IFR and VFR and the small fraction of non-identified
traffic that shows up on radar. IFR or VFR, the closest thing you get to
separation from VFR traffic, identified or otherwise is a safety alert and
a recommended resolution if, in the controller's judgement the two aircraft
involved are so close to each other as to be unsafe.
In class B airspace it is a little different. Separation is provided
between all aircraft legitimately in the airspace, whether IFR or VFR.
There are still a handful of pilots who just can't seem to figure out how
to stay out of what used to be the TCA, and the controllers can't see them
all. Class A is similar in that there shouldn't be any non-IFR, and
therefore non-separated aircraft in the airspace. And yet, I've had
unidentified non-IFR traffic reported to me in the flight levels. I've
even had pilots try to cancel IFR while still in class A airspace.
Hypoxia, I guess.
I've called a lot of "VFR" traffic to IFR aircraft operating in solid IMC
and I've had a lot of traffic reported that just doesn't show up on radar.
No transponder - no target. Transponder off - no target. Low altitude -
no target. Aircraft manuvering at constant distance from my antenna within
the MTI (Moving Target Indicator) gate - no target. Significant precip
between the antenna and the aircraft - no target. Temperature inversion -
lots of targets, most of them false - way too many to call as traffic.
Your best, almost only hope of being tracked on our radar is a functional
transponder. Not all pilots/owners take this seriously. How about the guy
in that other aircraft closing on you from out of the sun at 10 O'clock?
You have windows/canopies. Look outside. Take pride in spotting traffic
before it is called, and note how many other aircraft you see when you
really look for them. They ARE out there. While controllers have
responsibility for separation in some situations, pilots always have the
ultimate responsibility for the safety of a flight, which includes the
responsibility to avoid a collision.
Finally I get to the issue I have with GPSs, handheld or otherwise, which
is where this discussion began. A pilot fiddling around with a GPS in
flight, or doing anything else that requires more than an infrequent quick
second or two of heads down time, is the aeronautical equivalent of the
minivan driver with a cell phone glued to the side of his head. Something
you shouldn't want to be and certainly hope to avoid getting too close to.
- Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
| Subject: | Over voltage and battery management module |
Hi Bob,
I think you were planning on producing this. Is this available yet and if so where
can I get one?
Keep up the excellent work.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
On the F1 Rocket, the battery, ELT, and battery solenoid are installed
in the baggage area under a panel. My TruTrak autopilot servo for the
elevator is also installed here. I would also like to install my
strobe power unit and the relays/speed controller for my MAC servos in
the same area for access reasons. Do you see any problem with having
this mix of electrical components within close proximity of one
another? Should I separate the wiring runs in any way? I have the
following wire bundles into and out of this location:
1) Battery cables (positive and negative)
2) Strobe power and two strobe output bundles
3) Autopilot servo bundle
4) Trim motor bundle into and out of the controller and relay
As always, your advice is greatly appreciated.
Randy Pflanzer
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Question |
>
>Bob,
>
>On the F1 Rocket, the battery, ELT, and battery solenoid are installed
>in the baggage area under a panel. My TruTrak autopilot servo for the
>elevator is also installed here. I would also like to install my
>strobe power unit and the relays/speed controller for my MAC servos in
>the same area for access reasons. Do you see any problem with having
>this mix of electrical components within close proximity of one
>another? Should I separate the wiring runs in any way? I have the
>following wire bundles into and out of this location:
>1) Battery cables (positive and negative)
>2) Strobe power and two strobe output bundles
>3) Autopilot servo bundle
>4) Trim motor bundle into and out of the controller and relay
>
>As always, your advice is greatly appreciated.
No special problems to be anticipated here. All these
things should live happily together.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
><robert@thenews-journal.com>
>
>Bob and others:
>
>
> >> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> >> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
> >>Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
> >>shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
> >>kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
> >>alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
> >>voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
> >>power internally to the alternator itself.
> >
> > Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
> > different in the way that the OVM tames a runaway alternator.
> > For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead
> > contactor is not necessary.
>
>I don't understand the statement that "For internally regulated machines,
>the external B-lead contactor is not necessary." I'm looking at the diagram
>that comes with the OVM and it clearly shows an "alternator disconnect
>contactor" in the "typical wiring for internal regulator" section. I've just
>installed said regulator (S701-1). Is it really not necessary, or what is it
>I'm not understanding here?
There are two wiring diagrams for the OVM . . . page 2 of the instructions
shows a typical installation for externally regulated alternators, page
3 is for internally regulated alternators.
Bob .. .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My other life . . . |
>
>
>I know that you are simply supplying the customer with what he wants... But,
>there are way too many failure points in a last chance device that
>complicated...
That's why the total of 16 initiators are split into two
sets of 8, each system is capable of launching the chute.
Each system has its own ship's power source backed up by
its own battery internally. Each system has its own set
of wire bundles. Both systems get full up continuity
testing of each initiator circuit, output from the constant
current generators is checked and each battery is load
tested with a preflight test fixture that takes a line technician
about 30 seconds to conduct before the door is closed on
the airplane.
So it's two, independent systems running side by side
that get preflight checked. The system Dean and I put
together has about 10% of the parts count of the system
we replaced. I don't recall the exact numbers (the study
was done a couple of years ago on an earlier installation
of this same system) but the reliability guys blessed
it as adequate to the task.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Fire detection circuit |
Bob,
I'm attempting to design a fire detection sensor/circuit.
My design consists of a closed loop LED with a 500 or so ohm current
limiting resistor. I would short the resistor between the led and the
resistor through the thermal fuse to ground. I believe this would reduce the
amps suffiently to the led to keep it turned off. When the fuse melts the
led would turn on.
Would this shorting scheme work ?
Peter Laurence
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My other life . . . |
OK Bob, I feel better about it now... And I know you have enough scars on
your hide to make sure that there is no single failure that can shut down
both redundant systems..
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: My other life . . .
>
> >
> >
> >I know that you are simply supplying the customer with what he wants...
But,
> >there are way too many failure points in a last chance device that
> >complicated...
>
> That's why the total of 16 initiators are split into two
> sets of 8, each system is capable of launching the chute.
> Each system has its own ship's power source backed up by
> its own battery internally. Each system has its own set
> of wire bundles. Both systems get full up continuity
> testing of each initiator circuit, output from the constant
> current generators is checked and each battery is load
> tested with a preflight test fixture that takes a line technician
> about 30 seconds to conduct before the door is closed on
> the airplane.
>
> So it's two, independent systems running side by side
> that get preflight checked. The system Dean and I put
> together has about 10% of the parts count of the system
> we replaced. I don't recall the exact numbers (the study
> was done a couple of years ago on an earlier installation
> of this same system) but the reliability guys blessed
> it as adequate to the task.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Question |
Bob, to expand this question a step further, if say for weight and
balance purposes, could all the things listed below be moved to the
firewall, without causing problems with radios and instruments?
Barry Pote RV9a
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >On the F1 Rocket, the battery, ELT, and battery solenoid are installed
> >in the baggage area under a panel. My TruTrak autopilot servo for the
> >elevator is also installed here. I would also like to install my
> >strobe power unit and the relays/speed controller for my MAC servos in
> >the same area for access reasons. Do you see any problem with having
> >this mix of electrical components within close proximity of one
> >another? Should I separate the wiring runs in any way? I have the
> >following wire bundles into and out of this location:
>
> >1) Battery cables (positive and negative)
> >2) Strobe power and two strobe output bundles
> >3) Autopilot servo bundle
> >4) Trim motor bundle into and out of the controller and relay
> >
>
> No special problems to be anticipated here. All these
> things should live happily together.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wallace Enga <wenga(at)svtv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
> I don't understand the statement that "For internally regulated
machines, the external B-lead contactor is not necessary."
> I'm looking at the diagram that comes with the OVM and it clearly shows
an "alternator disconnect contactor"
> in the "typical wiring for internal regulator" section. I've just
installed said regulator (S701-1).
> Is it really not necessary, or what is it I'm not understanding here?
> TIA for explaining
> Robert Dickson
> RV-6A electrical
I think the way Bob has explained it here before, that it is just the
opposite ---
"For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead contactor is
necessary."
The way I understand it is that modern alternators with a control lead
going to the internal regulator,
have possible failure modes resulting in a runaway over voltage condition
even with the
control lead (field) disconnected. A sort of self induced excitation
condition (Sounds kind of obscene).
The over voltage condition results in the OVM shorting the control lead
(field) to ground which trips
it's 5 amp supply breaker. This also removes power to the alternator
disconnect contactor, isolating
the alternator output from the electrical system.
As a side note, all the Boeing series I have flown B707, B727, B757 and
B747 had a procedure
that after a generator fault and the Generator Breaker and Field had been
opened --- then the
Constant Speed Drive (CSD) was also disconnected from the engine to prevent
the generator from even turning.
Might be hard to duplicate that feature here though. Maybe an auto
alternator belt cutter :)
Wally Enga
RV7 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator question |
The Ford alternator in our Cardinal has three terminals surrounded by a
plastic insulator and two studs attached directly to the case. One of the
insulated terminals is the field, the second is the output (bat). The
airframe ground and the shields from the other wires are connected to one of
the studs on the case.
The question is what is the third insulated terminal for?
Thanks,
Andrew
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I am contemplating the design of a non-microprocessor fuel-quantity linearizer
and need to know what volt/current the gauges (of various manufacturers) require
for a reading of Full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/1, and empty. Does anyone use a 4-20 mA
system?
In my proposed system, you'd fill the fuel tank to a certain capacity and set the
meter to read right, etc.
Thanks,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
Eric,
If you would like to do a microprocessor version, please feel free. Even
though I volunteered to do it, I can find plenty of other things to keep
myself busy.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> I am contemplating the design of a non-microprocessor fuel-quantity
linearizer and need to know what volt/current the gauges (of various
manufacturers) require for a reading of Full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/1, and empty.
Does anyone use a 4-20 mA system?
>
> In my proposed system, you'd fill the fuel tank to a certain capacity and
set the meter to read right, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric M. Jones
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
><robert@thenews-journal.com>
>
>
> >>1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I
> >>can wire this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the
> >>alternator switch and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator.
> >>Is this correct?
> >
> > Essentially. You can wire the OVM into the system at any convenient
> > place DOWNSTREAM of the circuit breaker that supplies either field
> > excitation power (external regulator) or alternator control power
> > (internally regulated).
> >
> >>2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit
> >>breaker? Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another
> >>reason why I would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
> >
> > Yes, to allow resetting for nuisance trips. OBAM aircraft
> > are famous for situations that might trigger the OV module.
> > Eventually, we track them down and fix them. If it were
> > my airplane, the 5A breaker for OVM system would be on
> > the panel as shown in all of the switch panel layouts
> > we've published.
>
>
>Well, this is something else I'm not understanding completely. I'm using an
>internally regulated alternator in a Z-11 system with over voltage
>protection. The 5A fuse shown should be a switch/breaker mounted on the
>panel? Does it still come off the fuseblock main bus? Is it fused at the
>bus?
>I'm sure these are basic questions, but I'll appreciate any help I can get.
Figure Z-24 describes the difference wiring for internally regulated
alternators. I recommend a 22AWG fusible link at the bus to bring power
up to the DC PWR MASTER switch and then on to a 5A breaker. The ov
module is shown connected to the downstream side of the breaker.
The fusible link is just to protect the "extended bus" up to the
5A breaker . . . and do it in a way that will not nuisance trip
when the ov module trips the breaker. It's difficult to do this
with a straight fuse because fuses are so much faster than breakers.
Our early suggestions used one of the fuse slots on the block to
provide an alternator field feed. Had several builders take the
fuse up to 20A to find one that would stay closed long enough
to open a 5A breaker in series with it. This was the situation that
prompted us to look at the fusible link alternative.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Question |
>
>Bob, to expand this question a step further, if say for weight and
>balance purposes, could all the things listed below be moved to the
>firewall, without causing problems with radios and instruments?
Sure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My other life . . . |
>
>Is the chute for spin testing or something??? Or brake failure?
These are for use in flight. The first systems I put
in Premier and Horizon had two different chutes. One
was about 4-5 feet in diameter and intended for use
to recover from mach-tuck events. The larger one
was about 8' in diameter and used for deep stall and
spin recovery.
The system I'm finishing up in Premier tomorrow is
a single, large canopy for slow speed work only.
I'll try to track down the video of the in-flight
deployments on Horizon and see if I can get a
copy of it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Question |
Hi Bob,
I have found a web site that offers the Odyssy PC-680 battery for $74.69.
They sell many of the other Odyssey line part numbers as well at simular
pricing.
Their site is;
http://www.sunnbattery.com/category.html?UCIDs=1209500
The van's catalog lists the PC-680 @ $160.00
I am considering the PC-680, or the PC-625 over the PC-545 because of the
summer winter weather and temperature range in this area just North of the
Canadian USA. border and near the West coast. Nearly semi arid dessert with
long hot summers and short but moderately cold winters.
I am thinking that the extra weight of one of these two units is a small
penalty ( about two to three pounds) to pay for what seems to be a bit of
extra punch and or or endurance. That is of course if I am interpreting the
spec sheet for the PC-545, PC-625 and PC-680 correctly. Is there reason to
choose one over the others for My O-360-A1A C/S with a Toyota starter
conversion.
After a number of hours on the net I have not found any lower pricing
anywhere else and thought I would pass it along and also ask the above
question at one and the same time.
And a question for others on the list; Does anyone else have info (pro or
con) about this particular company?
Thanks,
Jim in Kelowna - The only thing that arrives on the scene faster that a good
idea is an opinion as to how wrong it is. :)!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE:alt stator connector |
The third insulated terminal on a Ford alt. is the stator connector. Ford
only used a wire there when a factory ammeter was used.
Steve
Springfield Auto Parts Co., Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Eric M. Jones"
:
Envoy : mercredi 4 dcembre 2002 00:45
Objet : AeroElectric-List: Fuel Gauges
>
> I am contemplating the design of a non-microprocessor fuel-quantity
linearizer and need to know what volt/current the gauges (of various
manufacturers) require for a reading of Full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/1, and empty.
Does anyone use a 4-20 mA system?
>
> In my proposed system, you'd fill the fuel tank to a certain capacity and
set the meter to read right, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric M. Jones
>
Eric,
What about 240/33 ohm empty to full fuel level senders, with UMA 12 V
indicators ?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE:alt stator connector |
KahnSG(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> The third insulated terminal on a Ford alt. is the stator connector. Ford
> only used a wire there when a factory ammeter was used.
Wait a minute. Have I missed something here? Which Ford regulator are we
talking about? I am using the unit out of '85 - '90 models which I believe
is the solid state version of the unit that goes all the way back to the
early 70s. Where are we counting from? I understood that the two middle
terminals on the Ford regulator were to be shunted together and connected to
the field. It seemed to work really well. I've forgotten exactly how the
terminals on mine were labeled. I'll check.
Jim S.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Alternators and batteries |
As I broaden my knowledge, other questions pop up. So here are a few that I
know someone might answer for me.
My understanding is that anything above 13 volts will charge a battery. If
an alternator spits out 'x' amount of amps at 13.8+ volts, what happens
when the battery gets fully charged, by the alternator? As an example, if I
have a 20 amp alternator, and am only using 7 amps in all circuits, I would
think that eventually the battery gets fully charged. Where does the other
13 amps go after the battery gets charged? Because it is only for a few
hours, the battery gets overcharged, and thats ok?
On the other had, is I have a 20 amp alternator spitting out 13.8 volts, and
my system uses 25 amps, the other amps are being sucked out of the battery
so the overall system will not see 13.8 volts, and thus the battery slowly
drains?
This all leads to what size alternator I should get. Once I determine all
my requirements and add up the amp usage, how much over should I allow.
Again, I assume that anything above usage gets stored in the battery.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternators and batteries |
Never mind. After send this e-mail, I figured that Bob's book would explain
it. Sure enough, I walked right up to Bob's book and found the answer. I
was miising the "regulator" and what it's purpose was.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Alternators and batteries |
There is a range of voltage for which the battery will take
a charge. Higher means faster, lower means slower. The
regulator should be set to a voltage where the battery takes
on a reasonable charge, but isn't getting boiled. Once the
battery is fully charged, if the charging system continued
to produce the same amount of current, the voltage would rise.
