AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cz
March 03, 2004 - March 17, 2004
>
> Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or sportpilot(at)eaa.org
>
> Always looking for articles for Sport Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ned Thomas" <315(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn coordinator
>
>
> >
> > I took the "Ford" alternator out of my spam can to a local alternator
> repair
> > shop. I watched him"clean" the commutator. When he first put it on the
> > lathe I thought this was great, he would clean it up and make it truly
> > round. I was shocked when he picked up some emory cloth turned on the
> lathe
> > and used the cloth to "clean" the commutator. Said that's standard
> industry
> > practice, how he's done it for 30yrs...
> >
> > He only charged me a couple dollars for the new brushes and "cleaning"
and
> > told me it should outlast my airboat...:)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Dabusmith(at)aol.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn coordinator
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >> Touching a commutator . . . particularly a fine-motor
> > > commutator with anything other than cleaning solvent and soft wipe
> > > will put microgrooves in the copper surface that will degrade brush
> > > life.
> > >
> > > That is lucky for me. I cleaned mine with rubbing alcohol and Q-tip.
It
> is
> > > working normal again. I didn't have any fine abrasive handy. Grateful
> for
> > the
> > > info.
> > >
> > > Dave Smith
> > > Graham WA.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna |
Hi Bob and all,
Do you have any advice as to what to choose for a Garmin GPS 400 antenna ?
The Garmin 400 series installation manual calls for a Garmin GA 56 GPS
antenna or an antenna meeting particular requirements.
The antennas meeting those requirement are usually big white streamlined
things.
As our intention is to mount the antenna on the glareshield, I would like to
find a less bulky and breferably dark coloured model.
I have already seen such models with other Garmin GPS. Do you know if such
an antenna could work with the 400 model ?
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT = Transponder Antenna |
>
>
>OK THE ORIGINAL POST WITH TRANSPONDER ANTENNA.
>
>I am mounting the short transponder antenna on the belly of my metal Moose.
>It's center line is a bit cluttered with push pulls, cables etc. I would
>like to mount it about a foot off center.
>
>My question concerns the 3500 amphib Aerocet fiberglass floats sitting under
>the airplane. Do floats "block" the signal to and from the antenna? My guess
>is that aluminum floats would. What about ones made of fiberglass?
>
>Is there a better option for mounting an transponder antenna given floats?
The floats will have little effect on transponder performance.
Similarly, off-centerline mounting is equally insignificant.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Grounding Power outlets |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hi Bob and All,
>>
>>I am installing a power outlet (Cigar lighter) at each of the four seating
>>areas in my Moose. As I was running wire today and intending on bringing the
>>ground for the units back to the panel ground block I realized that the
>>units were also grounded via the airframe because of there construction.
>>
>>What course of action is best?
>>
>>Simply use the airframes local ground.
>>
>>Leave the unit grounded to the airframe and also run the ground wire to the
>>PNL ground.
>>
>>Manage to insulate the body of the unit from the airframe (a pain) and run a
>>ground wire to the PNL ground.
>
>
> I presume you plan to offer these outlets to passengers
> for use of automotive power adapters for personal electronics.
> These devices are not strong antagonist. Further, the standard
> bus noises are going to be stronger than any ground-loop
> generated noises so local grounding will be fine.
Just be careful of one thing. If you have a passenger plug in, say, an MP3
player, and then hook this to an AUX-in jack on your panel intercom, THAT
could create a ground loop that would allow the audio signal to pick up all
sorts of stray signals. This is the most common source of alternator whine in
add-on MP3 player installations in cars. Keep the passenger's device isolated
from the rest of the ship, except this power supply, and it won't know the
difference.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 bulb Nav light wiring question |
>
>Bob & Listers,
> I was using AutoCAD and Bob's templates last night to sketch out my
> navigation light circuit. I will be using 2 Grimes position lamps
> installed in the wing tips of my RV-8A. I will also have a white
> position/strobe lamp (Whelen A500A) installed in the rear of the rudder tip.
> This presents a dilemma. I need to know how much each of these bulbs
> draw. My fuzzy memory "thinks" it's around 2-3 amps each.
2A each
> This would mean Appox. 7-10 amps going through a single 1-3 style switch
> and fuse.
6A
> This would necessitate using 18 or even 16 AWG wire throughout the
> circuit. This circuit has some of the longest wiring runs on my 8A (to
> the tail and both wing tips)
> With 3 lamps instead of 2, I think I'm going to have to up size the wire
> above the 18 AWG shown in Bob's template. I'm ASSuming :-0 that these
> bulbs have the same sort of inrush current upon start up that other
> incandescent bulbs have?? The problem is that I need to size the supply
> wire between the fuse and the switch to carry the load of all 3 bulbs.
20AWG is adequate from a current perspective for both total
current (fuse to switch) and certainly for individual currents
(switch to each lamp).
> If I run all three bulbs off of 1 switch and fuse circuit, I'll need to
> increase the wire size to each bulb above that which is needed to carry
> current to that individual bulb. This would be necessary to insure that
> these wires would not overheat before the circuit fuse would blow. I'll
> have to purchase additional wire to do this.
> I could down size the wire from the switch to each bulb (20AWG) and
> install a 5 amp fuse between the switch and the output wires. This seems
> really clunky & clumsy to me. I prefer to keep all the fuses in the fuse block.
> The third option would be to use a 3-2 (triple pole, single throw
> ON/OFF) style switch and supply each bulb of the circuit independently of
> the others. This would allow use of smaller 20AWG wire (which I already
> have in various colors). This would require 3 separate fuses. I'm using 2
> of Bussman's new model 15710 ATO style fuse blocks. Because this unit has
> 20 fuse circuits in the physical space that the standard 10 fuse unit
> has, I have enough extra fuse slots to accommodate this. I'm mounting the
> main fuse block in my right side mid cabin cover. The wire run from the
> fuse block to all my lighting switches will be less than 15 inches, so
> the weight of the 2 extra supply wires is negligible.
>
> I am open to comments and suggestions. Are there any holes in my ideas?
> Any better solutions? I have AutoCAD files of this circuit available "off
> list".
One 7A fuse and 20AWG wire is fine.
>Charlie Kuss
>RV-8A wiring
>staying up WAY to late at night playing with AutoCAD! :-)
Good for you!! That's a truly amazing hunk of software.
Don't know how I got along in the BA years (before Autocad).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn coordinator |
>
>I guess, I started this thread and probably should clarify couple of few
>things. First the Turn Coordinator in question is a product of China - non
>certified. Unfortunately, that should give a hint as to the commutator
>finishing process the unit got in the factory. When two units work
>approximately 100 hours since new then fail, I believe it suggests a
>fundamental problem with the unit. Reinforced when I am essentially brushed
>off by the distributor and told that the commutator needs cleaning and I can
>do it myself. That sort of suggests to me a volume of service needs that
>they don't want to deal with.
>
>Anyway, I did at first as Bob suggests, simply a cleaning with a solvent
>being careful to remove all debris from the grooves. It lasted probably 50
>hours. When I did it the second time, I used the crocus cloth.
>
>Now this has been a year since I did this, but as I recall the commutator
>had circumferential grooves on it and I got the impression that the metal
>was soft, as in an annealed state.
>
>I hope this doesn't sound like product bashing as I am quite pleased with
>the unit when it is functioning and the cleaning took an hour at best from
>panel to panel.
Good data. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT = Transponder Antenna |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Oh! Well, that is a different issue...
As long as none of the float rigging runs close to the antenna
(maybe no closer than 10 inches), it shouldn't be a problem.
You certainly can mount the transponder antenna inside a glass
float. However I don't think I would. I see a couple of issues. The
first is that you might at some point decide to put your airplane one
wheels.
The second issue is one of robustness. Mounting the antenna
down there requires that you run the coax cable down one of the
gear legs. Its kind of a long run, through a somewhat harsh
environment. Do you have the option of running it inside one of
the gear legs? Further, any connections that you make will have
a good chance of being contaminated by water. Water provides
an oppertunity for shorts and corrosion.
Finally, to get good performance from within the float, you will either
have to pick a center fed dipole antenna, or provide a ground plane
for the standard metal-shorty-with-ball. The belly of the airplane
makes a perfectly good ground plane on its own.
Mounting off-center shouldn't be a problem.
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for your help and thoughts on ELT antenna location. When I read
> the first response that it should be on top, I said to myself, WHAT! I
> have never heard of such a thing.
>
> You know after 12 hours in the shop crawling around an airframe and
> under a panel I guess my body and mind get a little mushy.
>
> I should have said TRANSPONDER ANTENNA.
>
> I did notice that one person picked up on my mistake, thanks. I am not
> sure if the logistics of getting the antenna into the floats is
> practical.
>
> OK THE ORIGINAL POST WITH TRANSPONDER ANTENNA.
>
> I am mounting the short transponder antenna on the belly of my metal
> Moose. It's center line is a bit cluttered with push pulls, cables etc.
> I would like to mount it about a foot off center.
>
> My question concerns the 3500 amphib Aerocet fiberglass floats sitting
> under the airplane. Do floats "block" the signal to and from the
> antenna? My guess is that aluminum floats would. What about ones made of
> fiberglass?
>
> Is there a better option for mounting an transponder antenna given
> floats?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Don B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna |
> The antennas meeting those requirement are usually big white streamlined
> things.
> As our intention is to mount the antenna on the glareshield, I would like
to
> find a less bulky and preferably dark colored model.
I covered a white GPS antenna with black fabric years ago because the white
reflected in the windshield badly. It worked fine.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "GT" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> Do you have any advice as to what to choose for a Garmin GPS 400 antenna ?
> The Garmin 400 series installation manual calls for a Garmin GA 56 GPS
> antenna or an antenna meeting particular requirements.
> The antennas meeting those requirement are usually big white streamlined
> things.
> As our intention is to mount the antenna on the glareshield, I would like
to
> find a less bulky and breferably dark coloured model.
> I have already seen such models with other Garmin GPS. Do you know if such
> an antenna could work with the 400 model ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Regards,
>
> Gilles
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mic and Phone jacks |
Hi All,
Just finished wiring the mic and phone jacks and need to know the order of the
washers that accompanied the units.
I realize the goal is to isolate the unit from the mounting fixture but there are
three washers. One is a shouldered fiber washer (black), one is a standard
fiber washer (tan) and there is a thin metal washer.
Thanks in advance.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic and Phone jacks |
>
>Hi All,
>
>Just finished wiring the mic and phone jacks and need to know the order of
>the washers that accompanied the units.
>
>I realize the goal is to isolate the unit from the mounting fixture but
>there are three washers. One is a shouldered fiber washer (black), one is
>a standard fiber washer (tan) and there is a thin metal washer.
The insulating washers can go on in any order. I prefer
to put the shoulder washer on the jack. Install jack in mounting
hole and install the flat insulating washer next. The flat metal
washer goes next and finally the nut.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic and Phone jacks |
Thanks for the quick reply, no down time on installation!!!!
Darwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Phone jacks
>
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Just finished wiring the mic and phone jacks and need to know the order
of
> >the washers that accompanied the units.
> >
> >I realize the goal is to isolate the unit from the mounting fixture but
> >there are three washers. One is a shouldered fiber washer (black), one is
> >a standard fiber washer (tan) and there is a thin metal washer.
>
> The insulating washers can go on in any order. I prefer
> to put the shoulder washer on the jack. Install jack in mounting
> hole and install the flat insulating washer next. The flat metal
> washer goes next and finally the nut.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Communtator and slip ring finishing practices |
Bob, When I was a young apprentice at Cessna's Pawnee plant in the
tooling machine shop I fixed many a worn out armature for the shops and
the last thing done was always to polish the commutator with fine emory
cloth just as Ned saw done. One added caveat, though. The armature
should always be run between centers and not just chucked up. Centers on
the head and tail stock of the lathe should be dead on to the spin axis
of the lathe while the chuck might be off a thousandth or two. This tiny
error in runout (it gets doubled since the error is on the radius) is
enough to cause premature wear of the brushes and arcing as the brushes
are pushed in and out of their holders.
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
DNA: not not archive
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] Virus Laden Spam Purports To Be From |
Matronics...
Dear Listers,
First let me say that I normally don't condone the sharing of warnings
about Internet viruses on the Matronics Email Lists. I don't want to
start a storm of discussion regarding computer viruses on the Lists, so
please just note the information below and refrain from commenting to
the List. The circumstances I describe below are disturbing enough
that I felt an explanation is necessary. That being said...
There is a new email-bourne virus running rampant on the Internet that
is cleverly disguising itself as legitimate email warning of such
things as:
"your email account is disabled because of unauthorized access"
"Some of our clients complained about the spam (negative e-mail
content) outgoing from your e-mail account"
"Probably, you have been infected by a proxy-relay trojan server. In
order to keep your computer safe, follow the instructions."
"Our main mailing server will be temporary unavailable for next two
days, to continue receiving mail in these days you have to
configure our free auto-forwarding service."
All of these messages include an attachment that you are instructed to
click upon to "Get more information", "clean the virus from your
system", or "check your system for infections".
These enclosures all contain a virus that will infect your system and
propagate even more copies of the original message.
The disturbing part of these messages is that they appear to be coming
from very legitimate addresses and have very legitimate, convincing
dialog. For example, I have received a number of them today that
appear to be from "support(at)matronics.com", "management(at)matronics.com",
"administration(at)matronics.com", and "staff(at)matronics.com".
The text of the messages seems believable enough, and given the forged
source address, seem even more legitimate.
Please be assured that no one at Matronics.com will be sending you
these kinds of messages. If you receive one, it is a spam/virus that
has forged headers and was sent to you from someone other than
Matronics. Delete the message and the attachment promptly. Invest in
a copy of Norton Antivirus and keep the definitions up dated on a daily
basis.
Again, I want to stress that I *DO NOT* want a big discussion of
viruses on the Matronics Email Lists. Please do not reply to this
email with any comments. You may write to me directly at
dralle(at)matronics.com if you wish, but do not include the List.
Since many of these appear to come from matronics.com, I wanted to
assure everyone that Matronics wasn't the real source of these messages.
Let's be careful out there and keep those virus definitions up to date!
Today alone, the Matronics spam filter and virus blocking appliance
has filtered out 11,550 spam messages and 375 viruses! That's just in
an 18 hour period!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | ELT antenna with floats |
I note the thread and its follow-ups. The title recalls the worst
combination in aviation, as a flight at altitude over Thunder Bay and
Lake-of-the-Woods area ALWAYS produced an ELT "dooey-dooey-dooey" on
121.5MHz which gave us transport jocks great practice in guessing which lake
the ELT was on. It got to be known as dooey-dooey alley.
It's not clear which side of the 'plane the ELT antenna is on,
except that it should be on the top side of the wreck - your choice of
course. MUCH more important is listening to 121.5 after each flight to be
sure it ain't you who whapped the waves on landing. After checking in at
destination with the airline, I had to change fields and go looking for the
dooey-dooey with the airworks.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | More on the electrical robustness of the XCOM 760 |
My question to MCP was motivated by my own interest in possibly buying this com.
It is built by a team of engineers at least some of whom were originally involved
in the Microair - hence the reference to this.
My email .........
Hi Michael,
A current thread on the Aeroelectric list at the moment is the risk of load dumps
if a generator is disconnected whilst under load. As part of this discussion
the tolerance of different avionics to withstand voltage excursions has been
of interest.
The prevailing certified standard for this is DO 160 (US) and it was mentioned
that the Microair falls well short of this.
Could you comment on the XCOM760 and whether it meets the DO 160 levels of resistance
and if not what is the level of voltage/time resistance designed into the
radio?
Rob
From Michael Coates <mcoates(at)mcp.com.au
>From our engineer..... hopefully this answers your question.... its all rocket
science to me so i had to refer it to those in the know. Thanks Michael
Ken Luxford wrote:
Michael,
While the nominal maximum input voltage of the XCOM760 is 16 volts, all of the
components in the DC input filter are rated at 35 volts. The onboard 10V regulator
has a maximum input voltage of 37 volts and the onboard 5V regulator has
a maximum input voltage of 45 volts.
The comments regarding TVS (Transient Voltage Suppressors) are valid and I have
had personal experience of them failing in the manner described.
Perhaps Bob would comment on how satisfactory a level of protection this might
be.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [PLEASE READ] Virus Laden Spam Purports To Be From |
Matronics...
Thanks Matt,
I've been deleting a few from other sources today. Somebody's pulling some
crap. I never opened them, just sent them to the deletion vortex.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bob,
Since I wrote that post in early January, I've made great progress in my
electrical system understanding and planning, mostly due to what I've
learned from your book and this forum. Also, the Sky-Tec company has
graciously replaced my PM starter with their newer Inline starter, at a very
reasonable price for the swap. The inrush current for this new-design
starter promises to be about 100 amps less than the PM version.
Regards,
Troy Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
As I promised here is the device I mentioned a several weeks ago as being
designed specifically for alternator load dump.
LDP24A and the data sheet can be found by searching
at www.st.com
An interesting related app note AN554 is also at the st site. Provides
detailed design info!
www.findchips.com will find dist stock for the LDP24A
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sky-Tec starter |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Since I wrote that post in early January, I've made great progress in my
>electrical system understanding and planning, mostly due to what I've
>learned from your book and this forum. Also, the Sky-Tec company has
>graciously replaced my PM starter with their newer Inline starter, at a very
>reasonable price for the swap. The inrush current for this new-design
>starter promises to be about 100 amps less than the PM version.
That's another repeatable experiment I'd like to see undertaken.
A collection of contemporary starter offerings compared side-by-side
for speed-torque-current and inrush levels. It would sure clear
away a lot of potential for fog.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump TVS |
Paul,
It seems to be24V device.
Jerzy
Paul Messinger wrote:
>
>As I promised here is the device I mentioned a several weeks ago as being
>designed specifically for alternator load dump.
>
>LDP24A and the data sheet can be found by searching
>at www.st.com
>
>An interesting related app note AN554 is also at the st site. Provides
>detailed design info!
>
>www.findchips.com will find dist stock for the LDP24A
>
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
I started to wire the wings of my ES starting with a 14-gage ground braid
run out the trailing edge. It connects to all the hinges and to the
ailerons (carbon fiber). The power supply wires run out the leading edge.
Then I realized that the current to run the lights and pitot heat could
cause a magnetic field that might disturb the compass. That is, current
flowing out the leading edge and back at the trailing edge will create a
1-turn coil with about 4 feet between the two wires. Will this cause a
compass problem, requiring me to run another return wire in the leading
edge?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna04 |
| From: | royt.or(at)NetZero.com |
Gilles,
I'm using the noncertified (small, round, black) GPS antenna from http://www.gretzaero.com/ for my GPS295. The information on the web page implies this antenna should work with the GNS400 series. I've been happy with the service from Gretz Aero.
Regards,
Roy
N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, All electric, IFR equipped, 165hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: magnetic fields |
>
>I started to wire the wings of my ES starting with a 14-gage ground braid
>run out the trailing edge. It connects to all the hinges and to the
>ailerons (carbon fiber). The power supply wires run out the leading edge.
>Then I realized that the current to run the lights and pitot heat could
>cause a magnetic field that might disturb the compass. That is, current
>flowing out the leading edge and back at the trailing edge will create a
>1-turn coil with about 4 feet between the two wires. Will this cause a
>compass problem, requiring me to run another return wire in the leading
>edge?
the ground wire for control surfaces and hinges should be
completely independent of those used for power distribution.
in a composite airplane it is useful to keep inbound and outbound
electron streams in close proximity to each other by means of
parallel wiring paths.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Flap circuit relay questions |
Bob & Listers,
I've been playing with AutoCAD (hey, this is fun!) to draw up my electrical system.
I know that Bob likes to install diodes on most relay coil circuits. I started
my flap motor circuit using the template from Bob's wire book. I believe
these are older versions of his current drawings. I note that the S704-1 relays
shown in this drawing do not have any diodes installed across the solenoid
coil wires.
Are these diodes of no value on this circuit?
If the diodes are of value, could I substitute an appropriate automotive (Bosch)
style relay with this diode built into the relay?
I see several drawings for this type of relay shown in Bob's Symbols file. I just
like the idea of using parts which can be purchased at the local auto parts
store. If the original fails in Yeehaw Junction, Florida (a real town) on Saturday
afternoon, I'd like to be able to purchase a replacement locally.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A wiring
Boca Raton, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
Hello Charlie,
A diode across the relay's coil is always a good idea to prevent relay
"bounce" and to relieve contact wear on the controlling switch. I have not liked
the quality of the automotive relays that you are referring to. They are
usually rated for 30 amps but I have seen them weld their contacts with few cycles
and pure resistive loads of less than 20 amps. Why not use good quality relays
and if you must, cary a spare?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
That's a good argument. However, automotive parts are of more than one quality.
I recently replaced the fuel pump relay on a 1991 BMW 525i with 226,000 miles.
The relay still worked. I simply replaced it when I changed the fuel pump as
a precaution. Genuine Bosch electrical parts are hard to beat, in my experience.
Stuff you buy at Pep Boys is worth every cent you pay for it (and not much
more)
Charlie
>
> From: KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
> Date: 2004/03/04 Thu PM 03:25:24 EST
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap circuit relay questions
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
>
>A diode across the relay's coil is always a good idea to prevent relay
>"bounce"
the diode doesn't affect "bounce" . . . it does clamp off
the spike that emanates from every relay, contactor and solenoid
coil when the supply circuit is broken.
>and to relieve contact wear on the controlling switch.
. . . this the major benefit of the diode. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
> I have not liked
>the quality of the automotive relays that you are referring to. They are
>usually rated for 30 amps but I have seen them weld their contacts with
>few cycles
>and pure resistive loads of less than 20 amps.
I've been studying contact failure in switches and relays
at RAC now for several years. Just got a big pile of documents
from Honeywell to read on our way to the Groton seminar.
By and large, if a relay suffers the indignity of sticking or
welding, odds are that the designer didn't do his/her
homework when the relay was placed into service. Short
service life almost never has anything to do with characteristics
of the relay.
> Why not use good quality relays and if you must, cary a spare?
What is a "good quality" relay? Folks have been wrestling with
nebulous terms like "aircraft quality", "certified", "approved"
etc for decades without ever mentioning the numbers that define
how the product is expected to perform. Just because an
replacement relay comes in a metal can and costs more doesn't
guarantee squat about suitability to task or service life.
There was a time when I was skeptical of anything "plastic"
in the way of supposedly "robust" hardware. Nowadays, it's
difficult to find enclosed and/or semi-sealed relays that are
not plastic. Every thing under the hood of my '95 Safari,
the wife's '99 Saturn, and our '92 Ranger are plastic.
I had to replace one relay on a '90 Voyager's cooling fan
circuit . . . after I'd owned the car for 5 years and had
over 100K miles on it.
Single-pole, double-throw relays like B&C's S704
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s704-1l.jpg
are manufactured by the millions by dozens of manufacturers
and every one of those folks finest hour is realized by getting
a contract from GM or Ford for relays. Unlike the high dollar
hardware we test the bejabbers out of and then bolt to perhaps
two dozen airplanes a year, the folks who supply these relays
have literally millions more opportunities per year to suffer
a relay failure. There is little difference in customer
perceptions of quality whether the relay cost $200 for
a biz jet or $20 for an automobile.
The short answer is that anything designed to operate
under the hood of a car is entirely suitable for use
on an airplane. The task on the airplane is a cake walk
by comparison.
I've been playing with AutoCAD (hey, this is fun!) to draw up my electrical
system. I know that Bob likes to install diodes on most relay coil
circuits. I started my flap motor circuit using the template from Bob's
wire book. I believe these are older versions of his current drawings. I
note that the S704-1 relays shown in this drawing do not have any diodes
installed across the solenoid coil wires.
Are these diodes of no value on this circuit?
It's not a barn burner if they're left off, sure doesn't hurt to install
them. Here's a picture of a suggested diode installation
on an S704 relay for the PM alternator disconnect circuit.
This would work in the flap system too. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s704inst.jpg
If the diodes are of value, could I substitute an appropriate automotive
(Bosch) style relay with this diode built into the relay?
Sure!
I see several drawings for this type of relay shown in Bob's Symbols file.
I just like the idea of using parts which can be purchased at the local
auto parts store. If the original fails in Yeehaw Junction, Florida (a real
town) on Saturday afternoon, I'd like to be able to purchase a replacement
locally.
That ought to work. I suspect you're going to experience
VERY long service life from these relays in a flap system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bryan hooks" <hook3607(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Runaway stab trim prevention |
Good point. Obviously didn't think that one through, but you're right.
Thanks,
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway stab trim prevention
>
>
>Been off the list for a couple of bit.
>
>Sorry to have caused such an issue 'bout the runaway stab trim thing.
>Glad to hear that full trim at cruise is not that big a deal. I just
>posed the question for two reasons: (1) I don't have any RV experience
>yet and didn't know that it was really a non-event, and (2) the
airplane
>I fly at work can kill you (and actually has) if the trim runs away.and
>that's with a stab trim cut-out switch within reach of both pilots.
Now
>don't get me wrong, I never believed this would be a BIG problem in an
>RV, but I thought it could be an irritating event that might be
>prevented if there was something that could be done easily and cheaply
>to prevent it. Maybe I'll just remember where that ole trim circuit
>breaker is located.
>
>Bryan Hooks
>RV7A, slow
Well, runaway trim is quite different depending on whether the
aircraft has stab trim (i.e. the angle of incidence of the stab is
changed by the trim system) or an elevator trim tab. Stab trim
runaways can be very dangerous, as you can get in a situation where
you no longer have enough pitch authority in one direction. The
elevator may simply not be big enough to counter the pitching moment
created by the stab which has gone full travel.
If we have elevator trim tabs, like on your RV-7A, then we don't have
a problem of pitch authority. The only questions are how high the
stick force will be. But if you apply enough stick force you will
always be able to get enough pitch authority. In general, people who
have flight tested RVs to see the effect of trim runaways have
reported high, but manageable stick forces at high speed. The stick
forces lighten up as you slow down. Depending on how fast your trim
servo moves, it could get a bit exciting for a few seconds while you
figure out what is going on.
I've got a Matronics Speed Governor to slow my trim down, to give me
a bit more time to react. I've also got a button on my stick that
will kill power to the trim and wing leveler servos if I hold it
down. I can then reach over and turn off the trim power on the side
console.
So, if we are talking about RVs, don't talk about stab trim runaways,
as they don't exist, unless you have made a major design change.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Off line until Monday |
Dee and I are packing the car and getting ready to plow the
groove a little deeper up the turnpike to KC (we can save
about $400 on tickets by driving 3 hours to MCI).
The Groton CT seminar is Saturday and we're looking forward
to our second visit with these folks. See y'all Monday.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Garmin GPS Antenna |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "GT"
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr
<>
4/4/2004
Hello Gilles, If appearance is your primary concern why not mount the antenna
on a small aluminum shelf suspended underneath either the glare shield or a
bit further forward under the cowling? I assume that neither the glare shield
or cowling are made of metal.
The antenna for my Garmin 430 is out of sight on such a shelf aft of the
firewall and forward of the glareshield. It works great.
One additional benefit of having the antenna mounted on an aluminum shelf is
that the aluminum partially shields the bottom of the antenna from electronic
garbage happening below the shelf.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Runaway stab trim prevention |
I have had a runaway elevator trim in an RV4 while inverted at close to
200mph. The stick-mounted switch in the front cockpit had shorted out
when the stickgrip broke. It was a devastating control issue, and by the
time one recognized what was going on, and using two hands to try to
overcome the stick force, no switch or breaker was going to help.
Slowing to approach speed made control manageable, but landing would
have required considerable finesse. Fortunately I had installed another
trim switch in the rear cockpit, which allowed the passenger to correct
the problem.
Kenneth Melvin, N36KM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bryan
hooks
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Runaway stab trim prevention
Good point. Obviously didn't think that one through, but you're right.
Thanks,
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway stab trim prevention
>
>
>Been off the list for a couple of bit.
>
>Sorry to have caused such an issue 'bout the runaway stab trim thing.