Instead of this happening, the regulator senses this increase
in voltage, and reduces the output current of the alternator
by lowering the field current. This stabilizes the bus voltage
and keeps everything happy.
Your conclusion about what happens when the demands on the
system are greater than what the alternator can supply are
correct. The battery takes up the slack until the demand is
reduced, or the battery is dead.
The way to size the alternator is to make a list of all of the
components in the airplane that use power, find the current/
wattage used by each device and total it up. This is your max
current requirement. When choosing an alternator, you can sort
of ignore the momentary consumers of power, like the starter,
and maybe gear and flap motors. Because they are used infrequently,
they use a small amount of the total energy required for an average
flight.
However, the momentary consumers should be taken into account
when selecting the battery system. You need a battery big
enough (enough cranking amps) to spin the starter adequately
for several start attempts, and maybe to get the flaps down
during preflight. You also don't want the bus voltage to dip
too low when you lower the flaps when (if) you have the landing/
nav/strobe lights on.
The other thing to take into account on battery size is what
your minimum energy requirements are in order to complete a
flight (with full fuel) should you have a charging system
failure early in a flight. This will determine how man Ah
(Amp-hours) the battery needs. If you haul 5 hours of fuel,
and your continues current requirement is 10A, you would need
a 50Ah (plus a little) battery to complete the flight.
I'm not sure operationally whether I would continue a long
night cross country after a charging system failure if I had
any convenient options available for a place to land. However,
this is a good way to select the components, and knowing that
the power was there would be comforting for normal flights and
certainly a safety factor when the chips are down.
Do you have Bob Nuckolls' book?
Regards,
Matt Prather
N34RD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2002 11:13 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternators and batteries
>
> As I broaden my knowledge, other questions pop up. So here are a
> few that I
> know someone might answer for me.
>
> My understanding is that anything above 13 volts will charge a
> battery. If
> an alternator spits out 'x' amount of amps at 13.8+ volts, what
> happenswhen the battery gets fully charged, by the alternator? As
> an example, if I
> have a 20 amp alternator, and am only using 7 amps in all circuits,
> I would
> think that eventually the battery gets fully charged. Where does
> the other
> 13 amps go after the battery gets charged? Because it is only for
> a few
> hours, the battery gets overcharged, and thats ok?
>
>
> On the other had, is I have a 20 amp alternator spitting out 13.8
> volts, and
> my system uses 25 amps, the other amps are being sucked out of the
> batteryso the overall system will not see 13.8 volts, and thus the
> battery slowly
> drains?
>
> This all leads to what size alternator I should get. Once I
> determine all
> my requirements and add up the amp usage, how much over should I
> allow.Again, I assume that anything above usage gets stored in the
> battery.
>
> Bob
>
>
> _-
>
> _-> _-
>
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-!! NEWish
!!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-List Related
Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
In order to save on firewall piercings, I would like to bundle several
wires from the engine compartment to pass through the firewall. Is there
any problem (considering noise, interference, etc.) bundling the
following wires together?
Mag (shielded cable)
Electric Ign. power wire
Oil Pressure switch line
GPS Antenna Cable
Main Alternator feed
Standby alternator feed
I am also considering bundling the Main and Standby Alternator leads
together and/or bundling them with the above listed wires.
Any comments, pro or con?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical failure |
I thought some of you might be interested in reading this;
total electrical failure of a U-2:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/military.cfm?ContentBlockID=6793
R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: U2 Electrical failure |
>
>I thought some of you might be interested in reading this;
>total electrical failure of a U-2:
>http://www.aero-news.net/news/military.cfm?ContentBlockID=6793
>R
Interesting reading but typical of most stories
of this genre . . . it doesn't give us any details
of what happened, why it happened and what they
propose to do to keep it from happening again.
Given the missions and payloads this bird has flown
for the last 40+ years, I'm very surprised that
a system with this opportunity for maturity
can still come so close to wiping out aircraft
and crew.
Of course, we only have the reporters
interpretation of the story to go on . . . but
I am mystified by the description of systems dropping
off line one-by-one like leaves off a tree. I can
imagine only one failure mode that would produce
that behavior.
I think perhaps the engine driven power
source(s) went down unannounced. The ship
was flying battery only and as the voltage sagged
below minimum levels for each system's operability.
the affected system would drop off line. This means
that by the time the first system malfunctioned, the
battery was already mostly used up so it's perhaps
not surprising that when the battery switch was
turned on for the approach to landing, there was
nothing left.
Hmmm . . . the U2 was designed about 1955, do you
suppose it was done by guys who graduated from the same
school as those who designed the CePiMoBecraft
class of airplane? The technology was available to
put active notification of low voltage in the
first airplanes to get generators.
I designed a low-voltage warning module for somebody
while working at ElectroMech about 1978. I don't remember
who asked for it, I think it was Beech. I don't recall
that it went into volume production production so we
missed another opportunity to get the "magic light"
into certified ships. Maybe I should send those
U2 mechanics a copy of chapter 17.
As folks read these kinds of stories,
it's difficult avoid identifying with the crew's
harrowing experience and allowing resulting
emotions to drive design decisions on our little
airplanes in ill-conceived ways.
Found a few interesting links on this airplane.
http://www.bubbasoft.com/military/U2.htm
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ColdWar/Arms/u2.html
http://www.aviation-central.com/1946-1970/afka0.htm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Re: U2 Electrical failure |
Bob,
One time about 1979 I was flying a Seneca IFR - - winter over the Rockies
going into Idaho from Tulsa.
Full stack of then SOTA King digital equipment.
Cabin heater quit.
About 20 minutes later, the King radio displays started to shut down - - -
one at a time.
Until all of the nice bright little orange digits had just ... poof!
Disappeared.
I dispatched a guy in the back to crawl over into the baggage area and find
the re-set button for the cabin heater.
Got the heat back.
About 20 minutes later, all of the SOTA King digital stack came back to
life.... in the reverse order.
A while later, the cabin heater quit again. Guess what ?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: U2 Electrical failure
>
>I thought some of you might be interested in reading this;
>total electrical failure of a U-2:
>http://www.aero-news.net/news/military.cfm?ContentBlockID=6793
>R
Interesting reading but typical of most stories
of this genre . . . it doesn't give us any details
of what happened, why it happened and what they
propose to do to keep it from happening again.
Given the missions and payloads this bird has flown
for the last 40+ years, I'm very surprised that
a system with this opportunity for maturity
can still come so close to wiping out aircraft
and crew.
Of course, we only have the reporters
interpretation of the story to go on . . . but
I am mystified by the description of systems dropping
off line one-by-one like leaves off a tree. I can
imagine only one failure mode that would produce
that behavior.
I think perhaps the engine driven power
source(s) went down unannounced. The ship
was flying battery only and as the voltage sagged
below minimum levels for each system's operability.
the affected system would drop off line. This means
that by the time the first system malfunctioned, the
battery was already mostly used up so it's perhaps
not surprising that when the battery switch was
turned on for the approach to landing, there was
nothing left.
Hmmm . . . the U2 was designed about 1955, do you
suppose it was done by guys who graduated from the same
school as those who designed the CePiMoBecraft
class of airplane? The technology was available to
put active notification of low voltage in the
first airplanes to get generators.
I designed a low-voltage warning module for somebody
while working at ElectroMech about 1978. I don't remember
who asked for it, I think it was Beech. I don't recall
that it went into volume production production so we
missed another opportunity to get the "magic light"
into certified ships. Maybe I should send those
U2 mechanics a copy of chapter 17.
As folks read these kinds of stories,
it's difficult avoid identifying with the crew's
harrowing experience and allowing resulting
emotions to drive design decisions on our little
airplanes in ill-conceived ways.
Found a few interesting links on this airplane.
http://www.bubbasoft.com/military/U2.htm
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ColdWar/Arms/u2.html
http://www.aviation-central.com/1946-1970/afka0.htm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: U2 Electrical failure |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >
> >I thought some of you might be interested in reading this;
> >total electrical failure of a U-2:
> >http://www.aero-news.net/news/military.cfm?ContentBlockID=6793
> >R
>
> Interesting reading but typical of most stories
> of this genre . . . it doesn't give us any details
> of what happened, why it happened and what they
> propose to do to keep it from happening again.
> Given the missions and payloads this bird has flown
> for the last 40+ years, I'm very surprised that
> a system with this opportunity for maturity
> can still come so close to wiping out aircraft
> and crew.
About this time last year a B-1 launching out of Diego Garcia for a mission in
Afghanistan
had a similar thing. Not only electrical stuff and instruments failing, but engines
dropping
off line. Crew ejected below 10k ft from airplane that was inverted, flamed out
and totally
ballistic. No controls.
Our tax dollars at work .... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: U2 Electrical failure |
Great idea, Bob. Do it.
R
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
-----snip-----
> Maybe I should send those U2 mechanics a copy of chapter 17.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: U2 Electrical failure |
> Hmmm . . . the U2 was designed about 1955, do you
> suppose it was done by guys who graduated from the same
> school as those who designed the CePiMoBecraft
> class of airplane? The technology was available to
> put active notification of low voltage in the
> first airplanes to get generators.
Probably was.
Company newspaper says they are upgrading the systems
in a bunch of the U2's. The pictures look great,
3 MFD's and all modern looking stuff. Don't know
how many they are doing tho.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Narco Mk. 12E pinout, etc |
>
>
>Could anyone supply me a pin out for a Narco Mark12E
See
http://216.55.140.222/temp/MK12E.pdf
> and King marker beacon receiver KMA 24?
See
http://216.55.140.222/temp/KMA24.pdf
> Also, does the Mk. 12E work with a KI209
>or a KI225 indicator?
Don't have info on these. Sorry.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <jpkarnes(at)charter.net> |
List-
I've tried to contact Bob N. several times and have gotten no response. Has
anyone communicated with Bob lately?
John Karnes
Zenith 601 HDS
Bremerton, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring bundle |
I have the same sort of bundle in my MustangII for 11 years; no radio noise
or electrical problems. An occasional bad landing, but don't think I can
blame the bundle for those.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brame" <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring bundle
>
> In order to save on firewall piercings, I would like to bundle several
> wires from the engine compartment to pass through the firewall. Is there
> any problem (considering noise, interference, etc.) bundling the
> following wires together?
>
> Mag (shielded cable)
> Electric Ign. power wire
> Oil Pressure switch line
> GPS Antenna Cable
> Main Alternator feed
> Standby alternator feed
>
> I am also considering bundling the Main and Standby Alternator leads
> together and/or bundling them with the above listed wires.
>
> Any comments, pro or con?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
> San Antonio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com> |
Looking for suggestions on how to and what kind of wire to use to wire the PTT's
on the sticks of my RV-7. Any tricks to providing for the slack at the bottom
of the sticks to allow movement without interference or fatiguing the wire?
Thanks,
Neil McLeod
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
> by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> shorted cell.,
Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone have any
ideas?
> thanks joe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
Does it only do it when you turn on the alternator switch? Do you have a
variable voltage power supply that you could use to bench test the voltage
regulator?
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
> > by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> > Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> >only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> > cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> > shorted cell.,
> Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone
have any ideas?
> > thanks joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
Do you have an AC battery charger? Have you tried to charge the
battery? Do you have a voltmeter. With everything turned off, what
voltage do you see across the battery. If you have a shorted cell, I
believe the battery will show about 1.2V below what a normal battery
shows. Is it a flooded cell battery?
I believe that the only time the OV module trips is when the voltage
across it is above the setpoint. A shorted cell shouldn't cause this
overvoltage condition. I believe you need to look elsewhere. It sounds
like either a bad regulator, a bad OV module, or possibly, low voltage
to the sense lead for the regulator (a resistive connection) Or maybe a
bad ground to the regulator. If the regulator can't see the full
voltage of
the system, it will attempt increase the output of the alternator. Once it
has increased the output of the alternator above the trip point for the OV
module, it gets shut down.
Not sure if that helps.
Matt Prather
N34RD
Joe and Carole Tuminello wrote:
>
>I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
>
>
>>by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
>>Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
>>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
>>cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
>>shorted cell.,
>>
>>
>Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone have
any ideas?
>
>
>>thanks joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dead Sealed Battery |
| From: | villi.seemann(at)nordea.com |
10-12-2002 14:11:04,
Itemize by SMTP Server on THOR/Unibank_Ext02(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000)
at
10-12-2002 14:09:40,
Serialize by Router on THOR/Unibank_Ext02(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000)
at
10-12-2002 14:09:55,
Serialize complete at 10-12-2002 14:09:55
Dear Bob
I have a sealed, and presumeably gelled, battery. Idle voltage is 13.2 V.
If I load it with the slightest load i.e. 12V/1W lamp the voltage drops to
nothing within 10-15 secs.
Two-three minutes later it again shows 13.2 volts. (exercise repeatet
several times)
The battery will not take any charge for more than a couple of seconds,
neither at 14.8 volts or at 28 for that matter.
Have you heard of similar problems with sealed batteries, and do you know
what the cause is.
Do you beleive a pulsed desulfator could bring it back to life, or should I
just scrap it ?
Regards
Villi H. Seemann
Senior Engineer
Infrastructure Network
Phone (+45) 3333 2101
FAX (+45) 3333 1130
CellPhn (+45)2220 7690
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
Neil
Use a good quality switch, 22ga wire and place a small connector that will
fit in the control tube. Try a Dean's connector. This is used for radio
control models and can be purchased at Tower Hobbies.
Peter
> Looking for suggestions on how to and what kind of wire to use to wire the
PTT's on the sticks of my RV-7. Any tricks to providing for the slack at the
bottom of the sticks to allow movement without interference or fatiguing the
wire?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil McLeod
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <jpkarnes(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
Resest it and it does it again and again.
Joe-
I am having the same problem. I wrote Bob and he said that the older OV
modules are causing "nuisance trips" and to send the OV module to him for
replacement.
John Karnes
Zenith 601 HDS
Bremerton, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com> |
Thanks for the reply Peter, I am a RCer so I am familier with Dean's. Good
idea.
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT wiring
>
> Neil
>
> Use a good quality switch, 22ga wire and place a small connector that will
> fit in the control tube. Try a Dean's connector. This is used for radio
> control models and can be purchased at Tower Hobbies.
>
>
> Peter
>
> > Looking for suggestions on how to and what kind of wire to use to wire
the
> PTT's on the sticks of my RV-7. Any tricks to providing for the slack at
the
> bottom of the sticks to allow movement without interference or fatiguing
the
> wire?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Neil McLeod
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ground block question |
>RV9 project: After reading your book I'm still confused about
>grounding. I'd like to mount the groundblock on the subpanel of my RV9 so
>all the instruments ground wires don't have to be spliced, and then run a
>large connecting wire back to the main firewall ground bolt. Is this
>acceptable or is it too many connections and a possible interference problem ?
This would probably work. It's no worse than certified ships of the
past that had no rational plan for grounding. However, the system
works best when used as prescribed by mounting on the firewall and
extending individual system grounds to
> I have the sliding canopy version so once the foredeck skin goes down
> it's practically impossible to work up under there. By moving the
> connections up to the subpanel it's easy to remove the panel for future
> maintenance, modifications, etc.
Understand. Lots of things about our favorite toys
are in the "pretty hard" pile, perhaps even difficult.
If it were my airplane, the ground block would go on the
firewall. If you can't put a new wire into a connector
pin long enough to reach the firewall ground block, then
it's a simple matter to solder a lap-joint and cover with
heat-shrink. This makes a very low-bulk splice that
co-exists very nicely with other wires in a bundle.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|---------------------------------------------------|
| A lie can travel half way around the world while |
| the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
| -Mark Twain- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dead Sealed Battery |
>
>Dear Bob
>
>I have a sealed, and presumeably gelled, battery. Idle voltage is 13.2 V.
>If I load it with the slightest load i.e. 12V/1W lamp the voltage drops to
>nothing within 10-15 secs.
>Two-three minutes later it again shows 13.2 volts. (exercise repeatet
>several times)
>The battery will not take any charge for more than a couple of seconds,
>neither at 14.8 volts or at 28 for that matter.