>Glad to hear that full trim at cruise is not that big a deal. I just
>posed the question for two reasons: (1) I don't have any RV experience
>yet and didn't know that it was really a non-event, and (2) the
airplane
>I fly at work can kill you (and actually has) if the trim runs away.and
>that's with a stab trim cut-out switch within reach of both pilots.
Now
>don't get me wrong, I never believed this would be a BIG problem in an
>RV, but I thought it could be an irritating event that might be
>prevented if there was something that could be done easily and cheaply
>to prevent it. Maybe I'll just remember where that ole trim circuit
>breaker is located.
>
>Bryan Hooks
>RV7A, slow
Well, runaway trim is quite different depending on whether the
aircraft has stab trim (i.e. the angle of incidence of the stab is
changed by the trim system) or an elevator trim tab. Stab trim
runaways can be very dangerous, as you can get in a situation where
you no longer have enough pitch authority in one direction. The
elevator may simply not be big enough to counter the pitching moment
created by the stab which has gone full travel.
If we have elevator trim tabs, like on your RV-7A, then we don't have
a problem of pitch authority. The only questions are how high the
stick force will be. But if you apply enough stick force you will
always be able to get enough pitch authority. In general, people who
have flight tested RVs to see the effect of trim runaways have
reported high, but manageable stick forces at high speed. The stick
forces lighten up as you slow down. Depending on how fast your trim
servo moves, it could get a bit exciting for a few seconds while you
figure out what is going on.
I've got a Matronics Speed Governor to slow my trim down, to give me
a bit more time to react. I've also got a button on my stick that
will kill power to the trim and wing leveler servos if I hold it
down. I can then reach over and turn off the trim power on the side
console.
So, if we are talking about RVs, don't talk about stab trim runaways,
as they don't exist, unless you have made a major design change.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
Hello Bob,
Re: relay bounce. I always believed that relay bounce was caused by poor
inductive "kick" suppression. I can swear it was a listed item in my old text
book about relay operation. Years ago, I worked on mechanically tuned avionics
boxes that were the state of the art in our Naval Aircraft. RCA, Collins,
Bendix, Honeywell and others of the manufacturers used neons to handle
suppressing the coils on those units. I always assumed the "bounce" I would see
from
time to time was caused by the neon not dropping the relay coil's voltage low
enough between cycles.
Some of those old boxes needed very fast stop pulses to get the mechanical
mechanisms to halt in just the right spot for accurate tuning. I would imagine
that you are very familiar with this scenerio. (thank God for varactors!)
The neons were used, I assume for their speed. Perhaps the "bounce" I would
see was in fact caused by worn (burned) contacts on the controlling device --
not able to give me a clean break at off time? We used to take those suckers
apart and burnish the contacts as needed. The kids of today don't know half
of the school of hard knocks that went into producing the modern GPS receiver!
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Flap circuit relay questions |
Suppression devices on a relay coil can only slow down the release of
the relay contacts. The goal is to suppress the transient enough to
protect the control switch contacts without degrading the performance of
the relay. That is why some prefer not to use just a diode, but will
put a zener in series with the diode, or use an MOV or transorb.
Dave
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> Re: relay bounce. I always believed that relay bounce was caused by
poor
> inductive "kick" suppression.
> RCA, Collins,
> Bendix, Honeywell and others of the manufacturers used neons to handle
> suppressing the coils on those units. I always assumed the "bounce" I
> would see from
> time to time was caused by the neon not dropping the relay coil's
voltage
> low
> enough between cycles.
>
> Some of those old boxes needed very fast stop pulses to get the
mechanical
> mechanisms to halt in just the right spot for accurate tuning. I
would
> imagine
> that you are very familiar with this scenerio. (thank God for
varactors!)
>
> The neons were used, I assume for their speed.
>
> John P. Marzluf
> Columbus, Ohio
> Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | ALT Field Breaker.... |
Will pulling the ALT Field Breaker (5A) shut down the ALT in an over-voltage or
runaway alternator situation? If not.... what does happen?
Thanks,
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JSMONDAY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | KX-155 Overload?? |
I am training in a Piper Warrior (a friends plane) and while transmitting on
final KX-155 there was a crackle and what appeared to be an overload and the
altermator field and output breakers popped. Got everything restored, but the
KX-155 NavCom was the only thing that did not want to come back up. Panel
does not light, turning on and off, you can hear a click in the speaker, and
some deflection in the CDI. Is there anything that is east to check on these
radios if I remove it? i.e. reset breaker on back, internal fuses etc.??? Will
be pulling it out either today or tomorrow, hope to do a quick preliminary
look and see and hopefully save some time and money on the repair!
Thanks,
John Monday
KR2S
Laguna Beach, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
In a message dated 3/5/2004 8:37:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net writes:
Suppression devices on a relay coil can only slow down the release of
the relay contacts. The goal is to suppress the transient enough to
protect the control switch contacts without degrading the performance of
the relay. That is why some prefer not to use just a diode, but will
put a zener in series with the diode, or use an MOV or transorb.
Dave
No, Dave, I have always understood that the objective is to provide an
alternate current path for the relay coil's flux to be relieved. A device that
accomplishes this the fastest is best. With no suppression device at all, the
opening control contacts impede the quick discharge of the coil's energy and that
energy burns the opening contacts. Any suppression device will speed things
up over the high resistance of open (or opening) control contacts. Right?
Please tell me if I am all wet here!
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ALT Field Breaker....and Diodes |
It sure shuts mine off right now!
With all this talk of using diodes and such on contacts to save switches, I
wonder if the switch manufactures take that into consideration when
designing and producing a switch? It would be foolish not to. I think it
is a good idea to use diodes and want to say "Thank You" everyone here for
the discussions so we amateur electricians gain more important knowledge.
After 17 years of great service the Long-EZ has had the instrument panel
removed and all of the wiring for updates and to apply the current
technology. Can't wait to see how much weight has been discarded.
Blue Skies,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ALT Field Breaker....
>
> Will pulling the ALT Field Breaker (5A) shut down the ALT in an
over-voltage or runaway alternator situation? If not.... what does happen?
>
> Thanks,
> Jack Lockamy
> Camarillo, CA
> RV-7A Wiring
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | diodes on relay coils |
>
> In a message dated 3/5/2004 8:37:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net writes:
> Suppression devices on a relay coil can only slow down the release of
> the relay contacts. The goal is to suppress the transient enough to
> protect the control switch contacts without degrading the performance
of
> the relay. That is why some prefer not to use just a diode, but will
> put a zener in series with the diode, or use an MOV or transorb.
>
> Dave
> No, Dave, I have always understood that the objective is to provide an
> alternate current path for the relay coil's flux to be relieved. A
device
> that
> accomplishes this the fastest is best. With no suppression device at
all,
> the
> opening control contacts impede the quick discharge of the coil's
energy
> and that
> energy burns the opening contacts. Any suppression device will speed
> things
> up over the high resistance of open (or opening) control contacts.
Right?
> Please tell me if I am all wet here!
>
> John P. Marzluf
> Columbus, Ohio
> Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
>
Yes, the suppression device provides an alternate path for the coil
current. Without it, the stored energy in the inductive coil winding is
dissipated as arcing across the contacts of the control switch. With
it, the energy is dissipated in the suppression device because the
voltage never gets high enough to arc across the switch contacts. The
higher the voltage across the suppression device, the faster the energy
is dissipated and the faster the coil current decays. The key to fast
release of the relay contacts is fast decay of the coil current. This
is because the coil current is what is creating the magnetic flux that
is holding the relay contacts closed. Adding a diode across the coil of
a relay slows it down because it slows down the decay of the coil
current.
Bob has determined that the diode on the coil does not slow the opening
of the relay contacts significantly enough to have an effect on relay
performance. Personally, I have no data to back up a statement
concerning how much the relay performance is affected by the diode vs.
no diode vs. a transorb, MOV, or Zener.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
Sorry, but you are saturated :-) . Actually your understanding of the
objective is right on, but your understanding of what happens is not.
Any device added to a relay coil to eliminate the relay coil "kickback"
will cause the relay coil current to continue to flow and slow the relay
opening down.
CAUTION, heavy electrical discussion follows:
When the relay coil power is interrupted, the coil still has a certain
amount of energy stored in the coil. This is 1/2*L*I2, where L is the
inductance of the coil and I2 is the current flowing in the coil
squared. The current has to be reduced to some smaller value before the
relay contacts will open. The current flowing in the coil will "want"
to continue to flow (since it is an inductor)and as long as this current
continues to flow the relay will remain energized. If one leaves the
relay with no suppression, the voltage will rise to some arbitrarily
high value and the energy will be dissipated relatively quickly (energy
flow is directly related to the voltage * current, so with a high
voltage the energy dissipates quickly). If one adds a diode to minimize
the voltage rise then the voltage rise is only 0.7V or so and it takes
much longer for the energy to dissipate. That is why some people prefer
to use MOVs or transorbs. These allow the voltage to rise to some
intermediate value - high enough to dissipate the energy relatively
quickly, but low enough to protect the relay control circuitry (switch
contacts, electronics, etc.).
End of discussion.
So, if you can stand to allow a relatively minor increase in the time
that the relay takes to open (10s of milliseconds) then a diode is the
safest way to go. Otherwise, some other voltage limiting device is
recommended.
Dick Tasker
KITFOXZ(at)aol.com wrote:
>Dave
>No, Dave, I have always understood that the objective is to provide an
>alternate current path for the relay coil's flux to be relieved. A device that
>accomplishes this the fastest is best. With no suppression device at all, the
>opening control contacts impede the quick discharge of the coil's energy and that
>energy burns the opening contacts. Any suppression device will speed things
>up over the high resistance of open (or opening) control contacts. Right?
>Please tell me if I am all wet here!
>
>John P. Marzluf
>Columbus, Ohio
>Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stan and Lindy <stanlindy(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
>
>
>Sorry, but you are saturated :-) . Actually your understanding of the
>objective is right on, but your understanding of what happens is not.
>
>Any device added to a relay coil to eliminate the relay coil "kickback"
>will cause the relay coil current to continue to flow and slow the relay
>opening down.
>
>CAUTION, heavy electrical discussion follows:
>When the relay coil power is interrupted, the coil still has a certain
>amount of energy stored in the coil. This is 1/2*L*I2, where L is the
>inductance of the coil and I2 is the current flowing in the coil
>squared. The current has to be reduced to some smaller value before the
>relay contacts will open. The current flowing in the coil will "want"
>to continue to flow (since it is an inductor)and as long as this current
>continues to flow the relay will remain energized. If one leaves the
>relay with no suppression, the voltage will rise to some arbitrarily
>high value and the energy will be dissipated relatively quickly (energy
>flow is directly related to the voltage * current, so with a high
>voltage the energy dissipates quickly). If one adds a diode to minimize
>the voltage rise then the voltage rise is only 0.7V or so and it takes
>much longer for the energy to dissipate. That is why some people prefer
>to use MOVs or transorbs. These allow the voltage to rise to some
>intermediate value - high enough to dissipate the energy relatively
>quickly, but low enough to protect the relay control circuitry (switch
>contacts, electronics, etc.).
>
>End of discussion.
>
>So, if you can stand to allow a relatively minor increase in the time
>that the relay takes to open (10s of milliseconds) then a diode is the
>safest way to go. Otherwise, some other voltage limiting device is
>recommended.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
>
>KITFOXZ(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >Dave
> >No, Dave, I have always understood that the objective is to provide an
> >alternate current path for the relay coil's flux to be relieved. A
> device that
> >accomplishes this the fastest is best. With no suppression device at
> all, the
> >opening control contacts impede the quick discharge of the coil's energy
> and that
> >energy burns the opening contacts. Any suppression device will speed
> things
> >up over the high resistance of open (or opening) control contacts. Right?
> >Please tell me if I am all wet here!
> >
> >John P. Marzluf
> >Columbus, Ohio
> >Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | world's easiest question |
Eric,
I know that some manufacturers actually run the circuit boards through a
dishwasher, just like the one in your hour house, before plugging in the
ICs. They come out really nice.
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
Gentlemen,
If I carry a personal EPIRB, do I still have to install a standard aircraft
EPIRB? Probably so..... But I wonder if one of the little personal EPIRBs
could be adapted for use in an Experimental Airplane..... just a thought.
Regards,
Troy
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
>
>In a message dated 3/5/2004 1:34:24 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>
>
> >
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > If I carry a personal EPIRB, do I still have to install a standard aircraft
> > EPIRB? Probably so..... But I wonder if one of the little personal EPIRBs
> > could be adapted for use in an Experimental Airplane..... just a thought.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Troy
> > tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
> >
> >
>
>The ones I have seen cost several times more then a good ELT for the plane,,
That's probably because you're looking at 406 mhz EPIRBs, and 121.5
ELT's. 406 mhz ELT's are several thousand dollars - it's a vastly superior
technology. http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/184338-1.html
I've been thinking of buying a 406 EPIRB with built in GPS, and tearing the
inertia switch out of an old ELT and doing the wiring myself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
With an EPIRB, they're going to find you a LOT faster than any ELT, and
with the registration, if it accidentally gets activated, they'll call your
home immediately. It's far superior technology, and there should be some
sort of a means of stating that it complies with the ELT requirement.
Yes, it costs more, but it works. Most of the time, false ELT signals are
what are chased down, not accidents.
Dan Branstrom.
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard(at)riley.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: personal ELT
>
> >
> >In a message dated 3/5/2004 1:34:24 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> >tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > If I carry a personal EPIRB, do I still have to install a standard
aircraft
> > > EPIRB? Probably so..... But I wonder if one of the little personal
EPIRBs
> > > could be adapted for use in an Experimental Airplane..... just a
thought.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Troy
> > > tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
> > >
> > >
> >
> >The ones I have seen cost several times more then a good ELT for the
plane,,
>
> That's probably because you're looking at 406 mhz EPIRBs, and 121.5
> ELT's. 406 mhz ELT's are several thousand dollars - it's a vastly
superior
> technology. http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/184338-1.html
>
> I've been thinking of buying a 406 EPIRB with built in GPS, and tearing
the
> inertia switch out of an old ELT and doing the wiring myself.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
>
>>
>>In a message dated 3/5/2004 1:34:24 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>>tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Gentlemen,
>> >
>> > If I carry a personal EPIRB, do I still have to install a
>>standard aircraft
>> > EPIRB? Probably so..... But I wonder if one of the little
>>personal EPIRBs
>> > could be adapted for use in an Experimental Airplane..... just a thought.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Troy
>> > tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
>> >
>> >
>>
>>The ones I have seen cost several times more then a good ELT for the plane,,
>
>That's probably because you're looking at 406 mhz EPIRBs, and 121.5
>ELT's. 406 mhz ELT's are several thousand dollars - it's a vastly superior
>technology. http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/184338-1.html
>
>I've been thinking of buying a 406 EPIRB with built in GPS, and tearing the
>inertia switch out of an old ELT and doing the wiring myself.
If you have a US registered aircraft, then FAR 91.207 applies:
FAR 91.207: Emergency locator transmitters.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no
person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless --
(1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type
emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition for the
following operations
"Approved" means the ELT must have a TSO. EPIRBs don't have TSOs, as
far as I can tell.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
>
>If you have a US registered aircraft, then FAR 91.207 applies:
>
>FAR 91.207: Emergency locator transmitters.
>
>
>(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no
>person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless --
>
> (1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type
>emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition for the
>following operations
>
>"Approved" means the ELT must have a TSO. EPIRBs don't have TSOs, as
>far as I can tell.
There's legal, and there's real.
To be legal, I can use a piece of crap ELT that's been banging around my
shop for a few years. Throw a new battery in it, it's legal. And it's
almost useless in a real emergency.
So, I add to that a personal EPIRB for about $800. Now I have something
that might actually get me rescued. Nothing in the FAR's that says I
can't have an EPIRB.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GPS Antenna |
> Hello Gilles, If appearance is your primary concern why not mount the
antenna
> on a small aluminum shelf suspended underneath either the glare shield or
a
> bit further forward under the cowling? I assume that neither the glare
shield
> or cowling are made of metal.
>
> The antenna for my Garmin 430 is out of sight on such a shelf aft of the
> firewall and forward of the glareshield. It works great.
>
> One additional benefit of having the antenna mounted on an aluminum shelf
is
> that the aluminum partially shields the bottom of the antenna from
electronic
> garbage happening below the shelf.
Hey "OC",
Thank you for your message. Interesting suggestion indeed. Nevertheless our
primary structure and cowlings are carbon fiber, ie conductive material, so
we can't do that. But had the cowlings been 'glass I'm sure I'd follow your
advice.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna04 |
> I'm using the noncertified (small, round, black) GPS antenna from
http://www.gretzaero.com/ for my GPS295. The information on the web page
implies this antenna should work with the GNS400 series. I've been happy
with the service from Gretz Aero.
Roy,
Thanks for your reply. I've mailed Gretz Aero to ask them about the specific
use with the Garmin GPS 400 receiver.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Garmin GPS 400 antenna |
> > As our intention is to mount the antenna on the glareshield, I would
like
> to
> > find a less bulky and preferably dark colored model.
>
> I covered a white GPS antenna with black fabric years ago because the
white
> reflected in the windshield badly. It worked fine.
>
> Cliff A&P/IA
Cliff,
Thanks for the input. As there is no fabric in our airplane (only zolatone)
we'll try to find a more discreet model.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump TVS |
The ref below is for automotive protection.
Note that automobiles have different electrical requirements. For example
they must be able to take the boost start 24V from TWO series 12V batteries.
Thus the LDP24A device is rated for 24V (nominal) use.
Our problem is we need to protect at a lower voltage upper limit and much
tighter range of voltages so the automotive solution will not work "off the
shelf".
When you search the ST site for this device you end up with 3 hits. ALL 3
are relevant and interesting to read (all are PDF files).
Progress is being made on the design and testing of both internal and
external regulated alternators in various simulated loading conditions based
on Bob's schematics to determine the magnitude of the "load dump" and how to
deal with it with minimal cost etc.
Expect more very late this month. At most only 10% of my time can be spent
on this and it takes a lot of time to build a proper setup to get reliable
results.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load dump TVS
>
> As I promised here is the device I mentioned a several weeks ago as being
> designed specifically for alternator load dump.
>
> LDP24A and the data sheet can be found by searching
> at www.st.com
>
> An interesting related app note AN554 is also at the st site. Provides
> detailed design info!
>
> www.findchips.com will find dist stock for the LDP24A
>
>
> Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <beecho(at)beecho.org> |
| Subject: | More on the electrical robustness of the XCOM 760 |
Hi Rob and anyone else interested in XCom products.. BEWARE!
I bought an intercom from them and also had them make up a wiring
harness to connect the intercom and switch between two Microair 760s.
The intercom appears to be good, clear, light and small. HOWEVER,
harness they supplied is totally inadequate. First of all, many the
cables were mislabeled which of course meant they were connected
incorrectly by me. I emailed Michael Coates, their honcho, and was told
he would get right back to me. Did he, NO. I then asked him if I could
return the harness to him or at least could he send me a wiring diagram.
NO RESPONSE. I have attempted to contact him many times and asked at
least if he would send back the $$ I had paid for the harness. NO
RESPONSE.
Since then, Microair has sent me a proper wiring diagram and I find that
XCom did it entirely wrong, used the wrong kind of switch, etc.
BEWARE...
Tom Friedland, California, Europa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob W
M Shipley
Subject: AeroElectric-List: More on the electrical robustness of the
XCOM 760
My question to MCP was motivated by my own interest in possibly buying
this com. It is built by a team of engineers at least some of whom were
originally involved in the Microair - hence the reference to this.
My email .........
Hi Michael,
A current thread on the Aeroelectric list at the moment is the risk of
load dumps if a generator is disconnected whilst under load. As part of
this discussion the tolerance of different avionics to withstand voltage
excursions has been of interest.
The prevailing certified standard for this is DO 160 (US) and it was
mentioned that the Microair falls well short of this.
Could you comment on the XCOM760 and whether it meets the DO 160 levels
of resistance and if not what is the level of voltage/time resistance
designed into the radio?
Rob
From Michael Coates <mcoates(at)mcp.com.au
>From our engineer..... hopefully this answers your question.... its
all rocket science to me so i had to refer it to those in the know.
Thanks Michael
Ken Luxford wrote:
Michael,
While the nominal maximum input voltage of the XCOM760 is 16 volts,
all of the components in the DC input filter are rated at 35 volts. The
onboard 10V regulator has a maximum input voltage of 37 volts and the
onboard 5V regulator has a maximum input voltage of 45 volts.
The comments regarding TVS (Transient Voltage Suppressors) are valid
and I have had personal experience of them failing in the manner
described.
Perhaps Bob would comment on how satisfactory a level of protection
this might be.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
Gentlemen,
SO I guess the short answer is: Don't spend very much for an ELT. ? I'm
thinking I might just order an Ameri-King ELT AK-450. Any particular reason
NOT to? I'll probably also carry a personal EPIRB. I always had one in my
sailboats (never NEEDED it....).
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)wcvt.com> |
Forgive me if this detail has been mentioned before (I'm new to the list),
but there exist TSO'd ELTs that use off-the-shelf batteries -- D-cells, I
think. I have such an ELT in my Bonanza.
All you have to do is use batteries that carry an expiration date and
replace them before they expire. Makes battery replacement a whole lot
cheaper than it was in my old ELT!
Rick McCraw
BE36, RV7 (a-building)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
Yes, good idea! An old, inexpensive, not very effective, but "approved" ELT
is your legal belt, while the newer, more expensive, but non-approved EPIRB
(406 MHz ??) is the set of suspenders that you can probably rely on to get
yourself found if the worst comes to pass.
The politics of introducing new technology is often just as interesting as
the technology itself. With ELTs the advantages of the 406 MHz systems are
well-known and fully understood. Governments however are loath to pass a
regulation that makes millions of dollars of old ELTs obsolete overnight and
requires voting/taxpaying aircraft owners to buy new 406 MHz ELTs at five
times the cost.
Jim Oke
RV-6A, RV-3
Wpg, MB
(Used to do the odd ELT search myself.)
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard(at)riley.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: personal ELT
> >If you have a US registered aircraft, then FAR 91.207 applies:
> >FAR 91.207: Emergency locator transmitters.
> >(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no
> >person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless --
> >
> > (1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type
> >emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition for the
> >following operations
> >
> >"Approved" means the ELT must have a TSO. EPIRBs don't have TSOs, as
> >far as I can tell.
>
> There's legal, and there's real.
>
> To be legal, I can use a piece of crap ELT that's been banging around my
> shop for a few years. Throw a new battery in it, it's legal. And it's
> almost useless in a real emergency.
>
> So, I add to that a personal EPIRB for about $800. Now I have something
> that might actually get me rescued. Nothing in the FAR's that says I
> can't have an EPIRB.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker |
In Chapter 17, Bob suggests a B-lead fuse instead of a circuit breaker, "for a
much lower resistance..between alternator (the noisiest device) and battery (the
best filter)."
Why? What's this mean? What's the significance of this design feature?
Thanks for answering this beginner's question. Roger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker |
Somebody will state this better (and correct me if I'm wrong): The circuit
breaker has a low amount of resistance because it depends on the heating of
a bi-metallic strip, which bends and trips the breaker, and heat = use of
energy. A fuse has an even lower amount of resistance, because the heat
produced by current flowing through it rises much faster at the limit of its
ability to carry that current. Since the fuse doesn't heat up much until it
gets close to the limit, it has a much lower resistance.
To smooth out the noise of the alternator, you want the lowest resistance
possible. With a low resistance, there is less possibility for minor
fluctuations (noise) to occur, because more of the fluctuations from the
alternator are absorbed by the battery. If you put a resister between the
two of them, there is more possibility for a voltage differential between
the alternator and the battery. The more voltage difference (particularly
from a pulse) the more noise you will get.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker
>
> In Chapter 17, Bob suggests a B-lead fuse instead of a circuit breaker,
"for a much lower resistance..between alternator (the noisiest device) and
battery (the best filter)."
>
> Why? What's this mean? What's the significance of this design feature?
>
> Thanks for answering this beginner's question. Roger.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Comment below ..
[SNIP]
>
> Forgive me if this detail has been mentioned before (I'm new to the list),
> but there exist TSO'd ELTs that use off-the-shelf batteries -- D-cells, I
> think. I have such an ELT in my Bonanza.
>
> All you have to do is use batteries that carry an expiration date and
> replace them before they expire. Makes battery replacement a whole lot'
Bill I don't have the regs before me on this (so I **may** be WRONG!) but I
think you might want to double check that on the batteries.
We are in the middle of condition inspection on our RV6 and changed out out
D-cells. The ones we took out had not expired and theones we put in expire
in 2011! It is probably not a good idea to leave those things in there for
much beyond a year (let alone 7) as they might corrode and fail you JUST
when you need them.
You can always use the batteries that you take out in a flashlight. That's
our plan ... taking those suckers out EVERY 12 months and getting some
useage out of them.
> cheaper than it was in my old ELT!
I also changed out the ELT in my certified plane to be able to do the same.
The purchase of the unit cost me less than what I think it cost me to get
the old one tested twice.
James
>
> Rick McCraw
> BE36, RV7 (a-building)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)wcvt.com> |
Re when to change out flashlight batteries in ELTs: As I think about it, you
may well be right about changing out the batteries before the expiration,
maybe at the halfway point or some such. For the record, I'll check with my
A&P tomorrow and post the info.
Sorry for any misinformation: I'll try to straighten it out.
Rick McCraw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
Was reviewing the "manual battery switch" issue tonight and reviewed this
old e-mail.
Ref David S's comment below, "If you have to mount it a distance from the
battery in order
> to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
disconnect provides."
I had also thought of that - but IF I put a ANL current limiter (BIG fuse)
within 1 to 5 inches of the positive battery terminal, and then run a fat
wire up to the instrument panel to the manual switch, even though the fat
wire is longer than 5-6 inches, it is NOT "unprotected", so, should meet the
guidelines that Bob Nuckolls frequently reminds us of.
So, I/we should be able to mount the battery up close to firewall - out of
reach (and not back by our knee) - 'cause we no longer have to have the
manual battery switch near the battery.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Manual master switch
>
> The attraction of a manual battery switch is that it eliminates some
> parts and requires no battery current to keep closed. Heavy-duty
> manual switches capable of replacing the master contactor are available
> sealed or unsealed, and with or without removable keys. If you can
> place it next to the battery and still easily reach it, I don't see any
> downside. If you have to mount it a distance from the battery in order
> to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
> disconnect provides.
> Dave Swartzendruber
>
> >
> > In re: manual switches vs. contactors.
> >
> > The only things I can think of that might matter are:
> > 1. A contactor adds to the current load to keep it closed.
> > 2. A contactor provides a sealed switching environment.
> A manual switch can too.
> > 3. During a power failure, a contactor will open automatically.
> Are you sure?
> > 4. A contactor can theoretically refuse to release, although I've
> never
> > actually seen this happen in practice.
> >
> > Are there any other relevant arguments for or against?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chad
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Switch Override |
Hi Bob,
As promised, after attending the Groton, CT seminar, I still have a
question.
With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gianni Zuliani" <gianni(at)comgz.com> |
| Subject: | KX-155A on 12V machine |
Hi Bob,
would you provide one of your valuable hints to tackle my present problem:
I've got a nice KX-155A (28V only King NAV-COM) which I want to install on
my new Stag-Ez which is a 12V, single batt, single alt. machine.
Is there a viable/efficient and reliable way that you know and might
suggest? If necessary, I would be willing to install a second battery and
even a second alternator... a 28V power supply being the last resource
(Aeromation? or whichever you might recommend).
Thank you.
Gianni Zuliani
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT batteries |
In a message dated 3/7/04 9:26:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, rmccraw(at)wcvt.com
writes:
> Re when to change out flashlight batteries in ELTs: As I think about it,
> you
> may well be right about changing out the batteries before the expiration,
>
Instructions with new ACK says to change them with each Annual Inspection. It
also gives the specific "D" cell to be used.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker |
Well said, but don't forget that to use the circuit breaker you have to
bring that big noisy wire all the way through the firewall up to the panel
and then back to the battery. If you use a fuse then you can mount
everything forward of the firewall and not bring it into the cabin at all.
Unless of course your battery is inside but you can still keep it away from
the panel, where the radios are.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker
>
> Somebody will state this better (and correct me if I'm wrong): The circuit
> breaker has a low amount of resistance because it depends on the heating
of
> a bi-metallic strip, which bends and trips the breaker, and heat = use of
> energy. A fuse has an even lower amount of resistance, because the heat
> produced by current flowing through it rises much faster at the limit of
its
> ability to carry that current. Since the fuse doesn't heat up much until
it
> gets close to the limit, it has a much lower resistance.
>
> To smooth out the noise of the alternator, you want the lowest resistance
> possible. With a low resistance, there is less possibility for minor
> fluctuations (noise) to occur, because more of the fluctuations from the
> alternator are absorbed by the battery. If you put a resister between the
> two of them, there is more possibility for a voltage differential between
> the alternator and the battery. The more voltage difference (particularly
> from a pulse) the more noise you will get.
>
> Dan Branstrom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker
>
>
>
> >
> > In Chapter 17, Bob suggests a B-lead fuse instead of a circuit breaker,
> "for a much lower resistance..between alternator (the noisiest device) and
> battery (the best filter)."
> >
> > Why? What's this mean? What's the significance of this design feature?
> >
> > Thanks for answering this beginner's question. Roger.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Re when to change out flashlight batteries in ELTs: As I think about it, you
>may well be right about changing out the batteries before the expiration,
>maybe at the halfway point or some such. For the record, I'll check with my
>A&P tomorrow and post the info.
>
>Sorry for any misinformation: I'll try to straighten it out.
>
>Rick McCraw
If they are alkaline batteries, you can (from an engineering
perspective) leave them in place until their "sell by" dates
on the battery. Alkalines are extremely long lived. From
the bureaucratic perspective, there may be something different.
If its a certified device, there should be instructions for
maintaining air worthy status which would state the manufacturer's
FAA approved routine for battery maintenance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Comment below ..
>
>[SNIP]
>
> >
> > Forgive me if this detail has been mentioned before (I'm new to the list),
> > but there exist TSO'd ELTs that use off-the-shelf batteries -- D-cells, I
> > think. I have such an ELT in my Bonanza.
> >
> > All you have to do is use batteries that carry an expiration date and
> > replace them before they expire. Makes battery replacement a whole lot'
>
>Bill I don't have the regs before me on this (so I **may** be WRONG!) but I
>think you might want to double check that on the batteries.
>
>We are in the middle of condition inspection on our RV6 and changed out out
>D-cells. The ones we took out had not expired and theones we put in expire
>in 2011! It is probably not a good idea to leave those things in there for
>much beyond a year (let alone 7) as they might corrode and fail you JUST
>when you need them.
Inspections for corrosion should be part of a yearly routine
for inspection . . . if they're clean and bright, there's
no practical justification for tossing an alkaline cell just
because it's been setting there "too long". Alkaline cells
have very long shelf lives.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT batteries |
>
>In a message dated 3/7/04 9:26:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, rmccraw(at)wcvt.com
>writes:
>
>
> > Re when to change out flashlight batteries in ELTs: As I think about it,
> > you
> > may well be right about changing out the batteries before the expiration,
> >
>
>Instructions with new ACK says to change them with each Annual Inspection. It
>also gives the specific "D" cell to be used.
That stops any arguments right dead in their tracks . . . no?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-155A on 12V machine |
>
>Hi Bob,
>would you provide one of your valuable hints to tackle my present problem:
>I've got a nice KX-155A (28V only King NAV-COM) which I want to install on
>my new Stag-Ez which is a 12V, single batt, single alt. machine.
>Is there a viable/efficient and reliable way that you know and might
>suggest? If necessary, I would be willing to install a second battery and
>even a second alternator... a 28V power supply being the last resource
>(Aeromation? or whichever you might recommend).
There are 14 to 28v step-up supplies. One suited to your
application is about $450. It's the AmeriKing AK550-6
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B-lead fuse vs. circuit breaker |
>
>
>In Chapter 17, Bob suggests a B-lead fuse instead of a circuit breaker,
>"for a much lower resistance..between alternator (the noisiest device) and
>battery (the best filter)."
>
>Why? What's this mean? What's the significance of this design feature?
The battery is the best filter in the airplane but it's effectiveness is
limited by the TOTAL wiring resistance between alternator and battery
-AND- where busses attach to the system to get power. Bringing the
alternator into the cabin to power the same bus that radios would
like to see "clean" voltage doesn't make much sense. There is nothing
magic or useful in having a breaker on the panel to protect the
alternator b-lead. Tying the alternator onto system fat wires under
the cowl is how they do it in big airplanes, no reason we shouldn't
do it in little airplanes too. The major advantage of the main bus
breaker is being able to accommodate the battery ammeter which was
popular from day one in cars and carried over into airplanes in the
late 40s . . . Once we decide to do diagnostics with instruments
other than a battery-ammeter, the system gets simpler, quieter,
and you don't bring another high current (highly magnetized) wire
into the cockpit where it adds no value and may detract.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jordan Grant" <gra9933(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Audio Isolation Amplifier Problem |
Bob and everyone else:
I recently hooked up my intercom and audio-iso amp and began to test it
and
I have a problem.
Here is a description of my system:
My Audio Iso Amp is the Bob Knuckolls standard - built as the Monophonic
version. The VHF radio COM out is connected to one input. My engine monitor
(ACS2002) audio output is connected to another input. These are the only two
inputs to the Audio Iso Amp. The output of the Amp goes to the Comm Input on
a Flightcom 403 intercom. My CD player is connected to the music inputs on
the Flightcom.
My problem:
The volume of the COMM radio and the ACS2002 is very low when listening
on
the intercom. I can hear it, but its very quiet. The music volume and
intercom volume are fine. When I bypass the Audio Iso Amp with either the
COMM radio or the ACS2002 audio, the volume is fine. If I directly wire BOTH
the COMM audio and the ACS2002 to the Flightcom's input (bypassing the Audio
Iso Amp), I again can hear both, but they are very quiet.
I need to try some other combinations to troubleshoot, I think. In the
meantime, I was hoping someone might have an idea of whats messed up.
Thanks,
Jordan Grant
RV-6 Wiring, wiring, wiring, wiring....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Scott Richardson'" <scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
Hi,
I'm wiring up my Lancair 235 using Z-13 with the battery in the rear of
the aircraft (behind the passenger seat). I had some questions:
1. The diagram shows the main fusebox being connected to the output
side of the battery connector. I'm assuming that I could connect it
either there or at the starter contactor end, correct? (This just saves
another run of #4 cable to the rear of the aircraft). Would there be
any problem of taking that feed somewhere in the middle of the run of #2
cable? - say near where it passes the instrument panel?
2. Is there any problem using a brass bolt to pass the + side current
through the firewall? I would use a phenolic ring around the bolt to
isolate the (grounded) firewall stainless from the bolt.
3. Is it better to have the ANL on the forward or rear side of the
firewall? Does the ANL smoke at all when it "blows"?
4. I'm about to order some #2 welding cable but am trying to plan my
runs in the meantime. Can someone give me an idea of how flexible it is
- i.e. what's typical for a minumum bend radius?
Thanks as always.
Scott
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Scott M Richardson scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
>
>
>Was reviewing the "manual battery switch" issue tonight and reviewed this
>old e-mail.
>
>Ref David S's comment below, "If you have to mount it a distance from the
>battery in order
> > to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
>disconnect provides."
>
>I had also thought of that - but IF I put a ANL current limiter (BIG fuse)
>within 1 to 5 inches of the positive battery terminal, and then run a fat
>wire up to the instrument panel to the manual switch, even though the fat
>wire is longer than 5-6 inches, it is NOT "unprotected", so, should meet the
>guidelines that Bob Nuckolls frequently reminds us of.
>
>So, I/we should be able to mount the battery up close to firewall - out of
>reach (and not back by our knee) - 'cause we no longer have to have the
>manual battery switch near the battery.
Please don't do this. If you want to reduce battery contactor
drain, consider some of the modern contactors with two-stage
solenoids. They draw the typical 1A to close but less than
0.1A to maintain contact.
You can use a manual battery switch and operate it remotely
via a bowden cable (like the choke control on older cars).
Crash safety is dependent upon limiting the energy that can
be taken from battery powered wires when the metal is getting
crunched. The FAA calls for 5a as a limiting value (breaker
is okay with them, a fuse is MUCH better). A long wire with
an ANL limiter in it falls WAAAYYYYY out side spirit and
intent of either (1) positive disconnect of wire by pilot
using battery contactor and/or relays local to the battery
bus or limiting the protection of long, always-hot wires
to 5A or less.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)wcvt.com> |
Regarding alkaline battery replacement: My IA believes the regs are
ambiguous. He thinks there's a reading that would allow you to leave them
in right up until expiration. However, why would you want to? He believes
in replacing them annually and letting the old ones make light for the rest
of their little lives.
Sounds reasonable to me, and -- as was my original point -- way, way cheaper
than using proprietary batteries.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AI Nut" <ainut(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: personal ELT |
Of course, one could alway put a meter on it and see what the voltage reads.
That will tell you it's current condition and whether it is 50% gone or not.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: personal ELT
>
> >
> >
> >Comment below ..
> >
> >[SNIP]
> >
> > >
> > > Forgive me if this detail has been mentioned before (I'm new to the
list),
> > > but there exist TSO'd ELTs that use off-the-shelf batteries --
D-cells, I
> > > think. I have such an ELT in my Bonanza.
> > >
> > > All you have to do is use batteries that carry an expiration date and
> > > replace them before they expire. Makes battery replacement a whole
lot'
> >
> >Bill I don't have the regs before me on this (so I **may** be WRONG!) but
I
> >think you might want to double check that on the batteries.
> >
> >We are in the middle of condition inspection on our RV6 and changed out
out
> >D-cells. The ones we took out had not expired and theones we put in
expire
> >in 2011! It is probably not a good idea to leave those things in there
for
> >much beyond a year (let alone 7) as they might corrode and fail you JUST
> >when you need them.
>
> Inspections for corrosion should be part of a yearly routine
> for inspection . . . if they're clean and bright, there's
> no practical justification for tossing an alkaline cell just
> because it's been setting there "too long". Alkaline cells
> have very long shelf lives.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: diodes on relay coils |
>
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/5/2004 8:37:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net writes:
> > Suppression devices on a relay coil can only slow down the release of
> > the relay contacts. The goal is to suppress the transient enough to
> > protect the control switch contacts without degrading the performance
>of
> > the relay. That is why some prefer not to use just a diode, but will
> > put a zener in series with the diode, or use an MOV or transorb.
> >
> > Dave
> > No, Dave, I have always understood that the objective is to provide an
> > alternate current path for the relay coil's flux to be relieved. A
>device
> > that
> > accomplishes this the fastest is best. With no suppression device at
>all,
> > the
> > opening control contacts impede the quick discharge of the coil's
>energy
> > and that
> > energy burns the opening contacts. Any suppression device will speed
> > things
> > up over the high resistance of open (or opening) control contacts.
>Right?
> > Please tell me if I am all wet here!
> >
> > John P. Marzluf
> > Columbus, Ohio
> > Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
> >
>
>Yes, the suppression device provides an alternate path for the coil
>current. Without it, the stored energy in the inductive coil winding is
>dissipated as arcing across the contacts of the control switch. With
>it, the energy is dissipated in the suppression device because the
>voltage never gets high enough to arc across the switch contacts. The
>higher the voltage across the suppression device, the faster the energy
>is dissipated and the faster the coil current decays. The key to fast
>release of the relay contacts is fast decay of the coil current. This
>is because the coil current is what is creating the magnetic flux that
>is holding the relay contacts closed. Adding a diode across the coil of
>a relay slows it down because it slows down the decay of the coil
>current.
>
>Bob has determined that the diode on the coil does not slow the opening
>of the relay contacts significantly enough to have an effect on relay
>performance. Personally, I have no data to back up a statement
>concerning how much the relay performance is affected by the diode vs.
>no diode vs. a transorb, MOV, or Zener.
Okay, here's the data. We're talking about two different
characteristics of relays that are only slightly inter-related.
(1) Drop out delay: Time it takes from opening of coil
excitation circuit until relay contacts first open.
(2) Contact opening time: Time it takes from first motion
of contacts until current through the opening contacts
goes to zero.
The total relay response time is sum of the two values
above.
Take a peek at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/704-1DelayNoDiode.gif
Upper trace is for contacts of 30A rated, S704-1 relay
from B&C while switching a 5A resistive load at 24 VDC.
Lower trace is coil voltage. Note that when coil circuit
opens, we see the classic "spike" followed 2.5 milliSeconds
later with opening of the contacts. Now look at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp//704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
Here we've added the diode and as expected, coil spike
goes away. Further, the delay time from first opening of
coil circuit to opening of contacts is now 12.5 milliSeconds
which means that total response time has indeed moved
out 10 milliseconds or so. Consider this trace:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp//704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
This is a detail of contact opening for S704 relay with
no diode. Here we see that when voltage across the contacts
rises to about 10 volts, a arc forms between the contacts
and continues for about 210 microSeconds or 1/5 milliSecond.
Compare with this trace:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp//704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
Here we see that adding a diode produced an opening time of
230 microSeconds . . . about 20 microSeconds longer than
the case without the diode. One might deduce that adding
a diode did indeed increase length of arc time . . . but if
you repeatedly measure opening time you get a spread of
readings that run 190 to 250 microSeconds with and
without diodes.
This same test has been repeated on smaller and larger relays
with similar results.
What's this mean with respect to how we use relays? Not much.
Contact opening speed is more strongly affected by rapid fall-off
of magnetic attraction to the pole piece than by delayed fall-off
of the magnetic field. So irrespective of the slope of magnetic
field (proportional to current in coil), once the contacts begin
to move, their speed is more a function of the air-gap that builds
between relay armature and the pole-piece of the coil.
If one has a tightly timed system that depends on minimizing
drop out response time of the relay, perhaps an alternative technology
for dealing with coil spike would be useful. When you're punching
a trim switch or operating a flap switch, adding 10 milliSeconds
to opening delay is not significant. Wear and tear on the
relay is a separate issue not related to opening delay. The
diode is a simple, effective means for suppressing coil
spike antagonistic to switches that CONTROL relays. If
you want to mitigate arcing across the opening (or closing)
relay contacts, that's a separate task . . .
I've been working a number of contact wear issues at RAC
over the past two years. I've seen contacts fail that were
very lightly loaded and had minimal or no arcing during
the opening sequence. I'm still picking through the
simple-ideas that define contact physics. For the moment,
making things run well for a long time on the input
side of the relay are unrelated to things that make it
run well for a long time on the output side.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap circuit relay questions |
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>Re: relay bounce. I always believed that relay bounce was caused by poor
>inductive "kick" suppression. I can swear it was a listed item in my old
>text
>book about relay operation. Years ago, I worked on mechanically tuned
>avionics
>boxes that were the state of the art in our Naval Aircraft. RCA, Collins,
>Bendix, Honeywell and others of the manufacturers used neons to handle
>suppressing the coils on those units. I always assumed the "bounce" I
>would see from
>time to time was caused by the neon not dropping the relay coil's voltage low
>enough between cycles.
No, bounce is totally unrelated to anything you do on the input
side of the relay. Bounce is a VERY important aspect of relay
and switch life. A really bouncy relay or switch can get
two to ten EXTRA contact closures (along with attendant arcing
and metal transfers) for EACH time the switch is operated.
I'm studying a situation where two devices built and tested
to the same specifications have markedly different service
life. Turns out that one bounces typically one time on closure,
the other was 3-7 times.
>Some of those old boxes needed very fast stop pulses to get the mechanical
>mechanisms to halt in just the right spot for accurate tuning. I would
>imagine
>that you are very familiar with this scenerio. (thank God for varactors!)
>
>The neons were used, I assume for their speed. Perhaps the "bounce" I would
>see was in fact caused by worn (burned) contacts on the controlling device --
>not able to give me a clean break at off time? We used to take those suckers
>apart and burnish the contacts as needed. The kids of today don't know half
>of the school of hard knocks that went into producing the modern GPS receiver!
The NE-2 neon-bulb predates silicon rectifiers by about 30 or more
years. It had a strong clamping effect on coil spike voltage when
the gas fired at about 65 volts. Selenium rectifiers were used
for coil spike suppression too. It didn't get really easy until
the silicon rectifier came onto the scene about 1957.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Klinefelter" <kevann(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Manual master switch |
Got any links to a "modern contactor with two stage solenoid"? 0.1 A sounds
good for a Rotax 18a alt.
Thanks, Kevin
-----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: Manual master switch
>
>
>Was reviewing the "manual battery switch" issue tonight and reviewed this
>old e-mail.
>
>Ref David S's comment below, "If you have to mount it a distance from the
>battery in order
> > to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
>disconnect provides."
>
>I had also thought of that - but IF I put a ANL current limiter (BIG fuse)
>within 1 to 5 inches of the positive battery terminal, and then run a fat
>wire up to the instrument panel to the manual switch, even though the fat
>wire is longer than 5-6 inches, it is NOT "unprotected", so, should meet
the
>guidelines that Bob Nuckolls frequently reminds us of.
>
>So, I/we should be able to mount the battery up close to firewall - out of
>reach (and not back by our knee) - 'cause we no longer have to have the
>manual battery switch near the battery.
Please don't do this. If you want to reduce battery contactor
drain, consider some of the modern contactors with two-stage
solenoids. They draw the typical 1A to close but less than
0.1A to maintain contact.
You can use a manual battery switch and operate it remotely
via a bowden cable (like the choke control on older cars).
Crash safety is dependent upon limiting the energy that can
be taken from battery powered wires when the metal is getting
crunched. The FAA calls for 5a as a limiting value (breaker
is okay with them, a fuse is MUCH better). A long wire with
an ANL limiter in it falls WAAAYYYYY out side spirit and
intent of either (1) positive disconnect of wire by pilot
using battery contactor and/or relays local to the battery
bus or limiting the protection of long, always-hot wires
to 5A or less.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
Try:
http://www.ciitech.com/doc_generator.asp?doc_id=1280
Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
Kevin Klinefelter wrote:
>
>Got any links to a "modern contactor with two stage solenoid"? 0.1 A sounds
>good for a Rotax 18a alt.
>
> Thanks, Kevin
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark C. Milgrom" <milgrom(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
I saw this contactor featured in "Aviation Week & Space Technology"
magazine recently:
http://www.tycoelectronics.com/prodnews.asp?ID=586
Some claims of this product:
"A standard built-in coil economizer limits coil-holding power to just
1.7 watts at 12VDC. It also limits back EMF to 0V."
"The CAP200 weighs in at just under one pound (.43kg) and measures about
2.58 x 3.17 x 2.85 inches (65.6 x 80.5 x 72.3 mm) tall. It is UL
recognized for the U.S. and Canada (file E208033) and CE marked."
Mark Milgrom
Kevin Klinefelter wrote:
>
> Got any links to a "modern contactor with two stage solenoid"? 0.1 A sounds
> good for a Rotax 18a alt.
>
> Thanks, Kevin
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Manual master switch
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Was reviewing the "manual battery switch" issue tonight and reviewed this
>>old e-mail.
>>
>>Ref David S's comment below, "If you have to mount it a distance from the
>>battery in order
>>
>>>to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
>>
>>disconnect provides."
>>
>>I had also thought of that - but IF I put a ANL current limiter (BIG fuse)
>>within 1 to 5 inches of the positive battery terminal, and then run a fat
>>wire up to the instrument panel to the manual switch, even though the fat
>>wire is longer than 5-6 inches, it is NOT "unprotected", so, should meet
>
> the
>
>>guidelines that Bob Nuckolls frequently reminds us of.
>>
>>So, I/we should be able to mount the battery up close to firewall - out of
>>reach (and not back by our knee) - 'cause we no longer have to have the
>>manual battery switch near the battery.
>
>
>
> Please don't do this. If you want to reduce battery contactor
> drain, consider some of the modern contactors with two-stage
> solenoids. They draw the typical 1A to close but less than
> 0.1A to maintain contact.
>
> You can use a manual battery switch and operate it remotely
> via a bowden cable (like the choke control on older cars).
> Crash safety is dependent upon limiting the energy that can
> be taken from battery powered wires when the metal is getting
> crunched. The FAA calls for 5a as a limiting value (breaker
> is okay with them, a fuse is MUCH better). A long wire with
> an ANL limiter in it falls WAAAYYYYY out side spirit and
> intent of either (1) positive disconnect of wire by pilot
> using battery contactor and/or relays local to the battery
> bus or limiting the protection of long, always-hot wires
> to 5A or less.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ned Thomas" <315(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
How about a latching solenoid that requires no electrical holding power:
http://www.hotronicsproducts.com/circuit.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Klinefelter" <kevann(at)gte.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Manual master switch
>
> Got any links to a "modern contactor with two stage solenoid"? 0.1 A
sounds
> good for a Rotax 18a alt.
>
> Thanks, Kevin
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Manual master switch
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Was reviewing the "manual battery switch" issue tonight and reviewed this
> >old e-mail.
> >
> >Ref David S's comment below, "If you have to mount it a distance from the
> >battery in order
> > > to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
> >disconnect provides."
> >
> >I had also thought of that - but IF I put a ANL current limiter (BIG
fuse)
> >within 1 to 5 inches of the positive battery terminal, and then run a fat
> >wire up to the instrument panel to the manual switch, even though the fat
> >wire is longer than 5-6 inches, it is NOT "unprotected", so, should meet
> the
> >guidelines that Bob Nuckolls frequently reminds us of.
> >
> >So, I/we should be able to mount the battery up close to firewall - out
of
> >reach (and not back by our knee) - 'cause we no longer have to have the
> >manual battery switch near the battery.
>
>
> Please don't do this. If you want to reduce battery contactor
> drain, consider some of the modern contactors with two-stage
> solenoids. They draw the typical 1A to close but less than
> 0.1A to maintain contact.
>
> You can use a manual battery switch and operate it remotely
> via a bowden cable (like the choke control on older cars).
> Crash safety is dependent upon limiting the energy that can
> be taken from battery powered wires when the metal is getting
> crunched. The FAA calls for 5a as a limiting value (breaker
> is okay with them, a fuse is MUCH better). A long wire with
> an ANL limiter in it falls WAAAYYYYY out side spirit and
> intent of either (1) positive disconnect of wire by pilot
> using battery contactor and/or relays local to the battery
> bus or limiting the protection of long, always-hot wires
> to 5A or less.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan - ZK-VII" <zk-vii(at)blueyonder.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Single or Dual batteries?? |
Hi,
I'm in the early stages of planning for the electrics systems for a 7A. All
electric is the plan based on Bob's bible. I'm looking for pointers for the
one / two batteries decision.
Current setup will include dual alternators, main and EBUS + main battery.
We are also hoping to go FADEC and electric EFIS. If I put a second battery
in, would dedicating it to the FADEC be a good option, or would providing
EBUS supply make more sense with FADEC off that?
Thanks,
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB
http://www.rvproject.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Cromwell, New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Comments below ...
James
[SNIP]
> >
> >Instructions with new ACK says to change them with each Annual
> Inspection. It
> >also gives the specific "D" cell to be used.
>
> That stops any arguments right dead in their tracks . . . no?
>
> Bob . . .
>
And this is consistent with knowing that you have "fresh" ones in there. You
do not lose anything as the ones that come out should/could go into your
flashlight and serve til their "death". That's what we are doing.
No questions about battery life. No questions about legality. No throwing
away of "unused" batteries.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | XCOM, Pilot, Lightspeed and customer service. |
Tom Friedland, California, Europa, wrote :-
Hi Rob and anyone else interested in XCom products.. BEWARE!
I bought an intercom from them and also had them make up a wiring
harness to connect the intercom and switch between two Microair 760s.
The intercom appears to be good, clear, light and small. HOWEVER,
harness they supplied is totally inadequate. First of all, many the
cables were mislabeled which of course meant they were connected
incorrectly by me. I emailed Michael Coates, their honcho, and was told
he would get right back to me. Did he, NO. I then asked him if I could
return the harness to him or at least could he send me a wiring diagram.
NO RESPONSE. I have attempted to contact him many times and asked at
least if he would send back the $$ I had paid for the harness. NO
RESPONSE.
Since then, Microair has sent me a proper wiring diagram and I find that
XCom did it entirely wrong, used the wrong kind of switch, etc.
BEWARE...
This customer feedback is very useful. I have recently suffered at the hands of
Pilot. Their ear seals on my PA17-76 ANR headset had deteriorated markedly
and I emailed them for help since it was within the five year warranty. Unlike
the glowing reports of superior customer service from Lightspeed owners I was
sorely disappointed.
Pilot emailed me saying that everyone knows that ear seals are only good for about
twelve months and that if I want a permanent solution I must send $25 for
the silicone type. I replied that I felt ear seals on a product with a five year
warranty should actually last five years or more. This failed to impress
them and I was sent the old type as a replacement - the ones that "everyone knows
only last a year". Their words! I suppose they are waiting for my check
for $25 sometime next March or April!
As Tom Friedland said about XCOM if you are considering a Pilot product, BEWARE!
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | XCOM, Pilot, Lightspeed and customer service. |
> As Tom Friedland said about XCOM if you are considering a Pilot
> product, BEWARE!
Interesting. I've heard exactly the opposite about Pilot. A friend had a
problem with one of their DNC headsets and sent it back. They refurbished it
for free, including replacing the ear seals. My Pilot unit has performed
flawlessly for 4 years, so I've had no reason to test their support.
Just another data point.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | n3eu(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Manual master switch |
Ned Thomas wrote:
> How about a latching solenoid that requires no electrical holding power:
>
> http://www.hotronicsproducts.com/circuit.htm
If starting current will be drawn through this relay, then check its internal resistance.
The specs for the above suggest slower cranking will result. I tried
a competing product on a Rotax 914 (i.e., small starter) and the drop was
still excessive, despite spec sheet hinting it wouldn't be. Another item tossed
in my "Seemingly Bright Ideas" storage box.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glenn Rainey <nimbusaviation(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Battery > Ebus protection. |
I am in a dilemma regarding the sourcing of power for
my Essential-bus, not having a battery bus in my
Long-EZ, and in the light of discussions regarding
protection of always-hot wiring. So we could have a
breaker or fuse or current limiter near the
nose-mounted battery, BUT we also need a disconnect up
there. It's not going to be a contactor, so it will
have to be a _remotely operable_ switch, (or breaker)
right? This feeds me into the Manual Master Switch
debate which I remember also posting some time ago,
but this time it's the Ebus.
The basic issue here is current protection AND ALSO
keeping voltage off the wiring shortly before the
glass hits the dirt. (My original thought experiment,
not the point of this posting, was to introduce a
G-activated disconnect into the equation......)
Good grief, do I need a toe-activated switch for my
Ebus ???!
Any thoughts?
Glenn Rainey
Scotland
Long-EZ project
__________________________________
http://search.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Master Switch |
This product looks well made, but...
I considered a latching relay, too, but didn't like the fact that it doesn't
fail safely. If something fails in the actuation circuitry, the relay doesn't
open the circuit it's controlling - it stays in whatever state it was in.
Considering that there's no alternative means of power shutoff for the
battery contactor, this isn't good in an aircraft. Poorly designed mechanical
latching relays
can also be actuated by vibration - of which there's a lot of in an airplane.
In a car, you can at least pull over and disconnect the battery cables.
A safer alternative is the cii technologies EV-200
http://www.ciitech.com/doc_generator.asp?doc_id1280
available through several electronic distributors accessible via
the ciitech website. This contactor dissipates 1/10 the power of a
conventional contactor (100mA when holding), is quite small, and always
opens the controlled circuit if actuator power fails - i.e., it fails safely.
It doesn't dissipate zero power, but very close.