>Have you heard of similar problems with sealed batteries, and do you know
>what the cause is.
>Do you beleive a pulsed desulfator could bring it back to life, or should I
>just scrap it ?
If you only fly day-vfr and never depend on the battery for
standby power, then perhaps some form of resurrection
procedure would be useful. My studies into the benefits
of de-sulfators got sidetracked and I'm not prepared
at this time to recommend them for any purpose on an airplane.
If there is any chance that you might need the battery
to do something other than crank the engine,
I'd put a new battery in . . . in fact, buy a cheap one
and replace it every year. See chapter 17
at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Looking for suggestions on how to and what kind of wire to use to wire the
>PTT's on the sticks of my RV-7. Any tricks to providing for the slack at
>the bottom of the sticks to allow movement without interference or
>fatiguing the wire?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Neil McLeod
We had a similar discussion on this topic a few weeks ago.
Copy attached . . .
------------------------
>
>I bought a Ray Allen stick grip with the switches on top. I was slightly
>surprised to see the same fine wires as used on the servo supplied for this.
>They indicate the switches and by implication the wires will handle 5amps.
They are probably RATED at 5A, and similarly 22AWG wire is RATED for
5A in wire bundles . . . this is separate from what the system might
truly need for normal operation.
>I was planning to put
>a) the trim
>b) PTT
>c) Navaid quick disconnect (power to the servo) through the stick. (Not
>sure what this might be drawing - 2 or 3 amps max.?)
Use a relay to carry power and use stick grip
switches to control relay.
>d) This results in about 7 wires (from memory)
>
>I could use a heavier gauge wire but it might be very hard to get it all in,
>and also I worry it would put 'friction' in the stick movement.
Stay with the small wire.
>So my questions are:
>1) Would you consider using these fine wires in such an application just up
>and down the stick to a barrier block near by? (Then thicker wire as you
>discussed.)
I wouldn't use barrier strips (threaded fasteners . . . UGH!). A
d-sub connector would be a good way to make the transition from
tiny-wires to handy-wires, something like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
In the next to the last image, tiny-wires are running out to
the servo, handy-wires run to the rest of the system. In this
case, tiny-wires might run up your control stick, handy-wires
run from an UN-modified d-sub mounted to a bracket near
lower end of the control stick.
>2) Do you feel a relay to break the Navaid supply is essential?
yes
>3) What is the best way to get the wires 'off' the stick. I have seen two
>approaches:
>a) Making the longest loop possible and let it hang down as far as possible
>and then over to a grommet (ensuring full stick movement.)
>b) Take it first onto spanwise tube connecting the two sticks using just
>enough wire to allow for full aileron movement and then from as close to the
>rotation point of that tube onto the structure this time allowing for
>elevator movement.
>
>It seems the endless movement of these wires must be a weakness in any
>aircraft and I want them to be 'happy' but I do not want to feel that they
>are there!
Even if you made these wires 22AWG, you wouldn't "feel" them. The
mechanical advantage of stick length above the pivot versus
length below the pivot will prevent this. A bigger wire is not
less prone to flex-failure . . . rather the opposite is true.
See chapter on wire.
At Cessna, about 1968, we did some studies in the experimental
shop to show suitability of certain wires to take trim and
PTT lines off the control yoke tube onto some point on the
airframe. Taking a cue from what we knew about the relative
robustness of welding cable with respect to flexing (a bizillion
strands of copper cat hair) we looked around for handy-wire
with similar characteristics.
I seem to recall the lucky supplier was a product called
"Spectra Strip" (now part of Amphenol but don't recall if
they were back then) had a ribbon cable with exceedingly
fine stranding. Seems each conductor was 105 strands of
very fine wire used to make up a 26AWG conductor . . . small
but still usable. We put tiny PIDG terminals on each strand
and tied them off on miniature barrier strips.
We set up a test to exercise a control yoke mockup over
full cycles of pitch and roll for over a million cycles
with no evidence that the wire had degraded in any way.
Now, what does this mean for the average OBAM aircraft
builder? Not much I suspect. If you use ordinary 22AWG
aircraft wire (19-strand) and make your transistion from
the stick to airframe with a generous radius (6") and
attention to support so that the slack doesn't rub the
airframe, I sincerely doubt that you'll experience any
difficulties with this wire over the time you own the
airplane . . . and let's suppose it DOES break a strand
in, say the next ten years . . . how bit a deal is is
to diagnose and refurbish for another ten-years of service?
I think I'd use 22AWG and if possible try to make
the transition from moving controls to airframe in
a way that tends to twist/untwist a bundle as opposed
to flexing it. I'd also try to take as much advantage as
possible of machined-pin, d-subs for interconnection
but whatever you decided to do, don't spend much time
worrying about it.
Bob . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
The alternator is on whnevere the engoine is runnig. Sometimes the ameter
spikes over to 60 and the oovervoltage relay trips, sometimes it just rips
without the needle spiking. Thats usualyy after a start when the needle
would be over around plus 30 and declining.
I dont have a variable power supply. Hows the bench test work, if i did have
on
thank you,
Joe Tuminello
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
> Does it only do it when you turn on the alternator switch? Do you have a
> variable voltage power supply that you could use to bench test the voltage
> regulator?
>
> David Swartzendruber
> Wichita
> >
> > I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
> > > by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the
alternator.
> > > Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> > >only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> > > cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> > > shorted cell.,
> > Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone
> have any ideas?
> > > thanks joe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Hi Bob,
I would just add, as has been discussed before, that one of the
nice things about using fast-on tabs and crimp connectors is that
you don't absolutely have to be able to see what you are wiring
at the same time you are making connections. I have been finishing
the wiring on my VariEze. Much of it resides in the 'hell hole'
which is the space between the rear seat and the firewall. There
is an 8 inch hole through the seat back which is the only access
to the area. Wiring in there hasn't been painless, but I can only
imagine how bad it would be if I were trying to make all of the
connections with all soldered joints, or worse yet, screw terminals.
Uhhhgg. BTW, I have found that sometimes an inspection mirror is
quite a useful tool.
Thanks for the continuing help.
Matt Prather
N34RD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:06 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground block question
>
>
> >RV9 project: After reading your book I'm still confused about
> >grounding. I'd like to mount the groundblock on the subpanel of
> my RV9 so
> >all the instruments ground wires don't have to be spliced, and
> then run a
> >large connecting wire back to the main firewall ground bolt. Is
> this
> >acceptable or is it too many connections and a possible
> interference problem ?
>
> This would probably work. It's no worse than certified ships of
> the past that had no rational plan for grounding. However, the
> system works best when used as prescribed by mounting on the
> firewall and
> extending individual system grounds to
>
>
> > I have the sliding canopy version so once the foredeck skin
> goes down
> > it's practically impossible to work up under there. By moving
> the
> > connections up to the subpanel it's easy to remove the panel for
> future
> > maintenance, modifications, etc.
>
>
> Understand. Lots of things about our favorite toys
> are in the "pretty hard" pile, perhaps even difficult.
> If it were my airplane, the ground block would go on the
> firewall. If you can't put a new wire into a connector
> pin long enough to reach the firewall ground block, then
> it's a simple matter to solder a lap-joint and cover with
> heat-shrink. This makes a very low-bulk splice that
> co-exists very nicely with other wires in a bundle.
>
> I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
> to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
> share the information with as many folks as possible.
> You can join at . . .
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> | A lie can travel half way around the world while |
> | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
> | -Mark Twain- |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
>
> _-
>
> _-> _-
>
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-!! NEWish
!!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-List Related
Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
This is a little of the subject but I also have a grounding question. I am
working on A lancair ES. The batteries are installed in the tail end of the
plane. Is it advisable to tie the battery grounds together at the rear of
the plane and run one wire to the firewall ground stud?
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground block question
>
>
> >RV9 project: After reading your book I'm still confused about
> >grounding. I'd like to mount the groundblock on the subpanel of my RV9
so
> >all the instruments ground wires don't have to be spliced, and then run a
> >large connecting wire back to the main firewall ground bolt. Is this
> >acceptable or is it too many connections and a possible interference
problem ?
>
> This would probably work. It's no worse than certified ships of the
> past that had no rational plan for grounding. However, the system
> works best when used as prescribed by mounting on the firewall and
> extending individual system grounds to
>
>
> > I have the sliding canopy version so once the foredeck skin goes down
> > it's practically impossible to work up under there. By moving the
> > connections up to the subpanel it's easy to remove the panel for future
> > maintenance, modifications, etc.
>
>
> Understand. Lots of things about our favorite toys
> are in the "pretty hard" pile, perhaps even difficult.
> If it were my airplane, the ground block would go on the
> firewall. If you can't put a new wire into a connector
> pin long enough to reach the firewall ground block, then
> it's a simple matter to solder a lap-joint and cover with
> heat-shrink. This makes a very low-bulk splice that
> co-exists very nicely with other wires in a bundle.
>
> I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
> to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
> share the information with as many folks as possible.
> You can join at . . .
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> | A lie can travel half way around the world while |
> | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
> | -Mark Twain- |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
Dear John,
I am new and I do not know who Bob is. Do I get a certified part back? , (I
have a certified airplane not a homebuilt.
I guess you have a citabria too? Mine is a 1979 gcbc.) Or can I get a
replacement elsewhere?
I would appreciate any details you can give me.
Thanks for your response. I actually had a new battery delivered the other
day and have not installed it yet..The battery I have cranks fine and I cant
believe it is the cause.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Karnes" <jpkarnes(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
> The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> Resest it and it does it again and again.
>
> Joe-
> I am having the same problem. I wrote Bob and he said that the older OV
> modules are causing "nuisance trips" and to send the OV module to him for
> replacement.
>
> John Karnes
> Zenith 601 HDS
> Bremerton, WA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
Matt,
Thanks the old battery is fine. It reads the full voltage static, I think
12.8 volts. Somebody else having a similar problem says it is most likely
the old over voltage relay causing nuisance trips. We shall see.
Thank you
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
> Do you have an AC battery charger? Have you tried to charge the
> battery? Do you have a voltmeter. With everything turned off, what
> voltage do you see across the battery. If you have a shorted cell, I
> believe the battery will show about 1.2V below what a normal battery
> shows. Is it a flooded cell battery?
>
> I believe that the only time the OV module trips is when the voltage
> across it is above the setpoint. A shorted cell shouldn't cause this
> overvoltage condition. I believe you need to look elsewhere. It sounds
> like either a bad regulator, a bad OV module, or possibly, low voltage
> to the sense lead for the regulator (a resistive connection) Or maybe a
> bad ground to the regulator. If the regulator can't see the full
> voltage of
> the system, it will attempt increase the output of the alternator. Once
it
> has increased the output of the alternator above the trip point for the OV
> module, it gets shut down.
>
> Not sure if that helps.
>
> Matt Prather
> N34RD
>
> Joe and Carole Tuminello wrote:
>
> >
> >I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
> >
> >
> >>by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> >>Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> >>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> >>cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> >>shorted cell.,
> >>
> >>
> >Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone
have any ideas?
> >
> >
> >>thanks joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
John,
One more thought ont he ov protector. When mine trips I have a high
reading on the ampmeter, sometimes all the way to 60. If it was nuisance
tripping I wouldnt be getting that would I? Was yours?
thanks, Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe and Carole Tuminello" <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
> Dear John,
> I am new and I do not know who Bob is. Do I get a certified part back? ,
(I
> have a certified airplane not a homebuilt.
> I guess you have a citabria too? Mine is a 1979 gcbc.) Or can I get a
> replacement elsewhere?
> I would appreciate any details you can give me.
> Thanks for your response. I actually had a new battery delivered the other
> day and have not installed it yet..The battery I have cranks fine and I
cant
> believe it is the cause.
> Regards,
> Joe
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Karnes" <jpkarnes(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
>
>
> >
> > The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> > Resest it and it does it again and again.
> >
> > Joe-
> > I am having the same problem. I wrote Bob and he said that the older OV
> > modules are causing "nuisance trips" and to send the OV module to him
for
> > replacement.
> >
> > John Karnes
> > Zenith 601 HDS
> > Bremerton, WA
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
| Subject: | Breaker or Fuse on Main Alt FLD |
I have had contradictory advise regarding the circuit protection on the Main
Alt Fld.
Should I use a breaker or can I use a Fuse? (I'd prefer to use a fuse) At
what rating?
I'm using B&C alternators (60 amp & 20 amp) with LR3 Voltage regulators on
both. Dual alt/dual battery configuration.
- Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Haan <bhaan(at)easystreet.com> |
Neil,
Fry's Electronics http://outpost.com/ has Test Probe Wires used to make
test leads for VOM meters etc. They had them packaged in 5 foot or 12 foot
lengths for about $3 or $6. They are 18 AWG in Black or Red. They are very
very flexible.
>
> >
> >Looking for suggestions on how to and what kind of wire to use to wire the
> >PTT's on the sticks of my RV-7. Any tricks to providing for the slack at
> >the bottom of the sticks to allow movement without interference or
> >fatiguing the wire?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Neil McLeod
Bob
RV6A almost
http://easystreet.com/~bhaan/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
When I had this problem on my Citabria, it was a bad alternator. Some of
the diodes in the bridge circuit were blown, and this caused major ripple in
the alternator output voltage. It happened twice with two alternators.
Steve Johnson
building RV-8
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe and Carole Tuminello" <mouseysf(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
> Matt,
> Thanks the old battery is fine. It reads the full voltage static, I think
> 12.8 volts. Somebody else having a similar problem says it is most likely
> the old over voltage relay causing nuisance trips. We shall see.
> Thank you
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
>
>
> >
> > Do you have an AC battery charger? Have you tried to charge the
> > battery? Do you have a voltmeter. With everything turned off, what
> > voltage do you see across the battery. If you have a shorted cell, I
> > believe the battery will show about 1.2V below what a normal battery
> > shows. Is it a flooded cell battery?
> >
> > I believe that the only time the OV module trips is when the voltage
> > across it is above the setpoint. A shorted cell shouldn't cause this
> > overvoltage condition. I believe you need to look elsewhere. It sounds
> > like either a bad regulator, a bad OV module, or possibly, low voltage
> > to the sense lead for the regulator (a resistive connection) Or maybe a
> > bad ground to the regulator. If the regulator can't see the full
> > voltage of
> > the system, it will attempt increase the output of the alternator. Once
> it
> > has increased the output of the alternator above the trip point for the
OV
> > module, it gets shut down.
> >
> > Not sure if that helps.
> >
> > Matt Prather
> > N34RD
> >
> > Joe and Carole Tuminello wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > >I have had the same problem in my citabria as reported on July 23,2001
> > >
> > >
> > >>by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the
alternator.
> > >>Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> > >>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> > >>cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> > >>shorted cell.,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does
anyone
> have any ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > >>thanks joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
Joe,
Since you are seeing the ammeter peg, it appears that you are actually
getting an over voltage condition rather than nuisance trips. This
could be a fault in the alternator, aircraft wiring, or regulator. The
most likely is the regulator. If you had a variable voltage power
supply, what I would suggest as a bench check of the regulator is to
provide power to the regulator with the power supply and connect a light
to the field, (a panel light or something). Below 14V, the light should
be on. It will have a small range where it goes from bright to off such
as 14.0 to 14.5V. Above that, the light will remain out. If the light
stays on all the way up to 16V and higher, the regulator is faulty and
causing your over voltage condition.
These are generalizations, but I can't give you any more than that
without more knowledge of the parts in your airplane.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
>
> The alternator is on whnevere the engoine is runnig. Sometimes the
ameter
> spikes over to 60 and the oovervoltage relay trips, sometimes it just
rips
> without the needle spiking. Thats usualyy after a start when the
needle
> would be over around plus 30 and declining.
> I dont have a variable power supply. Hows the bench test work, if i
did
> have
> on
> thank you,
> Joe Tuminello
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I would just add, as has been discussed before, that one of the
>nice things about using fast-on tabs and crimp connectors is that
>you don't absolutely have to be able to see what you are wiring
>at the same time you are making connections.
good point!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
>
>This is a little off the subject but I also have a grounding question. I am
>working on A lancair ES. The batteries are installed in the tail end of the
>plane. Is it advisable to tie the battery grounds together at the rear of
>the plane and run one wire to the firewall ground stud?