SS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery > Ebus protection. |
>
>
>I am in a dilemma regarding the sourcing of power for
>my Essential-bus, not having a battery bus in my
>Long-EZ, and in the light of discussions regarding
>protection of always-hot wiring. So we could have a
>breaker or fuse or current limiter near the
>nose-mounted battery, BUT we also need a disconnect up
>there. It's not going to be a contactor,
Why not a contactor?
> so it will
>have to be a _remotely operable_ switch, (or breaker)
>right? This feeds me into the Manual Master Switch
>debate which I remember also posting some time ago,
>but this time it's the Ebus.
>The basic issue here is current protection AND ALSO
>keeping voltage off the wiring shortly before the
>glass hits the dirt. (My original thought experiment,
>not the point of this posting, was to introduce a
>G-activated disconnect into the equation......)
>
>Good grief, do I need a toe-activated switch for my
>Ebus ???!
No. First, since you have a plastic airplane, issues
involving faults to ground during a crash are
very much reduced. The rule of thumb suggested by
FAA on always hot feeds from battery is to limit
them to 5A. How much current does your e-bus
draw? Given that FAA will bless a 5A breaker,
you could probably get equivalent fault protection
with the much faster 7A fuse. If your e-bus will
run through a 7A fuse, just install an in-line
fuse holder at the battery to feed the e-bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm wiring up my Lancair 235 using Z-13 with the battery in the rear of
>the aircraft (behind the passenger seat). I had some questions:
>
>1. The diagram shows the main fusebox being connected to the output
>side of the battery connector. I'm assuming that I could connect it
>either there or at the starter contactor end, correct? (This just saves
>another run of #4 cable to the rear of the aircraft). Would there be
>any problem of taking that feed somewhere in the middle of the run of #2
>cable? - say near where it passes the instrument panel?
Correct.
>2. Is there any problem using a brass bolt to pass the + side current
>through the firewall? I would use a phenolic ring around the bolt to
>isolate the (grounded) firewall stainless from the bolt.
Are you planning to test the insulator for effects on
firewall integrity? There are a number of technologies
that have been tested. The one we use at RAC looks like
this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>3. Is it better to have the ANL on the forward or rear side of the
>firewall?
You need to place it as close as practical to the energy
source that's going to blow it. In this case, the battery.
Where is the starter contactor mounted. If on the firewall
where most folks put them, the ANL would mount right beside
it.
> Does the ANL smoke at all when it "blows"?
No.
>4. I'm about to order some #2 welding cable but am trying to plan my
>runs in the meantime. Can someone give me an idea of how flexible it is
>- i.e. what's typical for a minumum bend radius?
SUPER flexible. No practical limit on bend radius.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F1Rocket" <f1rocket(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Master Solenoid location |
Hi all,
The other day I was looking in an OBAM aircraft and he had the batter located in
the back, with the master solenoid located on the firewall. Everything I read
indicates that this isn't the correct way to do it, but it would sure make
things easy for me.
Any opinions or comments?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Solenoid location |
>
>Hi all,
>
>The other day I was looking in an OBAM aircraft and he had the batter
>located in the back, with the master solenoid located on the
>firewall. Everything I read indicates that this isn't the correct way to
>do it, but it would sure make things easy for me.
>Any opinions or comments?
As was the case with the aircraft you observed, the
OBAM aircraft builder can put things together any
way he/she sees fit. But for the vast majority of
OBAM and certified ships, the battery master contactor
goes right next to the battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Master Switch |
>
>This product looks well made, but...
>I considered a latching relay, too, but didn't like the fact that it doesn't
>fail safely. If something fails in the actuation circuitry, the relay doesn't
>open the circuit it's controlling - it stays in whatever state it was in.
Good eye!
>Considering that there's no alternative means of power shutoff for the
>battery contactor, this isn't good in an aircraft. Poorly designed
>mechanical latching relays
>can also be actuated by vibration - of which there's a lot of in an airplane.
>In a car, you can at least pull over and disconnect the battery cables.
>
>A safer alternative is the cii technologies EV-200
> http://www.ciitech.com/doc_generator.asp?doc_id1280
>available through several electronic distributors accessible via
>the ciitech website. This contactor dissipates 1/10 the power of a
>conventional contactor (100mA when holding), is quite small, and always
>opens the controlled circuit if actuator power fails - i.e., it fails safely.
>
>It doesn't dissipate zero power, but very close.
First, why the push for low power dissipation in a battery contactor?
IF your alternator has limited generating ability where the
contactor uses up 6% of the output (like with an 18A rotax machine)
or 12% of output (like with an SD-8), and assuming further that
your load analysis says you'd like to reserve that 0.8A for more
useful purposes, then the low power contactor quest is reasonable
and useful. There are LOTS of aerobatic aircraft flying with
SD-8 alternators as primary source of energy and they still
have a battery master contactor. These are day-vfr machines
with starter, nav-com and transponders in them. The load
analysis says tossing off 0.8A to keep the battery on line
is no big deal.
However, if you have a 40A or larger alternator, then while
the alternator is functioning, you have power to burn. When the
alternator is NOT functioning, you have a means for taking
the contactor out of the load analysis by means of the e-bus
alternate feed path.
This is why the el-cheapo Stancore product has been offered as
the contactor-of-choice in AEC and ultimately B&C catalogs.
It's not the most efficient nor is it the most robust of
products . . . but given that we're designing well considered
failure tolerant systems, the use of such contactors seems
to be a good value.
I'm not discouraging exploration of other products that
mitigate issues driven by load analysis and aircraft mission.
I'm concerned that this low power contactor discussion might
be mis-interpreted as the latest-and-greatest way to go
for all designs.
As I've written before, the load analysis is the first
document you need to complete before you start drilling holes
or buying parts. This study of proposed system performance
will show whether or not it's necessary or even useful to
drive up the cost of your system with whippy new hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Lemen" <tedlem(at)ecentral.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 03/08/04 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 03/08/04
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can be also be found in either
> of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2
004-03-08.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2
004-03-08.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 03/08/04: 24
>
> >
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: personal ELT
>
>
> >
> >Re when to change out flashlight batteries in ELTs: As I think about it,
you
> >may well be right about changing out the batteries before the expiration,
> >maybe at the halfway point or some such. For the record, I'll check with
my
> >A&P tomorrow and post the info.
> >
> >Sorry for any misinformation: I'll try to straighten it out.
> >
> >Rick McCraw
>
> If they are alkaline batteries, you can (from an engineering
> perspective) leave them in place until their "sell by" dates
> on the battery. Alkalines are extremely long lived. From
> the bureaucratic perspective, there may be something different.
> If its a certified device, there should be instructions for
> maintaining air worthy status which would state the manufacturer's
> FAA approved routine for battery maintenance.
>
> Bob . . .
My elt says to replace the battery back every other year. It is made up of
some AA batteries potted together. I usually make my own.>
>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <rlee468(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | soldering batteries |
Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder a small
wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Scott Richardson'" <scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
Thanks Bob. I've included some follow-up comments below:
>
> >2. Is there any problem using a brass bolt to pass the +
> side current
> >through the firewall? I would use a phenolic ring around
> the bolt to
> >isolate the (grounded) firewall stainless from the bolt.
>
> Are you planning to test the insulator for effects on
> firewall integrity? There are a number of technologies
> that have been tested. The one we use at RAC looks like
> this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/fire
> wall.html
>
I've seen this and the commercially available versions at
http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html My issue is simply one of
space. The stainless fitting & fireseal assembly sticks out from the
firewall a good ways and I have very little space between the firewall
and the rear engine components. By using an insulated bolt assembly to
transfer the hot side through the firewall I'm trying to effectively
build a 90 degree turn in the fat wire that is running from the battery
to my firewall mounted starter. This would also give me a good
connection point for the alternator feed on the front side of the
firewall and for the main fuseblock feed on the rear side of the
firewall.
I also hear your point about the fire resistance of the insulator
material. I suppose one could manufacture a stainless cover over the
bolt and the exiting wires, but that may be more trouble than it's
worth. It may just be easier to go to Home Depot and see if I can find
the stainless towelbars that others have used so that I can get my
right-angle turn in a smaller space.
Thanks again,
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: soldering batteries |
>
>Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder
>a small wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
Sure. Been doing it for decades. Just cause it takes 400F+ temps to
make a solder joint doesn't mean that you have to heat everything
you solder to up to 400F+
I've had some frustrating and EXPENSIVE experiences with
vibration and corrosion induced battery disconnects when
cells are used in classic spring-loaded battery holders.
When the power absolutely needs to be there, it's difficult
to beat SOLDERED alkaline cells. See the following pix
I just shot at the workbench:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_3.jpg
The secret is getting surface of battery prepared with
file or edge of cut-off wheel on Dremel Moto-Tool. Use
hot iron (600F+) and good solder (63/37 Kester Resin
44 or equal). Following technique suggested in pictures
above, total time that an iron touches the cell is under
3 seconds . . . it barely warms up the cell.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: soldering batteries |
Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder
> a small wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
Don't hang around with the soldering iron, because excessive heat (the
warnings DO tell you not to put them in a fire...) can rupture the casing and
case the electrolyte to leak out. It's caustic so you don't want this.
Technically speaking, heat can also increase the speed of the chemical
reaction inside the battery (that's why some people keep them in the fridge
for long-term storage) but for the duration you're going to be soldering it's
irrelevant.
There's enough metal in a battery to act as a decent heat sink for this and if
you get on and off quickly the battery will never know. I've seen soldered
pigtails on AA cells in a number of devices, so you wouldn't be the first
person to try. The obvious statements about not being able to replace the
battery etc. apply, but I won't patronize you with those; I expect you have a
reason for asking.
Two comments, though. The plating on the caps of most batteries is designed to
resist corrosion and solder doesn't always stick to it very well. You'd be
well advised to lightly scuff each end with some 220-grit sandpaper before
doing this. Solder it immediately afterward, so the terminal can't corrode.
Also, since you aren't exactly attaching to an eye connector you aren't going
to get any mechanical strength from the joint, so don't allow it to carry any
strain. A good way to deal with this is to run the wires back along the length
of the battery and tape them down there.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
Bob,
I am wiring my RV6A per Z14j, using B&C's alternators and Odyssey PC680
batteries. I notice that one of the batteries is connected to the engine
block and the other to the firewall. I assume that it does not matter which
battery is connected where.
Question #1: What is the rationale for *not* connecting BOTH battery grounds
to the engine block *and* the firewall?
Question #2: Might there be any damage to either battery or alternator if
the crossfeed is left on *and* the regulation is slightly different for each
battery/alternator?
Question #3: Is the full up position on the master switches a "test" postion
for the LR-3?
Per usual, thanks!
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: soldering batteries |
You really need to have a high quality soldering iron to do this. One that
will heat up the area quick get the soldering done and get out. I tried
soldering a wire to a battery with a cheap radio shack iron and ruined the
battery. Now I used the Metcal soldering irons (at work) which are about
500 bucks apiece. They heat up the soldering iron tip in just a few seconds
and also heat up what ever your soldering in just aobut the same amount of
time.
>
>
>Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder
>> a small wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
>
>Don't hang around with the soldering iron, because excessive heat (the
>warnings DO tell you not to put them in a fire...) can rupture the casing and
>case the electrolyte to leak out. It's caustic so you don't want this.
>Technically speaking, heat can also increase the speed of the chemical
>reaction inside the battery (that's why some people keep them in the fridge
>for long-term storage) but for the duration you're going to be soldering it's
>irrelevant.
>
>There's enough metal in a battery to act as a decent heat sink for this
and if
>you get on and off quickly the battery will never know. I've seen soldered
>pigtails on AA cells in a number of devices, so you wouldn't be the first
>person to try. The obvious statements about not being able to replace the
>battery etc. apply, but I won't patronize you with those; I expect you have a
>reason for asking.
>
>Two comments, though. The plating on the caps of most batteries is
designed to
>resist corrosion and solder doesn't always stick to it very well. You'd be
>well advised to lightly scuff each end with some 220-grit sandpaper before
>doing this. Solder it immediately afterward, so the terminal can't corrode.
>Also, since you aren't exactly attaching to an eye connector you aren't going
>to get any mechanical strength from the joint, so don't allow it to carry any
>strain. A good way to deal with this is to run the wires back along the
length
>of the battery and tape them down there.
>
>Regards,
>Chad
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Frequently Asked Questions Compilation |
List reader L. Holt has sent me a copy of his efforts to compile
a list of frequently asked questions from the Matronics archives
for the AeroElectric-List. This was a really BIG effort on his
part. I'm pleased that he has offered to share the product of
his efforts. I've posted the document at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List/AeroElectric-List_FAQ.pdf
This is a BIG document . . . about 310 pages. You can use
the table of contents he crafted at the beginning to find where
paragraphs on a major topic have been gathered together -OR-
you can use the word search feature in Acrobat Reader to find
words and phrases in the total work.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I am wiring my RV6A per Z14j, using B&C's alternators and Odyssey PC680
>batteries. I notice that one of the batteries is connected to the engine
>block and the other to the firewall. I assume that it does not matter which
>battery is connected where.
>
>Question #1: What is the rationale for *not* connecting BOTH battery grounds
>to the engine block *and* the firewall?
You may have an older revision to Z-14. Download
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
where you'll find that both batteries connect to firewall
ground . . .
>Question #2: Might there be any damage to either battery or alternator if
>the crossfeed is left on *and* the regulation is slightly different for each
>battery/alternator?
No. One alternator may try to pick up all the loads while
the other relaxes . . . but when the load-hog's capacity
is all used up, the bus voltage will sag and the other
alternator will pick up the difference.
>Question #3: Is the full up position on the master switches a "test" postion
>for the LR-3?
????? Not sure I understand. The master switches are progressive
transfer with an OFF/BATTERY-ONLY/BATTERY+ALT operation. There
is no "test" function illustrated in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
>
> > Are you planning to test the insulator for effects on
> > firewall integrity? There are a number of technologies
> > that have been tested. The one we use at RAC looks like
> > this:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/fire
> > wall.html
> >
>
>I've seen this and the commercially available versions at
>http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html My issue is simply one of
>space. The stainless fitting & fireseal assembly sticks out from the
>firewall a good ways and I have very little space between the firewall
>and the rear engine components. By using an insulated bolt assembly to
>transfer the hot side through the firewall I'm trying to effectively
>build a 90 degree turn in the fat wire that is running from the battery
>to my firewall mounted starter. This would also give me a good
>connection point for the alternator feed on the front side of the
>firewall and for the main fuseblock feed on the rear side of the
>firewall.
Understand. Many have expressed the same goals . . . and many
have done just what you've suggested. Probability of fuel fed
fires under the cowl are very low . . .
>I also hear your point about the fire resistance of the insulator
>material. I suppose one could manufacture a stainless cover over the
>bolt and the exiting wires, but that may be more trouble than it's
>worth. It may just be easier to go to Home Depot and see if I can find
>the stainless towelbars that others have used so that I can get my
>right-angle turn in a smaller space.
The towel bars work well. Only problem is their size. 1-1/2" is
the "small" one.
You could also pack a little mole-hill of fire putty over the
stud and attached wires. I have another supplier working on
both right-angle and straight versions of the firewall penetration
fitting in sizes 1", 3/4" and 1/2"
Those are some weeks away yet but I think they're coming along well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
Thanks Bob. Some clarification by me and some "new" info.
[snip]
> >
> >Question #1: What is the rationale for *not* connecting BOTH
> battery grounds
> >to the engine block *and* the firewall?
>
> You may have an older revision to Z-14. Download
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
> where you'll find that both batteries connect to firewall
> ground . . .
>
Will do. I was using Rev "J" as downloaded from your site.
**BUT** I had called B&C to order parts and they sent me a version with all
the parts spelled out. Turns out their version was **OLDER** than your "J"
from '03. Theirs it seems was from '02 and the s700-2-50 of yours was an
s700-2-5.
Now on the Rev J the battery grounds are connected (at least it seems to me)
to "G1"(eng) and "G2"(fwl). I just looked as you mentioned above and that
seems to be the same there.
I must be missing something/not seeing something here. Help me see that on
the diagram as both z14j from your front page on the web site and from the
reference above have different ground notes.
>
> >Question #2: Might there be any damage to either battery or alternator if
> >the crossfeed is left on *and* the regulation is slightly
> different for each
> >battery/alternator?
>
> No. One alternator may try to pick up all the loads while
> the other relaxes . . . but when the load-hog's capacity
> is all used up, the bus voltage will sag and the other
> alternator will pick up the difference.
>
Thanks, I remember reading about one picking up the load until sag on the
other side enough to cause it to kick in.
>
> >Question #3: Is the full up position on the master switches a
> "test" postion
> >for the LR-3?
>
> ????? Not sure I understand. The master switches are progressive
> transfer with an OFF/BATTERY-ONLY/BATTERY+ALT operation. There
> is no "test" function illustrated in the Z-figures.
Oops! My bad. I was confusing switches with something else. Mind slipped
into neutral. :-)
Thanks,
James
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
>
>
>Thanks Bob. Some clarification by me and some "new" info.
>
>
>[snip]
>
> > >
> > >Question #1: What is the rationale for *not* connecting BOTH
> > battery grounds
> > >to the engine block *and* the firewall?
> >
> > You may have an older revision to Z-14. Download
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
> > where you'll find that both batteries connect to firewall
> > ground . . .
> >
>
>Will do. I was using Rev "J" as downloaded from your site.
>
>**BUT** I had called B&C to order parts and they sent me a version with all
>the parts spelled out. Turns out their version was **OLDER** than your "J"
>from '03. Theirs it seems was from '02 and the s700-2-50 of yours was an
>s700-2-5.
>
>Now on the Rev J the battery grounds are connected (at least it seems to me)
>to "G1"(eng) and "G2"(fwl). I just looked as you mentioned above and that
>seems to be the same there.
>
>I must be missing something/not seeing something here. Help me see that on
>the diagram as both z14j from your front page on the web site and from the
>reference above have different ground notes.
>
Note the triangle symbol between the bolt on the instrument panel
bus (on firewall) and the engine. This calls out a braid bond strap
between the crankcase and the ground bus. The battery is connected
to the ground bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
Bob,
Why does it have to be a braide bond strap? Because of the oil that is
associated with engine compartment?
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification questions regarding Z-14
> Note the triangle symbol between the bolt on the instrument panel
> bus (on firewall) and the engine. This calls out a braid bond strap
> between the crankcase and the ground bus. The battery is connected
> to the ground bus.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Airplane engines shake and vibrate (when they run)... I think
the 'curliness' of the braid reduces the chances of a work-harden
failure.
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Why does it have to be a braide bond strap? Because of the oil that is
> associated with engine compartment?
>
> Dale Martin
> Lewiston, ID
> LEZ-235
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification questions regarding Z-14
>
>
>> Note the triangle symbol between the bolt on the instrument panel
>> bus (on firewall) and the engine. This calls out a braid bond strap
>> between the crankcase and the ground bus. The battery is connected
>> to the ground bus.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Oh yeah... The braid is made from very fine wire which will
be more flexible. I looked in the archive to remind myself. The
archive is good.
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Why does it have to be a braide bond strap? Because of the oil that is
> associated with engine compartment?
>
> Dale Martin
> Lewiston, ID
> LEZ-235
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification questions regarding Z-14
>
>
>> Note the triangle symbol between the bolt on the instrument panel
>> bus (on firewall) and the engine. This calls out a braid bond strap
>> between the crankcase and the ground bus. The battery is connected
>> to the ground bus.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
Thanks.
Sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees.
The instrument ground is engine and by definition firewall connected. Just
like I did on a plane a couple of years ago!). And the "FWL" ground on the
Aux Batt is thereby connected to the "same" place ... the common "airframe"
and thus to the engine.
Looked right at it but looked right over it.
Thanks,
James
[snip]
>
> Note the triangle symbol between the bolt on the instrument panel
> bus (on firewall) and the engine. This calls out a braid bond strap
> between the crankcase and the ground bus. The battery is connected
> to the ground bus.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
Hi Scott
There is a picture of my firewall penetration for the battery cable at the
following link.
I used a Cole-Hershey product that is readily available and a lot cheaper
than the ones referred to in the messages below.
http://www.vansairforce.org/airplanes/C-GJTY/more.cgi?more
George in Langley
6A - 250 hrs
Thanks Bob. I've included some follow-up comments below:
>
> >2. Is there any problem using a brass bolt to pass the +
> side current
> >through the firewall? I would use a phenolic ring around
> the bolt to
> >isolate the (grounded) firewall stainless from the bolt.
>
> Are you planning to test the insulator for effects on
> firewall integrity? There are a number of technologies
> that have been tested. The one we use at RAC looks like
> this:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/fire
> wall.html
>
I've seen this and the commercially available versions at
http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html My issue is simply one of
space. The stainless fitting & fireseal assembly sticks out from the
firewall a good ways and I have very little space between the firewall
and the rear engine components. By using an insulated bolt assembly to
transfer the hot side through the firewall I'm trying to effectively
build a 90 degree turn in the fat wire that is running from the battery
to my firewall mounted starter. This would also give me a good
connection point for the alternator feed on the front side of the
firewall and for the main fuseblock feed on the rear side of the
firewall.
I also hear your point about the fire resistance of the insulator
material. I suppose one could manufacture a stainless cover over the
bolt and the exiting wires, but that may be more trouble than it's
worth. It may just be easier to go to Home Depot and see if I can find
the stainless towelbars that others have used so that I can get my
right-angle turn in a smaller space.
Thanks again,
Scott
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Control Stick Switch Override |
Bruce Gray asked about a switch to disconnect the switches on the copilot's
stick to avoid a fight over control. I installed a single switch (between the
seats next to my manual aileron trim control). Most of the wires going to the
stick come from somewhere, go to a switch on the stick, and then go to a
common ground. My switch simply disconnects these switches from ground. With
no
ground, all the circuits on the stick are essentially "open." I have Infinity
grips and purchased my switch from Infinity. It is a toggle type switch but
requires me to pull the toggle before it will swing over to the other
position. A nice safety feature. I have it set up so the pilot's stick switches
are
always "live" but the copilot's stick switches are only live if the toggle is
pointed to the right (switch "closed" to ground). In addition I installed a
tiny PTT button on the far right of the instrument panel so the copilot may
transmit without grabbing the stick.
Pete Hunt
Clearwater, FL
All electric IFR panel
RV-6, installing engine cowl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Scott Richardson'" <scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
Hi George,
I think I found the product:
Cole-Hersee 46211-01 Insulated Battery Feeder Stud
http://www.colehersee.com/pdf/master_cat/T137%20Battery.PDF (bottom of
page)
That does look like what I was thinking of. The thing I haven't found
is a location (on the web at least) to purchase it. Do you remember
where you got it and roughly what price you paid? Thanks.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GMC
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:43 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Question on Z-13 & firewall
> penetration
>
>
>
>
> Hi Scott
>
> There is a picture of my firewall penetration for the battery
> cable at the following link. I used a Cole-Hershey product
> that is readily available and a lot cheaper than the ones
> referred to in the messages below.
>
> http://www.vansairforce.org/airplanes/C-GJTY/more.cgi?more
>
>
> George in Langley
> 6A - 250 hrs
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bob. I've included some follow-up comments below:
>
> >
> > >2. Is there any problem using a brass bolt to pass the +
> > side current
> > >through the firewall? I would use a phenolic ring around
> > the bolt to
> > >isolate the (grounded) firewall stainless from the bolt.
> >
> > Are you planning to test the insulator for effects on
> > firewall integrity? There are a number of technologies
> > that have been tested. The one we use at RAC looks like
> > this:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/fire
> > wall.html
> >
>
> I've seen this and the commercially available versions at
> http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html My issue is simply
> one of space. The stainless fitting & fireseal assembly
> sticks out from the firewall a good ways and I have very
> little space between the firewall and the rear engine
> components. By using an insulated bolt assembly to transfer
> the hot side through the firewall I'm trying to effectively
> build a 90 degree turn in the fat wire that is running from
> the battery to my firewall mounted starter. This would also
> give me a good connection point for the alternator feed on
> the front side of the firewall and for the main fuseblock
> feed on the rear side of the firewall.
>
> I also hear your point about the fire resistance of the
> insulator material. I suppose one could manufacture a
> stainless cover over the bolt and the exiting wires, but that
> may be more trouble than it's worth. It may just be easier
> to go to Home Depot and see if I can find the stainless
> towelbars that others have used so that I can get my
> right-angle turn in a smaller space.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Scott
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ============
> Matronics Forums.
> ============
> ============
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-> List.htm
> Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> ============
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
>
>>I'm wiring up my Lancair 235 using Z-13 with the battery in the rear of
>>the aircraft (behind the passenger seat). I had some questions:
>>
>>1. The diagram shows the main fusebox being connected to the output
>>side of the battery connector. I'm assuming that I could connect it
>>either there or at the starter contactor end, correct? (This just saves
>>another run of #4 cable to the rear of the aircraft). Would there be
>>any problem of taking that feed somewhere in the middle of the run of #2
>>cable? - say near where it passes the instrument panel?
>
> Correct.
snipped
Bob,
Your answer to Scott's question was a bit to abbreviated for me to be sure of
your opinion on all points asked by Scott. Your answer of "correct" implies that
it is acceptable to tie the main fuse bus to either end of the battery's main
positive cable. However, what is the verdict on installing the main bus in
the middle of the cable's run? Please advise.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
-bal.net>
Hi George,
I think I found the product:
Cole-Hersee 46211-01 Insulated Battery Feeder Stud
http://www.colehersee.com/pdf/master_cat/T137%20Battery.PDF (bottom of
page)
That does look like what I was thinking of. The thing I haven't found
is a location (on the web at least) to purchase it. Do you remember
where you got it and roughly what price you paid? Thanks.
Scott
Hi Scott
I ordered it through a local RV dealer - mobile home RV's! Can't remember
price but think it was about $20 Canadian ($12 US). It has a good sturdy
ceramic insulator and brass stud threaded on both ends.
Good Luck
George in Langley
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillRVSIX(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Relay's for warning lights |
Hello I. Am wiring up the electronics International Fuel gage and Engine
Analyzer they both have an external warning light option. The installation
instructions says to connect it to a relay and limited the current to 2/10 amp
maximum. If someone can point me to the write relay i would appreciate it. the
relay
will turn on a 12 volt LED. thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
>
>Bob,
>
>Why does it have to be a braide bond strap? Because of the oil that is
>associated with engine compartment?
>
>Dale Martin
>Lewiston, ID
>LEZ-235
Doesn't have to be. The braided strap has been used
for many a vehicle to electrically attach things that
jump around (engine) to things that don't jump
so much (body). 2AWG welding cable would work good
too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Columbia 350 electrical system |
I posted this message last November and didn't receive any
responses. Lancair and Cirrus would seem to be interesting case studies
for modern electrical design, since they've both gone through the
certification of new airplanes quite recently. Of course, regulators of
certified planes don't necessarily have it all right, but...still
interesting to see what the newbies came up with. Thought I'd post it
again in case anyone has any thoughts.
.......................................
Lancair has put the information manual for its dual-electric Columbia 350
up on its website. I put a copy of the schematic for the electrical system
at http://members.cox.net/dansweb/350_schematic.pdf (the complete manual is
at http://www.lancair.com/files/downloads/350_INFO.PDF).
Natural questions relate to how and why their architecture differs from
Bob's Z-14. I notice three main differences: 1) There is a separate
avionics bus that offers "secondary protection of delicate avionics
equipment when the engine is started"; 2) there is an essential bus fed
from both the left and right buses; and 3) one of the gps/nav/coms is fed
directly from one of the batteries through a switch. Anyone have any
comments about the rationale/benefits/costs of this architecture?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
>
>
> >
> >>I'm wiring up my Lancair 235 using Z-13 with the battery in the rear of
> >>the aircraft (behind the passenger seat). I had some questions:
> >>
> >>1. The diagram shows the main fusebox being connected to the output
> >>side of the battery connector. I'm assuming that I could connect it
> >>either there or at the starter contactor end, correct? (This just saves
> >>another run of #4 cable to the rear of the aircraft). Would there be
> >>any problem of taking that feed somewhere in the middle of the run of #2
> >>cable? - say near where it passes the instrument panel?
> >
> > Correct.
>snipped
>
>Bob,
> Your answer to Scott's question was a bit to abbreviated for me to be
> sure of your opinion on all points asked by Scott. Your answer of
> "correct" implies that it is acceptable to tie the main fuse bus to
> either end of the battery's main positive cable. However, what is the
> verdict on installing the main bus in the middle of the cable's run?
> Please advise.
In the middle? You mean running a cranking feeder from
battery contactor to main bus and then continuing on from
there to the starter contactor?
If I've understood your question correctly:
I think I'd rather see the run from battery contactor
to starter contactor be unbroken and a smaller wire
to feed the main bus taken from either the battery contactor
or starter contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay's for warning lights |
>
>Hello I. Am wiring up the electronics International Fuel gage and Engine
>Analyzer they both have an external warning light option. The installation
>instructions says to connect it to a relay and limited the current to 2/10
>amp
>maximum. If someone can point me to the write relay i would appreciate it.
>the relay
>will turn on a 12 volt LED. thanks
I'm mystified as to the need for a relay . . . ESPECIALLY for
illuminating an LED. The LED will require 30 milliamperes or
less, far less than the 200 milliamperes cited. Adding
a relay seems unnecessarily complex and reduces reliability.
Just found their instructions on the 'net. You can hook an
LED directly to the warning light output of their product.
Is your LED a 12-volt device or do you need to add a resistor
in series with it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification questions regarding Z-14 |
I used # 6 wire (Tefzel) on mine and is plenty flexible. I guess the on the
Lycoming if you mount it on the ground hole on the case is just doesn't move
very much.
- Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
>
> Oh yeah... The braid is made from very fine wire which will
> be more flexible. I looked in the archive to remind myself. The
> archive is good.
>
> Matt-
> N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently Asked Questions Compilation |
Wow - that is a great document, both in size and in value!
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Mickey
List reader L. Holt has sent me a copy of his efforts to compile
>a list of frequently asked questions from the Matronics archives
>for the AeroElectric-List. ...
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Scott Richardson'" <scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
> >Bob,
> > Your answer to Scott's question was a bit to abbreviated
> for me to be
> > sure of your opinion on all points asked by Scott. Your answer of
> > "correct" implies that it is acceptable to tie the main fuse bus to
> > either end of the battery's main positive cable. However,
> what is the
> > verdict on installing the main bus in the middle of the
> cable's run?
> > Please advise.
>
> In the middle? You mean running a cranking feeder from
> battery contactor to main bus and then continuing on from
> there to the starter contactor?
>
> If I've understood your question correctly:
> I think I'd rather see the run from battery contactor
> to starter contactor be unbroken and a smaller wire
> to feed the main bus taken from either the battery contactor
> or starter contactor.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Since it was my original question, I'll clarify. Yes that was what I
meant. Again just to reduce (but maybe a foot at best) the amount of
heavier gauge wire needed to power the main bus. This was actually what
was shown in the original Lancair 235 construction manual: both + and -
fat wires run from the battery to a bus bar mounted on the header tank
and from there to the firewall mounted starter contactor.
What I was considering was something more like putting a "T" in the
middle of the long hot wire run. Under the panel I'd put in a hardpoint
with a brass bolt connecting ring terminals on the two segments of #2
connecting the battery contactor and starter contactor and another
segment of #4 to the main bus. Thinking about it more it seems that the
better plan is to simply use pull the main bus feed off the starter
contactor (where the alternator feed also comes in).
But this however, does raise another question. In Z-13 the alternator
feed into the starter contactor is protected by the large ANL. But the
connection between the battery contactor (or in my case starter
contactor) and the main bus does not have any protection - should it?
(Mine will be something like 3-4 ft).
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Adhesives and ground contact |
I'm considering using an adhesive, probably a marine rated silicone to bond a backing
plate to the bottom fuselage skins of my RV9A, rather than rivets. An
adhesive would be much more convenient than rivets, of any sort. The concern
I have with this plan, is that the backplate, with adhesive under it, could possibly
interfere with the antenna making good ground contact with the airframe.
Is this a real issue and has anyone tried this without difficulties?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: manual battery switch |
The day finally arrived to try my 430 com radio. It sends and
receives okay, but from inside my shop my handheld pulls in aircraft on
a local center freq that the 430 won't----probably a bad sign. Where
would be a good place to start? Antenna grounding?
JoelHarding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Steitle <msteitle(at)mail.utexas.edu> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
>Pegasus Auto Racing (www.pegasusautoracing.com) has this item, p/n 4570
>for $10.99. Ref. page 46 of their online catalog.
>http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pdfs/046.pdf
>
>
>Hi George,
>
>I think I found the product:
>Cole-Hersee 46211-01 Insulated Battery Feeder Stud
>http://www.colehersee.com/pdf/master_cat/T137%20Battery.PDF (bottom of
>page)
>
>That does look like what I was thinking of. The thing I haven't found
>is a location (on the web at least) to purchase it. Do you remember
>where you got it and roughly what price you paid? Thanks.
>
>Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Scott Richardson'" <scott_m_richardson(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 & firewall penetration |
Thanks Mark, that's another reason that this list is so useful!
I also emailed the local Cole-Hersee distributor and he gave me a
pointer to a local store here in San Jose, CA where I am that could get
them for about the same price. (Express Truck Parts, 408.288.5410)
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Mark Steitle
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:54 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Question on Z-13 & firewall
> penetration
>
>
> -->
>
>
> >Pegasus Auto Racing (www.pegasusautoracing.com) has this
> item, p/n 4570
> >for $10.99. Ref. page 46 of their online catalog.
> >http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pdfs/046.pdf
>
>
> >
> >
> >Hi George,
> >
> >I think I found the product:
> >Cole-Hersee 46211-01 Insulated Battery Feeder Stud
> >http://www.colehersee.com/pdf/master_cat/T137%20Battery.PDF
> (bottom of
> >page)
> >
> >That does look like what I was thinking of. The thing I
> haven't found
> >is a location (on the web at least) to purchase it. Do you remember
> >where you got it and roughly what price you paid? Thanks.
> >
> >Scott
>
>
> ============
> ============
> ============
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-> List.htm
> Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> ============
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | 430 troubleshooting |
Hi Joel
I am not a radio tech and do not play one on TV however I would start as
follows.
(1) Does the 430 have a bottom mounted antenna? did you hold the handheld
with it's antenna in the same relative position/orientation?
(2) Push the aircraft outside, then see if there is a difference when the
handheld is held with it's antenna in the same position/orientation as the
430 antenna. (3) if yes, plug the handheld into the 430 antenna coax at the
430 end and check if the handheld signal is reduced. (4) Troubleshoot
antennae and coax cable.
George in Langley
The day finally arrived to try my 430 com radio. It sends and
receives okay, but from inside my shop my handheld pulls in aircraft on
a local center freq that the 430 won't----probably a bad sign. Where
would be a good place to start? Antenna grounding?
JoelHarding
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Lemen" <tedlem(at)ecentral.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 03/09/04 |
> From: "Ron Lee" <rlee468(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering batteries
>
>
> Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder
a small
> wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
>
>
> It is not. That is the way I make up my battery packs and that is the way
the factory does it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 03/09/04 |
Factory-made battery packs are NOT soldered, but not because of any inherent
fault with that process - it is just too slow. They are assembled by
resistance welding thin strips of nickel or steel to the ends of the cells.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ted Lemen
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 38 Msgs - 03/09/04
> From: "Ron Lee" <rlee468(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering batteries
>
>
> Does anyone know if it is detrimental(to the battery) in any way to solder
a small
> wire to the ends of a alkaline battery?
>
>
> It is not. That is the way I make up my battery packs and that is the way
the factory does it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 430 troubleshooting |
George,
You're right, I was not holding the handheld underneath the fuselage
where the com antenna is located. Hopefully that's the reason for the
difference. I guess I expected the 430's performance to be better,
regardless of the orientation.
Thanks for the tips.
Joel Harding
On Mar 10, 2004, at 10:33 AM, GMC wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joel
>
> I am not a radio tech and do not play one on TV however I would start
> as
> follows.
> (1) Does the 430 have a bottom mounted antenna? did you hold the
> handheld
> with it's antenna in the same relative position/orientation?
> (2) Push the aircraft outside, then see if there is a difference when
> the
> handheld is held with it's antenna in the same position/orientation as
> the
> 430 antenna. (3) if yes, plug the handheld into the 430 antenna coax
> at the
> 430 end and check if the handheld signal is reduced. (4) Troubleshoot
> antennae and coax cable.
>
> George in Langley
>
>
>
>
>
> The day finally arrived to try my 430 com radio. It sends and
> receives okay, but from inside my shop my handheld pulls in aircraft on
> a local center freq that the 430 won't----probably a bad sign. Where
> would be a good place to start? Antenna grounding?
>
> JoelHarding
>
>
> ---
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Coulter <coulter(at)gci.net> |
| Subject: | Columbia 350 electrical system |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Columbia 350 electrical system
I posted this message last November and didn't receive any responses.
Lancair and Cirrus would seem to be interesting case studies for modern
electrical design, since they've both gone through the certification of new
airplanes quite recently.
************************************************
Cirrus was up here (Fairbanks) last summer with a small airplane and a
cockpit mockup of their bigger airplane. One panel available to the pilot
was an acre of CBs - may have been thirty of them. I don't know if it had
an avionics master or not. I tried to ask some questions, using my best
manner, nice voice, and even said please and thank you. They didn't have
any interest, or maybe no knowledge.
But, I know why this is. Last year, I was discussing our under construction
GlasStar with my ex-instructor - early 60's, 12,000 hours, arrogant,
demeaning sort, great bus driver, mediocre teacher. He really didn't like
the ideas of no avionics master, and fuses instead of CBs. I quote:
"Fuses are no good. I have kept a radio running by holding in the CB. And
if a CB trips, it can be reset. Can't do either of those with a fuse."
My response: Any time you can hold in a CB to keep it from tripping, means
you have a defective CB. Want to get rid of defective CBs? Put in fuses.
Second item: Assuming a decent design electrical system where the OCP
matches the wire size, name one fault that can be fixed by resetting the
OCP.
No response, and he continues: "No avionics master, huh? You will blow
every piece of electronics every time you start the engine.
Me: No, any current production equipment has sufficient noise and spike
suppression built-in to take anything a starter or alternator can throw at
it (exception for sustained overvoltage).
Him: Well I wouldn't buy an airplane without one.
Next day the student after me is a local A&P that does a lot of avionics
installations:
Him to A&P: Hey, this guy is building his own airplane and he says he
doesn't need an avionics master to protect the electronics during starting.
He says there is nothing the starter or alternator can throw at them that
will hurt them.
A&P: Yeah, that's right. Assuming there is good over voltage protection
for a runaway alternator. And, as long as the battery is tied in, an OV
event takes several seconds or longer (yes he knew that).
Him: Well then, why do all of the manufacturers put in the avionics
masters?
Me: You gave yourself the answer yesterday. You said, "I wouldn't buy an
airplane without one." Now, who do you think the manufacturers are
listening to? The occasional 30 year EE that has been studying fault
tolerant electrical systems, or the 12,000 hour bus driver and all of his
students. In general, your students believe what you tell them is truth.
So what you say is what they say.
No surprises here. The myths just continue.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Battery contact screws |
Hello Folks,
I have a bit of a problem, I have an Panasonic LC-R 1217PG, now with the
supplied screws it was already a tad difficult to connect the ring terminal
from the AWG2 cable and the one from the battery bus.For adding an external
connector I would have to get another ring terminal lined up on the screw,
but for this the screw is just to short. What screws should I take to
replace the original screws, would brass be ok or could I take some AN
screws?
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks a lot
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adhesives and ground contact |
>
>I'm considering using an adhesive, probably a marine rated silicone to
>bond a backing plate to the bottom fuselage skins of my RV9A, rather than
>rivets. An adhesive would be much more convenient than rivets, of any
>sort. The concern I have with this plan, is that the backplate, with
>adhesive under it, could possibly interfere with the antenna making good
>ground contact with the airframe. Is this a real issue and has anyone
>tried this without difficulties?
>
>Thanks
The antenna normally finds a ground through the bolts that
fasten the antenna to the aircraft. Since the base of the antenna
has a gasket under it, the only metallic connection is through
the nuts on bolts against the inside skin.
Use an adhesive to mechanically fasten the doubler to inside surface
of skin as you've suggested. For electrical connection, install a
half dozen rivets UNDER the antenna's footprint while the adhesive is
still wet. I'd install the doubler with only rivets and glue. After
glue is set, add holes for antenna. This will cut down on the number
of rivets and hide them under the antenna while providing necessary
mechanical support.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: comm antenna bad? |
>
>
>The day finally arrived to try my 430 com radio. It sends and
>receives okay, but from inside my shop my handheld pulls in aircraft on
>a local center freq that the 430 won't----probably a bad sign. Where
>would be a good place to start? Antenna grounding?
Try running the hand-held on the ship's antenna to see if performance
drops. Get antenna analyzer to look at condition of ship's antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery contact screws |
>
>
>Hello Folks,
>
>I have a bit of a problem, I have an Panasonic LC-R 1217PG, now with the
>supplied screws it was already a tad difficult to connect the ring terminal
>from the AWG2 cable and the one from the battery bus
You can drop your battery jumpers to 4AWG welding cable even when
the rest of the airplane is wired with 2AWG. Battery bus jumper
should come off the battery contactor's hot terminal, not from
the battery.
>For adding an external
>connector I would have to get another ring terminal lined up on the screw,
>but for this the screw is just to short. What screws should I take to
>replace the original screws, would brass be ok or could I take some AN
>screws?
1/4-20 or 1/4-28 brass hardware is fine for replacing the screws
on a bolted lead battery post.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery contact screws |
Hello Bob,
fast as usual, thanks a lot!
> Battery bus jumper
> should come off the battery contactor's hot terminal, not from
> the battery.
Will correct this, what is the reason for this?
> 1/4-20 or 1/4-28 brass hardware is fine for replacing the screws
> on a bolted lead battery post.
thanks for the confirmation, kind regards
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery contact screws |
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
> You can drop your battery jumpers to 4AWG welding cable even when
> the rest of the airplane is wired with 2AWG. Battery bus jumper
> should come off the battery contactor's hot terminal, not from
> the battery.
>
Bob:
Are you saying that we can use AWG 4 welding cable to go from the battery
to the contactor and AWG 4 from the contactor (same terminal) to the
battery buss?
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jordan Grant" <gra9933(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Audio Isolation Amplifier in my intercom system |
Listers:
I built and installed the monophonic version of the Audio Isolation
Amplifier that was designed by Bob Knuckolls. I connected its output to the
input of my Flightcom intercom. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work for
me. Has anyone out there built the monophonic version with success? Can
anyone tell me how I can troubleshoot it to see what is wrong?
Thanks,
Jordan Grant
RV-6 wiring
N198G Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillRVSIX(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Relay's for warning lights |
Hi Bob thanks for your reply I reread the instructions again and looking at
it in a different way I can see now that all it is, is a ground that shouldn't
exceed 200 milliamperes not just a relay that shouldn't exceed 200
milliamperes . unless you were using one for a devise that was going to turn something
on
that draws more current. The Led is one I found at radio shack part # 276-271
it has a built in resister, in a case that is threaded and fits in a 9/32
mounting hole. 12 to 16 volts current 12 mA to 20 mA max. IM hoping that when the
gages first turn on that the warning LEDs come on for a moment so I know that
they are working if not I might have to put a push to test switch to ground
the LEDs to see if they are working. thanks for your time Bob anymore info
would be great if you see anything wrong with this method. Thank Again
Bill
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery contact screws |
>
>
> > You can drop your battery jumpers to 4AWG welding cable even when
> > the rest of the airplane is wired with 2AWG. Battery bus jumper
> > should come off the battery contactor's hot terminal, not from
> > the battery.
> >
>Bob:
>
>Are you saying that we can use AWG 4 welding cable to go from the battery
>to the contactor and AWG 4 from the contactor (same terminal) to the
>battery buss?
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
No, 4AWG for cranking circuit. Battery (+) to contactor and
battery (-) to ground. The battery bus gets a much smaller
wire from battery contactor to the bus. See Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery contact screws |
>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>fast as usual, thanks a lot!
> > Battery bus jumper
> > should come off the battery contactor's hot terminal, not from
> > the battery.
>
>Will correct this, what is the reason for this?
No good reason to do it. The battery terminal joints
are opened every annual for battery rotation; they're
also soft-lead terminals on some batteries. It's
mechanically cleaner to take the battery bus feeder
from a joint with little probability of being opened over
the lifetime of the airplane.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Schematics question |
Listers,
I intend to install a 15 pin D Sub connector to allow easy removal of both the
pilot and co-pilot control sticks on my RV-8A project. I'm using the Ray Allen
G307 stick grips to control 2 axis electric trim, electric flaps, PTT, & Com
channel flip flop. While drawing up the schematic in AutoCAD last night, I wondered
what would be the best way to diagram this connection? I thought that placing
2 of the D Sub pin out connectors that Bob provides in his AutoCAD SYMBOLS
file next to each other would make sense. Is this the way it should be done?
Is there an accepted norm for this nomenclature?
Charlie Kuss
PS I'll happily send copies of what I've done to anyone who is interested. I'd
also like to see what others have done with schematic CAD drawings to get ideas.
My thanks to Mark Phillips for sharing his drawings with me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch |
On 3/09/04, Bob Nuckolls wrote:
>why the push for low power dissipation in a battery contactor?
Us folks building known-icing capable Rotaxen aircraft with whole-cabin ANR systems
get really fixated on power drain ;-)
But Bob's right - the current drain of the contactor is more an irritant than a
concern for
most aircraft. If you still want one after doing the load analysis, the Ciitech
product is a
possibility.
Shaun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics question |
>
>Listers,
> I intend to install a 15 pin D Sub connector to allow easy removal of
> both the pilot and co-pilot control sticks on my RV-8A project. I'm using
> the Ray Allen G307 stick grips to control 2 axis electric trim, electric
> flaps, PTT, & Com channel flip flop. While drawing up the schematic in
> AutoCAD last night, I wondered what would be the best way to diagram this
> connection? I thought that placing 2 of the D Sub pin out connectors that
> Bob provides in his AutoCAD SYMBOLS file next to each other would make
> sense. Is this the way it should be done? Is there an accepted norm for
> this nomenclature?
Schematics are a language. ALL languages come in multiple
dialects. The first goal is that YOU understand what you've
recorded both for present task of configuring your system and
future tasks of maintaining it. I've found that schematics
are a universal language in spite of dialects. I was once tasked
with teaching Japanese technicians how to service a product
I was building. Their English was marginal, my Japanese was
zilch. But because we understood video, test equipment and
electronics in general, schematics and demonstration were all
we needed to share useful information.
There are few "norms" for this business . . . draw it to
make sense to you. Any technician looking at your drawing
in the future will know exactly what you're "talking" about.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics question |
A bit off your topic, but won't a 15 pin d sub
be a bit big for this application?
Mickey
>> I intend to install a 15 pin D Sub connector to allow easy removal of
>> both the pilot and co-pilot control sticks on my RV-8A project. ...
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch |
>
>On 3/09/04, Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> >why the push for low power dissipation in a battery contactor?
>
>Us folks building known-icing capable Rotaxen aircraft with whole-cabin
>ANR systems
>get really fixated on power drain ;-)
KNOWN ICING???????? Who is building a Rotax powered machine to
be offered as capable of flying into known ice?
Don't know what jurisdiction is passing judgement on this
project but there's almost no way anything powered by
Rotax with 18A of snort is going to get this capability.
If we're talking about pitot heat, that's not for flight
into known ice but for temporary flight in ice you didn't
know was there . . . hopefully to sustain instruments
while you take steps necessary to get the !#@$!@#$ out
of there very soon.
Given the very serious effects of ice on parts of the
airplane other than pitot tube, the more prudent modus
operandi seems to be "stay out of ice" . . . around this
part of the world, we "stay out of thunderstorms" too.
It really helps keep the fun in flying. You might
suggest to these folks that the 8A need to run effective
pitot heat might have much better uses keeping a Dynon
EFIS lit up, or something equally attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch |
Er, um, Bob . . . . he was pulling your leg while mocking the "toy"
generator in the Rotax.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----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: Re: Manual Battery Switch
>
>On 3/09/04, Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> >why the push for low power dissipation in a battery contactor?
>
>Us folks building known-icing capable Rotaxen aircraft with whole-cabin
>ANR systems
>get really fixated on power drain ;-)
KNOWN ICING???????? Who is building a Rotax powered machine to
be offered as capable of flying into known ice?
Don't know what jurisdiction is passing judgement on this
project but there's almost no way anything powered by
Rotax with 18A of snort is going to get this capability.
If we're talking about pitot heat, that's not for flight
into known ice but for temporary flight in ice you didn't
know was there . . . hopefully to sustain instruments
while you take steps necessary to get the !#@$!@#$ out
of there very soon.
Given the very serious effects of ice on parts of the
airplane other than pitot tube, the more prudent modus
operandi seems to be "stay out of ice" . . . around this
part of the world, we "stay out of thunderstorms" too.
It really helps keep the fun in flying. You might
suggest to these folks that the 8A need to run effective
pitot heat might have much better uses keeping a Dynon
EFIS lit up, or something equally attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch |
>
>Er, um, Bob . . . . he was pulling your leg while mocking the "toy"
>generator in the Rotax.
>
>
>Best regards,
oops . . . stuck my foot into that one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Columbia 350 electrical system |
>
>I posted this message last November and didn't receive any
>responses. Lancair and Cirrus would seem to be interesting case studies
>for modern electrical design, since they've both gone through the
>certification of new airplanes quite recently. Of course, regulators of
>certified planes don't necessarily have it all right, but...still
>interesting to see what the newbies came up with. Thought I'd post it
>again in case anyone has any thoughts.
>.......................................
>Lancair has put the information manual for its dual-electric Columbia 350
>up on its website. I put a copy of the schematic for the electrical system
>at http://members.cox.net/dansweb/350_schematic.pdf (the complete manual is
>at http://www.lancair.com/files/downloads/350_INFO.PDF).
>
>Natural questions relate to how and why their architecture differs from
>Bob's Z-14. I notice three main differences: 1) There is a separate
>avionics bus that offers "secondary protection of delicate avionics
>equipment when the engine is started"; 2) there is an essential bus fed
>from both the left and right buses; and 3) one of the gps/nav/coms is fed
>directly from one of the batteries through a switch. Anyone have any
>comments about the rationale/benefits/costs of this architecture?
I saw this diagram a couple of years ago when Bill Bainbridge
sent it to me. One can only speculate at the rational for adding
so much complexity but it's a fair guess that a lot of traditional
thinking went into it. The switch to put a comm radio directly
onto the battery bus is a new gee-whiz showing up on a lot of
certified iron. The idea is to be able to get clearances
and ATIS without powering up the rest of the airplane.
It's a good idea to power up the e-bus via alternative feedpath
during preflight to test alternate feedpath and main bus isolation
diode . . . you can get all the pre-flight talking chores done at the
same time. With the 60/20 Main/Aux combination, I would think
that powering up the aux bus to get clearances and ATIS would be
fine too . . . all the main bus stuff stays off until time to
crank the engine.
Aside from massaging some decades-old worries and perhaps
a few young ones stirred in, I can deduce no value in
re-arranging as they did. But then, perhaps the value was
taking that all important first step in arrested evolution
and planned obsolescence . . . certification.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hi There <rv90619(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Data logging with an Ipaq |
This may be a little off topic, I'm just having a hard time getting any real info.
I have a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 in my RV9. I would like to capture the serial stream
coming from the engine monitor using my Pocket PC so I can plot out the
engine data later on my PC. I understand that this is possible with a laptop
but that's too bulky and hard to package in the plane.
Any thoughts out there on how to do this?
Thanks
Cam
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data logging with an Ipaq |
>
>
>This may be a little off topic, I'm just having a hard time getting
>any real info.
>
>I have a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 in my RV9. I would like to capture
>the serial stream coming from the engine monitor using my Pocket PC
>so I can plot out the engine data later on my PC. I understand that
>this is possible with a laptop but that's too bulky and hard to
>package in the plane.
>
>Any thoughts out there on how to do this?
>
>Thanks
>
>Cam
>
Cam,
I communicated with a Boeing flight test engineer last week who was
working on exactly that problem. I asked him to let me know if he
got it working. I'll let you and the list know if I learn anything
more from him.
If you want to go it alone, you might try asking Grand Rapids if they
will send you the BASIC program that runs on a PC and logs data. I
don't know if there is way to run BASIC on an Ipaq, but if so you
might be able to modify that program to work for you. If not, you
might be able to reverse engineer the BASIC program so you could
write your own data logging program. All this assumes you have a way
to get serial data into the Ipaq. The data stream is at 9600 baud,
and it is binary. The BASIC program decodes it, converts it to ASCII
and writes it to a log file, one record per second.
I may end up writing my own data logging program, as the Grand Rapids
one doesn't do everything I want. If I end up with a working
solution, I'll share it with others. I'm many months away from
flying though, so that part of my project is on the back burner.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data logging with an Ipaq |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>This may be a little off topic, I'm just having a hard time getting
>>any real info.
>>
>>I have a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 in my RV9. I would like to capture
>>the serial stream coming from the engine monitor using my Pocket PC
>>so I can plot out the engine data later on my PC. I understand that
>>this is possible with a laptop but that's too bulky and hard to
>>package in the plane.
>>
>>Any thoughts out there on how to do this?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Cam
>>
>
>
> Cam,
>
> I communicated with a Boeing flight test engineer last week who was
> working on exactly that problem. I asked him to let me know if he
> got it working. I'll let you and the list know if I learn anything
> more from him.
>
> If you want to go it alone, you might try asking Grand Rapids if they
> will send you the BASIC program that runs on a PC and logs data. I
> don't know if there is way to run BASIC on an Ipaq, but if so you
> might be able to modify that program to work for you. If not, you
> might be able to reverse engineer the BASIC program so you could
> write your own data logging program. All this assumes you have a way
> to get serial data into the Ipaq. The data stream is at 9600 baud,
> and it is binary. The BASIC program decodes it, converts it to ASCII
> and writes it to a log file, one record per second.
>
> I may end up writing my own data logging program, as the Grand Rapids
> one doesn't do everything I want. If I end up with a working
> solution, I'll share it with others. I'm many months away from
> flying though, so that part of my project is on the back burner.
The Ipaq runs Windows CE, and Visual Basic applications will run on this
platform. It's a little different from other BASIC implementations (no line
numbers) but it works. Not all Windows CE loads contain the VBRUNXXX.DLL files
necessary but they're easy enough to put on.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Hyde" <nauga(at)brick.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Data logging with an Ipaq |
> I communicated with a Boeing flight test engineer last week who was
> working on exactly that problem. I asked him to let me know if he
> got it working. I'll let you and the list know if I learn anything
> more from him.
That would be me. I'm more interested in using the
iPaq as a display rather than a logger, and have been
fiddling with displays in embedded Visual Basic on
the iPaq. So far getting what I want has been a bear.
I've got the QuickBasic source that GRT uses to accept
and decode the data (thanks, Kevin), and porting the comm
stuff to a PocketPC/WinCE device looks pretty straightforward.
I haven't had a chance to hook it to the EIS yet, but I'll
post my results when I do.
OBTW: I'm a design engineer now :-)
Dave Hyde
nauga(at)brick.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | n3eu(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Data logging with an Ipaq |
VB apps for the PC must be ported to the "winCE" device, using Micro$oft's eMbedded
VB Software Developers Kit, which is fortunately free, as it can be frustrating.
There is a serial comm control in embedded VB, but the help file -- as
the case in general for this SDK -- for using it is not for the uninitiated.
And if using the CE device's file system, emulation mode on the big PC won't
allow you to debug file access routines. A good sense of humor is required,
and real programmers use eMbedded Visual C++. :-)
Regards,
Fred F.