>
>Ron Raby
Yes. You're talking about two batteries . . . is
this a dual alternator system too or just a dual
battery system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Hello Bob,
<>
>>This would probably work. It's no worse than certified ships of the past
that had no rational plan for grounding. However, the system works best when
used as prescribed by mounting on the firewall and extending individual
system grounds<<
May I ask a dumb educational question?
Sounds like this fellow proposes a #2 from battery negative to a brass
bolt through the firewall. One the forward side of the firewall the brass
bolt connects a ground strap to the engine case. On the cabin side it
connects another short length of #2, which runs to a "forest of fast-ons"
ground block at a convenient location in the panel area.
It would seem that the only difference between this system and one with
the fast-on block mounted directly to the firewall bolt would be a tiny
resistance added by the short length of #2 and it's terminals. Let's say the
#2 is two feet long, so we have 0.156 x 2, or 0.312 milliohm. Assuming some
care in fabrication, let's also figure 0.5 milliohm (taken from "When is a
Good Ground Not?") for one additional bolted connection. The total is less
than a single milliohm.
As a practical matter, how is the proposed system worse? Could you
suggest a scenario where it might create a problem for some system or
component?
Thanks,
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Bob
Duel battery, 60a main alternator and a 20a pad mounted b&c
Ron
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground block question
>
> >
> >This is a little off the subject but I also have a grounding question. I
am
> >working on A lancair ES. The batteries are installed in the tail end of
the
> >plane. Is it advisable to tie the battery grounds together at the rear of
> >the plane and run one wire to the firewall ground stud?
> >
> >Ron Raby
>
> Yes. You're talking about two batteries . . . is
> this a dual alternator system too or just a dual
> battery system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
>
>Bob
>
>Duel battery, 60a main alternator and a 20a pad mounted b&c
Are you wiring like Figure 14 or Figure 13 with an aux battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Ron:
I will be also installing dual batteries. Mine will be on each side of
the pitch idler. I got 80 feet of 2awg welding cable @ .52 cents a foot. I
intend to run separate lines as this would keep things separated. I believe
we have talked before on other issues. I had asked Electric Bob about running
a ground wire out to the wing tip area for things out there. He recommended
running separate ground wires there in case of some going bad and affecting
other items of the same common ground. I am assuming this to be true with the
battery situation. I have asked Bob this very same question, but no response.
Ed Silvanic
Lancair ES
N823MS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Bob:
Remember me, still looking for my second pass on Ed's Lancair ES
-System planning. I have asked this very same question. I am doing the Z-14
too.
Ed Silvanic
Lancair ES
N823MS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillRVSIX(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | UMA light bezels |
Dose anyone no if the UMA light bezels fit RC Allen attitude gyros and Navaid
auto pilot or van's vertical speed indicator. I checked the UMA web page and
it just said that they will fit most instruments and i didn't see a tech
e-mail link.
thanks
Bill Higgins
Pembroke Ma.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternator leads |
Bob,
I am using an LR3 regulator. I am looking at the alternatives for
suitable automotive alternator that will be compatible with the LR3. There
are very few that have only "B" and "f" terminals. There are a large number
that have a "B" terminal and a "regulator plug" with terminals labeled S, IG,
and L. Is one of these a field lead? Can the others be ignored? In short,
can such a regulator be used with the LR3? Thanks...LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Master disconnect for elec trim & Autopilot |
Bob,
I really like the idea of the master disconnect for all of the electric
items which move the control surfaces, and would like to implement it on my
RV-8, likely using one of the switches on my stick grip. I'll have pitch and
roll trim, and a wing leveler autopilot. Since the switch involved will
probably be a push-on/push-off type, an annuciator light indicating that the
systems were disabled might be nice. How would you suggest I go about this?
Thanks.
William Slaughter
PS Any news on the system architecture designs for the FADEC equipped
engines?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
Dear Bill,
I hope you have better luck with getting information from UMA than I did. I
wanted specific information not in the abbreviated drawings in the catalog. I
called and the girl would not let me get past her to someone who could give
me specific answers and finally accepted the drawing she promised to send...
you guessed it, same one I already had.
If anyone does have them, I wanted to know the minimum center to center
distances they could be mounted.
...Chrissi
Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | UMA light bezels |
Try asking for Chuck Holzner when you call. He's an engineer there. If
she puts you through without asking what you want, Chuck may be willing
to help out.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> Dear Bill,
> I hope you have better luck with getting information from UMA than I
did.
> I
> wanted specific information not in the abbreviated drawings in the
> catalog. I
> called and the girl would not let me get past her to someone who could
> give
> me specific answers and finally accepted the drawing she promised to
> send...
> you guessed it, same one I already had.
> If anyone does have them, I wanted to know the minimum center to
center
> distances they could be mounted.
> ...Chrissi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
Dear David, Thank you for your help.
...Chrissi
Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
Chrissi -
We're going for EFISA/One and have several of the NuLite Bezels for
sale. Let us know if you are interested.
John Schroeder
Lancair Super ES
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Dear Bill,
> I hope you have better luck with getting information from UMA than I did. I
> wanted specific information not in the abbreviated drawings in the catalog. I
> called and the girl would not let me get past her to someone who could give
> me specific answers and finally accepted the drawing she promised to send...
> you guessed it, same one I already had.
> If anyone does have them, I wanted to know the minimum center to center
> distances they could be mounted.
> ...Chrissi
>
> Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
> www.CozyGirrrl.com
> Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
I am using UMA bezels, and had a few small issues which I was able to solve.
My DG has a mounting screw hole slightly offset from the standard hole
pattern, but I was able to drill a small hole through the bezel to
accommodate it without having to drill into the lighting element. Lucky.
My RC Allen AI has a face with a smaller glass and larger surrounding
structure than typical, and the non-glass ring on the outside covered over
the bezel light, so little got through to the instrument face. In addition,
it had a small screw head that protruded above level and hit the light
strip. I solved this by mounting it with a few washers as spacers to the
UMA bezel, which both gave the screw head clearance and also let more light
from the bezel illuminate the instrument.
I think you're just going to have to try them on your instruments. I
suggest you buy one - the one with two knob cutouts - and see how it fits
all of your instruments.
Jim Oberst
----- Original Message -----
From: <BillRVSIX(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: UMA light bezels
>
> Dose anyone no if the UMA light bezels fit RC Allen attitude gyros and
Navaid
> auto pilot or van's vertical speed indicator. I checked the UMA web page
and
> it just said that they will fit most instruments and i didn't see a tech
> e-mail link.
> thanks
>
> Bill Higgins
> Pembroke Ma.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
Hi Bill,
I have had excellent service from Nulite. I am building a Europa and my
instruments are very close together. This caused an issue with one of the
Nulites. I contacted the manufacturer and explained the problem. They
offered to do a one off production run to solve my issue at no cost, all
they asked was for me to return my old Nulite. I pointed out to them that I
had already modified the unit but they told me, no worries return it anyway,
all we want is for you to be a satisfied customer. Take a look at their web
site www.nulite.com
Cheers, Paul
http://europa363.versadev.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <BillRVSIX(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: UMA light bezels
>
> Dose anyone no if the UMA light bezels fit RC Allen attitude gyros and
Navaid
> auto pilot or van's vertical speed indicator. I checked the UMA web page
and
> it just said that they will fit most instruments and i didn't see a tech
> e-mail link.
> thanks
>
> Bill Higgins
> Pembroke Ma.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
The url should be http://www.nulite.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: UMA light bezels
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I have had excellent service from Nulite. I am building a Europa and my
> instruments are very close together. This caused an issue with one of the
> Nulites. I contacted the manufacturer and explained the problem. They
> offered to do a one off production run to solve my issue at no cost, all
> they asked was for me to return my old Nulite. I pointed out to them that
I
> had already modified the unit but they told me, no worries return it
anyway,
> all we want is for you to be a satisfied customer. Take a look at their
web
> site www.nulite.com
>
> Cheers, Paul
>
> http://europa363.versadev.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BillRVSIX(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: UMA light bezels
>
>
> >
> > Dose anyone no if the UMA light bezels fit RC Allen attitude gyros and
> Navaid
> > auto pilot or van's vertical speed indicator. I checked the UMA web page
> and
> > it just said that they will fit most instruments and i didn't see a tech
> > e-mail link.
> > thanks
> >
> > Bill Higgins
> > Pembroke Ma.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ageless Wings" <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | UMA light bezels |
Paul, Bill and everyone...
>>Take a look at their web site www.nulite.com<<
For those of you (like me! ) who couldn't find the Nulites on this web
site, they're not there! Although there are a lot of good electrical and
electronic stuff here!
The actual web site for Nulites is:
http://www.nulite.net
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more Wiring bundle |
I have one convenient place to run wires thru the baggage area, and I will
be running two coax for xpndr and com antennas, a whelen tail strobe cable
(with single central strobe unit - ie, high voltage run), aux battery power
for second electronic ignition, MAC electric rudder and elevator trim cables
and flap motor controller power and switch. Are there any recommended
separation rules of thumb? I could separate two bundles by about 4" or
three separated by about an inch. I imagine the strobe, com and xpndr are
the noise generators and should be separate from the rest, but should also
be separate from each other. Could I get away with bundling any of these
together?
Thanks,
Gary Krysztopik
Pelican PL w/Stratus Subaru
97.46% complete
Newport, R.I.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I designed superflexible abrasion resistant special cables for surgical use
for years. My favorite was a urethane sheathed litz-wound silver-plated
bronze wire with a Kevlar yarn reinforcement ESG cable. Yikes!
But commercially, "Superflexible" means Mogami (sold in the US by Marshall
Electronics) used by the audio/video industry. It finds its way into top-end
headphone cables and microphone cables.
For a cheap solution, steal some good quality CD headphones. Cut the cords
off for you airplane and give the headphones back to your teenager for Xmas.
Say they're the new "cordless" type.
Merry merry,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground block question |
Bob
I bought the firewall foward package from lancair. I can make the system
into the Z14 system with some modifications. Thats what I want to do. Most
of the building blocks are there to do this. I am still in the process of
doing composite work and have not spent that much time on the electrical
system yet, but I do need to make the electrical harness for the individual
systems. I want to finish the harness, anntenna wires and battery cables and
install them before I close the top. I am going to make a bundle for the
system wires, one for the antennas and one for the battery cables. I plan to
have a connector for the systems at the panel. Idividual bulkhead connectors
for the antenna wires. The battery cables to the studs on the firewall.
After I get the top on I plan to go on to the panel wiring. I have been
putting of the panel wiring to the end in order to see if any new toys hit
the market. So many choices.
Sorry about the rambling, back to the original question. I would like to do
the Z14 system. Do I need to run an extra ground wire all the way to the
back of the plane or can I tie the battery grounds together and run one
ground cable up to the front.
Thanks
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground block question
>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >Duel battery, 60a main alternator and a 20a pad mounted b&c
>
> Are you wiring like Figure 14 or Figure 13 with an aux battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wire Data Document |
I've often encouraged folks to acquire and become familiar
with catalogs of materials and supplies . . . in addition
to helping locate sources for various materials, they are
often powerful educational tools.
I've run across a .pdf file catalog for wire and wiring
supplies that includes a wealth of technical information
and I recommend you add this to your library. For a short
time, I've posted it at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/wirecatalog.pdf
Folks running across this post in the archives at some later
date may access the on-line version of the catalog at
http://www.std-wire.com/ViewCat.htm
the on-line version has some advantages in that the
table of contents is hyper-linked to various subjects
within the rather voluminous catalog (260 pages,
7 Mbtes). If you download the .pdf file, the hyper-links
don't work but Acrobat's text search feature works
nicely and lets you find a keyword or part number anywhere
in the catalog.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more Wiring bundle |
>
>I have one convenient place to run wires thru the baggage area, and I will
>be running two coax for xpndr and com antennas, a whelen tail strobe cable
>(with single central strobe unit - ie, high voltage run), aux battery power
>for second electronic ignition, MAC electric rudder and elevator trim cables
>and flap motor controller power and switch. Are there any recommended
>separation rules of thumb? I could separate two bundles by about 4" or
>three separated by about an inch. I imagine the strobe, com and xpndr are
>the noise generators and should be separate from the rest, but should also
>be separate from each other. Could I get away with bundling any of these
>together?
>
>Thanks,
>Gary Krysztopik
>Pelican PL w/Stratus Subaru
>97.46% complete
>Newport, R.I.
Separation "rules" are generally useful only when the folks
who built the systems didn't do their homework for interference
emissions and susceptibility. By-and-large, there are few if
any concerns for wire bundle separation in light aircraft with
the following exception. I wouldn't run avionics bundles in
with wires carrying airframe systems power and control.
This is not difficult to do because 99% of avionics signal
wires are clustered around panel mounted equipment and are
easy to route separately from wires that come in from around
the airframe to the switch panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
In a message dated 12/10/2002 3:49:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com writes:
> If anyone does have them, I wanted to know the minimum center to center
> distances they could be mounte
Gee, this is one I can answer since I am building my panel and actually have
some of these around. You should be safe with 3.25" if you measure
accurately. I measured between 3.231 and 3.252". They would also tolerate a
few thous trimmed off the edges. They are basically the same size as the
three instrument frames I currently have, 3-1/4" square (no AI or DG, but
would think most new would be the same - the UMA units for these are the same
size regardless). You might leave an extra .010-.020" for the vertical
spacing as the pigtail exits on one side (it is flat, only .009" thick).
Doug Windhorn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
Dear Doug, thanks so much for the helpful information.
...Chrissi
Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What about Bob |
>
>List-
>I've tried to contact Bob N. several times and have gotten no response. Has
>anyone communicated with Bob lately?
>
>John Karnes
>Zenith 601 HDS
>Bremerton, WA
Talked to John on phone today . . . I've been trying to catch
up on pending items of e-mail and orders. I'm temporarily
out of books but have some more on order from printer. Had
a devil of a time getting the documents published for the
parachute system . . . the computer kept barfing and throwing
away lots of work pasting the drawings into MSWord . . .
Bought a newer bare bones machine and spent the better part
of two days spare time getting it loaded with software
and configured. Tried editing the huge MSWord document
that choked the other machine and things seem to be stable.
Sure glad I started keeping all work product on hard drive
separate from the boot drive where all software resides.
It's really easy to keep the work product backed up over
the network . . . and easy to move the whole nine yards from
an old to a new computer.
Anywho, I'm starting to wade into the backlog. Sorry to
be so un-touchable for the past two weeks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master disconnect for elec trim & |
Autopilot
>
>
>Bob,
>I really like the idea of the master disconnect for all of the electric
>items which move the control surfaces, and would like to implement it on my
>RV-8, likely using one of the switches on my stick grip. I'll have pitch and
>roll trim, and a wing leveler autopilot. Since the switch involved will
>probably be a push-on/push-off type, an annuciator light indicating that the
>systems were disabled might be nice. How would you suggest I go about this?
>Thanks.
Sure. See http://216.55.140.222/temp/MDRelay.gif
>William Slaughter
>
>PS Any news on the system architecture designs for the FADEC equipped
>engines?
Haven't heard anything from Lancair as to how they would
like to proceed. I'll rattle their cage again. I've got
a couple of ideas. Will see which is most attractive to
them.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator leads |
>
> Bob,
> I am using an LR3 regulator. I am looking at the alternatives for
>suitable automotive alternator that will be compatible with the LR3. There
>are very few that have only "B" and "f" terminals. There are a large number
>that have a "B" terminal and a "regulator plug" with terminals labeled S, IG,
>and L. Is one of these a field lead? Can the others be ignored? In short,
>can such a regulator be used with the LR3? Thanks...LRE
Generally no. Automotive alternators worth considering for
aircraft have built in regulators. You can either modify
one of these like B&C does to make them into externally
regulated machines or use the built in regulator as shown
in figure Z-24.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Breaker or Fuse on Main Alt FLD |
>
>I have had contradictory advise regarding the circuit protection on the Main
>Alt Fld.
>
>Should I use a breaker or can I use a Fuse? (I'd prefer to use a fuse) At
>what rating?
>
>I'm using B&C alternators (60 amp & 20 amp) with LR3 Voltage regulators on
>both. Dual alt/dual battery configuration.