> The Ipaq runs Windows CE, and Visual Basic applications will run on this
> platform. It's a little different from other BASIC implementations (no line
> numbers) but it works. Not all Windows CE loads contain the VBRUNXXX.DLL
> files necessary but they're easy enough to put on.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joseph Kearns, DO,MPH,FACOEM" <Kearns(at)pol.net> |
| Subject: | Klixon Circuit Breakers |
I have a question about Klixon Circuit breakers. They have a 2TC series -
http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/2tc.htm
that I was thinking about putting into a Zodiac. I asked about them not
having a PMA number, and received this response:
Good morning Joe,
The reason there is no PMA for the 2TC2 series is that this items is
procured to an SAE AS33201 (older version of the MS33201 converted to
SAE) as such the device does not require PMA. The 2TC2 can be used and
is used on commercial aerospace applications.
Regards,
Susan A. Rogers
Texas Instruments
34 Forest Street MS 1-38
Attleboro, MA 02703
Phone: (508) 236 3573
Fax: (508) 236 1598
email: sarogers(at)ti.com
www: www.klixon.com
A very quick response. But do others agree this is an adequate explanation?
My other question is how these are rated- 120V AC at 400 Hz, and 28 V
DC. Could this still be used safely in a 14V DC system? Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Klixon Circuit Breakers |
>
>
>I have a question about Klixon Circuit breakers. They have a 2TC series -
>
>http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/2tc.htm
>
>that I was thinking about putting into a Zodiac. I asked about them not
>having a PMA number, and received this response:
>
>Good morning Joe,
>
>The reason there is no PMA for the 2TC2 series is that this items is
>procured to an SAE AS33201 (older version of the MS33201 converted to
>SAE) as such the device does not require PMA. The 2TC2 can be used and
>is used on commercial aerospace applications.
>
>Regards,
>Susan A. Rogers
>Texas Instruments
>34 Forest Street MS 1-38
>Attleboro, MA 02703
>Phone: (508) 236 3573
>Fax: (508) 236 1598
>email: sarogers(at)ti.com
>www: www.klixon.com
>
>A very quick response. But do others agree this is an adequate explanation?
>
>My other question is how these are rated- 120V AC at 400 Hz, and 28 V
>DC. Could this still be used safely in a 14V DC system? Thanks.
First, why is PMA important to you? Are you abused of
the notion that just because some component is "blessed"
that it possess SUPERIOR qualities for any given task?
I can assure you that is not the case. If breakers are
part of your design, the 2TC2 series breakers would
be fine.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switch Override |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>As promised, after attending the Groton, CT seminar, I still have a
>question.
>
>With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
>duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
>for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
>pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
I've published a drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority.pdf
The upper drawing shows how to wire control stick grip
switches for automatic/manual override of the copilot's
switches by the pilot. The relay is used to disconnect
the copilot's switches any time a pilot's switch is depressed.
The toggle switch selects full-time or automatic disable of
the copilot's switches.
The lower drawing is a bit simpler. It has only a manual
disable switch. This circuit does not allow pilot override
of any single switch . . . only a choice of whether or
not the copilot's stick controls are active.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics question |
Mickey,
I intend to mount the rear D-Sub connector in the F-815A inner floor rib. The
front connector will be mounted on a bracket attached to the main spar carry through.
This will allow either the front or rear control sticks to be removed
easily. The connector's location will be out of the way during flight, yet is
easily accessible on the 8 and 8A. I'll use the "thumb screws" used on computer
cables. With all the functions on my stick grips, I'll need either 10 or 11
pins on the connector (depending on how I decide to wire everything)
Charlie Kuss
>
>A bit off your topic, but won't a 15 pin d sub
>be a bit big for this application?
>
>Mickey
>
>
>>> I intend to install a 15 pin D Sub connector to allow easy removal of
>>> both the pilot and co-pilot control sticks on my RV-8A project. ...
>
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans - Peter Reusser" <hpreusser(at)tiscalinet.ch> |
| Subject: | Bussmann Fuseblock |
Hi Charlie
Could you give me a hint where those Bussmann fuseblocks are obtainable?
many thanks
Hans-Peter Reusser, Europa building
*****************************************************************
Hans-Peter und Christa Reusser Tel: +41 (33) 654 00 24
Spiezbergstr. 13 Fax: +41 (33) 654 30 21
3700 Spiez E-mail: hpreusser(at)tiscalinet.ch
*****************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Switch Override |
Thanks Bob.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----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: Control Stick Switch Override
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>As promised, after attending the Groton, CT seminar, I still have a
>question.
>
>With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
>duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
>for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
>pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
I've published a drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority.pdf
The upper drawing shows how to wire control stick grip
switches for automatic/manual override of the copilot's
switches by the pilot. The relay is used to disconnect
the copilot's switches any time a pilot's switch is depressed.
The toggle switch selects full-time or automatic disable of
the copilot's switches.
The lower drawing is a bit simpler. It has only a manual
disable switch. This circuit does not allow pilot override
of any single switch . . . only a choice of whether or
not the copilot's stick controls are active.
Bob . . .
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Mireley <mireley(at)msu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Data logging with an Ipaq |
Hi There wrote:
>
>
> This may be a little off topic, I'm just having a hard time getting any real
info.
>
> I have a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 in my RV9. I would like to capture the serial
stream coming from the engine monitor using my Pocket PC so I can plot out the
engine data later on my PC. I understand that this is possible with a laptop
but that's too bulky and hard to package in the plane.
>
> Any thoughts out there on how to do this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Cam
>
Over the years of used dumb terminal emulation software
to do this type of thing. The program "Kermit" is one that
I've used successfully. Just put the program in "log
session" mode. I've used this setup for 10 years to log
all the phone activity on our phone switch with a MS-DOS
based PC.
John Mireley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Bob,
There was a discussion on this list a week or two ago about this, and I
don't recall seeing your comments.
I'm wired per your diagrams for dual battery, single (internally regulated)
alternator.
I'm considering adding a wire from #2 battery buss via a switch to the E
buss. This way I'll be able to power my essentials (EFI computers, Fuel
pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery without using the contactors.
Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
Regards,
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switch Override Revision A |
Just spotted an editing error in the original drawing. A revised
drawing is posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority_A.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>Bob,
>There was a discussion on this list a week or two ago about this, and I
>don't recall seeing your comments.
>
>I'm wired per your diagrams for dual battery, single (internally regulated)
>alternator.
>
>I'm considering adding a wire from #2 battery buss via a switch to the E
>buss. This way I'll be able to power my essentials (EFI computers, Fuel
>pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery without using the contactors.
>
>Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
That works . . . but are you not confident in your
ability to maintain batteries such that you KNOW
be for you fly what endurance can be expected from
each when and if the alternator quits?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
This is a great idea to be tested during the day flying up high. When I get
all the wiring back in this is something to try and report back to the
group. Simulate night flying condition so I'm using more then usual load.
Will be interesting to see how long before the battery holds up the white
flag.
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
>
> That works . . . but are you not confident in your
> ability to maintain batteries such that you KNOW
> be for you fly what endurance can be expected from
> each when and if the alternator quits?
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bussmann Fuseblock |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Cooper-Bussmann has a web site that lists distributors, but when I called my
local Charlotte distributor, he didn't want to order one. He called Cooper
Bussmann and they told him he has to order 24 at a time.
If you find a distrubutor, let me know. I'll do the same.
Kent
> From: "Hans - Peter Reusser" <hpreusser(at)tiscalinet.ch>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:25:22 +0100
> To: "Aeroelectrics"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bussmann Fuseblock
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie
>
> Could you give me a hint where those Bussmann fuseblocks are obtainable?
>
> many thanks
>
> Hans-Peter Reusser, Europa building
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Hans-Peter und Christa Reusser Tel: +41 (33) 654 00 24
> Spiezbergstr. 13 Fax: +41 (33) 654 30 21
> 3700 Spiez E-mail: hpreusser(at)tiscalinet.ch
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switch Override |
>snipped
>>With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
>>duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
>>for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
>>pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
>
> I've published a drawing at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority.pdf
>
> The upper drawing shows how to wire control stick grip
> switches for automatic/manual override of the copilot's
> switches by the pilot. The relay is used to disconnect
> the copilot's switches any time a pilot's switch is depressed.
> The toggle switch selects full-time or automatic disable of
> the copilot's switches.
>
> The lower drawing is a bit simpler. It has only a manual
> disable switch. This circuit does not allow pilot override
> of any single switch . . . only a choice of whether or
> not the copilot's stick controls are active.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
No joy on using the link provided above. Is it just me?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switch Override |
>
>
> >snipped
> >>With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
> >>duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
> >>for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
> >>pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
> >
> > I've published a drawing at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority.pdf
> >
> > The upper drawing shows how to wire control stick grip
> > switches for automatic/manual override of the copilot's
> > switches by the pilot. The relay is used to disconnect
> > the copilot's switches any time a pilot's switch is depressed.
> > The toggle switch selects full-time or automatic disable of
> > the copilot's switches.
> >
> > The lower drawing is a bit simpler. It has only a manual
> > disable switch. This circuit does not allow pilot override
> > of any single switch . . . only a choice of whether or
> > not the copilot's stick controls are active.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob,
> No joy on using the link provided above. Is it just me?
>Charlie Kuss
Sorry Charlie, I found an error on the drawing right after I posted
it. It's been re-posted as revision A at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority_A.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>This is a great idea to be tested during the day flying up high. When I get
>all the wiring back in this is something to try and report back to the
>group. Simulate night flying condition so I'm using more then usual load.
>Will be interesting to see how long before the battery holds up the white
>flag.
>
>Dale Martin
>Lewiston, ID
>LEZ-235
Gee Dale, the repeatable experiment . . . what will they
think up next? Just yanking your chain my friend. That's
an excellent idea that promises to produce irrefutable
numbers that can only build your confidence in a system
you depend on and increase the value of your advice
to folks considering similar systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
> >I'm wired per your diagrams for dual battery, single (internally
> regulated)
> >alternator.
> >
> >I'm considering adding a wire from #2 battery buss via a switch to the E
> >buss. This way I'll be able to power my essentials (EFI computers, Fuel
> >pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery without using the
> contactors.
> >
> >Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
>
> That works . . . but are you not confident in your
> ability to maintain batteries such that you KNOW
> be for you fly what endurance can be expected from
> each when and if the alternator quits?
Just as with fuel - I'd hate to run out of accessible amps while still
having some on board. I could run one pump, coil set, and injector set of
each battery buss, or I could run them all from the e-buss and switch the
batteries. I prefer the latter since the EC2 computer has (effectively) only
one supply lead.
I guess my confidence in batteries has weakened recently since I managed to
fry three with two different chargers in the space of a month. One, a
so-called "smart" trickle charger and the other a conventional 6 amp unit.
In the second case the battery was HOT, smelling of acid and bulging at the
seems after an overnight charge. :(
Perhaps a lesson on charging these rg batteries is in order.....
Regards,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Control Stick Switch Overrids |
Bob:
In the lower diagram of your Pilot Priority Article/schematic, are the diodes
you show necessary? If yes, what would happen if I left them out?
Pete Hunt
Clearwater, Florida
RV-6, installing engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
I'm doing a couple of projects (for my day job) overseas.
Does anyone have a source for starved lead acid batteries in the UK, and in
the Philippines? I'm looking for 20 AH to 40 AH screw terminal 12V. They
*don't* have to be bargains, the company is paying for them, but I really,
really don't want to try to take them over in my luggage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
> > >I'm wired per your diagrams for dual battery, single (internally
> > regulated)
> > >alternator.
> > >
> > >I'm considering adding a wire from #2 battery buss via a switch to the E
> > >buss. This way I'll be able to power my essentials (EFI computers, Fuel
> > >pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery without using the
> > contactors.
> > >
> > >Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
> >
> > That works . . . but are you not confident in your
> > ability to maintain batteries such that you KNOW
> > be for you fly what endurance can be expected from
> > each when and if the alternator quits?
>
>Just as with fuel - I'd hate to run out of accessible amps while still
>having some on board. I could run one pump, coil set, and injector set of
>each battery buss, or I could run them all from the e-buss and switch the
>batteries. I prefer the latter since the EC2 computer has (effectively) only
>one supply lead.
>
>I guess my confidence in batteries has weakened recently since I managed to
>fry three with two different chargers in the space of a month. One, a
>so-called "smart" trickle charger and the other a conventional 6 amp unit.
>In the second case the battery was HOT, smelling of acid and bulging at the
>seems after an overnight charge. :(
This is the classic example of not having or exercising
the simple-ideas that support or refute overt expectations
of performance. There are a lot of products bought based
on claims printed on outside of package . . . or voiced
by some salesman on TV. I'm not suggesting that one be
"suspicious" of everything you buy, but it's relatively
easy to exercise constructive and educational skepticism.
Put a voltmeter on the battery when using a new charger
for the first time. A real smart-charger will run full-bore
until battery voltage reaches some peak value after which
it backs off to maintain the battery at some voltage above
it's self-discharge value (12.8v) and a value which puts
much charge into the battery (13.5 or so) . . . Many
decisions are based on anecdotal information and
experiences. The question is: how does your experience
with a couple of plug-in-the-wall battery killers
drive a decision about how many batteries to carry
aboard your airplane? Further, how does this experience
relate to your concerns that prompt back-ups-to-backups?
REAL comfort comes from understanding how you can
personally have understanding followed by command
and control over system design and operation.
I'm not suggesting that your question about the
single pole, double throw switch for tapping either
battery is a bad idea . . . only that it may be
driven by a lack of confidence and understanding.
THAT's the bad idea.
>Perhaps a lesson on charging these rg batteries is in order.....
Read up on batteries. Post questions about what
you've read on the list. I'm currently working a project
at RAC to investigate poor battery performance
and high warranty returns on batteries for what
must be the 10th time in the last 25 years.
Batteries are not like fuel pumps and radios
that can be put on the self unattended and expected
to operate in the airplane relatively trouble free
with service life based on flight hours.
Batteries are like house plants. Too much light,
they're toast. Too little light, they're fertilizer.
Too much water . . . etc. You get the picture.
A battery is almost a living creature with
a life that can be optimized with reasonable
care and understanding . . . and just as
easily destroyed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Switch Override |
No its not quite correct.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority_A.pdf
Or at least that is what I needed.
A list of articles is available using
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick Switch Override
>
>
> >snipped
> >>With the plethora of trim, PTT, and other control buttons being
> >>duplicated on each control stick, I'm looking for a circuit to provide
> >>for pilot priority/override if there is a tug of war between the
> >>pilot/copilot. I need to handle 2 axis trim, speed brakes, and CWS.
> >
> > I've published a drawing at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority.pdf
> >
> > The upper drawing shows how to wire control stick grip
> > switches for automatic/manual override of the copilot's
> > switches by the pilot. The relay is used to disconnect
> > the copilot's switches any time a pilot's switch is depressed.
> > The toggle switch selects full-time or automatic disable of
> > the copilot's switches.
> >
> > The lower drawing is a bit simpler. It has only a manual
> > disable switch. This circuit does not allow pilot override
> > of any single switch . . . only a choice of whether or
> > not the copilot's stick controls are active.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob,
> No joy on using the link provided above. Is it just me?
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave von Linsowe" <davevon(at)tir.com> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Bob,
I'm in the final stages of laying out the panel and planning my all electric upgrade.
I started out with a nice "stock" IFR RV-6 and have replaced one mag with an E.I.,
pulled out the vacuum system and added a two axis autopilot, Garmin 430 and
a GRT Horizon One EFIS with engine monitor. I'm also adding a glove box to
store a backup GPS and hand held transceiver. I want to make IFR "easy/easier"
if that's possible. I realize that if and when things go bad you must still
have the skills to fly the airplane.
I was planning on using the dual battery, single alternator setup. And I was starting
to think along the same lines as John and adding a switch to bring either
battery on line. I'm really spoiled now with the vacant real estate behind
the engine. That's my reasoning for dual batteries instead of dual alternators.
But now I'm getting the impression that Z-11 might offer acceptable risk even for
IFR flight. Doesn't the single battery dual alternator, Z-13, rely completely
on the battery for either alternator to function in case of a failure? Although,
I guess it could be a nearly dead battery.
I'm planning on pursuing my IFR rating with the 6 and that I'm in Michigan I'm
sure I'll have lots of opportunities to use it.
So being a newbie to the demands of IFR and the realities of all electric what
are your thoughts?
Thank you,
Dave
The Silver Turtle
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
>
> > >I'm wired per your diagrams for dual battery, single (internally
> > regulated)
> > >alternator.
> > >
> > >I'm considering adding a wire from #2 battery buss via a switch to the E
> > >buss. This way I'll be able to power my essentials (EFI computers, Fuel
> > >pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery without using the
> > contactors.
> > >
> > >Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
> >
> > That works . . . but are you not confident in your
> > ability to maintain batteries such that you KNOW
> > be for you fly what endurance can be expected from
> > each when and if the alternator quits?
>
REAL comfort comes from understanding how you can
personally have understanding followed by command
and control over system design and operation.
I'm not suggesting that your question about the
single pole, double throw switch for tapping either
battery is a bad idea . . . only that it may be
driven by a lack of confidence and understanding.
THAT's the bad idea.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Dave,
If you follow Z-13 and use B&C's SD-8 permanent magnet alternator, you can run
you essential bus even if the main alternator dies and the battery is dead. The
permanent magnets in the SD-8 will allow it to generate electricity even without
a battery. The SD-8 only weighs 4 pounds. That's a lot less than any second
battery.
Charlie Kuss
>
> From: "Dave von Linsowe" <davevon(at)tir.com>
> Date: 2004/03/13 Sat PM 12:53:06 EST
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Battery chargers - my favorite |
John,
I have a Schumaker, bought at Wal-Mart for about $35. It operates
differently from anything Bob writes about in the Aeroelectric Connection
and in e-mails: After clipping leads on battery from charger and plugging
charger in, I connect a DC voltmeter to the clips on neg & positive
terminals to see what is happening. When battery voltage is below 12.89, it
turns on and pumps in the 2 or 10 amps (which ever you select) until voltage
builds up to 13.4 - this may take 15 minutes if battery is discharged some,
or takes 3 to 5 seconds if fully charged. At 13.4, it turns OFF (green
light comes on, stops putting any current into batter - NOT a trickle
charger. As battery voltage "free falls" (self discharges) down to below
12.89 the voltage goes down to 13.4 fairly quickly, then takes a while from
there on down. The better the state of charge of the battery, the longer it
takes (maybe 15 minutes?) to reach 12.89 to turn on for another 5 seconds.
I had two old vintage cars that I tried to keep the batteries up while cars
were inop. The charger began to act flakey after a three years - they took
it back and replaced it free. Still working fine.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | Coolie hat switches |
Anyone have a good source for these?
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | Pilot stick grip priority switching |
Bob,
Could you answer a couple of (probably dumb) questions about your diagram.
I presume another relay is required to switch the pilots and copilots mikes from
intercom to radio when the PTT is pressed.
Looking for the diodes the various flavours of 47XX diodes I've found seem to be
zeners. Would 1N4001 or IN5402 diodes work in this application?
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Coolie hat switches |
I got mine at Infinity - http://www.infinityaerospace.com/
Go to the bottom of the page for the parts list and look for 4 way switch.
You'll also need to order a China hat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Williams" <rwayne(at)gamewood.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/12/04 |
Bob:
I, too, had the same question about wiring a co-pilot stick that could be
overridden. Thank you for the diagram. What relay would you recommend? Could
it be a small one that could go on a board with the diodes?
Wayne Williams
RV-8A
N99767
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>Dave,
> If you follow Z-13 and use B&C's SD-8 permanent magnet alternator, you
> can run you essential bus even if the main alternator dies and the
> battery is dead. The permanent magnets in the SD-8 will allow it to
> generate electricity even without a battery. The SD-8 only weighs 4
> pounds. That's a lot less than any second battery.
>
>Charlie Kuss
. . . with one caveat . . . the last incarnation of an SD-8 alternator
I tested would not come on line without a battery being connected. I didn't
check the minimum voltage necessary for it to come alive. I suspect it
was much less than a minimally charged battery would deliver. This
means that the SD-8 will be available with a battery having less than
1% of capacity left.
However, it one waits to turn on an SD-8 until the battery is close
to zero capacity, a substantial portion of the SD-8's normally
expected to charge the battery would not be available until the
battery is recharged at SD-8 output rates. Now, you could load
the system with running loads anyhow, and bus voltage would sag
such that the battery takes less of the total . . . but it's still
a situation that you wouldn't want to deal with in flight. Active
notification of low voltage is the #1 hedge against this
combination of events. Get the standby alternator on within
a minute of main alternator failure so you can have all the
SD-8's capacity to do flight management jobs and save the
battery for approach and landing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot stick grip priority switching |
>
>Bob,
>Could you answer a couple of (probably dumb) questions about your diagram.
>I presume another relay is required to switch the pilots and copilots
>mikes from intercom to radio when the PTT is pressed.
No, I just didn't think of that when I did the drawing.
Of course, most intercoms have separate mic and ptt lines
for both pilot and copilot . . . those wires should go directly
to their respective connections on the intercom . . .
>Looking for the diodes the various flavours of 47XX diodes I've found seem
>to be zeners. Would 1N4001 or IN5402 diodes work in this application?
Good eye. Shouldn't do these drawings before I've had my second
cup of coffee. 1N4000 series was intended. Rev B has been
posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority_B.pdf
where both the diode part number and PTT wiring issues
have been addressed.
I appreciate your NOT-probably-dumb questions. You and
the rest of the folks on the list are part of critical
review team. If there's something posted that doesn't
make sense it's either wrong, poorly explained or both
and should be fixed. Thanks for speaking up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> 03/12/04 |
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - |
03/12/04
03/12/04
>
>
>Bob:
>I, too, had the same question about wiring a co-pilot stick that could be
>overridden. Thank you for the diagram. What relay would you recommend? Could
>it be a small one that could go on a board with the diodes?
Sure. I think I'd build a pc board with two d-sub connectors on it
to bring two stick harnesses together and a third connector to
carry wires out to various systems. This would be an opportunity
for one to build their own relay deck for RayAllen actuators,
PM flap motors, etc. All the relays and speed control electronics
could go on this board along with the diodes and relays cited
in the drawing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
"AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
| Subject: | Re: Coolie hat switches |
Probably the best is Otto Controls, If you want to save move tell them you
do not need any paper work other then the receipt and assurance that the
switch works... I used to supply Glasair with all theirs years ago.
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coolie hat switches
>
> Anyone have a good source for these?
> Rob
> Rob W M Shipley
> N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Aluminum wire connectors |
I'm looking for a replacement battery terminal for my C-177 with an aluminum
cable. Anyone know where to get such a thing? The correct installation
method? No, I don't plan to replace my aluminum with a copper wire.
Gary Casey
C-177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Source for coiled Yoke wiring ? |
I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
and a center clock (Bonanza).
-Pascal
+---------------------------+
Pascal Gosselin
pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
tel. (450) 676-6299
fax. (450) 676-2760
cell. (514) 298-3343
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Source for coiled Yoke wiring ? |
In a message dated 3/15/04 10:18:20 AM Central Standard Time,
pascal(at)aeroteknic.com writes:
I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
and a center clock (Bonanza).
-Pascal
Good Morning Pascal,
For what it is worth, my Bonanza has a nineteen wire cord and all of them
are in use. I am not sure what all is handled, though mine is not very
heavily equipped. The reason I am familiar with the number is I just had
occasion to disconnect it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery chargers - my favorite |
>
>
>John,
>
>I have a Schumaker, bought at Wal-Mart for about $35. It operates
>differently from anything Bob writes about in the Aeroelectric Connection
>and in e-mails: After clipping leads on battery from charger and plugging
>charger in, I connect a DC voltmeter to the clips on neg & positive
>terminals to see what is happening. When battery voltage is below 12.89, it
>turns on and pumps in the 2 or 10 amps (which ever you select) until voltage
>builds up to 13.4 - this may take 15 minutes if battery is discharged some,
>or takes 3 to 5 seconds if fully charged. At 13.4, it turns OFF (green
>light comes on, stops putting any current into batter - NOT a trickle
>charger. As battery voltage "free falls" (self discharges) down to below
>12.89 the voltage goes down to 13.4 fairly quickly, then takes a while from
>there on down. The better the state of charge of the battery, the longer it
>takes (maybe 15 minutes?) to reach 12.89 to turn on for another 5 seconds.
>
>I had two old vintage cars that I tried to keep the batteries up while cars
>were inop. The charger began to act flakey after a three years - they took
>it back and replaced it free. Still working fine.
That was/is a technique used in the earliest low cost chargers.
It's certainly acceptable. The key is not to allow a battery to
be stored at terminal voltages exceeding normal "resting" levels
by more than a half volt or so. You can build an excellent
battery maintainer using a 12-18 volt DC "wall wart" power supply
coupled with a regulator (like the dimmers we used to sell . . .
see: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/DimmerFabrication.pdf )
Put a diode in series with the output of the dimmer so that energy
won't back-feed into the regulator should the power fail. Set the
regulator for 13.6 volts (13.0 + .6 to accommodate diode drop), hook
this to your battery and plug it in.
This circuit will actually charge a battery to 100% at room temperature.
It may take a week or more to top it off after the battery is up to
90% of charge . . . but it will EVENTUALLY attain full charge.
Further, by limiting max voltage to some value just over normal
open circuit terminal voltage for the battery, it can't hurt
the battery.
There are a number of commercial products set up to do this. See:
http://www.batterymart.com/battery.mv?c=batteryminder
http://store.azmusa.com/battenjr12vb.html
This model even has the "tickler" built in to ward of
sulphation . . .
http://www.vdcelectronics.com/batteryminder.htm
Just do a google search on "batteryminder"
and "battery tender" . . .
You'll get thousands of hits. None of these are
so expensive as to make building your own a very
attractive option. We have several varieties of
these critters in our shop to maintain portable power
batteries I use for instrumentation packages.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm in the final stages of laying out the panel and planning my all
>electric upgrade.
>
>I started out with a nice "stock" IFR RV-6 and have replaced one mag with
>an E.I., pulled out the vacuum system and added a two axis autopilot,
>Garmin 430 and a GRT Horizon One EFIS with engine monitor. I'm also
>adding a glove box to store a backup GPS and hand held transceiver. I
>want to make IFR "easy/easier" if that's possible. I realize that if and
>when things go bad you must still have the skills to fly the airplane.
>
>I was planning on using the dual battery, single alternator setup. And I
>was starting to think along the same lines as John and adding a switch to
>bring either battery on line. I'm really spoiled now with the vacant real
>estate behind the engine. That's my reasoning for dual batteries instead
>of dual alternators.
>
>But now I'm getting the impression that Z-11 might offer acceptable risk
>even for IFR flight. Doesn't the single battery dual alternator,
>Z-13, rely completely on the battery for either alternator to function in
>case of a failure? Although, I guess it could be a nearly dead battery.
>
>I'm planning on pursuing my IFR rating with the 6 and that I'm in Michigan
>I'm sure I'll have lots of opportunities to use it.
>
>So being a newbie to the demands of IFR and the realities of all electric
>what are your thoughts?
Have you done a load analysis to show how much total energy needs
to be in storage to use up fuel aboard should the alternator crap?
That's the first driver in the decision making process. Second driver
is cost of ownership including fuel to carry around extra weight of
second battery and to maintain them in an IFR capable status. Recall
that the SD-8 only weighs about 4# installed and produces up to
10 ampere hours of "capacity" for each hour of fuel endurance
and you don't even have to touch the main battery. If I had
a vacuum pump pad open on my engine, it wouldn't take much
thinking about what I'd do with it. A pair of alternators
beats a pair of batteries in any poker game.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <beecho(at)beecho.org> |
Help! Has anybody wired an Xcom intercom to two coms? The factory sold
me a wiring harness that doesn't work. They will not send me wiring
diagrams, schematics or return my money. They refuse to fix it.
BEWARE of Xcom. BEWARE!
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum wire connectors |
Gary Casey wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a replacement battery terminal for my C-177 with an aluminum
> cable. Anyone know where to get such a thing? The correct installation
> method? No, I don't plan to replace my aluminum with a copper wire.
>
> Gary Casey
> C-177RG
Another possibility is to use the same technique often used in homes, a form
of pigtailing. In homes you use a special crimper, antioxidant grease, and
heat-shrink tubing to connect a short copper pigtal to the aluminum wire.
(c.f. "Copalum") Now, you wouldn't normally do this on a battery jumper
because it's really designed for AWG 10-12 wire, but if you already have a
terminal on the end of your aluminum wire you can attach it to a bolt like a
through-panel connector, and attach a short, copper jumper with like terminals
to the other side of the bolt. You introduce a bit of resistance in the
connection and the bolt but not much. Unless you have no room?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Bob,
Insure me that the alternator will restart an engine in flight! The prop
has to be (should be) stopped engage the starter. Some airplanes take a
great deal of airspeed to make the prop start to windmill (read great loss
of altitude) and your hoping it restarts.
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> A pair of alternators beats a pair of batteries in any poker game.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
Hi Tom
I assume that you have the wiring diagram that came with the unit, if not it
is on the Xcom web site.
Looks like it might not be designed for a second comm radio as it only has
second audio input (nav radio?).
George in Langley
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring for Xcom
Help! Has anybody wired an Xcom intercom to two coms? The factory sold
me a wiring harness that doesn't work. They will not send me wiring
diagrams, schematics or return my money. They refuse to fix it.
BEWARE of Xcom. BEWARE!
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>Bob,
>
>Insure me that the alternator will restart an engine in flight! The prop
>has to be (should be) stopped engage the starter. Some airplanes take a
>great deal of airspeed to make the prop start to windmill (read great loss
>of altitude) and your hoping it restarts.
How do you get the prop to stop in flight? I've tried it
on every type of aircraft I've flown . . . and without
a purposeful reduction in IAS, they all windmill and produce
MUCHO drag. If it is windmilling, the problem isn't how
to engage the starter, it's how to restore lost ignition and/or
fuel flow. That generally takes VERY little energy . . .
energy that will be available from a well maintained RG battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
> How do you get the prop to stop in flight? I've tried it
> on every type of aircraft I've flown . . . and without
> a purposeful reduction in IAS, they all windmill and produce
> MUCHO drag. If it is windmilling, the problem isn't how
> to engage the starter, it's how to restore lost ignition and/or
> fuel flow. That generally takes VERY little energy . . .
> energy that will be available from a well maintained RG battery.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Bob,
First, you get yourself a C/S RV. Then, slow to about 70 knots and
pull the mixture. Then slow to about 60 knots, and the prop will stop
before the plane stalls. Add a little speed, something like 70-80 knots
and it will start turning again. Do this well above an airport if you
are faint at heart. It is quite interesting to see the prop stopped.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 445 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring for Xcom |
>
>Help! Has anybody wired an Xcom intercom to two coms? The factory sold
>me a wiring harness that doesn't work. They will not send me wiring
>diagrams, schematics or return my money. They refuse to fix it.
>
>BEWARE of Xcom. BEWARE!
>
>Tom
Without being privy to the details of your conversation when
the order was placed, I'm puzzled about a "harness for two
coms". Normally, an intercom installation does not include
audio selector switches as part of a prefabricated harness.
The switch for second transmitter is easy to add. I downloaded
the XCOM "wiring diagram" which is pretty cheesy and converted
it to a real schematic that illustrates addition of the two-pole,
double-throw switch for transmitter select.
You can download the package at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/Xcom_Wiring.pdf
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>
>
> > How do you get the prop to stop in flight? I've tried it
> > on every type of aircraft I've flown . . . and without
> > a purposeful reduction in IAS, they all windmill and produce
> > MUCHO drag. If it is windmilling, the problem isn't how
> > to engage the starter, it's how to restore lost ignition and/or
> > fuel flow. That generally takes VERY little energy . . .
> > energy that will be available from a well maintained RG battery.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>Bob,
>First, you get yourself a C/S RV. Then, slow to about 70 knots and
>pull the mixture. Then slow to about 60 knots, and the prop will stop
>before the plane stalls. Add a little speed, something like 70-80 knots
>and it will start turning again. Do this well above an airport if you
>are faint at heart. It is quite interesting to see the prop stopped.
Yeah, but you don't do it accidently. I presume the original concern
was about mis-managed fuel valves and finding that a starter was needed
to get the engine running after fuel flow was restored. I think
it's a very rare airframe/powerplant installation that doesn't
recover gracefully and quickly from loss of fuel flow by turning
a knob and perhaps flipping a switch. Loss of one ignition
often goes unnoticed until next pre-flight.
My question was centered on the concern about being able to
use a starter while airborne. If the engine is windmilling,
then you don't need a starter. If you get the engine stopped,
then I presume it was stopped on purpose and for reasons OTHER
than having lost any combination of alternators or batteries.
Hence my suggestion that two alternators and one battery is
preferable from the perspective of minimizing weight and
maximizing available energy should the main alternator go
south . . . which is going to be VERY rare if you install
a B&C alternator from the get-go.
The OBAM aircraft community carries a lot of baggage
from the certified world not the least of which is founded
on the dark-n-stormy-night stories in the monthly rags.
If one installs Van's harness (al-la C-172)
and replaces certified junk alternators and batteries
with modern ND and RG products, the probability of
having a hair-raising tale to tell the grand kids is
already reduced to a small fraction compared to
certified iron. Replace the a-bus with an e-bus
and the fraction becomes smaller still. Add a
second alternator and we've got reliability that
very few airplanes outside the OBAM aircraft
community will ever enjoy.
None the less, it takes awhile for folks to understand
this new way of thinking and to stop stacking multiple
failures on top of each other . . . only the space-flight
guys do much of that . . . and it's because they can't
deal in 3-4 hour windows of opportunity as a limiting
factor for multiple failures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>Pretty EZ to do on a canard design..... To set up optimum glide the flat
>disc of a rotating prop is MORE drag not less at least in an EZ...
it is for all aircraft.
>But I
>can see a person trying to achieve a restart and trimming for an optimum
>glide, getting the attention focused on a restart and not the airspeed
>allowing the prop to stop.
Why did the engine falter in the first place? If it was due to
fuel starvation, then flipping the boost pump and selecting the
other tank seems to be the first thing to do . . . setting up
an "optimum glide" seems a bit of a waste and increases risk
to a successful re-start . . . so why do it before you take
care of the obvious.
>Doesn't seem that far fetched at all.
>I guess my question is then has a single alternator and single battery both
>failed and produced an accident.
How do you crap two well maintained pieces of equipment in the
same 4 hour window? Especially if your using modern components?
How many times has this hypothesized scenario figured into an
accident?
> If yes, how many airports were over flown
>in the process. Flying out here in the west (especially Idaho as anyone who
>has can attest) you will find some of the most beautiful and inhospitable
>terrain there is anywhere. Having a problem even here one can still make
>it back to mother earth in a smooth touchdown with vigilance to maintaining
>in good repair the single battery and single charging system. If were
>talking about crossing the ocean - I'm with you. The second alternator
>sounded great to me at one time but the more I ask around the more I am
>convinced I don't need it even for and IFR airplane. We all have opinions
>:-)
Opinions based on real failure mode effects analysis are the
ones I'm interested in. We're talking about a battery that presumably
gets replaced before capacity drops below 75-80% and it just cranked
your engine
less than 4 hours ago. One can hypothesize any number and kind
of failure combinations. Shucks, you might find that you want to
crank the engine and the starter is crapped, or a starter solenoid
has gone south . . . should we consider dual starters? What set
of conditions string together to give us a flaky battery combined
with what has to be a deliberate move to stop the prop while airborne?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave von Linsowe" <davevon(at)tir.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Thanks Bob,
I thought you might say that, I just wanted to be sure...
Dave
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm in the final stages of laying out the panel and planning my all
>electric upgrade.
>
>I started out with a nice "stock" IFR RV-6>
>
>So being a newbie to the demands of IFR and the realities of all electric
>what are your thoughts?
Have you done a load analysis to show how much total energy needs
to be in storage to use up fuel aboard should the alternator crap?
That's the first driver in the decision making process. Second driver
is cost of ownership including fuel to carry around extra weight of
second battery and to maintain them in an IFR capable status. Recall
that the SD-8 only weighs about 4# installed and produces up to
10 ampere hours of "capacity" for each hour of fuel endurance
and you don't even have to touch the main battery. If I had
a vacuum pump pad open on my engine, it wouldn't take much
thinking about what I'd do with it. A pair of alternators
beats a pair of batteries in any poker game.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Howerton" <Bill(at)Howerton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 03/14/04 |
Bob,
I have a great number of 28-volt intruments and avionics that I intend
to use in my airplane. Additionally, I'm putting a standard (12-volt)
Corvair engine in my plane. As I read through your manual, I don't really
find a clear recomendation as to a well designed aircraft electrical system,
that allows these two to co-exist happily. However, from other contacts,
I've received a number of recommendations that vary from the installation of
a rectifier to the addition of a second alternator.
OK, so what kind of recomendation do you have?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for coiled Yoke wiring ? |
>
>In a message dated 3/15/04 10:18:20 AM Central Standard Time,
>pascal(at)aeroteknic.com writes:
>I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
>rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
>and a center clock (Bonanza).
>
>-Pascal
>
>Good Morning Pascal,
>
>For what it is worth, my Bonanza has a nineteen wire cord and all of them
>are in use. I am not sure what all is handled, though mine is not very
>heavily equipped. The reason I am familiar with the number is I just had
>occasion to disconnect it!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8502
the few times I recall any coiled cords installed where I worked,
they were all custom ordered. There are companies that specialize
in that kind of product and nobody I'm aware of stocks them. You're
probably going to have to approach RAC/Beech for a possible replacement.
Hang onto your wallet!!!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
If you get the engine stopped, then I presume it was stopped on purpose and
for reasons OTHER than having lost any combination of alternators or
batteries.
******
I think Bob you forgot about icing stopping an engine. It can cause the
prop to stop windmilling. Desending to warmer air and the use of a starter
could come in handy. All hypothetical.
> Bob wrote;
> The OBAM aircraft community carries a lot of baggage
> from the certified world not the least of which is founded
> on the dark-n-stormy-night stories in the monthly rags.
> If one installs Van's harness (al-la C-172)
> and replaces certified junk alternators and batteries
> with modern ND and RG products, the probability of
> having a hair-raising tale to tell the grand kids is
> already reduced to a small fraction compared to
> certified iron. Replace the a-bus with an e-bus
> and the fraction becomes smaller still. > Bob . . .
>
Now were on the same page (or maybe we always were).... Update the system
and the failures are far and few between... Reliability and using sound
judgment for limited life components is where it is at. Why build something
you can't afford to maintain is my thinking. I still get five years or more
from a G-243 (Concord this time) battery. Taking good care of it is the
key. I just consider it electric gas at the time of renewal. :-)
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 03/14/04 |
Bill,
Get a 24 volt starter and alternator, the engine could care what the
voltage is.....
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
>
> Bob,
> I have a great number of 28-volt intruments and avionics that I
intend
> to use in my airplane. Additionally, I'm putting a standard (12-volt)
> Corvair engine in my plane. As I read through your manual, I don't really
> find a clear recomendation as to a well designed aircraft electrical
system,
> that allows these two to co-exist happily. However, from other contacts,
> I've received a number of recommendations that vary from the installation
of
> a rectifier to the addition of a second alternator.
>
> OK, so what kind of recomendation do you have?
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
In a message dated 3/16/04 8:24:22 AM Central Standard Time,
niceez(at)cableone.net writes:
I think Bob you forgot about icing stopping an engine. It can cause the
prop to stop windmilling. Desending to warmer air and the use of a starter
could come in handy. All hypothetical.
Good Morning niceez,
Hypothetical is the key word!
I have had a lot of ice on an airplane and I have never had an engine stop
turning because of that airframe ice. I have encountered carburetor ice which
caused an engine to stop producing power and I have had impact ice on an intake
screen which caused an engine to quit running, but I have never had the prop
stop turning when the engine quit!
I figure it is a lot more likely that a wing will fall of than it is that the
prop on a typical light airplane will stop turning when the engine stops
producing power.
I imagine that some of the small highly geared two stroke engines may quit
turning if they are shut down, but even that is only supposition. I have no
experience in that realm at all.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/15/04 |
In a message dated 3/16/04 2:59:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<< get yourself a C/S RV. Then, slow to about 70 knots and
pull the mixture. Then slow to about 60 knots, and the prop will stop
before the plane stalls. Add a little speed, something like 70-80 knots
and it will start turning again. >>
Alex,
What is best glide speed (IAS) in your RV-6A? Do you have to spin the prop
again to attain best glide speed? Anyone have the best glide speed for the
RV-8A?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for coiled Yoke wiring ? |
> I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
> rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
> and a center clock (Bonanza).
Let me know if you find one as I'm looking for one for my Bonanza also.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pascal Gosselin" <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Source for coiled Yoke wiring ?
>
>
> I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
> rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
> and a center clock (Bonanza).
>
> -Pascal
>
> +---------------------------+
> Pascal Gosselin
> pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
> tel. (450) 676-6299
> fax. (450) 676-2760
> cell. (514) 298-3343
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Out of curiosity, has anyone compared the same speed sink rate, with
the prop stopped or windmilling?
Joel Harding
On Mar 15, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> Bob,
> First, you get yourself a C/S RV. Then, slow to about 70 knots and
> pull the mixture. Then slow to about 60 knots, and the prop will stop
> before the plane stalls. Add a little speed, something like 70-80
> knots
> and it will start turning again. Do this well above an airport if you
> are faint at heart. It is quite interesting to see the prop stopped.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 445 hours
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for coiled Yoke wiring ? |
Try these guys. The coiled cords are not especially cheap but if they
have what you need, it is probably cheaper than getting one from Bonanza.
http://www.olflex.com/90Contents.htm
Dick Tasker
Pascal Gosselin wrote:
>
>
>I'm looking for a source for at least 8 conductor coiled (spiral)
>rubberized wiring for hooking up a yoke with lots of switches
>and a center clock (Bonanza).
>
>-Pascal
>
>+---------------------------+
>Pascal Gosselin
>pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
>tel. (450) 676-6299
>fax. (450) 676-2760
>cell. (514) 298-3343
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
Hi Bob-
Re: Recall that the SD-8 only weighs about 4# installed and produces up to
10 ampere hours of "capacity" ....
What's the status of your investigation into the capacity / adaptability of
the B&C regulator?
The last I spoke with them, B&C claimed that this system was never intended
for that
application. As a current owner of this equipment, and one who was
counting on 8A in a
main alt failure scenario, I'm more than a little distressed about the
situation.
As ever, thanks in advance for your time and expertise!
gm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charlie Burton" <notrubce(at)hotmail.com> |
I need to replace my RG25XC battery and wondered where the best deal might be.
Any suggestions?
Charlie Burton 331Fox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>
>Hi Bob-
>
>Re: Recall that the SD-8 only weighs about 4# installed and produces up to
>10 ampere hours of "capacity" ....
>
>What's the status of your investigation into the capacity / adaptability of
>the B&C regulator?
>
>The last I spoke with them, B&C claimed that this system was never intended
>for that
>application. As a current owner of this equipment, and one who was
>counting on 8A in a
>main alt failure scenario, I'm more than a little distressed about the
>situation.
>
>As ever, thanks in advance for your time and expertise!
>
>gm
This issue is being investigated. The published capability for
the SD-8 has always been 8A continuous. If that's any different
from reality, I'm sure there will be steps taken to rectify the
matter. Keep watching the AeroElectric-List. As soon as I
hear from B&C, I'll let you know.
For now, I see no reason not to plan for the SD-8 to serve
as an 8A power source in your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <beecho(at)beecho.org> |
Thanks George
I received a correct diagram from Xcom immediately! It seems they now
have a real tech support. Also Bob N quickly made one up and sent it.
He is amazing!
I was a neighbor of yours in Bellingham until last year when we moved to
California. Temp yesterday was 83F. Nice.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GMC
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wiring for Xcom
Hi Tom
I assume that you have the wiring diagram that came with the unit, if
not it
is on the Xcom web site.
Looks like it might not be designed for a second comm radio as it only
has
second audio input (nav radio?).
George in Langley
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring for Xcom
Help! Has anybody wired an Xcom intercom to two coms? The factory sold
me a wiring harness that doesn't work. They will not send me wiring
diagrams, schematics or return my money. They refuse to fix it.
BEWARE of Xcom. BEWARE!
Tom
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the comparison
was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated that a
windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and you
have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Harding" <cajole76(at)ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Prop drag - windmilling and stopped |
Dan and all -
Clem from Oklahoma reported the following to the Kitfoxlist. This is
a neat illustration of what the effects are of a windmilling vice a
stopped prop (I'm sure Bob and John Marzluf and Lowell remember this).
Thanks again Clem if you're listening -
Bill
==================
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:06:51 -0500
OK gang, I finally got around to building a test jig to determine
which produces more drag -- a stopped prop or a freewheeling one. I
built a ball bearinged jig with an RC model airplane prop (a good
airfoil) mounted on the end of a 2 foot long lever arm connected to a
postage scale. I applied wind from a large squirrel cage blower from
a central airconditioner unit to get a large volume of smooth
airflow. I measured the drag with the prop stopped, partially
spinning (windmilling), and freewheeling. Here's the result: A
2-bladed (7inch dia. x 4 pitch) prop produced 100 grams of drag when
not spinning and 160 grams when freewheeling at 2800 RPM. This effect
was repeatable and consistent. When the prop is released from stopped
the drag steadily increases at a linear rate as the RPM increases.
When friction was added to the prop shaft simulating the prop turning
an engine over, the prop slowed down and the drag decreased. The
faster the prop was allowed to turn, the more the airflow drag. This
relationship could be shown with a variety of props including 3
bladed ones and props of different sizes and pitches. Just to verify
my experiment with a separate (crude) experiment, I held the lever
arm with the prop on the end out the car window. Sure enough when I
released the prop, I could feel the drag increasing significantly. I
had always believed that a spinning prop causes less drag and had
set out to prove it, but I was wrong. Hope this little experiment
provides some useful data for you, though it might stir another
flurry of email like my earlier experiment with the little funnels on
the fuel filler cap did.
cheers,
Clem Oklahoma
====================
>
>
>There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the comparison
>was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated that a
>windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and you
>have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
>
>Dan Branstrom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: prop stopping and other good(?) things to do |
>
>
>There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the comparison
>was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated that a
>windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and you
>have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
Yes but . . .
What is the maneuver and how much time does it take to get the prop
stopped? How much altitude is lost before the drag is reduced?
When the engine quits, is it better to make an immediate determination
as to one of three reasons (1) ignition, (2) fuel flow or (3) gross
mechanical failure. Since 95% of all engine stoppage is due to
fuel starvation, it takes only seconds to fix what's fixable in
the cockpit. It would be a pretty silly emergency procedure that
calls for stopping the engine before you confirm fuel stoppage and
then having to dive the airplane or use the starter to get the
engine rotating again! If it's ignition, then you've lost two systems with
not much that can be done about it. Same with mechanical failures.
If correcting a fuel management error doesn't get you running again
in a few seconds then there's no argument that one needs to concentrate
on a different energy management problem that maximizes survival
of your arrival with the earth. If that includes stopping the prop
and it can be done on your airplane, by all means, do it if there
is time. But be sure you're doing a good thing. The sink rate
for your airplane at prop-stopping IAS may be so high that the
whole effort of getting into a "low drag mode" might cost
you so much altitude and TIME that nothing useful was gained. This
is something that needs to be carefully determined for each configuration.
The basic premise that stopping the prop reduces drag is a sound
one. But time and stored energy tossed off in the maneuver to
accomplish the low drag configuration may not be the best use
of limited resources . . . altitude and time. Further, it's another
thing to distract you from thought processes needed to plan
for landing. If there is lots of reasonably friendly terrain
below, messing with the prop is probably an unnecessary and
perhaps dangerous distraction. After the prop is motionless,
one needs to be cautious of a potentially overwhelming desire
to stretch a glide . . .
Not trying to argue for or against any activity based on
good practice and science . . . but I've sat in on meetings between
pilots who were crafting emergency procedures. The thoughts
I've offered above are but a fraction of the things commonly
considered. These ol' graybeards have been through more
struggles with failures than all of us would collectively
expect in our lifetimes. The consideration for crafting
procedures will never be fully explained in a magazine
article. Do good things that are really helpful but take
care to confirm the usefulness.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop drag - windmilling and stopped |
Geeze, he went to all that trouble and all he had to do was ask a
helicopter pilot which produces more drag, autorotation, or a stopped rotor.
Dave Morris
>
>
>Dan and all -
>
>Clem from Oklahoma reported the following to the Kitfoxlist. This is
>a neat illustration of what the effects are of a windmilling vice a
>stopped prop (I'm sure Bob and John Marzluf and Lowell remember this).
>
>Thanks again Clem if you're listening -
>
>Bill
>
>==================
>Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:06:51 -0500
>
> OK gang, I finally got around to building a test jig to determine
>which produces more drag -- a stopped prop or a freewheeling one. I
>built a ball bearinged jig with an RC model airplane prop (a good
>airfoil) mounted on the end of a 2 foot long lever arm connected to a
>postage scale. I applied wind from a large squirrel cage blower from
>a central airconditioner unit to get a large volume of smooth
>airflow. I measured the drag with the prop stopped, partially
>spinning (windmilling), and freewheeling. Here's the result: A
>2-bladed (7inch dia. x 4 pitch) prop produced 100 grams of drag when
>not spinning and 160 grams when freewheeling at 2800 RPM. This effect
>was repeatable and consistent. When the prop is released from stopped
>the drag steadily increases at a linear rate as the RPM increases.
>When friction was added to the prop shaft simulating the prop turning
>an engine over, the prop slowed down and the drag decreased. The
>faster the prop was allowed to turn, the more the airflow drag. This
>relationship could be shown with a variety of props including 3
>bladed ones and props of different sizes and pitches. Just to verify
>my experiment with a separate (crude) experiment, I held the lever
>arm with the prop on the end out the car window. Sure enough when I
>released the prop, I could feel the drag increasing significantly. I
>had always believed that a spinning prop causes less drag and had
>set out to prove it, but I was wrong. Hope this little experiment
>provides some useful data for you, though it might stir another
>flurry of email like my earlier experiment with the little funnels on
>the fuel filler cap did.
>cheers,
>Clem Oklahoma
>====================
>
> >
> >
> >There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the comparison
> >was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated that a
> >windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and you
> >have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
> >
> >Dan Branstrom
>
>
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Haas Michael (IFR TT DR)" <Michael.Haas(at)infineon.com> |
| Subject: | Flasher Unit Location? |
We are in the process of building a Zenith 801 (all metal aircraft) and are
pondering where best to locate the flasher electronic units. There seems to
be two opinions on this subject. Mount the flasher electronics in the wing
tips (to make the wiring from the electronics to the strobe lights short in
an effort to reduce the potential for popping/interference in the
intercom/radio) or mount the electronics somewhere convenient, like under
the seats (so that they can be serviced easily should something fail) and
then run the cables from the fuselage to the wingtips.
Is there a real advantage to either setup?
Where are the units located in certified airplanes?
Are properly grounded/shielded cables more important than cable length?
Not that is should matter, but we are using AeroFlash combination position
and strobe units on the wing tips.
Thanks for the Help,
Michael Haas
Zenith 801
50% Complete / 50% to Go
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: prop stopping and other good(?) things to do |
I think that at least in RV's you are right Bob. Even if you stopped
the prop, you wouldn't want to stay at a speed that would keep the prop
stopped, because of the increased sink rate. If you could ease the
speed back up to 85 to 90 mph without starting prop rotation it would
be a definite advantage in that the the reduced sink rate would be
closer to what you are used to, and would increase the accuracy of your
approach planning. If you have to stay in the seventies to keep it
stopped, then it's probably a toss up.
Joel Harding
On Mar 16, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the
>> comparison
>> was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated
>> that a
>> windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and
>> you
>> have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
>
> Yes but . . .
>
> What is the maneuver and how much time does it take to get the prop
> stopped? How much altitude is lost before the drag is reduced?
> When the engine quits, is it better to make an immediate
> determination
> as to one of three reasons (1) ignition, (2) fuel flow or (3) gross
> mechanical failure. Since 95% of all engine stoppage is due to
> fuel starvation, it takes only seconds to fix what's fixable in
> the cockpit. It would be a pretty silly emergency procedure that
> calls for stopping the engine before you confirm fuel stoppage and
> then having to dive the airplane or use the starter to get the
> engine rotating again! If it's ignition, then you've lost two
> systems with
> not much that can be done about it. Same with mechanical failures.
> If correcting a fuel management error doesn't get you running again
> in a few seconds then there's no argument that one needs to
> concentrate
> on a different energy management problem that maximizes survival
> of your arrival with the earth. If that includes stopping the prop
> and it can be done on your airplane, by all means, do it if there
> is time. But be sure you're doing a good thing. The sink rate
> for your airplane at prop-stopping IAS may be so high that the
> whole effort of getting into a "low drag mode" might cost
> you so much altitude and TIME that nothing useful was gained. This
> is something that needs to be carefully determined for each
> configuration.
>
> The basic premise that stopping the prop reduces drag is a sound
> one. But time and stored energy tossed off in the maneuver to
> accomplish the low drag configuration may not be the best use
> of limited resources . . . altitude and time. Further, it's another
> thing to distract you from thought processes needed to plan
> for landing. If there is lots of reasonably friendly terrain
> below, messing with the prop is probably an unnecessary and
> perhaps dangerous distraction. After the prop is motionless,
> one needs to be cautious of a potentially overwhelming desire
> to stretch a glide . . .
>
> Not trying to argue for or against any activity based on
> good practice and science . . . but I've sat in on meetings between
> pilots who were crafting emergency procedures. The thoughts
> I've offered above are but a fraction of the things commonly
> considered. These ol' graybeards have been through more
> struggles with failures than all of us would collectively
> expect in our lifetimes. The consideration for crafting
> procedures will never be fully explained in a magazine
> article. Do good things that are really helpful but take
> care to confirm the usefulness.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: luxeon high intensity leds and accessories |
.com>
Got a peek at some Whelen LED nav lights and red flashing
light for anti-collision today. Nice looking stuff. Certainly not
to pricey for a $10million$ airplane. Fired them up at my desk
at RAC and drew quite a crowd. Looks like they're taking advantage
of a relatively new line of high intensity LEDs. Here are a few
links I found on the net about these critters.
http://www.luxeonstar.com/
http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/ledsupply/02008a.pdf
http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/ledsupply/PowerPuck-Luxeon-Applications.pdf
http://www.hdssystems.com/LuxeonVsNicha.pdf
http://www.dansdata.com/caselight2.htm
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leonard Garceau" <lhgcpg(at)westriv.com> |
| Subject: | 2 AWG WIRE THRU THE FIREWALL |
What's the best method of running the 2AWG wire from the battery contactor thru
the firewall? Do you run it without any junction at the firewall?
Leonard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> 03/14/04 |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 6 Msgs - |
03/14/04
03/14/04
>
>Bob,
> I have a great number of 28-volt intruments and avionics that I intend
>to use in my airplane. Additionally, I'm putting a standard (12-volt)
>Corvair engine in my plane. As I read through your manual, I don't really
>find a clear recomendation as to a well designed aircraft electrical system,
>that allows these two to co-exist happily. However, from other contacts,
>I've received a number of recommendations that vary from the installation of
>a rectifier to the addition of a second alternator.
>
>OK, so what kind of recomendation do you have?
Pretty tough on a simple airplane. Would be beter to just
go 28V. You can get an SB-1 regulator from B&C that will
let you run an externally regulated 14 volt alternator as
a 28 volt alternator. Go ahead and run the 12v starter on
24v . . . you get really fast starts and the starter isn't
beat up too badly. Down side is that all your lights and
other accessories will have to be 28v too.