>
>- Jim
Where are you getting contradictions? Diagrams in Appendix Z are consistent.
I recommend a fusible link off a fuse block to a 5A breaker on the panel
-OR-
if acres-of-breakers is your cup of tea, then a 5A breaker off the bus
is indicated. I would not recommend a fuse to protect the field circuit
UNLESS
you were using an old-fashion OV relay that is truly a relay that simply
breaks the field circuit to shut down an alternator.
While rare, it DOES happen that ov systems (relay or crowbar) get nuisance
tripped. If you have a crowbar system, a re-setable breaker is indicated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
>
>
>Matt,
>Thanks the old battery is fine. It reads the full voltage static, I think
>12.8 volts. Somebody else having a similar problem says it is most likely
>the old over voltage relay causing nuisance trips. We shall see.
>Thank you
>Joe
>----- Original Message -----
> > >>by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the alternator.
> > >>Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> > >>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> > >>cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> > >>shorted cell.,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does anyone
>have any ideas?
The only form of battery condition that can make
the system unstable to the degree that an ov protection
system trips is an OPEN battery. If it started
your engine then this possibility is eliminated.
If you get spikes in the ammeter the same time the ov trips,
then there is a problem with the regulator -OR- wiring that
hooks up the regulator/field wiring. I had a similar problem
with an airplane that was getting transient shorts between the
field and b-leads attached to the alternator. There have
been situations where pieces came loose inside an alternator
and allowed it to go into runaway mode but this is VERY rare.
I think Dave S. commented on this and I agree that the problem
seems most likely to reside in your regulator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | UMA light bezels |
Chrissi,
If you haven't already, take a look at the FiberLite bezels. They will send
you a bare bezel to play with for about $10. Check 'em out at
http://sptpanel.com/. Their reverse engraved panel overlays are fantastic as
well.
William
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: UMA light bezels
Dear Doug, thanks so much for the helpful information.
...Chrissi
Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
_
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UMA light bezels |
In a message dated 12/11/2002 10:34:21 PM Central Standard Time,
willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu writes:
> Chrissi,
> If you haven't already, take a look at the FiberLite bezels. They will send
> you a bare bezel to play with for about $10. Check 'em out at
> http://sptpanel.com/. Their reverse engraved panel overlays are fantastic
> as
> well.
>
> William
> RV-8
Dear William,great!, I've been looking for lighted/engraved panel people,
thanks!
...Chrissi
Cozy Mk-IV 13B Turbo
www.CozyGirrrl.com
Chrissi(at)BlueMountainAvionics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andre Beusch - Sun Switzerland Basel - Enterprise Services <Andre.Beusch(at)sun.com> |
| Subject: | A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics ? |
Enterprise Services
I am trying to repair an old Whelen A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply.
It works for a couple of minutes then suddenly stops, no more charging of the capacitor.
I have already replaced the high voltage capacitors, but the problem persists.
I am looking for the electronics schematic drawing of this unit (or similar).
Thanks, Andre
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics ? |
In a message dated 12/12/2002 3:47:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Andre.Beusch(at)sun.com writes:
>
> Basel - Enterprise Services
>
> I am trying to repair an old Whelen A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply.
> It works for a couple of minutes then suddenly stops, no more charging of
> the capacitor.
> I have already replaced the high voltage capacitors, but the problem
> persists.
>
> I am looking for the electronics schematic drawing of this unit (or
> similar).
>
> Thanks, Andre
>
>
Hello Andre,
I don't have a schematic handy for you to look at, but I have worked on many
circuits of this type in the past and can give you a few generic things to
look for. First, you have already replaced the most failure prone part of a
PFN (pulse forming network) like that. I assume you have done a thorough
check for bad solder joints. Reheating the joints on the board that look
suspect can often cure a sick one without even picking up your scope probe.
Does the multivibrator power transistor pair actually stop running? They are
the next pair of parts that can be replaced without looking too long for
another culprit. You need to establish whether the PFN actually stops
running and charging the capacitors or maybe the strobe circuit is not firing
due to too much resistance in the output circuit. Faulty socket connections
at the strobes etc. Do you have a buddy with the same unit that you can
borrow to look at voltage, resistance, signal comparisons at various points.
I would want to see the signal on the bases and collectors of those power
transistors.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andre Beusch - Sun Switzerland Basel - Enterprise Services <Andre.Beusch(at)sun.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics ? |
Enterprise Services
Hello John,
thanks for these advices,
actually, after the last flash, the voltage on the high voltage capacitor stays
at zero.
There is no more charging, no sound, no current draw.
Eventually after some rest, it starts again, but for ever shorter periods.
There is a unidentified device in series with the power input which could be a
thermal switch, that
the next thing I will check.
Measurement are sort of difficult to do, there is a thick varnish all over the
PCB.
My scope is also broken, (need a scope to fix it..) and I don't have access to
another scope right
away.
So this may all take a while, my Glasair is not finished anyway.
Regards, Andre
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics ?
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/12/2002 3:47:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Andre.Beusch(at)sun.com writes:
>
> >
> > Basel - Enterprise Services
> >
> > I am trying to repair an old Whelen A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply.
> > It works for a couple of minutes then suddenly stops, no more charging of
> > the capacitor.
> > I have already replaced the high voltage capacitors, but the problem
> > persists.
> >
> > I am looking for the electronics schematic drawing of this unit (or
> > similar).
> >
> > Thanks, Andre
> >
> >
>
> Hello Andre,
>
> I don't have a schematic handy for you to look at, but I have worked on many
> circuits of this type in the past and can give you a few generic things to
> look for. First, you have already replaced the most failure prone part of a
> PFN (pulse forming network) like that. I assume you have done a thorough
> check for bad solder joints. Reheating the joints on the board that look
> suspect can often cure a sick one without even picking up your scope probe.
> Does the multivibrator power transistor pair actually stop running? They are
> the next pair of parts that can be replaced without looking too long for
> another culprit. You need to establish whether the PFN actually stops
> running and charging the capacitors or maybe the strobe circuit is not firing
> due to too much resistance in the output circuit. Faulty socket connections
> at the strobes etc. Do you have a buddy with the same unit that you can
> borrow to look at voltage, resistance, signal comparisons at various points.
> I would want to see the signal on the bases and collectors of those power
> transistors.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe Head Wiring |
I just got my strobes and power supply the other day and I have a question
about wiring up the strobe heads. I know that they are all supposed to be
hooked up with shielded wire. So my question is, do I use one three
conductor sheilded or one two conductor sheilded cable with one of the three
connections as the shield? I'm guessing one three conductor sheilded with
the shields grounded at the power supply, but I want to make sure.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach
RV-7 Houston
http://www.myrv7.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Head Wiring |
>
>
>I just got my strobes and power supply the other day and I have a question
>about wiring up the strobe heads. I know that they are all supposed to be
>hooked up with shielded wire. So my question is, do I use one three
>conductor sheilded or one two conductor sheilded cable with one of the three
>connections as the shield? I'm guessing one three conductor sheilded with
>the shields grounded at the power supply, but I want to make sure.
>
>Godspeed,
>Phil Birkelbach
>RV-7 Houston
>http://www.myrv7.com
No instructions with the hardware? All the kits I've seen
came with three conductor shielded wire. The strobe heads need
ground, hv and trigger lines plus a shield.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics |
?
Andre Beusch - Sun Switzerland Basel - Enterprise Services wrote:
- Enterprise Services
>
> Hello John,
>
> thanks for these advices,
>
> actually, after the last flash, the voltage on the high voltage capacitor stays
at zero.
> There is no more charging, no sound, no current draw.
> Eventually after some rest, it starts again, but for ever shorter periods.
>
> There is a unidentified device in series with the power input which could be
a thermal switch, that
> the next thing I will check.
>
> Measurement are sort of difficult to do, there is a thick varnish all over the
PCB.
>
> My scope is also broken, (need a scope to fix it..) and I don't have access to
another scope right
> away.
>
> So this may all take a while, my Glasair is not finished anyway.
>
>
> Regards, Andre
>
snips
>>>
Andre,
If you own a scope I may be telling you something you already know, but here's
a
'shade tree' troubleshooting technique. Actually it's only shade tree if you
must use option 2 or 3.
Use some type of cooling liquid on the various components to see if the
oscillator will restart more quickly.
Choices of coolant:
1. 'freeze spray' from an electronics supply house (hard to find due to ozone laws)
2. brake & carb cleaner in an aerosol can, if it feels very cold when sprayed
3. regular old rubbing alcohol & a q-tip swab
All the usual safety, environmental & health liability disclaimers apply here.
You obviously don't want sparks & open flame around while you do this.
Cool the entire circuit 1st & see if it will restart when cooled. If it does,
try cooling individual components (after waiting for it to shut down on its own)
to isolate the bad one. Remember that if you use too much, the coolant will cool
multiple components by cooling their leads where they attach to the circuit board.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | LED's: Good Source |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED's: Good Source |
Oooops! No URL - Sorry.
http://www.theledlight.com/led-assemblies.html
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: Electrical System redux |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your advice. Like Columbo, just a few more questions, sir. I
think that I will go with a system similar to the one you have in your
book on Figure Z-12. I like the redundancy of 2 alternators, and with
all electric, a 20A aux alternator will power all the avionics in my
F1-Rocket (like an RV-4.) The reason I'm thinking a 20A vs the 8A unit
is that the gps/nav/com draws about 7A alone on transmit. Granted, I
don't have a lot to say, but on a dark and stormy night I think that the
extra 2 lbs will be the least of my worries. Your thoughts?
Main alternator sizing is driven by CONTINUOUS loads plus headroom
for battery charging. The standby system needs to be configured
for ENDURANCE meaning that when the main alternator is down,
you want unlimited endurance with 8-10A continuous load while holding your
battery in reserve for approach to landing. Intermittent
loads like transmit, trim, flaps, etc are insignificant to
this consideration.
Anyway, I
guess that I'm concerned about an overvoltage on the main alternator,
Easy to handle with rudimentary ov protection . . . see articles
on website and discussions in the AeroElectric Connection.
or a short on the main alt or main bus.
How is this going to happen? It's sorta like worrying about
wings falling off or propellers flying away. It's easy to
fabricate your airplane in ways that make these probabilities
too small to worry about.
In this case, the first step would
be to open the master switch. Next, close the E-bus feed, then the aux
alt switch. As you say, the order these switches are opened and closed
is important. Now, there is nothing to excite the field for the aux alt,
since it feeds from the main bus, which is now unpowered, right? What
did I miss here? Is an overvoltage or short that unlikely?
yes . . . lots of folks worry about these things based
on reading too many dark-n-stormy-night stories without
getting the benefit of critical analysis of how things
failed and what could be done to either make the system
TOLERANT of the failure.
ad the
biggest problem will be the belt breaking, or an internal failure of the
main alt resulting in the regulator not providing any field voltage to
the main alt?
. . . the most robust systems ASSUME that critical
components are going to fail to function. The system
becomes robust by deducing alternative modes of operation
wherein the failure of any single component will not
produce a situation that causes you to break a sweat.
How 'bout feeding the aux alt field off the essential bus
instead? Or even the battery bus? Further, with the battery contactor
open and a short on the main bus, should the B lead from the aux alt go
to the battery bus, or essential bus? Maybe I'm thinking too much, and
these failure modes are just too remote, but I know that just about
anything can happen in aviation.
I'm not suggesting that every kind of failure you can
imagine shouldn't be considered. They fall into three
categories (1) redesign or select alternate component to
reduce likelihood of failure [which still doesn't make
it ZERO], (2) design system and mode of operation so
that the outcome of any flight that suffers the failure
is comfortably assured or (3) failure is so remote as
to make further consideration unnecessary.
Also, I'm thinking about using a DPDT
switch for the aux alt and using the xtra set of terminals to switch the
ammeter so I don't need two ammeters--what do you think?
It would need to be a three pole switch. You need to switch
ammeter leads as pairs . . . but what you propose would work.
You show 4AWG
and 2AWG from the battery contactor to the starter contactor in different
places in your book--must be a typo. Which do you recommend--remember,
I'm cranking an IO-540?
Depends on your airplane. 2AWG is the minimum when battery and engine
are on opposite ends of airplane. On sea-planes with large
separations between engine and battery(s) wires have been
as large as 00AWG (twice the cross section of 2AWG). So,
if your battery is up front, close to firewall, 4AWG will
be fine. If your battery is behind seats, 2AWG is recommended.
Keep in mind that the power distribution diagrams are
seeds of an array of ideas for how to configure a system
for operation . . . EVERY detail of these drawings (such
as wire gage) needs to be considered in light of your
particular situation.
Thanks a lot for your help with these questions,
My pleasure . . .
PS--Really like the line in your book about vaccuum systems being for
cleaning carpets. Love to tell my buds that one. Happy Holidays.
I've had a lot of supportive response on that one . . .
Vacuum systems were marvelous inventions back in the
days when fat venturi tubes on the fuselage were
the best we could do. Remember that lots of airplanes
had gyros a decade or more before they got batteries,
starters and generators.
Like carburetors and magnetos, vacuum pumps need to
make way for better ways . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
| People are far more willing to pay |
| for being amused than for anything else. |
| -Thomas Edison- |
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactors, Master Switches |
Bob:
First off, thanks for all the excellent articles on your site. They're
proving extremely helpful as I put together my electrical system.
Next, a couple of questions:
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I've been snowed
for several weeks with other tasks. I'm getting back into
the "AeroElectric" saddle . . .
1. I installed your alternator disconnect contactor for the
internally-regulated alternator. I connected the indicated ground on the
contactor terminal opposite the band on the diode. When I tested with a
12V battery, the contactor closed, but was shorted (the leads and contactor
were noticeably warm to the touch).
The whole contactor warmed up in just a few seconds?
I removed the ground lead, and the contactor still functions, independent
of polarity. What did I do wrong? Did I damage something?
The contactor itself is not polarity sensitive. It's just a coil of
wire that creates a magnetic field to close the contactor. The
contactor's mechanism doesn't care what the polarity of the
magnetic field. A contactor WILL get too hot to touch after
a few minutes. They draw about 0.8A and therefore have to dissipate
8-10 watts depending on bus voltage. If the contactor is still working,
then I'm inclined to believe it's okay.
2. I notice that you changed the master switch to an S700-2-10 switch type
from the simultaneous on and off configuration and high-lighted this with a
note. I thought the original scheme was neat, but I'm sure you've a very
good reason for the change. What is it?
Alternators generally do not run well without a battery on line. Noise
is higher, voltage stability lower and the alternator can be stalled
with momentary inrush loads from things like landing lights or landing
gear motors. The split rocker switch that appeared on light singles
in the 60's provided mechanical interlocking such that the battery
side of the switch could be ON without having the alternator on too . . .
This allows for shutting down a misbehaving alternator and
leaving the alternator off until after the engine is started. Interlocking
pins between the two halves of the switch made sure that if the
battery was taken off line, the alternator would be taken off with it.
The S700-2-10, progressive transfer switch mimics functionality
of the split rocker. One COULD consider a two pole, single throw
switch for bringing alternator and battery ON and OFF together and
using a pullable breaker (needed for crowbar ov protection system)
for disabling a misbehaving alternator . . . a rare event.
Either combination (S700-2-10) -OR- (S700-2-3 plus breaker) would
be functionally adequate. The S700-2-10 is just more elegant.
Have you considered joining us on the AeroElectric List?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Master disconnect for elec trim & Autopilot |
Bob,
1)Do you consider the latching circuitry/momentary switch combination an
important element of this device? I ask because my stick grip already has
SPST push-off push-on switches installed, not momentary switches. They could
be changed out, but that's a bit of a hassle. Presuming that most OBAM
aircraft don't have any such master disconnect at all, does the latching
circuitry/momentary switch combination offer a noticeable improvement over
controlling the relay with a SPST switch?
2) My interest in the FADEC electrical architecture is not just academic -
my FADEC unit is going to be delivered in about 60 days. Unlike the Lancair
4's however, I'm building a (hopefully) lightweight night/VFR RV-8. The
"basic" FADEC plan is to have just a 7ah battery for the second FADEC power
source, but this would not comfortably run the engine for fuel duration. My
current thinking is to add the 8ah B&C alternator on the small battery
circuit (dedicated to FADEC power supply), as this is the lightest method of
gaining the desired endurance. Another choice, if more weight is needed aft,
is to forego the B&C alternator and install a second 17ah battery in the
back alongside the primary one. Looking forward to seeing your ideas on this
matter.
Thanks again.
William
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master disconnect for elec trim &
Autopilot
>
>
>Bob,
>I really like the idea of the master disconnect for all of the electric
>items which move the control surfaces, and would like to implement it on my
>RV-8, likely using one of the switches on my stick grip. I'll have pitch
and
>roll trim, and a wing leveler autopilot. Since the switch involved will
>probably be a push-on/push-off type, an annuciator light indicating that
the
>systems were disabled might be nice. How would you suggest I go about this?
>Thanks.
Sure. See http://216.55.140.222/temp/MDRelay.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GLikar <glikar(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: LED's: Good Source |
Try these for plans and ideas,
http://groups.msn.com/whitelightLED/discussions.msnw .
I've converted my hiking headlamp with leds from here - $1.75 ea.
http://www.whitelightled.com/
Regards
GLL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andre Beusch - Sun Switzerland Basel - Enterprise Services <Andre.Beusch(at)sun.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A413 HDA-DF strobe power supply schematics ? |
Enterprise Services
Charlie,
that is a good point, unfortunately, the unit has now completely failed, so it
won't help.
BTW, freezing spray is easy to get here in Switzerland.
Investing enough time I will eventually be able to repair it, even without a schematic
diagram.
A new unit is about $370 at ACS, I have already "invested" $30 for new capacitors.
Regards, Andre
> Andre,
>
> If you own a scope I may be telling you something you already know, but here's
a
> 'shade tree' troubleshooting technique. Actually it's only shade tree if you
> must use option 2 or 3.
>
> Use some type of cooling liquid on the various components to see if the
> oscillator will restart more quickly.
>
> Choices of coolant:
> 1. 'freeze spray' from an electronics supply house (hard to find due to ozone
laws)
> 2. brake & carb cleaner in an aerosol can, if it feels very cold when sprayed
> 3. regular old rubbing alcohol & a q-tip swab
>
> All the usual safety, environmental & health liability disclaimers apply here.
> You obviously don't want sparks & open flame around while you do this.
>
> Cool the entire circuit 1st & see if it will restart when cooled. If it does,
> try cooling individual components (after waiting for it to shut down on its own)
> to isolate the bad one. Remember that if you use too much, the coolant will cool
> multiple components by cooling their leads where they attach to the circuit board.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
I have qty 3 7ft long ground straps from an obselete product line. They are
made from 3/4" tinned copper braid and have lugs with 1/4" holes. good for
85 amps. Something for nothing for whoever wants one. just send me your
adress and I will mail one to you. Cleaning out my stk room.
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: Electrical System redux
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thanks for your advice. Like Columbo, just a few more questions, sir. I
> think that I will go with a system similar to the one you have in your
> book on Figure Z-12. I like the redundancy of 2 alternators, and with
> all electric, a 20A aux alternator will power all the avionics in my
> F1-Rocket (like an RV-4.) The reason I'm thinking a 20A vs the 8A unit
> is that the gps/nav/com draws about 7A alone on transmit. Granted, I
> don't have a lot to say, but on a dark and stormy night I think that the
> extra 2 lbs will be the least of my worries. Your thoughts?
>
> Main alternator sizing is driven by CONTINUOUS loads plus headroom
> for battery charging. The standby system needs to be configured
> for ENDURANCE meaning that when the main alternator is down,
> you want unlimited endurance with 8-10A continuous load while holding
your
> battery in reserve for approach to landing. Intermittent
> loads like transmit, trim, flaps, etc are insignificant to
> this consideration.
>
> Anyway, I
> guess that I'm concerned about an overvoltage on the main alternator,
>
> Easy to handle with rudimentary ov protection . . . see articles
> on website and discussions in the AeroElectric Connection.
>
> or a short on the main alt or main bus.
>
> How is this going to happen? It's sorta like worrying about
> wings falling off or propellers flying away. It's easy to
> fabricate your airplane in ways that make these probabilities
> too small to worry about.
>
> In this case, the first step would
> be to open the master switch. Next, close the E-bus feed, then the aux
> alt switch. As you say, the order these switches are opened and closed
> is important. Now, there is nothing to excite the field for the aux alt,
> since it feeds from the main bus, which is now unpowered, right? What
> did I miss here? Is an overvoltage or short that unlikely?
>
> yes . . . lots of folks worry about these things based
> on reading too many dark-n-stormy-night stories without
> getting the benefit of critical analysis of how things
> failed and what could be done to either make the system
> TOLERANT of the failure.
>
> ad the
> biggest problem will be the belt breaking, or an internal failure of the
> main alt resulting in the regulator not providing any field voltage to
> the main alt?
>
> . . . the most robust systems ASSUME that critical
> components are going to fail to function. The system
> becomes robust by deducing alternative modes of operation
> wherein the failure of any single component will not
> produce a situation that causes you to break a sweat.
>
> How 'bout feeding the aux alt field off the essential bus
> instead? Or even the battery bus? Further, with the battery contactor
> open and a short on the main bus, should the B lead from the aux alt go
> to the battery bus, or essential bus? Maybe I'm thinking too much, and
> these failure modes are just too remote, but I know that just about
> anything can happen in aviation.
>
> I'm not suggesting that every kind of failure you can
> imagine shouldn't be considered. They fall into three
> categories (1) redesign or select alternate component to
> reduce likelihood of failure [which still doesn't make
> it ZERO], (2) design system and mode of operation so
> that the outcome of any flight that suffers the failure
> is comfortably assured or (3) failure is so remote as
> to make further consideration unnecessary.
>
> Also, I'm thinking about using a DPDT
> switch for the aux alt and using the xtra set of terminals to switch the
> ammeter so I don't need two ammeters--what do you think?
>
> It would need to be a three pole switch. You need to switch
> ammeter leads as pairs . . . but what you propose would work.
>
> You show 4AWG
> and 2AWG from the battery contactor to the starter contactor in different
> places in your book--must be a typo. Which do you recommend--remember,
> I'm cranking an IO-540?
>
> Depends on your airplane. 2AWG is the minimum when battery and engine
> are on opposite ends of airplane. On sea-planes with large
> separations between engine and battery(s) wires have been
> as large as 00AWG (twice the cross section of 2AWG). So,
> if your battery is up front, close to firewall, 4AWG will
> be fine. If your battery is behind seats, 2AWG is recommended.
>
> Keep in mind that the power distribution diagrams are
> seeds of an array of ideas for how to configure a system
> for operation . . . EVERY detail of these drawings (such
> as wire gage) needs to be considered in light of your
> particular situation.
>
> Thanks a lot for your help with these questions,
>
> My pleasure . . .
>
> PS--Really like the line in your book about vaccuum systems being for
> cleaning carpets. Love to tell my buds that one. Happy Holidays.
>
> I've had a lot of supportive response on that one . . .
> Vacuum systems were marvelous inventions back in the
> days when fat venturi tubes on the fuselage were
> the best we could do. Remember that lots of airplanes
> had gyros a decade or more before they got batteries,
> starters and generators.
>
> Like carburetors and magnetos, vacuum pumps need to
> make way for better ways . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
> --------------------------------------------
> | People are far more willing to pay |
> | for being amused than for anything else. |
> | -Thomas Edison- |
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Master disconnect for elec trim & Autopilot |
>
>
>Bob,
>1)Do you consider the latching circuitry/momentary switch combination an
>important element of this device? I ask because my stick grip already has
>SPST push-off push-on switches installed, not momentary switches. They could
>be changed out, but that's a bit of a hassle. Presuming that most OBAM
>aircraft don't have any such master disconnect at all, does the latching
>circuitry/momentary switch combination offer a noticeable improvement over
>controlling the relay with a SPST switch?
Nope. That's the way I would do it but if you have an idea more attractive
to you, by all means . . .
>2) My interest in the FADEC electrical architecture is not just academic -
>my FADEC unit is going to be delivered in about 60 days. Unlike the Lancair
>4's however, I'm building a (hopefully) lightweight night/VFR RV-8. The
>"basic" FADEC plan is to have just a 7ah battery for the second FADEC power
>source, but this would not comfortably run the engine for fuel duration. My
>current thinking is to add the 8ah B&C alternator on the small battery
>circuit (dedicated to FADEC power supply), as this is the lightest method of
>gaining the desired endurance. Another choice, if more weight is needed aft,
>is to forego the B&C alternator and install a second 17ah battery in the
>back alongside the primary one. Looking forward to seeing your ideas on this
>matter.
Airplanes with electrically dependent engines are beginning to outstrip
what's practical to carry in terms of lead and acid. The second alternator
is a good idea but doesn't need to be dedicated to FADEC service . . .
the all electric system on a budget would work find with FADEC running
from an Aux battery. Have the SD-8 drive the Aux battery instead of
the main battery and run the E-bus from the aux battery bus too. Aux
battery would not be tied to bus for cranking. During main alternator
failure, you shut down the main battery to preserve approach to
landing reserves and run from the SD-8. If the SD-8 turns out to be too
light, then upsize to the SD-20.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: new voltage regulator |
Bob
I just purchased Van's 60 amp alternator which has an internal voltage
regulator. For the previous alternator (not regulated) I installed your 14
v linear regulator. Can I take remove this regulator now that the
alternator has one?
Sure. You need to add b-lead disconnect contactor and OV protection
as shown in Figure Z-24
The one thing I like about that regulator is the yellow light that
indicates low voltage. Is there another way to trigger a low voltage light?
Yup. Working the LVWarn/AuxBatManagement module instructions now.
Probably get
them posted this weekend and put the kits up on the website.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
In a message dated 12/13/02 10:53:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ronr(at)advanceddesign.com writes:
> I have qty 3 7ft long ground straps from an obselete product line. They are
> made from 3/4" tinned copper braid and have lugs with 1/4" holes. good for
> 85 amps. Something for nothing for whoever wants one. just send me your
> adress and I will mail one to you. Cleaning out my stk room.
>
>
Hello Ron,
I would like one if I am not too late.
Dale Ensing
1050 Baron Road
Weddington NC 28173
Thanks
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
In a message dated 12/13/02 10:53:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ronr(at)advanceddesign.com writes:
> just send me your
> adress and I will mail one to you.
Ron,
I forgot to add that I will be happy to pay shipping.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
Hey Ron , I'd be happy to have one . I'll send ya back the shipping cast
too if ya include your address ! Thanks, Chris Fleshren
[Unable to display image]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
keith,dwane and todd got the ground straps.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <DWENSING(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground strap
>
> In a message dated 12/13/02 10:53:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> ronr(at)advanceddesign.com writes:
>
>
> > I have qty 3 7ft long ground straps from an obselete product line. They
are
> > made from 3/4" tinned copper braid and have lugs with 1/4" holes. good
for
> > 85 amps. Something for nothing for whoever wants one. just send me your
> > adress and I will mail one to you. Cleaning out my stk room.
> >
> >
>
> Hello Ron,
> I would like one if I am not too late.
> Dale Ensing
> 1050 Baron Road
> Weddington NC 28173
> Thanks
> Dale
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
I'd be very interested in the ground straps, If possible send to:
Tom Saccio
4373 Maules Point Rd
Blounts Creek NC 27814
tsaccio(at)aol.com
Please send address and I would be glad to send you a check for the shipping
charges.
Thank you,
Tom Saccio
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Anyone else had, or heard of, a failure like this? I have dual crank-triggered
Lightspeeds so this failure mode won't affect me, but I thought I'd pass along
the info FYI...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing....
IAD03IA017
Incident occurred Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at LEESBURG, VA
Aircraft:CRAIG N. MOEN RV-8, registration: N184CM
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any
errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On October 22, 2002, about 1600 eastern standard time, a homebuilt RV-8, N184CM,
experienced a failure of the right ignition system during descent into Leesburg
Executive Airport (JYO), Leesburg, Virginia. The airplane landed uneventfully,
and the certificated private pilot/builder/owner was not injured. No flight
plan was filed for the flight that originated at Elizabethtown Airport, (4W1),
Elizabethtown, North Carolina, about 1400. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the pilot, he was on a return flight from Florida, when he was forced
to land at Elizabethtown due to weather. While in the traffic pattern the
engine backfired a few times. After landing, and while taxiing to the ramp, he
determined that the right ignition source was working intermittently.
The pilot was unable to replace the right ignition source in Elizabethtown, and
returned to Leesburg the following day. As the airplane made a normal descent
into Leesburg, the pilot discovered the right ignition source was "completely
dead."
The pilot had installed a Dual Lightspeed Plasma II ignition system with Hall Effect
Sensor Modules, which replaced both magnetos.
The pilot removed the back plate of the right Hall Effect sensor module and found
the timing rotor had fractured, and the internal face of the back plate exhibited
rotational scoring.
The pilot reported that the right Hall Effect sensor module had accrued a total
of 34 hours.
According to the manufacturer, 400 timing rotors were currently in use and there
been no reported failures.
The fractured timing rotor and back plate were sent to Safety Board's Materials
Laboratory, Washington, D.C, for further examination.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
Ron:
Are these good for a grounding strap? If they are, I could use one.
Regards,
Ed Silvanic
Lancair ES
N823MS(at)aol.com
1741 Roseberry Cove
Collierville, TN 38017
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
Bob, is your AEC70.zip file still available on the web somewhere? I tried
the old link but it wasn't there.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillRVSIX(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Van's instrument lighting ? |
Hello IM trying to figure out the breaker size for van's lighted instruments.
I have six lighted instrument connecting to a breaker but I don't know how
many amps or watts the lights are to figure out the breaker and wire size.
its a 12 volt system.
2 ?-- My six flight instruments will all be lite by the EL light bezels and I
was wondering if any one new if the van's lighted instruments are going to
match or look the same color white/blue color as the light bezels or is it
such a problem to match lighted instruments I shouldn't worry about it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
Hall Effect sensors, and for that matter, inductive sensors, can and do fail. Most
failures are Quality related. I had an inductive sensor fail on a Jeff Rose
electronic ignition. The failure was due to a QC issue during the manufacturing
process. Jeff changed his source, and the problem went away....
Fred Stucklen
Working on a new RV-6A
Subject: Lightspeed hall effect module failure
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
Anyone else had, or heard of, a failure like this? I have dual crank-triggered
Lightspeeds so this failure mode won't affect me, but I thought I'd pass
along
the info FYI...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing....
IAD03IA017
Incident occurred Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at LEESBURG, VA
Aircraft:CRAIG N. MOEN RV-8, registration: N184CM
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any
errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On October 22, 2002, about 1600 eastern standard time, a homebuilt RV-8,
N184CM,
experienced a failure of the right ignition system during descent into Leesburg
Executive Airport (JYO), Leesburg, Virginia. The airplane landed uneventfully,
and the certificated private pilot/builder/owner was not injured. No flight
plan was filed for the flight that originated at Elizabethtown Airport, (4W1),
Elizabethtown, North Carolina, about 1400. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the pilot, he was on a return flight from Florida, when he was
forced
to land at Elizabethtown due to weather. While in the traffic pattern the
engine backfired a few times. After landing, and while taxiing to the ramp,
he
determined that the right ignition source was working intermittently.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
Gang,
Not a Hall effect module failure, but...
We had some previous discussion about melting the RG58 A/U leads from
the electronics boxes to the coils (Thanks, Richard). I'd already installed
a set, but I went back and did a little test. Stuck a piece of RG58 in front
of a heat gun, warmed it up to about 200F (I have a Raytec to check temp),
then mashed it with a pair of pliers. Soft as bubble gum, easily shorts the
center conductor to the braid. Tells me the stuff has no business in an
engine compartment; it has the potential to short almost anyplace it's
clamped, squeezed, or in a tight radius.
RG400 passed the same test with ease, so that's what I have installed
now. However, there's no free lunch. Two possible downsides. RG400 is much
stiffer, so it required more care in arranging things for strain relief and
fixation. Second, the outer insulation (covering the braid) is tough, but
very thin and seems to be notch sensitive. An outer braid rupture to ground
may have the potential for a tiny arc. Maybe not, don't know coil supply
voltage, coil resistance, or internal supression in the black box, so don't
know voltage on what I'm seeing as the ground side of the coil circuit.