A dual voltage system is possible but seems an extra-ordinary
burden on an otherwise simple airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 AWG WIRE THRU THE FIREWALL |
>
>
>What's the best method of running the 2AWG wire from the battery contactor
>thru the firewall? Do you run it without any junction at the firewall?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | IComA200 Questions |
Gentlemen,
About the ICOM A200:
1. WRT the three auxiliary audio inputs, does the volume control of the A200
affect the level of whatever auxiliary audio I'm playing through the A200?
For example, If I run the marker beacon audio through one of these auxiliary
inputs and I have the volume of the A200 turned all the way down, will I
hear the marker?
2. What happens with the auxiliary audio inputs when the A200 is turned off
completely? Would the marker (or whatever) still "play through"?
3. I'm assuming there must be audio isolation in the A200...?
4. WRT the transmit/receive interlock requirement, the ICOM instructions
tell me how to interconnect two A200s. If I use this A200 with, for
example, an Apollo SL30 or SL40, will I still have to accomplish the
transmit/receive interlock?
Regards,
Troy Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | annunciator lights |
Gentlemen,
Where can I get a good deal on the Honeywell/Microswitch 45/59 series
solid-state (LED lit) annunciator lights like the ones Vision MicroSystems
used to sell? Lancair Avionics has them, but they want $38 for the
annunciator/lens unit. That seems a little steep. I want 10 (maybe 16) of
them. Here is a link to what I want:
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/pki/catalog/aml45_59.pdf
Also, If any of you have a suggestion for a good substitute, I'd like to
hear about it! I already know about the panels from Aircraft Simulators.
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
| From: | "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com> |
Hi Bob, interesting data point for you,
With a Jabiru 4 or 6 cylinder engine and their normal wooden prop, due the compression
of the engine it will stop in flight, and after it stops it may take more
than VNE to get it to wind mill.
I believe this is doe to the compression, and you need to see more than 300RPM
for a re start, so there are certainly some aircraft that do not windmill. And
require a starter to get the engine going again.
thanks
Ian
(who has tested this in practice)
-----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: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
>
>Bob,
>
>Insure me that the alternator will restart an engine in flight! The prop
>has to be (should be) stopped engage the starter. Some airplanes take a
>great deal of airspeed to make the prop start to windmill (read great loss
>of altitude) and your hoping it restarts.
How do you get the prop to stop in flight? I've tried it
on every type of aircraft I've flown . . . and without
a purposeful reduction in IAS, they all windmill and produce
MUCHO drag. If it is windmilling, the problem isn't how
to engage the starter, it's how to restore lost ignition and/or
fuel flow. That generally takes VERY little energy . . .
energy that will be available from a well maintained RG battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | low battery price that Spruce won't match |
Found http://www.gotbatteries.com/Productpage.asp?ProductNum=35L105S3 for $29 which is significantly less than the $68 price that Spruce wants. They wouldn't match the price. Makes you wonder why they have a low price policy.
Is this a RG battery? Anybody have experience with this battery or the supplier
that's selling it for the low price?
Joa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | low battery price that Spruce won't match |
> Found
> http://www.gotbatteries.com/Productpage.asp?ProductNum=35L105S3
> for $29 which is significantly less than the $68 price that
> Spruce wants. They wouldn't match the price. Makes you wonder
> why they have a low price policy.
>
> Is this a RG battery? Anybody have experience with this battery
> or the supplier that's selling it for the low price?
I took delivery of that very battery from that same supplier last week. The
service was good, and the price was right. I've ordered from them before and
had no problems. The battery is performing well so far. It's identical to
the panasonic 1217 I already have in terms of layout and size, but has
slightly stronger terminals and claims 18 am hr rather than 17.
John Slade
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jacob & Grace" <grizzlybear(at)klondiker.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop drag - windmilling and stopped |
Someone not so long ago (can't remember who so you may have to identify
yourself if you want to correct any errors) reported an engine failure.
Everything went as well as could be expected and it was on very short final
for the emergency field which was just in reach "when the prop stopped
turning". I think the quote was "It was like someone turned the engine on
again" and only through some aggresive maneuvers was a nasty overshoot of
the landing space available avoided. Don't get caught here is the lesson I
guess.
----- Original Message -----
From: "william mills" <courierboy(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prop drag - windmilling and stopped
>
> Dan and all -
>
> Clem from Oklahoma reported the following to the Kitfoxlist. This is
> a neat illustration of what the effects are of a windmilling vice a
> stopped prop (I'm sure Bob and John Marzluf and Lowell remember this).
>
> Thanks again Clem if you're listening -
>
> Bill
>
> ==================
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:06:51 -0500
>
> OK gang, I finally got around to building a test jig to determine
> which produces more drag -- a stopped prop or a freewheeling one. I
> built a ball bearinged jig with an RC model airplane prop (a good
> airfoil) mounted on the end of a 2 foot long lever arm connected to a
> postage scale. I applied wind from a large squirrel cage blower from
> a central airconditioner unit to get a large volume of smooth
> airflow. I measured the drag with the prop stopped, partially
> spinning (windmilling), and freewheeling. Here's the result: A
> 2-bladed (7inch dia. x 4 pitch) prop produced 100 grams of drag when
> not spinning and 160 grams when freewheeling at 2800 RPM. This effect
> was repeatable and consistent. When the prop is released from stopped
> the drag steadily increases at a linear rate as the RPM increases.
> When friction was added to the prop shaft simulating the prop turning
> an engine over, the prop slowed down and the drag decreased. The
> faster the prop was allowed to turn, the more the airflow drag. This
> relationship could be shown with a variety of props including 3
> bladed ones and props of different sizes and pitches. Just to verify
> my experiment with a separate (crude) experiment, I held the lever
> arm with the prop on the end out the car window. Sure enough when I
> released the prop, I could feel the drag increasing significantly. I
> had always believed that a spinning prop causes less drag and had
> set out to prove it, but I was wrong. Hope this little experiment
> provides some useful data for you, though it might stir another
> flurry of email like my earlier experiment with the little funnels on
> the fuel filler cap did.
> cheers,
> Clem Oklahoma
> ====================
>
> >
> >
> >There was an article in either Flying or AOPA Pilot, where the comparison
> >was made between a windmilling and a stopped prop. They demonstrated
that a
> >windmilling propellor produces more drag. If your engine is gone and you
> >have the time and altitude, stop the prop.
> >
> >Dan Branstrom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOHNATHAN MACY <bushpilot(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Batteries & Dual Electronic Ignition |
Hi Bob,
I was at your Groton course. I was the guy that could not stay for Sunday and had
gotten an electrical design from an engine builder that had 22 "Oh My God"
relays in it. I have gone back through the information and your reliability section
of the book. Additionally, I have printed out he AeroElectric FAQ's from
this server and read through them. Here is where I am at:
1) The FAQ's was a great source of information - is it listed on your web site?
If it is, I could not find it. It needs to stand out as a key resource of information.
Most of my questions were already answered there.
2) I will have two ignition systems, a primary ignition and a keep-it-flying ignition.
Each ignition will be separate and connected to an individual battery
bus on each of the 2 batteries. I will still have an endurance bus for the other
key items. I plan on putting in 2 separate switches that will allow the endurance
bus to be fed by the battery that is not powering the active ignition.
Does this make sense and is there an easy way to do it to minimize pilot work
load?
3) I have incorporated the run away OV protection even though the alternator has
internal OV and regulator. Additionally, there will be a low voltage warning
light to show alternator failure when the voltage drops below 13.8 volts. I would
like to add a second low voltage warning light to the primary ignition that
would give me a indication just before the battery craps out. Is this do able
with a lower set point?? Ideally, I would never need it, but it would be nice
to have an indication to switch to the keep-it-flying ignition before the engine
stops.
4) I can replace almost all of the relays with switches. There will be a couple
of relays that I will keep for non-critical application (seat heaters for my
wife). However, I am going to need a couple of relays in critical applications
like fuel pumps. Do you have a solid state relay you would recommend?
Everything else is straight forward once I get the 2 ignitions and E-bus sorted
out.
Thanks for teaching, I learned a lot.
Johnathan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Reese" <waynereese(at)qwest.net> |
| Subject: | FW: If Your Engine Quits |
You may consider this approach.
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz & Lee Holloman [mailto:lizzielee(at)sisna.com]
Chamberlain; Hal Dennis Beer; Dan Cranney; Bud Barry; Wayne
Reese; Vern Provost; Steve Blomquist; Scott Neilson; Russ Chazell; Mike
Murray; Mel Anderson; Russell Taylor; Mark; Jo Ann Olds; Jim Theissen
Subject: Fw: If Your Engine Quits
Subject: Fw: If Your Engine Quits
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
"A pair of alternators beats a pair of batteries in any poker game"...UNLESS you
have dual electronic ignition. I have dual Lightspeeds and was planning the
Z-13 dual alternator configuration until I thought it through a bit more carefully
and now I've got single alternator, dual batteries. Having the second aux
battery is more robust for ensuring that one ignition will still be running
when the main system goes south than having two alternators tied to a common
battery. Yes, RG batteries are good and reliable yada yada yada, but even a well-maintained
and changed-out-every-other-year RG battery CAN fail (as can battery
terminal connections, etc), and the SD-8 doesn't guarantee continued electrical
power to engine and panel if this happens.
The SD-8 is a nice unit but very expensive in terms of dollars per amp, and for
most of us, it will sit there and spin forever without ever being needed. With
a carefully thought-out e-bus architecture, the main battery should get you
were you want to go after main alternator failure, so having the SD-8 in this
scenario would be "nice to have" but not really required. The biggest argument
I can think of for the SD-8 is it could get you home if you were on the other
side of the country and didn't want to have to change the main (failed) alternator
until you return home. Or, in rare cases, if you have an aircraft capable
of really long range flight--and intend to actually use this capability--where
even e-bus operations would not be sufficient to outlast your tank of gas.
For example if you were crossing the pond and have no place to land between
CA and Hawaii, having the SD-8 really makes sense in an airplane dependent upon
electrons for panel and/or engine operation. But
in that case, I'd opt for two fully redundant electrical systems, i.e. the main
alternator tied to the main battery (used for starting) and the SD-8 tied to
its own independent and smaller aux battery that could run the ignition and
e-bus loads.
Just my .02 to throw into the fray....if I didn't have dual elec. ignition, I wouldn't
have the aux battery OR the SD-8...the extra weight and expense for most
sport flying, even light IFR, doesn't justify it IMHO. If I ever go full-IFR,
my Dynon will have the internal battery option....that way if my alternator
AND my main battery die, the engine will still be running on the aux battery
and my Dynon will keep me right side up and my hand-held equipment (ICOM nav/com
and handheld GPS) will get me to a suitable field with communication capability
intact...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fwf stuff...
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Endurance buss - second battery wiring
If I had
a vacuum pump pad open on my engine, it wouldn't take much
thinking about what I'd do with it. A pair of alternators
beats a pair of batteries in any poker game.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leonard Garceau" <lhgcpg(at)westriv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 AWG WIRE THRU THE FIREWALL |
Thanks Bob
Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 2 AWG WIRE THRU THE FIREWALL
>
> >
> >
> >What's the best method of running the 2AWG wire from the battery
contactor
> >thru the firewall? Do you run it without any junction at the firewall?
>
> See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/15/04 |
> Alex,
> What is best glide speed (IAS) in your RV-6A? Do you have to
> spin the prop
> again to attain best glide speed? Anyone have the best glide
> speed for the
> RV-8A?
> Stan Sutterfield
Warning: amateur advice ahead...
Stan, I haven't a clue. Within reason, I think best glide speed is a
little overrated. That being said, if my engine conks out I'll look for
about 80 knots indicated. What I think is very important is the speed
one has when on about a quarter mile final into the selected emergency
landing zone, and how one deals with the transition from glide to flare
to touchdown in their plane. The RV's will sink rapidly without power,
and one needs to understand that without power (idle thrust as compared
to engine drag) the flare will be much different. It is also important
to understand how to get rid of excess altitude (slips, turns, etc.).
Practicing power off landings is essential, which reminds me, I'm
overdue for that. In an RV, good practice is to be something like
2000'agl when in upwind directly over the touchdown zone. This allows
for a gentle, but continuous, 360 turn back around to touchdown.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 445 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IComA200 Questions |
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>About the ICOM A200:
>1. WRT the three auxiliary audio inputs, does the volume control of the A200
>affect the level of whatever auxiliary audio I'm playing through the A200?
>For example, If I run the marker beacon audio through one of these auxiliary
>inputs and I have the volume of the A200 turned all the way down, will I
>hear the marker?
>
>2. What happens with the auxiliary audio inputs when the A200 is turned off
>completely? Would the marker (or whatever) still "play through"?
>
>3. I'm assuming there must be audio isolation in the A200...
>
>4. WRT the transmit/receive interlock requirement, the ICOM instructions
>tell me how to interconnect two A200s. If I use this A200 with, for
>example, an Apollo SL30 or SL40, will I still have to accomplish the
>transmit/receive interlock?
Do you have an installation manual? I checked the website and could
only find an instruction manual. the installation manual should
tell you more. If, and this is a big IF, they configured the
built in iso-amp like radios of yore, the isolation amplifier is
powered separately from the rest of the radio and is available
whether or not the radio is turned on. Further, the radio
volume control does not affect other inputs to the isolation
amplifier. Don't know about your question on "xmit/rec interlock",
I'd need to see the suggested schematic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator lights |
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>Where can I get a good deal on the Honeywell/Microswitch 45/59 series
>solid-state (LED lit) annunciator lights like the ones Vision MicroSystems
>used to sell? Lancair Avionics has them, but they want $38 for the
>annunciator/lens unit. That seems a little steep. I want 10 (maybe 16) of
>them. Here is a link to what I want:
> http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/pki/catalog/aml45_59.pdf
>
>Also, If any of you have a suggestion for a good substitute, I'd like to
>hear about it! I already know about the panels from Aircraft Simulators.
As you can tell from the AML45 catalog, there are 1001 combinations
of devices that can be specified. Each combination is ordered
from the factory and usually in quantities to support some production
activity. This device doesn't lend itself to being a catalog item
attractive to small-lot buyers. Lancair can offer them because they
order large quantities to support their custom panel services.
They might well be your best bet. I'm going to be talking with
Kirk Hammersmith in the next few days (formerly of Lancair)
and he might have some insight to offer for alternative and
attractive sources.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> match |
| Subject: | Re: low battery price that Spruce won't |
match
match
>
>
>
>Found http://www.gotbatteries.com/Productpage.asp?ProductNum=35L105S3 for
>$29 which is significantly less than the $68 price that Spruce
>wants. They wouldn't match the price. Makes you wonder why they have a
>low price policy.
>
>Is this a RG battery? Anybody have experience with this battery or the
>supplier that's selling it for the low price?
>
>Joa
It is an RG battery. PowerSonic isn't one of the big-name manufacturers
and doesn't have to support a big advertising budget. Give them a try.
If you plan to do battery-a-year preventative maintenance, this may
well be the ideal candidate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop drag - windmilling and stopped |
>
>
>Someone not so long ago (can't remember who so you may have to identify
>yourself if you want to correct any errors) reported an engine failure.
>Everything went as well as could be expected and it was on very short final
>for the emergency field which was just in reach "when the prop stopped
>turning". I think the quote was "It was like someone turned the engine on
>again" and only through some aggresive maneuvers was a nasty overshoot of
>the landing space available avoided. Don't get caught here is the lesson I
>guess.
A non-turning prop presents a flat plate equivalent drag
while a turning prop takes horsepower out of the airstream
to overcome friction of the engine. Given that a prop has
a maximum efficiency of about 57% as an energy producer,
the 5-10 hp it takes to turn a dead engine translates
into 9-18 hp drain on your airframe's energy stored
as velocity and altitude . . . and THAT assumes an
between stationary and rotating.
The CAFE guys were trying to figure out a way to
evaluate l/d ratios on an airframe sans propeller. They
put motion sensors on prop shafts to measure the tiny
amount of end play that manifests itself when the prop
transitions from drag to thrust. They could deduce what
rpm produced zero thrust for the various airspeeds. By
maintaining a zero thrust rpm commensurate with a particular
airspeed, they could directly evaluate aerodynamic
characteristics of an airplane as if the propeller wasn't
there.
I recall conversations with folks on the CAFE instrumentation
team talking about how rate of decent flattens out when
the airplane is experiencing zero drag from the prop
and that was just a transition from flight idle to
zero thrust.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Endurance buss - second battery wiring |
>
>
>Hi Bob, interesting data point for you,
>
>With a Jabiru 4 or 6 cylinder engine and their normal wooden prop, due the
>compression of the engine it will stop in flight, and after it stops it
>may take more than VNE to get it to wind mill.
>
>I believe this is doe to the compression, and you need to see more than
>300RPM for a re start, so there are certainly some aircraft that do not
>windmill. And require a starter to get the engine going again.
>
>
>thanks
>
>Ian
Thanks. I think this is common to the all the smaller engines that
swing small props. The Rotax engines will stop when deprived of
fuel or ignition on most installations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: low battery price that Spruce won't match |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III match wrote:
match
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Found http://www.gotbatteries.com/Productpage.asp?ProductNum=35L105S3 for
>>$29 which is significantly less than the $68 price that Spruce
>>wants. They wouldn't match the price. Makes you wonder why they have a
>>low price policy.
>>
>>Is this a RG battery? Anybody have experience with this battery or the
>>supplier that's selling it for the low price?
>>
>>Joa
>
>
> It is an RG battery. PowerSonic isn't one of the big-name manufacturers
> and doesn't have to support a big advertising budget. Give them a try.
> If you plan to do battery-a-year preventative maintenance, this may
> well be the ideal candidate.
Bob, in the past you've mentioned some capacity-testing procedures. Can you
shed any insight on stress-testing procedures? Simply running the battery
through a few charge-discharge cycles doesn't seem very thorough to me. I can
envision some cycle tests at different (low to very high) discharge rates
followed by charges at different rates as well, but if there's anything
pre-existing that's a bit more formal I'd appreciate your input.
When working with a relatively unknown/new battery vendor it'd be nice to have
some testing procedures. Given the low cost of this battery I wouldn't think
twice to even destroy one in a destructive test to see how it would perform
under all sorts of conditions.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
For RV builders, has anyone put antenna under the vertical stabilizer
fiberglas tip - i.e., transponder or ILS? Some guys are mounting a camera there,
but
I'd like to know if the long cable run would adversely affect avionics
performance. What about signal reception for the transponder or ILS? Do those
antenna need to be on the bottom of the aircraft? Mark Rowe mounted his
transponder antenna in a wheel pant and is getting good reception with it.
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A
Tampa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
Gentlemen,
This may sound like an ignorant question. I hope not.... I plan to build
up the electrical system in my IFR Glasair using as many fuses (as opposed
to all breakers) as is reasonable. I want to use the minimum number of
breakers or switch/breakers. I've studied all the Z drawings, and the rest
of the book too. I believe the two electronic ignitions, the (single)
alternator output and the alternator field should have breakers..., agreed?
So what else needs breakers?
Regards,
Troy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/15/04 |
Probably the best information available is the CAFE Foundation report on
Steve Barnards RV-6A done in 1993 and found at
www.cafefoundation.org/research.htm
looks like 106 MPH for best glide and 81 MPH for least sink rate.
George in Langley
> Alex,
> What is best glide speed (IAS) in your RV-6A? Do you have to
> spin the prop
> again to attain best glide speed? Anyone have the best glide
> speed for the
> RV-8A?
> Stan Sutterfield
Warning: amateur advice ahead...
Stan, I haven't a clue. Within reason, I think best glide speed is a
little overrated. That being said, if my engine conks out I'll look for
about 80 knots indicated. What I think is very important is the speed
one has when on about a quarter mile final into the selected emergency
landing zone, and how one deals with the transition from glide to flare
to touchdown in their plane. The RV's will sink rapidly without power,
and one needs to understand that without power (idle thrust as compared
to engine drag) the flare will be much different. It is also important
to understand how to get rid of excess altitude (slips, turns, etc.).
Practicing power off landings is essential, which reminds me, I'm
overdue for that. In an RV, good practice is to be something like
2000'agl when in upwind directly over the touchdown zone. This allows
for a gentle, but continuous, 360 turn back around to touchdown.
Alex Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Preflight check of SD-8? |
I'm working on the checklists for my RV-8, and am wondering whether
there are any potential issues around checking an SD-8 standby
alternator right after engine start. I was considering starting the
engine, then selecting the SD-8 ON to confirm a voltage rise, then
selecting the SD-8 OFF and selecting the main alternator ON.
Will the SD-8 have enough output to bring the voltage up even though
the battery needs to be recharge? Are there any concerns about load
dump issues when I select the SD-8 OFF while it is trying to charge
the battery? It seems like the only other opportunity to check the
SD-8 preflight would be to select the main alternator OFF during the
runup, and check the SD-8 then. But that seems like it could trigger
the load dump problems, unless the battery has been charged by then.
I'll need the SD-8 as backup when I fly IFR, so I want a way to do a
preflight check on it. What is the best way to do this?
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave von Linsowe" <davevon(at)tir.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/15/04 |
It should also be brought up that with a constant speed prop the glide performance
with a wind milling prop can be significantly increased by pulling in more
pitch. That is if the engine is still producing enough oil pressure to do so.
The effect will be even more pronounced if you are turning a three bladed prop.
It can be easily tested during a low idle glide by slowly cycling the prop.
Dave
RV-6
----- Original Message -----
From: GMC
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:56 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/15/04
Probably the best information available is the CAFE Foundation report on
Steve Barnards RV-6A done in 1993 and found at
www.cafefoundation.org/research.htm
looks like 106 MPH for best glide and 81 MPH for least sink rate.
George in Langley
> Alex,
> What is best glide speed (IAS) in your RV-6A? Do you have to
> spin the prop
> again to attain best glide speed? Anyone have the best glide
> speed for the
> RV-8A?
> Stan Sutterfield
Warning: amateur advice ahead...
Stan, I haven't a clue. Within reason, I think best glide speed is a
little overrated. That being said, if my engine conks out I'll look for
about 80 knots indicated. What I think is very important is the speed
one has when on about a quarter mile final into the selected emergency
landing zone, and how one deals with the transition from glide to flare
to touchdown in their plane. The RV's will sink rapidly without power,
and one needs to understand that without power (idle thrust as compared
to engine drag) the flare will be much different. It is also important
to understand how to get rid of excess altitude (slips, turns, etc.).
Practicing power off landings is essential, which reminds me, I'm
overdue for that. In an RV, good practice is to be something like
2000'agl when in upwind directly over the touchdown zone. This allows
for a gentle, but continuous, 360 turn back around to touchdown.
Alex Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob, I am installing a Narco 890 DME (don't ask) and the installation manual (circa
1980) lists several RG numbers (58, 29, 223, 54, 8) that can be used depending
on the length of the Coax. The criteria is "Maximum loss of 1.5 dB for
the whole cable assembly".
My cable will be between 6 and 8' depending on routing. Question: Is RG 400/142
the appropriate replacement Coax? What is the loss/foot?
Thanks
BTW, Great seminar in Groton.
Mark Banus
Glasair Super II FT
Still Making dust in the garage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kearnsjoseph(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 03/16/04 |
Can someone suggest a tool for crimpong the alligator type pins for old Narco 11's?
I think they were also used on some Kings. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob, I am installing a Narco 890 DME (don't ask) and the installation
>manual (circa 1980) lists several RG numbers (58, 29, 223, 54, 8) that can
>be used depending on the length of the Coax. The criteria is
>"Maximum loss of 1.5 dB for the whole cable assembly".
>My cable will be between 6 and 8' depending on routing. Question: Is RG
>400/142 the appropriate replacement Coax? What is the loss/foot?
RG-400 (stranded center conductor) or RG-142 (solid) would be an excellent
substitute for RG-58 (WWII vintage stuff). These modern coaxes will
present 20 db/hundred feet at DME frequencies so 10 feet will
be 2.0 dB and 7.5 feet would be 1.5 dB. RG-58 would be about 26 dB
per hundred so you couldn't make the 1.5 dB requirement in 6' of
coax.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand(at)crownequip.com> |
| Subject: | annunciator lights |
I don't think you can get much of a deal on these lights; we bought ours
from a dealer in Canada for about $32 each. It generally doesn't make
much sense for the shipping, but if you are buying 10 or 16 of them, you
could save some money.
The cost is insane, but other than these AML series, it's hard to find a
real pro looking annunciator.
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GPSH
www.lancaires.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Troy
Scott
Subject: AeroElectric-List: annunciator lights
Gentlemen,
Where can I get a good deal on the Honeywell/Microswitch 45/59 series
solid-state (LED lit) annunciator lights like the ones Vision
MicroSystems
used to sell? Lancair Avionics has them, but they want $38 for the
annunciator/lens unit. That seems a little steep. I want 10 (maybe 16)
of
them. Here is a link to what I want:
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/pki/catalog/aml45_59.pdf
Also, If any of you have a suggestion for a good substitute, I'd like to
hear about it! I already know about the panels from Aircraft
Simulators.
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | Preflight check of SD-8? |
I'm working on the checklists for my RV-8, and am wondering whether
there are any potential issues around checking an SD-8 standby
alternator right after engine start. I was considering starting the
engine, then selecting the SD-8 ON to confirm a voltage rise, then
selecting the SD-8 OFF and selecting the main alternator ON.
Will the SD-8 have enough output to bring the voltage up even though
the battery needs to be recharge? Are there any concerns about load
dump issues when I select the SD-8 OFF while it is trying to charge
the battery? It seems like the only other opportunity to check the
SD-8 preflight would be to select the main alternator OFF during the
runup, and check the SD-8 then. But that seems like it could trigger
the load dump problems, unless the battery has been charged by then.
I'll need the SD-8 as backup when I fly IFR, so I want a way to do a
preflight check on it. What is the best way to do this?
Kevin,
My electrical system is a modified "All Electric on a Budget" system. I
check the SD-8 during runup since it does not come on line below about 1500
RPM. My procedure is SD-8 ON, Main Buss OFF then check voltage
. If the SD-8 is on line the voltage will be about 14 volts, if not it will
be about 12 volts or slightly less. At this point the load meter on my main
alternator will go to "0". Then Main Buss ON and SD-8 Off. In 300 hours it
has never failed during runup. It will not come on line at idle.
I have be thinking about temporarily installing a temperature probe on my
SD-8 regulator and going flying to get some empirical data on regulator/heat
issue.
Ken Harrill
RV-6, 300 hours
Columbia, SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator lights |
> The cost is insane, but other than these AML series, it's hard to find a
> real pro looking annunciator.
Electronics International (Bend, OR) has a nice looking LED annunciator
light with a attractive chrome bezel, designed to be installed from the
front of the panel with a nut on the backside.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand(at)crownequip.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: annunciator lights
>
> I don't think you can get much of a deal on these lights; we bought ours
> from a dealer in Canada for about $32 each. It generally doesn't make
> much sense for the shipping, but if you are buying 10 or 16 of them, you
> could save some money.
>
> The cost is insane, but other than these AML series, it's hard to find a
> real pro looking annunciator.
>
> Jeff Hildebrand
> Lancair ES C-GPSH
> www.lancaires.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Troy
> Scott
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: annunciator lights
>
>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> Where can I get a good deal on the Honeywell/Microswitch 45/59 series
> solid-state (LED lit) annunciator lights like the ones Vision
> MicroSystems
> used to sell? Lancair Avionics has them, but they want $38 for the
> annunciator/lens unit. That seems a little steep. I want 10 (maybe 16)
> of
> them. Here is a link to what I want:
> http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/pki/catalog/aml45_59.pdf
>
> Also, If any of you have a suggestion for a good substitute, I'd like to
> hear about it! I already know about the panels from Aircraft
> Simulators.
>
> Regards,
> Troy Scott
> tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
March 03, 2004 - March 17, 2004
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cz