Probably won't fail the ignition, but it may cause a mystery radio noise?
I'm guessing. Anyway, I used nothing but rubber lined MS clamps to fixate
the cable runs, avoiding other surface contact. Good practice anyway.
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
Straight RG58U , Trade Number 9201, with the polyethylene insulation
is rated to 75 degs. Centigrade... It is the foam insulator that makes the
coax more flexible than the solid ethylene insulator, but the foam softens
at a much lower temperature, also..
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <DHPHKH(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed hall effect module failure
>
> Gang,
> Not a Hall effect module failure, but...
>
> We had some previous discussion about melting the RG58 A/U leads from
> the electronics boxes to the coils (Thanks, Richard). I'd already
installed
> a set, but I went back and did a little test. Stuck a piece of RG58 in
front
> of a heat gun, warmed it up to about 200F (I have a Raytec to check temp),
> then mashed it with a pair of pliers. Soft as bubble gum, easily shorts
the
> center conductor to the braid. Tells me the stuff has no business in an
> engine compartment; it has the potential to short almost anyplace it's
> clamped, squeezed, or in a tight radius.
>
> RG400 passed the same test with ease, so that's what I have
installed
> now. However, there's no free lunch. Two possible downsides. RG400 is
much
> stiffer, so it required more care in arranging things for strain relief
and
> fixation. Second, the outer insulation (covering the braid) is tough, but
> very thin and seems to be notch sensitive. An outer braid rupture to
ground
> may have the potential for a tiny arc. Maybe not, don't know coil supply
> voltage, coil resistance, or internal supression in the black box, so
don't
> know voltage on what I'm seeing as the ground side of the coil circuit.
> Probably won't fail the ignition, but it may cause a mystery radio noise?
> I'm guessing. Anyway, I used nothing but rubber lined MS clamps to fixate
> the cable runs, avoiding other surface contact. Good practice anyway.
>
> Dan Horton
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
>
>Gang,
> Not a Hall effect module failure, but...
>
> We had some previous discussion about melting the RG58 A/U leads from
>the electronics boxes to the coils (Thanks, Richard). I'd already installed
>a set, but I went back and did a little test. Stuck a piece of RG58 in front
>of a heat gun, warmed it up to about 200F (I have a Raytec to check temp),
>then mashed it with a pair of pliers. Soft as bubble gum, easily shorts the
>center conductor to the braid. Tells me the stuff has no business in an
>engine compartment; it has the potential to short almost anyplace it's
>clamped, squeezed, or in a tight radius.
Thanks for doing the test, it's nice to have verification!
> RG400 passed the same test with ease, so that's what I have
> installed
>now. However, there's no free lunch. Two possible downsides. RG400 is much
>stiffer, so it required more care in arranging things for strain relief and
>fixation. Second, the outer insulation (covering the braid) is tough, but
>very thin and seems to be notch sensitive. An outer braid rupture to ground
>may have the potential for a tiny arc. Maybe not, don't know coil supply
>voltage, coil resistance, or internal supression in the black box, so don't
>know voltage on what I'm seeing as the ground side of the coil circuit.
>Probably won't fail the ignition, but it may cause a mystery radio noise?
>I'm guessing. Anyway, I used nothing but rubber lined MS clamps to fixate
>the cable runs, avoiding other surface contact. Good practice anyway.
In my new installation I've covered the RG400 with shrink tube. May be
overkill - and it does end up even stiffer - but i agree with your concern
about the outer insulator.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed hall effect module failure |
>
>Hall Effect sensors, and for that matter, inductive sensors, can and do
>fail. Most failures are Quality related. I had an inductive sensor fail on
>a Jeff Rose electronic ignition. The failure was due to a QC issue during
>the manufacturing process. Jeff changed his source, and the problem went
>away....
>
>Fred Stucklen
>Working on a new RV-6A
According to the preliminary report, it seems this device suffered
some sort of mechanical failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | crimping solid conductors no-no? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
From the RV-List....is this really a no-no to put a crimp connector on a
solid wire conductor like a diode has? Understand it may not be optimal
but for a joint that's not really critical or under much mechanical
stress like the spike diode in this case, is it really something to be
concerned about?
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglassing....
The ACS A-510-2 ignition switch comes with a diode to put across the
starter
solenoid winding but I did not use it because it had the connecting
terminals crimped on to the diode wires (solid conductors) which is bad
practice, as solid copper wire will "cold flow" and the terminals will
become loose, which was the case with that diode. So I used another diode
with stranded wire pig-tails soldered to it and terminals crimped on
them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping solid conductors no-no? |
>
> From the RV-List....is this really a no-no to put a crimp connector on a
>solid wire conductor like a diode has? Understand it may not be optimal
>but for a joint that's not really critical or under much mechanical
>stress like the spike diode in this case, is it really something to be
>concerned about?
Sure . . . why not? Consider that when you put a full crimp
on stranded wires, the area under the crimp becomes 'gas tight'
meaning that not one molecule of anything is going to get
inside . . . sounds pretty SOLID to me.
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A N2D fiberglassing....
>
>
>
>The ACS A-510-2 ignition switch comes with a diode to put across the
>starter
>solenoid winding but I did not use it because it had the connecting
>terminals crimped on to the diode wires (solid conductors) which is bad
>practice, as solid copper wire will "cold flow" and the terminals will
>become loose, which was the case with that diode. So I used another diode
>with stranded wire pig-tails soldered to it and terminals crimped on
>them.
Interesting. When the AD was first issued against the A-510 series
switches, a diode was added across the switch contacts . . . which
we could deduce was not effective. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
. . . if they now recommend that the diode be placed across
the contactor coil instead, then it's a good thing.
Solid copper wire doesn't "cold flow" . . . if terminals
become loose on the wire with time, it's because the crimp
was incomplete or inadequate in the first place.
If you check out the picture of our S702-1 crossfeed contactor
with diodes installed at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-2.jpg
. . . you will see PIDG terminals installed on solid conductor
diode leads. I'll draw your attention to something else in the
picture . . . the diodes are 1N5400 series devices rated at 3A
and electrically oversized to the task by about 100 times. The
reason I selected these devices is because of their heavier,
mechanically more robust packaging features not the least of
which was fatter wires that do a better job of mating up with
a PIDG crimp.
1N4000 series diodes are often recommended . . . if I don't
have fat-wire alternatives to the 1A diodes, I'll double the
end of the leadwire back on itself about 1/4" before putting
the finer wire into the wiregrip area of the terminal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
>
>Bob, is your AEC70.zip file still available on the web somewhere? I tried
>the old link but it wasn't there.
>Dave
Try http://216.55.140.222/CD/AEC7_0.zip
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping solid conductors no-no? |
My preference would be to use a non-insulated terminal and soldering it to
the lead of the diode, then cover the whole thing, except for the ring ends
of the terminals, with heat shrink tubing. I'm not convinced that crimping
onto the solid lead results in everything becoming solid inside. Perhaps
some of the space is still air.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> > From the RV-List....is this really a no-no to put a crimp connector on a
> >solid wire conductor like a diode has? Understand it may not be optimal
> >but for a joint that's not really critical or under much mechanical
> >stress like the spike diode in this case, is it really something to be
> >concerned about?
>
> Sure . . . why not? Consider that when you put a full crimp
> on stranded wires, the area under the crimp becomes 'gas tight'
> meaning that not one molecule of anything is going to get
> inside . . . sounds pretty SOLID to me.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DMarti1029(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
If possible I Would like one too
DENNIS Martin
9311 Fairground Rd.
Louisville Ky, 40291
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
Thanks Bob, got it.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bob - AEC70.zip
>
> >
> >Bob, is your AEC70.zip file still available on the web somewhere? I
tried
> >the old link but it wasn't there.
> >Dave
>
> Try http://216.55.140.222/CD/AEC7_0.zip
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground strap |
Dennis, I allready gave them out
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <DMarti1029(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground strap
>
>
> If possible I Would like one too
> DENNIS Martin
>
> 9311 Fairground Rd.
> Louisville Ky, 40291
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | FtWorth seminar date set |
I've been in touch with the Orndorff's and we've settled
on a date for what must now be about the 5th or 6th annual
weekend seminar in their facilities on Propwash Airport near
Justin, TX about 30 Miles north of Ft. Worth TX.
Details at http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Ft.Worth.html
George and Becki operate Geobeck, Inc., a builder assistance
center specializing in RV's . . . there are few people on the
planet who have shepherded more RV's to completion than these
folks. This program is an opportunity to jump start the
planning on your electrical system -AND- get in touch with
some real airframe experts in the world of OBAM aircraft.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm a little confused about how to properly wire my slick mags.
First, a real simple, basic question about attaching the P lead to the mag
stud. This stud has a nut, splined lock washer and a large fiber washer in a
stack. I assume the p lead terminal goes between the splined lock washer and
the fiber washer. Right? Also, why is this stud flat on one side?
Second, Z-11 shows the shielded wire grounded at the mag, but note 3 says to
attach it to "engine ground." Does the mag case work as engine ground, and
is there a specific screw I'm supposed to use for this ground? Or, do I run
it to the firewall ground block?
Ignorance sure ain't bliss.
thanks,
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
I'm considering changing from individual strobe supplies to one central
unit. I've read the issues with mounting and the high voltage runs with
other wiring. Those aren't the questions I have.
I'm working on the wings (RV-8) and had planned on single power supplies
with one wire for the supply (along with the nav and landing light
supply) and use the airframe for ground return. With the single supply
I'll need to use the shielded wire, which is obviously larger. Question,
what is the diameter of wire people are using? I found a 3 conductor
shielded cable at Mouser that shows an OD of .25 inch. Is that typical?
The other question, which is more of a general wiring question, but came
up with the strobe quandary. Are connectors normally used at the wing
root so the wing is more easily removable? If so, is a shielded
connector necessary for the high voltage strobe supply or will a
standard connector work (similar to the ones on the power supply)?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel Clark" <dclark(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
>>Bob, is your AEC70.zip file still available on the web somewhere? I
tried
>>the old link but it wasn't there.
>>Dave
>
> Try http://216.55.140.222/CD/AEC7_0.zip
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave O'Donnell" <daveodonnell(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Lighting Backlit panels |
I have been intrigued and interested in some of the lighting issues;
LEDs and recently the UMA products (electroluminescent (EL) strip
lighting, backlit overlays (really cool!))
I think SPT is using LEDS to create some very nice looking panels.
http://www.sptpanel.com/switch_panel.htm
Then at night it looks like;
http://www.sptpanel.com/citation-night.htm
I am mentally trying to figure out exactly how it could best be done by
myself (low cost). Take a painted Plexiglas panel where the paint is
laser etched away (lettering), can you get it laser cut at the same
time? Then drill sockets for the LEDs to sit in on the backside?
The best US source that I have found so far for the EL stuff is;
http://www.beingseen.com/index.html or
http://elamusainc.com/
I think the EL stuff is dimmed by slowing the applied frequency or
lowering the voltage. They are very energy efficient, generate
negligible heat, and give off a nice even light. The down side of EL is
a little more cost and they appear to put out less light over time (70%
less after 3,000 hrs) & are damaged by sunlight. This time
deterioration may be insignificant because it appears to be operating
time. A pdf for the EL wire is below;
http://elamusainc.com/PDFS/5mmCommon.pdf
All interesting mental exercises at this stage for me. I think the LED
panel could look very professional, anyone out there already know how to
or the best way to do the backlit panel as in the links above.
Regards,
Dave O
Considering a Lancair Legacy project
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping solid conductors no-no? |
Took a couple of red PIDG terminals and crimped onto both
a 1N5400 single strand solid and a 1N4005 doubled up solid
wire. Sectioned terminals through the wire grip and polished
as best I could with ruby hone. Took a peek under the microscope
and both crimps were as gas-tight as I could see. It's amazing how
something that looks mirror bright to the naked eye can still
be a moonscape of scratches with the finest grit metal removal
tool I have in the shop!
Bob . . .
>My preference would be to use a non-insulated terminal and soldering it to
>the lead of the diode, then cover the whole thing, except for the ring ends
>of the terminals, with heat shrink tubing. I'm not convinced that crimping
>onto the solid lead results in everything becoming solid inside. Perhaps
>some of the space is still air.
>
>David Swartzendruber
>Wichita
>
> > > From the RV-List....is this really a no-no to put a crimp connector on a
> > >solid wire conductor like a diode has? Understand it may not be optimal
> > >but for a joint that's not really critical or under much mechanical
> > >stress like the spike diode in this case, is it really something to be
> > >concerned about?
> >
> > Sure . . . why not? Consider that when you put a full crimp
> > on stranded wires, the area under the crimp becomes 'gas tight'
> > meaning that not one molecule of anything is going to get
> > inside . . . sounds pretty SOLID to me.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | How to crimp d-sub pins |
I'm starting to wire my radios. I'm looking for a lesson on how to install
the close-barrel pins that come with the radios using the RCT-3
crimper. How much wire should be stripped, should any insulation go inside
the barrel, etc.?
Thanks,
Dan O'Brien
Lancair Super ES
________________________________________________________________________________
I am installing an all electric system on my Seawind and need to know what
alternators from B&C to order. B&C lists them as 200G 12 amp alternator and
an
SD 8 alternator. Are these stand by alternators? I thought that I was
supposed to use a 60 amp and a 20 amp alternator. Are the 200G and the SD8
the correct ones?
Please help.
Tom Saccio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators for 60/20 dual system |
>
>I am installing an all electric system on my Seawind and need to know what
>alternators from B&C to order. B&C lists them as 200G 12 amp alternator and
>an
> SD 8 alternator. Are these stand by alternators? I thought that I was
>supposed to use a 60 amp and a 20 amp alternator. Are the 200G and the SD8
>the correct ones?
L-60 and SD-20 would get you 60 and 20 amps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
>The server that this big file is on does not support resumeing if
the file download is interupted. I have seen this only a few times
before. Is there any way to turn this feature off . I takes about
6 or 7 hours to get this file where I live and I have gotten close
but have not been able to get the whole thing. When the file
restarts it must restart from Zero. If it is a simple thing to
do could this be altered.
( I got the book but often its in the shop and I'm in the house or
versa visa)
Thanks
Jim Pollard
Merlin Ont
28000 kbits/sec internet connection
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
Hello Jim,
use a tool like netvampire (www.shareware.com) or similar, this does save
the content and is able to restart where it broke, or easier, buy the CD
with all the stuff from Bob =(;o)
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim and Lucy" <jpollard(at)mnsi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bob - AEC70.zip
>
>
> >The server that this big file is on does not support resumeing if
> the file download is interupted. I have seen this only a few times
> before. Is there any way to turn this feature off . I takes about
> 6 or 7 hours to get this file where I live and I have gotten close
> but have not been able to get the whole thing. When the file
> restarts it must restart from Zero. If it is a simple thing to
> do could this be altered.
> ( I got the book but often its in the shop and I'm in the house or
> versa visa)
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Pollard
> Merlin Ont
> 28000 kbits/sec internet connection
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
>
>
> >The server that this big file is on does not support resumeing if
>the file download is interupted. I have seen this only a few times
>before. Is there any way to turn this feature off . I takes about
>6 or 7 hours to get this file where I live and I have gotten close
>but have not been able to get the whole thing. When the file
>restarts it must restart from Zero. If it is a simple thing to
>do could this be altered.
>( I got the book but often its in the shop and I'm in the house or
>versa visa)
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim Pollard
>Merlin Ont
>28000 kbits/sec internet connection
The slow, cantankerous nature of dial up connection is
why the CD was offered in the first place. As our website
grew, it became increasingly difficult for dial-up folks
to conveniently browse the site.
I posted the CD with no illusions that dial-up connected
users would be any better off than before. Sorry, but it's
the nature of the beast. The server upon which the website
resides belongs to me and my partner (http://www.stirlingengine.com/)
and to keep costs (and administrator time) low, we have not
endeavored to add many gee-whiz features.
I won't discourage them from trying but people should be aware
of a high probability for difficulties when trying to
download the CD via telephone modem
I recall a few odd notes on the list during Matt's fund
raiser wherein the writers declined financial support
for Matt's endeavors. It illustrated a lack of understanding
about just what it takes to put a high volume service up
on the 'net and keep it running reliably. If folks knew
how much uncompensated time Matt has put into the bells
and whistles, not to mention purchasing and maintaining
connectivity and hardware . . . well . . . 'nuf said.
My itty-bitty server in SanDiego is on a very fast
line and it was brand new equipment a year ago. It has
accumulated thousands of hours of zero-down-time
service record. There WILL come a day when the little
fellow is going to burp a puff of smoke . . . I won't
hit on anyone for donations to replace it but I will
continue to support Matt's work generously. His talent
and time invested to support the OBAM community probably
exceeds my own by perhaps 100-fold.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to crimp d-sub pins |
>
>I'm starting to wire my radios. I'm looking for a lesson on how to install
>the close-barrel pins that come with the radios using the RCT-3
>crimper. How much wire should be stripped,
just enough for wire to bottom out in back of pin
and not have the insulation touch the pin . . .
> should any insulation go inside
>the barrel, etc.?
no . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe wiring |
>
>I'm considering changing from individual strobe supplies to one central
>unit. I've read the issues with mounting and the high voltage runs with
>other wiring. Those aren't the questions I have.
>
>I'm working on the wings (RV-8) and had planned on single power supplies
>with one wire for the supply (along with the nav and landing light
>supply) and use the airframe for ground return. With the single supply
>I'll need to use the shielded wire, which is obviously larger. Question,
>what is the diameter of wire people are using? I found a 3 conductor
>shielded cable at Mouser that shows an OD of .25 inch. Is that typical?
You need 3-conductor, foil shielded wire of 20AWG minimum
size conductors. 18AWG would be okay too.
>The other question, which is more of a general wiring question, but came
>up with the strobe quandary. Are connectors normally used at the wing
>root so the wing is more easily removable? If so, is a shielded
>connector necessary for the high voltage strobe supply or will a
>standard connector work (similar to the ones on the power supply)?
Every connector you put in a wire adds 3 new joints to every
conductor. Once installed, wings very seldom need to be
removed. If it were my airplane, I'd put a 6" diameter "service
loop" of wire at the root of each wing. If and when the wing
needs to be pulled in the future, you have plenty of slack to
add connectors (or butt splices) to re-install the wing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob - AEC70.zip |
Werner,
You MADE my day!
I've been looking for a program like that for sooo long. I tried it out
this morning and cant beleive how easy and useful this is.... It allows me
to collect photos of other's projects to help my own construction along...
use to spend hours downloading one picture at a time and babysitting the
thing waiting for each picture to finish... and that doesnt even count the
opportunities to now download LARGE files and resume when my ISP disconnects
every couple hours...
THANKS!
Jon
CH 701
www.joncroke.com
P.S. to Bob... I have enjoyed reading my copy of the Aerolectric
Connection... copies still available from B&C... (talked to you last week
before my trip)
>
> Hello Jim,
>
> use a tool like netvampire (www.shareware.com) or similar, this does save
> the content and is able to restart where it broke, or easier, buy the CD
> with all the stuff from Bob =(;o)
>
> Kind regards
>
> Werner
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage Regulator .... |
This *&
#%$@# voltage regulator stuff is driving me NUTS!! I
just installed a '94 or so Ford unit with spades labeled: I S
A F. I connected the "F" tab to alternator field, shunted the
S and A tabs together (as I understood Bob's instructions) and
connected them to the battery via the Alternator (Cessna split)
switch. I thought I had the problem solved when I cranked it up
and saw 14.5 - 14.7 volts. Then I went to fly and when I turned
the engine up, the voltage went to over 16 volts.
I have the link to that website Bob discussed that has all those
$5 regulators. All I could find was part numbers and prices.
No application information at all. How do we order from those
folks without application information?
If I ever get the regulator to regulate, I can go to work on
overvoltage protection.
Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage Regulator .... |
Was the case of the regulator grounded?
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> This *&
> #%$@# voltage regulator stuff is driving me NUTS!! I
> just installed a '94 or so Ford unit with spades labeled: I S
> A F. I connected the "F" tab to alternator field, shunted the
> S and A tabs together (as I understood Bob's instructions) and
> connected them to the battery via the Alternator (Cessna split)
> switch. I thought I had the problem solved when I cranked it up
> and saw 14.5 - 14.7 volts. Then I went to fly and when I turned
> the engine up, the voltage went to over 16 volts.
>
> Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator .... |
Yes. Regulator and fusible link are bolted to baffling (one on each side, with
the same bolts).
Ground wire from mounting bolt to ground stud on engine. Don't know how I could
ground it better
than that.
Jim S.
David Swartzendruber wrote:
>
> Was the case of the regulator grounded?
>
> David Swartzendruber
> Wichita
>
> > This *&
> > #%$@# voltage regulator stuff is driving me NUTS!! I
> > just installed a '94 or so Ford unit with spades labeled: I S
> > A F. I connected the "F" tab to alternator field, shunted the
> > S and A tabs together (as I understood Bob's instructions) and
> > connected them to the battery via the Alternator (Cessna split)
> > switch. I thought I had the problem solved when I cranked it up
> > and saw 14.5 - 14.7 volts. Then I went to fly and when I turned
> > the engine up, the voltage went to over 16 volts.
> >
> > Jim S.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator .... |
>
>Yes. Regulator and fusible link are bolted to baffling (one on each side,
>with the same bolts).
>Ground wire from mounting bolt to ground stud on engine. Don't know how I
>could ground it better
>than that.
>Jim S.
How did the fusible link get mounted on baffling adjacent
to the regulator. Remember that all protective devices are
mounted as close to the source of energy that puts the
wire in danger. Fuses, breakers and fusible links
are generally installed as close to the bus as practical
if not actually ON the bus.
You need to measure the voltage AT the regulator. (+)
terminal of voltmeter on A-S and the (-) lead on
regulator case. This will tell you what the regulator
thinks it's seeing in the way of bus voltage. Regulators
can respond only to what they see at their terminals.
See figure 4-5 in the 'Connection. I suspect you will
find that voltage at the regulator terminals is
14.2 to 14.6 while the bus voltage is higher.
Voltage drops in regulator wiring can make it
appear that the regulator is malfunctioning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator .... |
>
>
>I have the link to that website Bob discussed that has all those
>$5 regulators. All I could find was part numbers and prices.
>No application information at all. How do we order from those
>folks without application information?
Don't understand . . . you want a list of cars that use
these regulators? I think you can take the list I linked
into any parts store and they can supply one of the numbers
listed or cross one or more numbers listed to a brand
they stock.
This regulator was generic to Ford products from
1965 to 1992.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
> From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
> I'm a little confused about how to properly wire my
> slick mags...
I just finished installing two Slicks on a customer's
C-182, so maybe I can help.
> I assume the p lead terminal goes between the
> splined lock washer and
> the fiber washer. Right?
The mags I installed didn't have a fiber washer. The
only purpose I can see for this washer is to act as an
insulator in case the terminal gets bent down against
the mag case. I would question the ability of the
fiber washer to withstand the torque of the nut
without crushing. However, if you determine that the
washer is up to the task, then yes, install the
terminal between the fiber washer and lock washer.
> Also, why is this stud flat on one side?
To prevent the stud from turning when you tighten the
nut.
> Does the mag case work as engine ground?
Yes.
> and is there a specific screw I'm supposed to use
for
> this ground?
There should be a threaded hole in the mag case very
close to the stud. Connect the shield to this hole
with a screw (should have been included in the mag
installation kit.)
> Or, do I run it to the firewall ground block?
No.
> Ignorance sure ain't bliss.
That's what we're here for. As the Beatles once said,
"I get by with a little help from my friends."
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator .... |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes. Regulator and fusible link are bolted to baffling (one on each side,
> >with the same bolts).
> >Ground wire from mounting bolt to ground stud on engine. Don't know how I
> >could ground it better
> >than that.
> >Jim S.
>
> How did the fusible link get mounted on baffling adjacent
> to the regulator. Remember that all protective devices are
> mounted as close to the source of energy that puts the
> wire in danger. Fuses, breakers and fusible links
> are generally installed as close to the bus as practical
> if not actually ON the bus.
This is a Velocity. The baffling in question is about 3" from the alternator.
Regulator on
the alternator side of the baffle, FL (at least that's what it looks like - a 1"
x 1" x .5"
tin box with B+ going in one side and out the other) the other side.
>
>
> You need to measure the voltage AT the regulator. (+)
> terminal of voltmeter on A-S and the (-) lead on
> regulator case. This will tell you what the regulator
> thinks it's seeing in the way of bus voltage. Regulators
> can respond only to what they see at their terminals.
> See figure 4-5 in the 'Connection. I suspect you will
> find that voltage at the regulator terminals is
> 14.2 to 14.6 while the bus voltage is higher.
Makes sense. Regulator is AT alternator. A-S wire has to go from battery at firewall
(or
main buss near panel) all the way to the panel switch and all the way back through
the
firewall, around the engine to the regulator. That could be the problem. If it
is, how do I
address it? I have #6 or #8 cable from battery forward to main buss ~ not much
drop there,
but #20 from panel back to A-S. That could be a drop. Voltage is, I suspect,
measured at
main buss.
>
>
> Voltage drops in regulator wiring can make it
> appear that the regulator is malfunctioning.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator .... |
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >Yes. Regulator and fusible link are bolted to baffling (one on each side,
> > >with the same bolts).
> > >Ground wire from mounting bolt to ground stud on engine. Don't know how I
> > >could ground it better
> > >than that.
> > >Jim S.
> >
> > How did the fusible link get mounted on baffling adjacent
> > to the regulator. Remember that all protective devices are
> > mounted as close to the source of energy that puts the
> > wire in danger. Fuses, breakers and fusible links
> > are generally installed as close to the bus as practical
> > if not actually ON the bus.
>
>This is a Velocity. The baffling in question is about 3" from the
>alternator. Regulator on
>the alternator side of the baffle, FL (at least that's what it looks like
>- a 1" x 1" x .5"
>tin box with B+ going in one side and out the other) the other side.
Oh, are you talking about the B-lead fuse? The really
BIG fuse in series with the output of the alternator?
When you said fusible link, I assumed you were talking
about a critter like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html
. . . that's recommended in our system diagrams for the
alternator field supply if you use fuseblocks. I don't
understand the 1" x 1" x .5" . . . this is much smaller
than the ANL or JJN series devices from our catalog . . .
What kind of device are you using?
> > You need to measure the voltage AT the regulator. (+)
> > terminal of voltmeter on A-S and the (-) lead on
> > regulator case. This will tell you what the regulator
> > thinks it's seeing in the way of bus voltage. Regulators
> > can respond only to what they see at their terminals.
> > See figure 4-5 in the 'Connection. I suspect you will
> > find that voltage at the regulator terminals is
> > 14.2 to 14.6 while the bus voltage is higher.
>
>Makes sense. Regulator is AT alternator. A-S wire has to go from battery
>at firewall (or
>main buss near panel) all the way to the panel switch and all the way back
>through the
>firewall, around the engine to the regulator. That could be the
>problem. If it is, how do I
>address it? I have #6 or #8 cable from battery forward to main buss ~ not
>much drop there,
>but #20 from panel back to A-S. That could be a drop. Voltage is, I
>suspect, measured at
>main buss.
Yup. LONG wires between the bus and the A-S terminals
can upset these critters . . . especially as the alternator
loads go up.
Where is your battery located?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
> Bob, I posted this on the RV-7 Yahoo group list in response to a
> discussion that was taking place about electric gyros. I didn't get my
> question answered so I'll try you. What I'm really trying to find out is
> why would I spend the extra $1,500 dollars for an electric version of
> gyros and also what the failure rate is for the electric gyros. Thanks
> for you book. Very useful for me a first time builder. Doug
>
>Group:
>Please help me to understand some things about electric gyros.
>I've been all over the board on what I want to do. Everything from
>put the suction pump in to looking at the EFIS lite or the Dynon
>EFIS.
>
>I am assuming that in this discussion we are not talking about
>solid state gyros, but instead something like an electric RC Allen
>artificial horizon. How do they work? With suction pump the
>suction turns vanes and spins up the gyros. What causes the
>electric gyros to spin up? An electric motor in each gyroscopic
>instrument?
Yes . . .
> What is the failure rate of the electric motor versus
>the suction pump?
I don't have hard numbers from any formal studies. Further,
there is more to consider than pump of failures. The
general consensus is that overall reliability of all-electric
gyros is more reliable than vacuum because you don't have a
single failure (pump) that takes down both gyros. Further,
cost of system ownership is lower in the long run because
you're not dragging filtered but still microscopically
contaminated air through the gyros which accelerates their
overhaul cycles.
> When a suction pump goes, there is typically an
>indication that the pump is getting weak by reduced suction gauge
>readings over time. (Flame suit on, I'm sure that some have
>experienced catastrophic pump failures.)
They generally do not fail gracefully. The pump
performance is pretty good until one vane fails.
The debris then takes the rest of the vanes out.
It's all over an a few milliseconds.
> Is there an indication of
>electric gyros degrading?
They too have gross failure modes that will cause
a gyro not to spin up . . . or to precess badly. But
one gyro going belly up doesn't take the other one
with it.
> Future maintenance expense? Replace
>suction pump (which you can do yourself) versus overhauling the
>electric gyros by an avionics shop?
Over the lifetime of the airplane, cost of ownership
for the electric gyros should be lower. You get the
further benefits of having two engine driven power
sources which adds robustness not only to the gyro
system but to other electrically driven essentials
as well. Your airplane is easier to build, work on
and should be 4-5 pounds lighter as for having left
out the vacuum plumbing.
>I'm planning out my panel now and it includes the basic 6 pack. The
>exception is what to do about the DG & AI. Whether to replace with
>the Dynon or not. The cost of the electric DG & AI versus the
>suction is really steering me away from the "old fashioned" electric
>gyros. Either way, Dynon or the standard 6 pack, I would choose to
>have the T&B, VSI and good old fashioned compass for backup.
>
>The only reason that I have been able to justify to myself to use
>the Dynon type EFIS's is that it just seems cool! I would still
>have to have the same backup instruments to feel comfortable in IFR.
that would really blow the budget would it not?
>I can't seem to get buying the electric gyros. (I consider myself
>conservative, my wife says cheap). From Aircraft Spruce for RC
>Allen instruments, Electric DG 1850, Electric AI 1750 total cost
>$3,600. Vac DG 689, Vac AI 728 & vac pump 685 for a total cost of
>$2,100.
>
>Honestly, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I'm just trying
>to understand why I should spend $1,500 dollars more for the same
>function.
You pay it up front or pay more later . . . and if you don't
have the benefit of a second alternator in the vacated vacuum
pump pad, then you miss the opportunity to craft one of the
most reliable electrical systems flying in any light aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Bill
thanks for responding. I suspect the fiber piece, which looks to be pretty
sturdy, is there to protect the plastic that's at the base of the stud. And
you're right, there's a screw about an inch outside of the P lead stud.
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
----------
>From: Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com>
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mag wiring
>Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2002, 11:19 PM
>
>
>
>> From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
>> I'm a little confused about how to properly wire my
>> slick mags...
>
> I just finished installing two Slicks on a customer's
> C-182, so maybe I can help.
>
>> I assume the p lead terminal goes between the
>> splined lock washer and
>> the fiber washer. Right?
>
> The mags I installed didn't have a fiber washer. The
> only purpose I can see for this washer is to act as an
> insulator in case the terminal gets bent down against
> the mag case. I would question the ability of the
> fiber washer to withstand the torque of the nut
> without crushing. However, if you determine that the
> washer is up to the task, then yes, install the
> terminal between the fiber washer and lock washer.
>
>> Also, why is this stud flat on one side?
>
> To prevent the stud from turning when you tighten the
> nut.
>
>> Does the mag case work as engine ground?
>
> Yes.
>
>> and is there a specific screw I'm supposed to use
> for
>> this ground?
>
> There should be a threaded hole in the mag case very
> close to the stud. Connect the shield to this hole
November 28, 2002 - December 17, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bl